Bazz: "There is a lot of argument that the alternatives currently available
are not up to the job."
That's just the point; current alternatives can't compete with fossil fuels for energy production. Thus we need research and development of more efficient and even new alternatives--as well as more efficient and conservative "use" of energy generated. It may be that clean technologies as efficient as polluting-fossil-fuels will never be found, though I'm optimistic enough to think that they will, or might be given the political and popular will. Putting a man on the moon was mere inspirational rhetoric before the technology was developed. But then, the space programme didn't have to contend with an army of cynics, and mouthpieces funded by those with a vested interest in failure; the whole Western world, with very little (publicised) opposition, got behind the dream.
Perhaps that's what we need, a Kennedy kind of approach to fixing climate change that captures the imagination. Even the hard-boiled cynics, who know we're wrecking the planet, might get inspired!
Current alternatives, as you say, are probably "not" up to the job; that's why the problem needs R&D, ergo an ETS that both raises funds and creates a level playing field. In any case, more expensive clean energy that's offset by more efficient and conservative energy consumption, can certainly match, or better, the cost of profligate generation and consumption hitherto.
The challenge inspires me! It might even inspire China if the Western world took it up---China wouldn't want to be left behind, any more than Russia did when Kennedy announced his dream.
Rhetoric is still the most efficient way to get things done--or to scuttle a worthy aspiration!

Arjay (Graham, quite right) my apologies.

In my previous post, I should have said clouds (or aerosols) can have both positive and negative forcings. And yes, CO2 is an amplifier. A feedback acts to amplify, or dampen, the initial forcing.

The important distinction is that a 'forcing' pushes the climate into a new state. A 'feedback' is simply a response mechanism (pushing the system further in the direction of the initial forcing (positive feedback) or alternatively, dampening the response - which brings the system closer to the initial climate state (negative feedback).

The primary radiative feedbacks are water vapor, lapse rate, clouds and surface albedo.

mitchel, you seem to think anyone who is a skeptic is automatically a keen polluter, why is that?

I have no problem with pollution reduction, sustainable energy and other systems, for the right reasons.

But "fixing the climate" sounds more like extreme belief that something is wrong, that you know the exact cause, and that it is in our power to correct - with no other side effects even though it becomes more clear day by day that we do not understand climate very well at all.

I'm all for throwing a lot more resources at understanding climate, but we need some rigor in the methods, away with tweaks and in with direct measurement. The trouble with tweaks or application of "fudges" is they are someone's best guess that they then backfill with some help from their mates.

"Fixing the climate" to clean up pollution sounds as sensible as renovating your house by replacing a fence.

Can someone, anyone, tell me what's the probability of altering the climate by tweaking CO2, by whatever amount, over what time? Will that have any other effects? When will we see the effect?

We have no idea what it will do but it is being sold as a panacea, and of course governments who want to look like they care are jumping on it and shaving off a bit for themselves.

You say you're inspired, join a climate club, but if you want to really contribute, actually do something, don't just sit around in conferences and meetings demanding others do it for you and becoming nags and scolds.

Good luck, I hope you accomplish something positive

I agree. Sustainable living is better than doing nothing at all.
ETS schemes are a band aid anyway, and so are the type of laws Peter
Spencer has encountered. From what I learned at Uni, the earth's atmosphere is warmed by the planet's surface radiating back into space? Not the sun directly. Clouds trap this to a degree. And a hotter climate generates more rain, and humidity. And it depends
where you live, what height above sea level one is, etc. The amount of urbanisation etc.

Solar energy, wave generated electricity, even windmills, might be
great for smaller communities, but industry has to have something more
powerful to operate. It will come one day, probably in the next 25 years. Pollution will be cut down, as In UK. Anyone living in
London or working there during the 50s. SMOGs evil yellow stuff killed around 6,000 people, and they made a fortune selling SMOG masks. Then the smoke free zones, and within 10 years dolphins were swimming up the Thames. However, didn't stop the Thames from freezing over in 1963 at Windsor? Coldest winter on record since 1947. Now this one from what friends say, is like 1947. Even though the atmosphere is much healthier. And some scientists are saying
greenhouse gases are keeping the planet warmer than it would be.
Clouds keep the planet warmer at night and cooler by day. Whether CO2
methane or whatever is present. But we need rain don't we.

Best of luck trying to find an equable solution that suits every country.

Certainly the natural environment and atmosphere will benefit, but will it be enough to control the climate. No I don't think so. But
not to penalise western or industrialised countries for providing a
better living standard for their citizens. Or making that living
standard a lot more expensive than it already is?

Arjay: "I find it amazing that there appears to be no modern day practical experiments being done on the heat retention capacities of CO2. This is the most crucial issue facing man kind today yet we rely on computer models that cannot possibly reflect this complex science."

The heat retention capacities of CO2 are very well understood. We can explain how it works, and the precise effects it will have right down to the sub-atomic level. Thus we know how much of the temperature change is due to CO2 alone, probably down to fractions of a decimal point. And we know it is small - not worth worrying about. None of this is under dispute.

What we don't know with anywhere near as much certainly is how this small temperature rise triggered by the rise in CO2 will effect the overall temperature of the earth.

The overall temperature is regulated by a surprising number of feed back loops (well surprising to me anyway). The climate scientists are saying in the short term the biggest effects are driven by water - the ice, the sea and its currents, water vapour in the atmosphere and clouds. A small temperature rise means less ice and more water vapour. Both these will cause a further rise in temperature - and thus we have a positive feedback loop driving the temperatures up. (Water vapour is a very strong greenhouse gas.) A small temperature may also mean more clouds, which can drive the temperature both up and down, depending on the droplet size and how high they are.

Even so, the heat retention capacities of water (that you call for more research into) is very well understood and not in dispute. What isn't well understood is how water moves around in the atmosphere and sea, when and where it changes between vapour, liquid and solid. This is because it is chaotic, like eddies in water flowing down a stream. So it is unlikely it can ever be understood or predicted in the way you call for. Instead we use computer models to simulate it.

Rpg: “mitchel, you seem to think anyone who is a skeptic is automatically a keen polluter, why is that?”

I certainly don’t think that, rpg. In fact I’m a great admirer of healthy scepticism; it becomes morbid, however, when it degenerates into minimifidianism (sorry, one seldom gets to use such an outrageous locution). At the end of the day nothing is certain, except that nothing is certain, but that’s hardly a good reason not to act when the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that one should (if one is obese, it doesn't take rocket science to determine that a weight-loss diet is called for). There are also good ethical reasons why we should clean up our act, since we are destroying habitats and entire ecosystems, and not merely threatening our own survival.
I agree with you that “fixing the climate” sounds a tad arrogant, though I haven’t heard anyone credible put it quite like that. The scientific consensus seems to be that we can hopefully “mitigate” GW by reducing the amount of CO2 and other GHG we release into the atmosphere---that is reversing the trend we’ve maintained since the industrial revolution.
We might have to resort to more radical means to save our precious skins, and that would be cause for extreme caution, but at the moment we’re talking about reducing anthropogenic ghg emissions, whose provenance is not in doubt. It’s confronting to think that we’ve dangerously affected the composition and balance of the atmosphere in such a short time, and only reasonable to hope that by reducing our emissions--tantamount to retracing our steps in a minefield--we might avoid destruction. This is hardly “tweaking” the atmosphere, and no one is selling reducing our emissions as a “panacea”—at best we hope thereby to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Surely this is reasonable?
I’m a sceptical individual too, but I’m persuaded that the climate science overall is strenuously rigorous---always allowing for human contamination and bias in any findings.
In any case, we’re just talking about cleaning up our excrement; it’s as simple and salubrious as that.