dearie me, I think qanda is a tad peeved about being outed as someone who talks the talk but not much else. Try this:
When I refute his assertion (for that was all it was) that the only thing between us and a snowball planet is CO2, he tells me I'm ignorant and then adds a link to show my ignorance. And the link? It to an advertisement for a book. An advert!! At least he knows a lot about comedy.

Just on the point however, it is reckoned that total GHG effect is around 20c with CO2 making up about 3c of that. So superficially a complete loss of CO2 would reduce temps by 3c but the other effects (eg no plant life) might also have some effect.

qanda's initial assertion was, I thought, just an oversight from someone who doesn't really understand the issue. But his doubling-down on the error is pretty funny.

Then, to my pointing out that a doubling of CO2 would mean a 1c increase in temps, qanda goes hypo and wants references, a paper written etc. Well...

"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback" Rahmstorf, Stefan (2008).

Note that they say the 1c figure is "undisputed". But qanda disputes it. Perhaps they meant undisputed by anyone who has the faintest idea what they're talking about.

qanda also doesn't seem to like the term CAGW. I use it in opposition to AGW on the basis that mere AGW of say 2c warming isn't worth worrying about and only a warming over that would be a problem worth our concern. I call that CAGw...perhaps he'd prefer me to call it Pretty Bad AGW.

Since qanda likes linking to adverts, he'd probably find this one useful...
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Global-Warming/dp/B008SLEQ0S

mhaze,

Further reading - http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=347

..........

CAGW is only ever warbled soprano-style by overly excitable "skeptics".

They do it to make the scientific data and scientists appear hysterical.

Tactics - strategy....you guys are so transparent : )

qanda writes:"True, but oh so simplistic (I didn’t even mention efficacy, btw). What mhaze fails to understand is that Earth’s atmosphere is nowhere near approaching saturation or levels of concentration for the relationship to have a significant effect."

It is true that the earth's atmosphere isn't close to saturation. But completely irrelevant since we were talking about CO2. (I'm not sure if qanda struggles to follow a logic argument or just changes subject as soon as he realises he's wrong).

So we were talking about CO2 and CO2 is indeed nearing saturation levels and is indeed already there at some wave-lengths. There's lots of places to see the data on this but to keep it simple for qanda perhaps this will suffice...
http://cosmoscon.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/atmospheric_transmission.png

Pathetic hazy, it's a standard textbook used in university undergraduate courses - but you wouldn't know.

You should read it, you might learn something.

It even explains feedbacks, something else you can't comprehend. Good to see you believe Stefan though, given most 'deniers' say he doesn't know what he's talking about.

'bout time you lot made up your mind, eh.

>> CO2 is indeed nearing saturation levels <<

You are completely out of your league hazy - try atmospheric physics for beginners.

CO2 is nowhere near saturation in our atmosphere.

Even the most ardent of 'deniers' understand Earth is nothing like Venus.

mhaze,

Further reading - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/