Other Answers (6)

• It%26#039;s not really a theory. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. Ice cores have shown that CO2 has increased in the past and global temperature has followed suit closely.
  
  http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:I...
  
  This makes sense because greenhouse gases absorb and re-radiate heat.
  
  I%26#039;m not sure why you think CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. It%26#039;s currently responsible for 1.6 W/m^2 of radiative forcing, which is the largest forcing, about 15 times stronger than the forcing from the Sun.
  
  http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/04.htm
  
  The CO2 we breathe is part of the natural carbon cycle. It does not cause global warming. See Myth #7 here, and the associated sub-myth:
  
  http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...
  
  The little squiggles are nature doing its%26#039; thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using %26quot;isotopic ratios%26quot; to identify that CO2. The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast. That%26#039;s a problem.
  
  The second thing is that CO2 is not the only thing that CAN change temperature, just the most important thing NOW.
  
  Solar radiation can vary enough to overcome CO2, due to large changes in solar radiation brought about by %26quot;Milankovic cycles%26quot;.
  
  How do we know that%26#039;s not going on now? Really simple, we measure the Sun. The Milankovic cycles cause changes we could easily see. We%26#039;ve looked - they%26#039;re not there.
  
  So, even if CO2 makes things hot, eventually a solar radiation decrease will cool things down. But, in this case, eventually is almost certainly thousands of years off, way too late to save us from big problems.
• Seriously now... if you were to break down the Vostok ice core record down by year... you will see, that CO2 is sometimes on the rise and temperatures fall, and visa-versa. You don%26#039;t honestly believe that CO2 %26#039;only%26#039; lags temperature levels, year after year after year, 650,000 times do you?
  
  But despite all that, what is concerning to us is how drastically this harmony between CO2 and temperature levels has changed all of a sudden, just in the last couple of hundred years. To suggest that isn%26#039;t something we should try to understand, and perhaps reverse if at all possible until we actually do, now that... is irresponsible.
  
  Now per you exhaling CO2 setting off a chain reaction, and comparing that in any way to industrious CO2, please, you have to understand one simple difference between the two here. CO2 from your lungs, burning trees, seasonal warming trends in the oceans, ice caps and elsewhere, etc... are all already existing in a closed loop. CO2 sinks, and is redistributed, and sinks and is redistributed throughout the earth%26#039;s entire eco-system. Industrious CO2 is significantly and simply different in the fact that the CO2 from Industry, and 99% of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions in fact, comes from %26#039;ancient%26#039; %26#039;buried%26#039; fossil fuels. Meaning, we are taking vast amounts of carbon which was not part of the earth%26#039;s current CO2 cycle, re-introducing it in the form of Carbon Dioxide gas and releasing it carelessly without regard to consequence into the atmosphere. This much is not a theory, it is a fact, it also explains why or how we have significantly raised the earth%26#039;s CO2 levels and is supported by the influx of CO2 levels according to all available historic data methods since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
  
  So we know where the %26#039;additional%26#039; CO2 came from. Do we fully yet understand what that could mean? Perhaps not, but it%26#039;s not looking pretty. Say what you want about Science which attempt to make sense of it.
  
  So I hope that is clear, breathing, does nothing to add or take away CO2 from the cycle. Filtering CO2 into the ground through some advanced and powerful technological means, could, and pumping it out from something outside the loop, exponentially, year after year... well, that could too.
  
  Now adding to that... If it is possible, by taking into account, we%26#039;re already in a %26#039;peak%26#039; temperature period in an interglacial cycle, and %26#039;then%26#039; we introduce all this alien CO2 (I say alien because most of it was in the form of goo or rock buried for millions of years before we came along, dug it up and burned it forming CO2 gas), a gas that no one argues is an important GHG. Then is it really that impossible to believe, raising CO2 in the atmosphere from under 300ppm (parts per million), to nearly 400ppm by ourselves, not to mention the many hundreds of parts per million extra which have already sank into the oceans thus increasing CO2 levels there as well.. just might explain the increased global average mean temperature over the past century? Just maybe? Science today seems to concur with that. Global Warming skeptics either are taking the less realistic and scientific approach that raising CO2 does absolutely nothing. Or they are trying to find all kinds of ways to say, only nature has either increased CO2 or temperature over the past century (and of course those, who will even argue that the planet is cooling and not warming at all). But regardless of their reasoning, that in no way is enough for us to stop trying to understand the real potential risks and/or benefits of all the %26#039;additional%26#039; CO2 we, with out a doubt, have added and are continuing to add, more so in fact, every year. Furthermore, if we can all agree, earth was a kind and habitable place for humans before the boom of fossil fuels... than just maybe it is a safe bet to keep the planet%26#039;s CO2 levels where they once were... naturally.