What DOES happen with the pollution?

The AGW-debate seems most alive in the US currently. In most of the rest of the world (afaik) the majority seems to believe that human activities has and will influence out climate and enviroment. I’m one of those.

I’ve read and (I think) understood the explanations given for AGW and its effects. Basically, we systematically dig up stuff from the rock and pump it out in the atmosphere, while at the same time diminishing the ecosystems ability to re-absorb it. This would logically lead to a surplus of different carbon-based substances. If you burn down a tree, that’s OK as long as a new tree is allowed to grow. The previous tree had absorbed carbon, and the carbon released will be absorbed by a new tree. Assuming one is allowed to grow. A zero sum proposition.

But assuming that is is true that we’re diminishing the global ecosystems ability to absord carbon (I think this is pretty easy to prove but if needed I guess I will get cites). Also assuming we are systematically moving carbon from the rock to the atmosphere. Where does it go? What does it do?

As far as I can tell, the people sceptical of AGW do not present an alternative model. They just criticise the one that proponents of AGW use. Kind of like how creationists mainly attack the Theory of Evolution, but don’t really offer an alternative unless you count the Genesis (which, I’m sorry, isn’t very scientific).

I’ve checked, and it turns out only hydrogen has the velocity to escape earths atmoshpere unaided. So where does all the extra stuff go?

Ps. I’m pretty sure there’s a few misspellings in the text, please be understanding, second language and no spell check function…

I’m just going to copy and paste from the Wikipedia:

According to that information, CO2 is either absorbed into new plants or into the oceans. One of the assumptions made in my OP is that this capacity is systematically diminished, for example by de-forestation and the rising temperature in the oceans.

I don’t think even the denialists attempt to claim that atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] isn’t rising. The present day atmosphere isn’t exactly hard to access or measure, and a pretty quick pen and paper calculation can show that we’re releasing enough CO[sub]2[/sub] relative to the volume of the atmosphere to make a difference. I think I’ve heard one or two claim that the oceans are uptaking all of it, but again, current ocean acidity is measured pretty frequently (and shoving a bunch of extra CO2 in the ocean isn’t such a great thing either), so I don’t think to many pursue that argument.

FWIW, skepticalscience.com tries to keep track of what arguments are current amongst skeptics, and “CO2 isn’t rising” doesn’t appear to be in the top 10, anyways.

Deforestation just decreases the rate at which it takes to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Given enough time and lowered output, the plants we have will catch up. Either way, deforestation isn’t really a key element of AGW, despite what you’ve written in your OP. The problem is output more than it is removal. Or if it is an issue of removing the CO2 then that would be a discussion of what technology we could build to scrub the air moreso than it would be a discussion of how many trees we need to plant. You’re not going to convince people to give up their land and cities to be bulldozed and converted to forests.

I’m not trying to convince people of that, I am trying to find out if there is an alternative explanation to what happens to all the stuff we release into the atmosphere. It is an attempt to fight ignorance (my own).

But again, atmospheric levels are empirically shown to be rising, which pretty easily answers the question of where it ends up, it (or at least some decent fraction of it) is in the atmosphere. If you came up with a mechanism that consumed all the new CO[sub]2[/sub] that the human race was releasing, you’d need a second, fairly difficult to come up with, mechanism that released a similar amount of CO[sub]2[/sub] to take its place to account for the observed rise.

A lot of the air polution drifts eastward, causing high asthma rates in the New England - in fact the highest in the country.

Thanks elfkin477, but the OP is actually discussing CO2, rather than particulates or other noxious chemicals that are more normally though of as “pollution”.

This is why I discourage people from calling greenhouse gases by the term “pollution”.