Atmospheric carbon results in the greenhouse effect.
To some degree, although I think the presently accepted amount of contribution is overrated (see below).
Prolonged greenhouse effect leads to global warming.
Global warming results in melting of polar ice caps and reduction or shutdown of warm water ocean circulations.
Another reasonable assumption.
Previously glacier covered land rebounds leading to increased seismicity.
Possible, I guess, but I know of no such present advocates of this. Can you provide a source?
Increased seismicity leads to more active volcanoes possibly including a super volcano.
I guess if the afore-mentioned scenario is accurate, this would be a logical continuation.
Massive injection of material into the upper atmosphere results in blocking some of the light and energy of the sun therefore cooling the earth
and leading to new "ice age" of non specified intensity.
This is called the 'nuclear winter' scenario, and should enough pollution be introduced via nuclear war or volcanic activity, I can see it as being
The big problem I see with this is the assumption that carbon dioxide is not self-correcting. Flora use CO2 and emit O2, which we in turn breathe.
Flora growth is determined by heat level, humidity, and CO2 levels, so an increase in CO2 leads to increased plant growth which in turn uses more of
the available CO2.
As evidence, I submit to you the very same charts used by Al Gore in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth". A closer examination of the data he uses
shows that the average temperature rises prior to
the increase in CO2 levels. Also, from 1998 to 2007 there was no change in global average
temperature, although CO2 levels have been slowly rising. In 2008, NOAA is suggesting a global average temperature drop.
I submit that the rise in CO2 levels accompanying historic climate warmings is due to the decrease of HCO3- levels in seawater, as warmer water will
stimulate the equation HCO3- ---> OH- + CO2. Therefore, the concept of CO2 levels directly causing warmer temperatures as stated is false. I am sure
there is some level of atmospheric CO2 which would lead to such an effect, but I believe it to be much greater than 0.0385% (present level).
Increased air temperatures increase the amount of water the air can hold (humidity), thereby cooling the surface of bodies of water by evaporation.
This will serve to offset the warming by the amount of heat required to vaporize the additional atmospheric water vapor, resulting in another
self-correcting mechanism. There are other such mechanisms, but I believe you get my point.
In summary, while the scenario you outlined is possible, it appears to me it would require very high CO2 levels and would still not be as drastic as
some would believe.