I suspect that if the rocket was launching from a pad then it would probably ignite the air around it due to the extreme heat, so you’d see some sort of flames coming out of the engines.

In space however you’d probably just see a sort of faint glowing colour, probably purple or something similar (since hydrogen plasma is purple)
References :

PLANTS use Solar Energy to rip apart CO2 (& H20) to make HYDROCARBONS like
Wood, Wax, Methane, Propane, Alcohol, Gasoline, Oil, etc…

Think of these things as MONEY made by SUNSHINE.

When you ’spend’ - CO2 goes INTO the air.
When you ’save’ - CO2 comes OUT of the air.

Of course Animals never save, only plants do.

Western (& Eastern) Societies have discovered HUGE piles of MONEY created by PREHISTORIC Sunshine, and they are spending these Fossil Fuels because that’s what you do with money.

To gain control of this Money, the Socialists are propagandizing the public with the "CO2 is evil & deadly" theory know as AGW. I.e. spending will kill YOU so let US tell you how much you can do.

AGW is (mostly) bullshit because the CO2 going INTO the air is the same CO2 that came OUT of the air all those years ago.

HOWEVER the fact remains that we are SPENDING faster than SAVING.
Our sexy lifestyles are based on cheap energy & the Prehistoric Money pile is finite.

TO REDUCE CO2 LEVELS WOULD INVOLVE NOTHING SHORT OF A COMPLETE BAN ON THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS.

In essence telling everyone to ignore the big pile of Money.

Now here’s the big JOKE: No one, not even the Socialists is going to do this.

The Politicians & Governments feigning concern over CO2 levels just want to TAX fossil fuels NOT stop using them. Obama flew his giant fossil fuel jet with escort across the Atlantic so he could lecture US on wasting fossil fuels. Al Gore’s Carbon Footprint is about 10x that of an average American, and we have the largest footprints in the world.

The CO2 level will rise SLOWER if we conserve, but the actuality is that USE will NEVER go DOWN so long as SUPPLY endures. The game will always be WHO gets to SPEND the Hydrocarbon Sunshine Money, NEVER IF it gets spent.

So here is what is going to happen.

-Human Civilization is going to spend the rest of the Prehistoric Sunshine Money.
-The Atmosphere / Ecosystem will survive the addend CO2 because we are just putting back what was there to begin with.
-Hydrocarbon cost will go up as supply diminishes.
-And EVENTUALLY we will be forced to convert to ‘Pay as you Go’ Hydrocarbons.

The conversion will be relatively smooth if managed by free market Capitalists.
Or brutal and deadly if the Socialists do it.

Barring some Nuclear breakthroughs, my guess for the 22 century’s predominant fuel is sea floor methane. Also, a great deal of human trash can be thermally depolymerized into oil.
References :

The heart of the matter is energy, producing it in ways which don’t generate much CO2, and using it more efficiently.

In the beginning that will require construction of nuclear power plants, and building (and remodeling) our buildings and factories to use less energy. Conservation is a very underestimate energy "source", it’s big and we can deploy it relatively rapidly. We’ll be starting to replace fossil fuel powered vehicles with electrics, run off those nuclear power plants. We don’t have to worry about timing; right now we have massive overcapacity at night, when we’d mostly be charging the vehicles. We’ll also be building alternative energy units, solar and wind to start with; adding in other technologies as developed. Eventually all that will take over from nuclear, but they can’t do that right now.

For some applications, like airplanes, liquid fuels are hard to beat for weight/power ratio. The answer there may be biofuels. Replacing CO2 taken out of the atmosphere very recently by plants is no big deal.

There’s a number of other activities we’ll be doing; conserving tropical forests, and re vegetating, particularly toward the equator, where stuff grows fast. Managing our agriculture better, including capturing and using methane produced in meat production, something that’s already being done on a limited scale.

This is a big job, we’ll need all the tools our ingenuity can provide. Ther’s no shortage of smart people working on the details of plans to do all of the above, and a whole lot more.

It will take at least 50 years to complete the job, but we can make huge chunks of progress before then, particularly in the areas of energy conservation, where we have a LOT of room for improvement.

All this is very doable, particularly if the US gets serious about developing the technology. This kind of engineering engineering is something the US was extremely good at, until it got lazy.

The price tag is uncertain, but it will be vastly less than coping with the effects of unreduced global warming would be, in financial, human, and national security terms. We’ll still have to cope with some effects, we’re not going to stop this thing in its’ tracks.

Done properly, starting now, disruptions to society would be minor. Wait 10-30 years, until this is starting to hit really hard, and we will desperately be doing stuff you won’t like. Nor will anyone.

The bottom line is that fixing this is not a desperate move for survival. It’s simply moving into the 21st century as far as energy production and efficient use are concerned. Right now the ways the world makes and uses energy threaten our economy, our security, and the environment.
References :

In order to reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration, we would have to sharply curtail our contribution. Every gallon of oil or pound of coal we burn contributes to the problem. I’d say we would need to eliminate all power plants which burn something to produce energy, and move to electric cars and trucks. Fossil fuels would still be used for the airline industry since no alternative exists. We should reduce our vast herds of cows as well, because they produce a lot of methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than CO2.

That’s how a reduced CO2 world would look- nuclear power plants, solar, tidal, geothermal, and wind generation as well. No internal combustion engines on the road. A much more robust electricity grid to handle the extra demand. Heat pumps on every house. Unfortunately, the technology isn’t there yet to get all of our electricty from alternative sources. Right now it only accounts for about 5%.
References :

There are at least 880,000 tons of atmosphere per person on earth.

I did the math…
References :

extended "supply chains" for food, and everything else, are a stupid idea on many levels. we have seen how a close coupled global financial and commercial system has the capacity to crash; a disturbance in one part sending waves of disruption across the whole network. we have to re-install buffers and redundancy, and local commercial networks provide both.

i think with a combination of tech, localisation, and reorganising to a fairer wealth distribution worldwide we have a chance.

low tech;
no-plow agriculture, reforestation and sustainable forest exploitation, biochar.
adding buffers (chalk, old concrete) to locally valuable marine ecosystems to counter acidification.
CO2 absorbing paint and concrete.

high tech;
worldwide conversion to low carbon energy generation.
CO2 scrubbers and carbon capture and sequestration.
References :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cement-from-carbon-dioxide

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126901.200-can-technology-clear-the-air.html?page=3

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=metal-organic-frameworks-carbon-capture

Apart from that, I nominate the usual suspects: real biofuels from cellulose or sugarcane and other plant waste, decent public transport, high speed rail, stopping the perverse tax incentives in the US to use coal and oil, nuclear including reprocessing fuel, conservation through insulation, eat less meat.

Edit: and I’m glad to see littlero… in her great list mention no till agriculture, which holds carbon in the soil. Best combined with GM roundup-resistant crops, since one purpose of tilling is to kill weeds. For need for GM, see Borlaug’s retrospective to his Nobel address;

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/borlaug/borlaug-lecture.pdf

And of course population reduction; the best way to do this is to give power and opportunity to women. Sorry if this is awfully PC, but that’s how it iw.
References :