1. I won't restate it, but it's a fair point that many different values for atmospheric CO2 exist. The ones that you found are likely in error.
Most measurements put the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 0.039%. This is the same as 0.00039 or 3.9 ten thousandths. (Not much, especially compared w oxygen and nitrogen). It's also the same as 390 ppm.
In the earth's long history, the CO2 concentration has been manifold this (and life persevered, somehow.)
2. How do they explain that climates always change/get wrmer first- then 800 years later or more, CO2 rises IF CO2 is the driver/cause of climate change?
This is one of the best questions that an inquiring mind might ask! Consider that the oceans are sinks for much of the global co2 burden; and, also that cold water stores more dissolved co2 than does warm water. If the earth went through a warming phase (think solar radiation here) then the oceans would slowly warm, but this ocean temp change would not be immediate. If the cooler ocean was at co2 capacity, then as solar radiation warmed it, co2 would be released to the air because the warmer water could no longer hold it. Yes, as you suggest, the increase in atmospheric CO2 would thus lag the increase in atmospheric temp.
3. Since it’s claimed that CO2 causes the earth to warm, why was there no warming for 20 years despite man producing more CO2?
Excellent q! Actually, how do we even know the relative contribution of man made [sic] carbon? Lots of natural sources such as volcanoes, livestock, termites, on and on.
In short, there is no legitimate way to ascribe cause and effect.
Great points, all.
.
Yes, as you suggest, the increase in atmospheric CO2 would thus lag the increase in atmospheric temp.
Should actually read...
Yes, as you suggest, the increase in atmospheric CO2 would thus lag the increase in ocean temp.
I blame my typist.
(me)
.
seaplaner- From everythgin i can gather on line regarding CO2 in atmosphere- the .039% is the total atmospheric CO2 from both sources- natural and man made/caused- From what i understand, man is responsible for just 3.4% of that .04% which means the ottal CO2 in the atmosphere as a direct result of man’s use of carbon is just 0.00136% 3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136%
[[In the earth’s long history, the CO2 concentration has been manifold this (and life persevered, somehow.)]]
That’s another good point- I understand that CO2 was at or above 800 ppm in the past- I believe I read that it was as high as 1200 ppm or so at one point- and liek you said, life survived (I dont’ believe n evolution but if folks are goign ot argue that evolution is a fact, they are going to have to explain how life survived and thrived in 1200 ppm CO2 when we’re begin told that a mere 400 ppm (that we have now in atmosphere) is the ‘tipping point’
[[If the earth went through a warming phase (think solar radiation here)]]
All without the help of CO2- which is the main counter-argument to ‘man-caused climate change’- obviously CO2 isn’t the driving force of climate change-
While CO2 does cause radiation ot be trapped, and converted into heat, again, it must be pointed out that there simply is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause global warming- I don’t believe there’s even enough to cause isolated local warming in areas around the globe— there can’t be enough because only 0.00136% of hte atmsophere is CO2-
To put this in perspective- it would be akin to dumping say a 5 gallon pail of water that is 100 degrees into an Olympic sized pool of water that is 90 degrees- there simply would not be enough water from the 5 gallon pail to influence the cooler pool water at all- it would just very briefly effect only the local area it was poured into but very quickly reach equilibrium because there is so little compared to the rest of hte pool