I met quite a few climate scientists (PhD's) in post-grad school who truly were seeking an answer, whether man had any substantive influence on conditions due to pollutants or by-products. Their research was considerable but even they admitted there was no exhaustive source.
[[whether man had any substantive influence on conditions due to pollutants or by-products.]]
We absolutely have an influence on health due to these things, but CO2, which isn’t a pollutant, does not have an influence on climate change- There simply isn’t enough CO2- any honest scientist would admit this-
Someone figured out for me, how much water 0.00136% would be when added to an olympic sized pool- they said it amounted to four five gallon pails
My analogy, though a little flawed- but not badly flawed, was:
Take 4 five gallon pails of 100 degree water and dump them into an olympic sized pool of water that is 90 degrees
What happens? Practically nothing, because the 100 degree water reaches stasis nearly instantly because there simply is nowhere near enough 100 degree water to overpower the cooler 90 degree pool water- nowhere near enough-
Same with CO2 in the atmosphere- there simply is nowhere near enough to cause a thick enough blanket around the globe to trap heat and prevent the earth from cooling- there is so little ‘man produced’ CO2 that scientists should be ashamed for even suggesting that it is causing warming-
0.00136% (that figure comes form the fact that greenhouse gases combined, both natural and man made = 0.04% of the atmosphere-
of that 0.04%, man is responsible for only 3.4% (or so)
3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136% of the atmosphere having CO2 due directly to man
How can 0.00136% of the atmosphere blanket the globe in a thick enough mass to trap heat? It can’t- at best it can only cause very very minor localized heat trapping- an d most of that heat gets radiated out in all directions- not just back to earth- so an even tinier amount of heat makes it’s way back to earth-
It’s simply silly to suggest that this small amount is resulting in global temperature rises-
Now if CO2 were say 1/4 of the atmosphere- you could make an argument for some localized heating I suppose- but where it’s only 0.00136%, how can they, with a straight face, claim they are serious about learning whether CO2 is causing global climate change?