Posted on 07/29/2022 7:27:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The dose makes the poison. ... All things are poison and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone is the thing that makes it not a poison.—Paracelsus, 1493–1541, credited with being the father of toxicology
Climate alarmists play the "hide the magnitude" game. If they didn't, they would soon be out of business.
Politely ask a few of your friends how much of the air they're breathing is CO2. I've done that, and the typical answer, when I can get one, is 20% or more. (Most people have no idea and would rather not guess.)
Climate alarmists rarely talk about the actual quantitative composition of our atmosphere. The impression they give is that
(1) a substantial part of the air that surrounds us comprises carbon dioxide;
(2) that the proportion of carbon dioxide is increasing rapidly;
(3) that the increase is primarily the result of human activity, mostly from burning fossil fuels; and
(4) that if CO2 continues to increase, it's game over for humanity. Recently, the rhetoric has escalated from "climate crisis" to "climate emergency."
The actual magnitude tells a very different story. Carbon dioxide constitutes four one-hundredths of one percent of the air we breathe (or 400 parts per million). That is an extremely tiny fraction of the atmosphere.
What constitutes the rest of the air around us? Seventy-eight percent of the air we breathe is nitrogen, 21 percent is oxygen, 0.9 percent is argon, and 0.1 percent is other gases. The other gases include methane (0.00017 percent); nitrous oxide (0.00003 percent); and water vapor, which varies from 0 to 4 percent.
How can such a small magnitude of CO2 be dooming humanity? Furthermore, how can climate change alarmists be absolutely, positively certain that if CO2 continues to increase, it will be lights out for life on Earth?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Maybe they looked at the chart in Post #9 and saw an easy opportunity to convince people, because they KNEW warming was coming?
Yea... it kind of does. And that's pretty frightening when you overlap with the longer term trend that shows major Ice Ages. We're overdue.
That's an argument I'd not heard before. Do you have a source or reference for that?
What the heck is that on the right? Schwab?
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
I’m not sure your argument holds up.
To me, the bigger question is: Our inability to properly model cloud formation and precipitation. Water Vapor plays a much bigger role in dampening climate changes. Unless we fully understand it, we can’t accurately project the result of increasing GH gases.
Supposedly
Philippians 3:18 “18 For as I have often told you before, and now say again even with tears: Many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame. Their minds are set on earthly things.”
bkmk
How in hell can human restrictions amount to one damned improvement?
You’re not kidding. Dude, these are the leaders of the world.
The Earth is at the mercy of the sun. There is nothing humans can do to avoid the Sun’s effect on the planet. In 7.8 billion years or so the sun will expand on its way to becoming a red giant and it will likely swallow the earth, so there.
The dominant greenhouse gas that drives climate change is water vapor and its interactions with the Sun (sunspots, solar flares, etc.).
If people understood this, the obsession with CO2 would go away by itself.
Using the fact that CO2 is just a few tenths of a percentage of air is not a very convincing argument.
Botulinum toxins in doses of millionth of a gram can kill you.
So it’s not the amount that counts but the effect of that amount.
That’s what the argument against “greenhouse gases” should focus on.
The ability of CO2 to absorb infrared radiation is not linear.
If a certain percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs 50% of the infrared at specific wavelengths, doubling that percentage would only increase the absorption to 75%. Three times, 87.5%, and four times, 93.75%.
Also, suppose a certain percentage absorbs 90%. Doubling it would absorb 99%, so only a 10% increase (9%/90%).
I’ve not looked at how much CO2 absorbs at 400 ppm, so these are just examples. But if the current absorption rate is high, adding more won’t significantly affect how much is absorbed.
Thanks. That’s an excellent article. However, I don’t think it supports the point you made.
From the Article:
Although CO2 has less effect at higher CO2 concentrations, this “logarithmic effect” will be overpowered by these 4 factors if we don’t switch to clean energy quickly:
Exponential growth of energy use
Past CO2 emissions that nature has not yet absorbed
Carbon sink saturation
Committed warming
What if we manage to stop increasing our emissions? This related article indicates that if emissions hold steady, global warming will still continue upward linearly.
Water vapor is about 10x more of a GHG than CO2, if it were science not politics we’d be worried about it. But it’s hard to declare water a polutant
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.