If the tiny magnitude were more generally known, people would want explanations. It defies common sense that such a small magnitude could be responsible for certain catastrophic changes. The least we ought to be is skeptical.
This is why I often get upset with American Thinker.
Many of their authors are either ignorant or very poor at doing what they are trying to do.
No one, not even the climate alarmists are trying to make the argument or the “impression” that CO2 makes up a huge and massively growing portion of the volume of earth’s atmosphere.
The whole scientific argument is about (a) how much heat the atmosphere is retaining, and (b) which gaseous components of the atmosphere achieve more heat retention than other components. And then the argument goes that CO2 and methane both achieve very high rates of heat retention, and way much more than other gaseous components do.
Then the argument is that (a) the atmosphere seems to be retaining more heat on average than humans have recorded in the past, and (b) since CO2 and methane are so effective at retaining heat, compared to other gases in the atmosphere, that they are the gases growing in volume in the atmosphere, and no matter how small that volume it is the source of a warming atmosphere.
The addendum to the argument is critical. All gases in the atmosphere either (a) combine, (b) breakdown, or (c) escape the atmosphere, and when not escaping or breaking down have a scientifically estimated time they remain in the atmosphere. That addendum is key because it adds that - according to the “science”, CO2 and methan remain in the atmospehere a very long time, and they are building up because of that long period they neither escape of breakdown in the atmosphere.
That is the alarmists argument, and it is not about mere volume of CO2 compared to volumes of other gases. It is all 100% about heat retention and heat retention ability of the various gases.
The only good part of the author’s points is their recognitin of earth’s past amounts of atmospheric CO2 and how LIFE - writ large did no vanish from the earth.
What does the past say to us? It says we need to use our knowledge and technical abilities to mitigate and adapt to “climate change”, not waste trillions of dollars chasing CO2. And why not? Humans have adapted to live in every climate extreme on the planet, and humans have now more knowledge and technical abilities than we have ever had, to help us adapt.
Ohhhhh, he's so cuuuuuute!. He thinks those people care about the truth. See Tagline.
The morons forget water vapors (up to 4%) that has heat capacity 10 times (as in ten) higher than carbon dioxide and, therefore, ten times better ability to trap heat reflected from the Earth surface. Let them try to regulate water vapors content in the atmosphere (oceans, sea, lakes, rivers, creeks, etc.)…
I recently had a conversation with a gentleman about climate change. He had seen some TV news story about how the French wine industry was virtually doomed and wine production was shifting to England due to climate change. I asked him if he knew how much CO2 was in the atmosphere and he was bewildered when I told him it was only 400 parts per million and only about 13% of that minuscule amount was man caused. He said that the news reported that 96 “scientists” agreed and that the climate was on a knife edge despite the part per million amount of CO2. I gave up any further conversation as the man had been brain washed by the climate change cult.
Bkmk.
Duh. You learn this stuff in eighth grade science class along with photosynthesis. The masses are clueless.
Moreover, I just checked and 95% of atmospheric CO2 is from NATURAL SOURCES - the ocean, plant and animal respiration, decaying organic matter, and volcanos.
Historically, meaning over hundreds of millions of years, CO2 pops up and down but always around the 400PPM range, give or take a 100 or so.
With respect to climate and temperature, CO2 is not a leading indicator but a trailing indicator. Always has been.
I agree. If people actually knew how kittle CO2 was in the air we would have a chance.
It reminds me of the debate over ANWAR. There was a graphic (video) of Alaska zooming in on the part of ANWAR to be drilled. It starts out that you can’t really see the spot in ANWAR. Then as it zooms in you can vividly see just how miniscule a part of Alaska that they want to drill in. SIZE matters.
As we continued to LOSE on ANWAR I couldn’t understand why someone didn’t just HAMMER the airways with that video.
A graphic
https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/images/politics/graphics/anwr02.jpg
More: Yes SNOPES!
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-truth-about-anwr/
No explanation necessary. Picture/Thousand words.
An honest calculation by a chemical engineer I know who did it for a large process engineering firm showed that if all the CO2 emitted in the world were an elephant, the amount contributed by man would barely make a tail.
This is all a scam and extremely stupid.
