Replies

Yeah I don’t know what to make of his statement in that article- it seems though that he is acknowledging that CO2 is capable of absorbing heat, then radiating it outwards- which would very slightly, cause a miniscule rise in temps (but which would very quickly be brought back to ‘room temperature’ so to speak by the overwhelming cooler temps surrounding it- kinda like lighting a match in a stadium heats the air immediately surrounding the match, but the volume of cooler air vastly outweighs the heated air, and the stadiums temps remains steady as the heated air is quickly overwhelmed by the cooler-

I use that analogy because it is akin to the amount of CO2 that man produces compared to the total volume of the atmosphere (or the earth’s surface for that matter- once the heat has ‘back radiated from the atmosphere)- Man’s total output of CO2 in comparison to the earth’s atmosphere by volume amounts to just 0.0015%- I actually think I’m beign too generous comparing it to a match in a stadium- I think the space would have to be much larger to replicate the percentage of 0.0015%- but at least you get the idea what I’m getting at)

Let’s be clear though- CO2 does not cause warming- it simply transfers energy/heat that has escaped from the earths surface to the atmosphere back down to earth- it doesn’t, as far as I’m aware, cause that heat that it captures to become even hotter- it simply returns that energy back to earth- but let’s remember also, that iot’s only capturing a VERY SMALL amount of heat because there simply isn’t enough CO2 I nthe atmosphere to capture more- the atmosphere has just 0.04% CO2 in it- so let’s imagine al lthe CO2 is concentrated in one small spot hovering over us

That would mean that 99.96% of our atmosphere would have NO CO2 in it, and any escaping heat owudl simply slip right past into space in all directions where there was no CO2- you would have only this very tiny spot in the atmosphere that was able to capture any energy- thin of it like putting a tiny screen, perhaps 1 inch by one inch, in the niagra falls in an attempt to screen out all the sand particles travelling along the river- the vast majority of sand will simply slip right on past the screen because there simply isn’t enough screen to completely cover the whole river-

I know there’s problems with this analogy, but it gives a general sense of howl little CO2 there really is, and howl little heat/energy is captured and sent back to earth

and let’s not forget also, that even this tiny amount of CO2 become saturated, and can’t absorb any more while it is saturated, so all remaining rising heat/energy slips right on past it while the CO2 is saturated-

Bottom lien is that nearly 100% of the heat/energy leaving the earth’s surface keeps right on going- and nearly Zero percent is captured and sent back- and what little is captured and sent back, and hten released again gets immediately overwhelmed by the surrounding cooler air and overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the earth’s air- only a very tiny fraction or a percentage point of energy/heat gets captured and back radiated-

Like the match in the stadium, that heat is very quickly overwhelmed

There are some, when confronted by the FACT that man produces so little CO2 compared to the actual volume of our atmosphere, that “It only takes small changes to cause drastic results” are trying to hide the fact that man’s contribution is so small that it is near zero- and that it would take much much much more than man’s contribution to have any real measurable difference-

My analogies are crude, have mistakes, I know, but logic dictates we compare how much man is producing compared to how much volume our atmosphere has, and compare the two, and see if the ‘man is almost entirely responsible for climate change’ claim passes the smell test- and quite clearly it doesn’t