“If mankind had never burned any coal, oil or natural gas, atmospheric CO2 levels would only be 30 to 50 ppmv lower than the current ~385 ppmv”
Got any proof of that? Seems like a “reasonable” statement to make, but “reasonable” isn’t scientific nor a fact.
Probably a bit more in the last few minutes.
My dog farted and then I did, to cancel his noxious odor...
Zip, zilch, nada.
“How much of the atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic?”
It doesn’t matter. There is a mechanism for reestablishing CO2 equilibrium. Nature restores the balance.
So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?
Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds.
Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100317023946/http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse
_________________________________________________________
Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110308203927/http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
____________________________________________________________
Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change
ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) -- Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.
CO2 is only .04 percent of the total atmosphere.
When are they going to ask how much of the carbon dioxide is hylogenic (caused by trees) or therogenic (caused by wild animals)?
It's mostly Bambi and Thumper's fault. The herbivores eat too much of the green plants, otherwise they would be getting rid of the carbon dioxide.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball
No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect.
Sky-high hole blown in AGW theory?
"Forbes reports on a peer-reviewed study that uses NASA data to show that the effects of carbon-based warming have been significantly exaggerated. In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:"
That article explains why no Hot Spot has been found.
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'
It Is Impossible For A 100 ppm Increase In Atmospheric CO2 Concentration To Cause Global Warming
Simple Chemistry and the Real Greenhouse Effect.
Those five articles each show that Greenhouse Theory has no basis in reality due to a direct conflict with the known laws of physics. No wonder the smoking gun "hotspot" can't be found.
The atmosphere’s CO2 % due to man is... wait for it... 0.0036%
The atmosphere’s CO2 due to ALL sources is ... wait for it ... 0.04%
The Atmospheric CO2 % due to the US (assuming we produce about 20% of the total of man’s CO2) is ... wait for it ... 0.00072%
For our dear leader to claim that man is responsible for climate change shows a complete lack of understanding- to claim that 0.0036% of the atmosphere can capture enough heat and back radiate it to earth to cause climate change is simply idiotic. To claim this is akin to claiming that pouring a glass of 100 Degree water into an Olympic sized pool of 99 degree water will cause ‘catastrophic temperature change’
Sadly though not one republican will point these facts out- There simply is NOT enough CO2 to capture enough heat to cause ANY change whatsoever- claiming it can shows a profound lack on understanding
Bookmark Thanks for the post!
And the that the following two things have relatively little impact.
,
Zero.
1) Get one pencil, and one 8.5 inch by 11 inch piece of paper.
2) Tap pencil on paper four times, creating four small dots.
Assume the piece of paper is one unit of atmosphere. The four pencil dots are the CO2 components.
The man made CO2 is a fraction of those four dots.
Those four dots somehow control the climate? Really!!
CO2 does not cause Global warming
George Carlin - Saving the Planet
Libtards don't care about evidence. It's all about the narrative and their obsession with using climate change to destroy capitalism
ping
The proper answer is: who cares? Adapt. Half of the ancient city of Alexandria is underwater. Humanity didn’t go extinct. People just don’t live in that part of town.
ANTI-AGW reference bump!