a fun inconvenient truth the left doesn’t want the public to be aware of:
The left owudl have use beleive there is a thick sheet of plastic surrounding the earth preventing all the heat that rises fro mthe planet from escaping- and bouncing all that heat right back at us
Bzzzzt-
CO2 only absorbs approx 8% of the heat leavign earth- and only 1% of the heat that leaves the earth is IR- (Nasa claims 40+% but there is no consensus- most apparently claim 1%)
The rest of the 99% being conduction, convection and evaporation
Bottom line? Very Very little heat is even captured by CO2- and even less is actually back radiated ‘in the right direction’ to make it’s way back to earth to ‘warm the globe’
Bonus inconvenient truth- man’s CO2 production comprises just 0.00136% of the earth’s atmosphere- far far far too little to capable of capturing, holding, then back radiating enough heat ot cause global climate change- (The atmosphere is comprised of just 0.04% CO2 - man is responsible for just 3.4% of that or so- 3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136%)
“In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he’s worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth’s atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn’t reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.”
“Fact: Since 1999, multiple technical, peer reviewed articles have been available that demonstrate exactly the opposite conclusion. CO2 changes lagged temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased. Temperature changed and then, several hundred years later, CO2 levels changed. Since a cause does not follow an effect, this indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change.”
http://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=371
Before industry and cement there was about 280 ppm, now there is 400 ppm. If that rise were natural it would have to come from volcanoes or similar geology, or from warming or a combo. The Greenland ice cores with annual resolution show no prior spikes in CO2, so volcanoes would be ruled out. If it were from warming it would require 12C of warming in the last few centuries to release that much CO2 from the oceans. That has not happened. So the only real explanation for the rise from 280 to 400 (and 2 ppm more each year) is fossil fuels and cement.
One other possibility is deforestation or plant reductions. They usually add a factor for deforestation into the manmade CO2 from fossil fuels and cement which confuses the numbers but they still chalk that up as manmade. If there were large natural reductions in plant matter, particularly in the oceans, that could lower CO2 naturally. But that doesn't seem like a better explanation or even a combo of that, volcanoes and warming. In short, it is not natural.
The pertinent question is whether the source of the CO2 matters and the answer is no. It causes some beneficial warming.