Replies

[[It causes some beneficial warming. ]]

It can’t there isn’t enough- the ppm is meaningless- we are nowheres near the ‘cut-off’ point at which we ‘enter dangerous levels’ - ppm in the past have been 8000 or better- and again- ice core samples prove that CO2 always rises AFTER temps rise- 800 years after- proving that rising temps are what cause rising CO2- not the other way around-

You and i have been aroudn and aroudn on this issue in the past-

I’ll ask again- can you explain how 0.00136% of the atmosphere is capable of trapping enough IR and converting to heat and then back radiating to earth to cause global warming? Even slight global warming? Some figures would be nice ie: What is the % of back radiated heat compared to our earth’s 6 quadrillion tons of atmosphere? & please explain how the insignificant amount of back radiated heat wouldn’t quickly reach equilibrium as it gets engulfed by the massive amount of cooler surface temperatures that the heat gets back radiated to-

the 0.00136% figure comes from the fact that the atmosphere contains 0.04% CO2 and other stuff that is suspected of causign ‘warming’ - man’s production of CO2 amounts to just 3.4% of that 0.04%- so 3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136%- that is how much atmosphere that man’s CO2 takes up- There is no thick blanket of CO2 trapping all the heat

[[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.]]

[[The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. But is that true? Are there variations in the natural flux? Could those explain the CO2 increase?...........

It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. ]]

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

ppm in the past have been 8000 or better- and again

Simple explanations for those: earth's geography caused lots of warming. Current geography is cold with Antartica being a freezer and Greenland slowly moving northward and becoming more of a freezer. Also the Panama being closed prevents the Pacific from warming the bottom of the Atlantic so we have 32-ish degree water at the bottom of the ocean.

ice core samples prove that CO2 always rises AFTER temps rise- 800 years after- proving that rising temps are what cause rising CO2- not the other way around-

True. But here's some graphs of that relationship http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ Notice that the graphs generally show about 100 ppm rise in CO2 for every 10C rise in temperature. Looking at the graph that is second to the bottom:

there is 280ppm plus or minus of CO2 up to the present. But the CO2 rose past 400 recently. That means there would need to be 12C of warming in the last 800 years to cause the 120 ppm rise.

There was not 12C of warming in the last 800 years, case closed.

man’s production of CO2 amounts to just 3.4% of that 0.04%

Definitely not correct. There is production in nature about 30 times man's. But there's also uptake in nature of 30 times man's. There is no significant manmade uptake. Considering both natural production and uptake, there is far more production from man than nature.

There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature.

That is not correct either. There is current 400 ppm of CO2. The natural equilibrium is about 280-300, if mankind was not around. The amount of uptake of man's CO2 is about 1/30 of the 100-120ppm of "excess". So nature is taking up about 1/30 of man's CO2, not 1/2.