Anyone that thinks CO2 is causing global warming does not understand basic physics. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas constituting only 0.04% of our atmosphere, which is 400 parts per million. To put that into relative terms, if you had a huge stadium with 100,000 people cheering, 40 people yelling (representing 0.04%) scattered among the crowd would able to be heard and distinguished over the other 99,960 people. It is just physically impossible. And, there is nothing being argued that CO2 has any real influence over water vapor (the real greenhouse gas with tremendous influence over surface temperatures). To add to that argument, there was a time in the Earth’s history when the atmosphere was 10% CO2 (250x more concentrated) and the temperature, while significantly warmer (like 10 degrees), it was not 250x warmer.
Everything the left is doing is based upon distortions and faulty science. It is the biggest scam of two centuries and the sooner we wake up to that fact the sooner we can get this country back to growing and being prosperous again.
Neither oxygen nor nitrogen, which is up to 99% of our atmosphere, have the ability to absorb and reflect the infrared radiation that the Earth emits. The remaining 1%, most of which is water vapor and CO2, do. CO2 is more effective because it is found higher in the atmosphere than water vapor.
For 6000 years prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels had been roughly 0.02%. It has doubled in a little over 100 years. Add to that the increase of methane, 60% of which is from human activity, and nitrous oxide, 40% of which is from human activity, into the atmosphere. Methane is 80% more potent and nitrous oxide is 300 times more potent in absorbing and reflecting infrared radiation than CO2.
Human activity has had little to no effect on the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, so the only left that we can control are the other greenhouse gases.
So, your argument is that at trace gas, CO2, a weak greenhouse gas at best (T/F?) found equally distributed throughout the atmosphere (T/F?) and therefore in also trace amounts in the ionosphere (T/F?) is retaining the heat of the Earth? My stadium crowd analogy is right on point and I did the math correctly.
I believe the couple of centuries pre-industrial number is 0.03% and the concentration now stands at 0.037%. That’s a 23% increase. So we are putting out more CO2 and plants are loving it. How is that increasing global temperatures? Going back 6,000 years is just another distortion if humans were not producing CO2 in any quantity.
Agreed. But, the discussion was about CO2. If methane and nitrous oxide are the real problem, why are the lefties making such a huge fuss about CO2?
I think the sun has some effect on temperature and water vapor, not sure, but we can’t control it either. If you are making an argument for controlling methane and nitrous oxides as pollutants we don’t want to breath, you could have a point. But, that is not what is being presented by the environmentalists as the end-of-the-world big problem upon which we need to sacrifice our livelihoods and economy.
Your very first picture “Simple” merely illustrates a correlation. A correlation does not prove causality. All of your graphs do not prove causality either.
Bleich’s numbers are wrong. Oxygen makes up 21% of the Earth’s atmosphere, CO2 - .04%, the rest is primarily Nitrogen which is an inert gas. True Oxygen levels are denser at lower altitudes. Co2 is also denser at lower altitudes (it is heavier than Oxygen). Plants simply could not use CO2 at high altitudes. Gasses disperse readily so there is no “hole” in the ozone. Water vapor is the major controlling green house gas.
Molecular weight of CO2 - 44.01
Molecular weight of O - 32
Molecular weight of Water Vapor - 18.02
In order for your analogy to work, most of the 99,960 people in the crowd are irrelevant, because 99% of them, metaphorically speaking, don’t have the ability to absorb and reflect infrared radiation.
I’m glad you mentioned it, in the last 100 years, we have deforested 1/6 of our trees that have existed since the end of the last ice age.
Because without the greenhouse gases, we would still be in the ice age. That’s why they are called greenhouse gases.
There are 5 major greenhouse gases: water vapor, CO2, nitrous oxide, methane, and manmade industrial gases. Climatologists are concerned about all of them.
The concentration of these gases in the atmosphere are not a concern as far as air quality goes. The concern there is with the concentration in a home with unvented gas appliances, which is a totally different thread.
If you keep changing the subject, it is an indication that you are losing the argument.
From ChatGPT: While there isn’t an exact figure available for the global biomass of plants and animals, several studies and estimates have been made. One study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2018 estimated that the total biomass of plants on Earth is approximately 450 billion metric tons. In contrast, the biomass of animals, including humans, was estimated to be around 2 billion metric tons. This suggests that plants outweigh animals by a significant margin.
So, cutting down some trees to grow other types of plants is affecting the biomass ratio of the planet and destroying the atmosphere how?
Please, someone, make a coherent argument for how CO2 is increasing global temperatures. You are not doing that and throwing out the equivalent of rhetorical spit wads.
If those spattering of CO2 particles in the atmosphere are somehow magically absorbing or reflecting 100% of all the infrared radiation emitted from the Earth, the still only cover 0.04% of the sky and last time I checked electromagnetic radiation largely traveled in straight lines (all deference to Einstein for the notable exceptions). As you said, 99% of the atmosphere has no ability to absorb or reflect infrared radiation from the Earth, so if 99% of the infrared radiation is leaving our atmosphere, how is the other 1%, which has changed only slightly over the millennia having any impact?
Most have little knowledge in that department and will readily accede to “the consensus.” Even more alarming is the lack of common sense it takes to believe this “chicken little” hypothesis. The citizenry of today lack the critical thinking skills needed to sort through the lies of “climate change.” Which is nothing more than a power grab by government.
Actually, only 50% of the infrared radiation that CO2 absorbs is reflected back to Earth, the other 50% is reflected into space. And still, it is the greenhouse gases that keep our planet warm. Again, without them, we would still be in the ice age.
Just look at the graphs that @kleonard posted. It’s physics.
Don’t be fooled. In all of those graphs the vertical axis has been distorted. For example, they cover only 1.2 degrees centigrade change, which makes it looks like there is something really bad happening. Whereas, a honest graph would show temperatures from 0 degrees Kelvin (the temperature of space) versus the average temperature of the Earth. 0 to 300 degrees Kelvin would be an appropriate vertical axis. That graph would show a recent increase from around 272.5 degrees to 273.15 Kelvin, which you could barely distinguish. Which, btw, is well within the historical norms of the planet.
I think the facts and “science” are pretty clear that the Earth has warmed slightly. There is some incidental correlation to increased CO2, but nobody has proven that CO2 is the sole cause of global warming versus it simply being a natural variation in the sun’s energy or other natural factors. The atmosphere is very complex and the climate models have all proven to be wildly inaccurate as a result. Most of the “science” being presented are distortions by politicians, with anterior motives, which include many scientists and government organizations. We have to fight back with the facts.
Agreed. However, water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and is variably between 0.25% to as high as 3% of the atmosphere. So, doing the math, water vapor is 6x to 75x more plentiful in our atmosphere at any given location and time. It is also better at absorbing infrared energy than CO2, which magnifies the difference even further. The surface of the Earth itself also absorbs and reflects infrared energy, which also has to be considered. I just do not see how CO2 could be having the outsized effect that the politicians claim unless it is impacting water vapor, which nobody seems to be arguing.
