CO2 is such a small concentration... fine.... but?

Question

Do you trust me to make you an injection and randomly double or triple the concentration of any 0.0001% "substance in trace concentration" in your body?

Answer 1

Dude - You're getting desperate.

We regularly ingest trace amounts of poison every day.  Arsenic, cyanide, heavy metals are found in food in trace amounts.

These do no harm to the body, since they are "trace" amounts.

Recent reports have discovered trace amounts of pharmaceuticals and hormones in treated drinking water.  So what?

Answer 2

Yes just because the concentration of CO2 is small does not automatically mean that it has an insignificant effect.  There are many analogies.  For example I was once involved with a refinery process where a few parts per billion of lead in the feedstock could completely poison 50 tonnes or so of catalyst in a few hours.

Answer 3

Since the combined effect of all atmospheric greenhouse gases maintains our global average temperature about 15C warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases and since CO2 is responsible for between 9 & 23% of that warming (remember, nitrogen which makes up about 78% of our atmosphere isn't even a greenhouse gas), a 30% increase in CO2 is indeed significant.

And despite the confusion and oversimplification (not to mention stating the blatantly obvious) by a few of the responders, raising the CO2 will clearly increase the amount of heat energy retained.  After over 100 years analyzing this topic, the convergence of the warming estimates from 25 independent scientific studies over the past 30 years is that a doubling of the CO2 is approximately 3 C.

Answer 4

Again, and as always, I equate global warming with our enslavement to Mid-East and Venezuelan oil - all of which need to be eliminated, whether it makes Al (I invented the internet and discovered global warming) Gore look good (puh-leeeze!) or not.

The U.S. has at Her disposal some of the globe's most prolific natural, alternative (non-fossil) sources of energy. We need never depend on Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Mexico nor any other petroleum-rich nation for ANY of our energy needs.

And, no, I hope you don't try to inject me with anything... esPECIALLY anything that would make me as ugly as Al Gore.

...

Answer 5

Just to be fair, I think Dana is suggesting that CO2 increase in concentration is more responsible for recent warming than changes in solar output.  What he said was nonsense in my opinon.  Obviously, the sun is more important in warming the planet.  CO2 doesn't warm the planet.  It merely retains heat.  Affects of increased CO2 are more complicated than simply suggesting linear relationships between increased CO2 and temperature.  In addition, CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas.  That would be water vapor but it is too difficult to blame humans for water vapor.

Answer 6

What you are saying is that this trace concentration has a more powerful effect on our climate than the sun, which is the most active it has been is 8000 years.  I do not buy that.

Answer 7

Invalidate, no.    But we also know that the CO2 levels have been 12-15 times higher while temperatures were only about 30 degrees F higher.   We also know that CO2 levels on Venus are 10,000 times higher while the temperature there is about 14 times higher.  In other words we know that there is a saturation factor - that beyond a certain point, the additional heat trapped by virtue of adding CO2 diminishes.

We also know that it has been warmer when CO2 levels were lower, that remain unexplained - which means there are other factors that we don't understand.

In short, it's one more example of something that doesn't disprove AGW but shows that it isn't proven either.

And it's your burden of proof.

It's also misleading to point out the amount of CO2 in proportion to the amount of CO2 200 years ago without showing its proportion to the total atmosphere - which is what most pro-AGW sources do.

Answer 8

Trust is an issue 'cause man is the height of irresponsibility. We are unlikely to be truthfull in most matters of reasoning. Even science is but a tale of our reason. God is the final truth and who are we to approach Him with our reason? He knows us far better than we know anything. Do we know anything so miniscule? I think not!

Answer 9

Nope.

The concentration of a substance is only one piece of information.  You also need to know what kind of damage the substance can do in that concentration.

In the case of greenhouse gases, that factor is known as the global warming potential.  This is how scientists know that the radiative forcing due to CO2 alone is 1.6 W/m^2, which is more than 5 times greater than the radiative forcing from the Sun.

So yes, this "trace gas" is currently responsible for more warming of the Earth than the Sun.

jim - when CO2 absorbs and re-radiates energy, what do you think that does to the Earth?

Based on your argument, the Sun doesn't heat the Earth either, the nuclear reactions of the elements within the Sun do.