CO2 is such a small concentration... fine.... but? Do you trust me to make you an injection and randomly double or triple the concentration of any 0.0001% %26quot;substance in trace concentration%26quot; in your body?

Additional Details

5 months ago

What I am saying is that elements even in trace concentrations can have a large effect and that the low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT invalidate the greenhouse effect.
http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSe...

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%26#039;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.

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.

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%26#039;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%26#039;t try to inject me with anything... esPECIALLY anything that would make me as ugly as Al Gore.

...

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.

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%26#039;t understand.

In short, it%26#039;s one more example of something that doesn%26#039;t disprove AGW but shows that it isn%26#039;t proven either.

And it%26#039;s your burden of proof.

It%26#039;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.

Dude - You%26#039;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 %26quot;trace%26quot; amounts.

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