CO2 is a trace gas.

Here's a simple example of how much man has contributed towards CO2 in the atmosphere.

Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all.

According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.

But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases.

Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.)

The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.

Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).

At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.

So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans
-------------
Text originally from National Post.

http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/gunter/archive/2007/04/10/gl...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Warming
• CO2

[wrennus]

whether or not various governments are or are not lying about global warming, we should be conserving energy and co2 release, along with all the other crap we pump out and the destruction we cause in the name of "progress"

[malbor]

I have no issues with conservation. We should do it everywhere it makes sense.

Mandating draconian reductions in CO2 that will harm everyone over dubious correlation to warming is lunacy. Correlation does not equate causation. The planet is warming, it has been for 10s of thousands of years. The oceans are rising, about 1-4 millimeters a year. They have been for thousands of years. Even before the industrial boom.

CO2 ISN'T the culprit. The SUN is.

[wrennus]

like i said, whether co2 is or is not the culprit is irrelevant, even if it isn't causing global warming, all the pollution we pump into the atmosphere still causes plenty of damage to the environment in other ways. we are a wasteful and destructive species and needs to to change our ways, the measures being called for are hardly draconian, YET, although i have no doubt governments will try and rape the populace for all it can get under the guise of "going green" but that's not the point

[malbor]

I'm all for not pumping various pollutants into the atmosphere. I'm for "green" technologies where they make sense. If you have issues with pollution, visit China. I have spent a few months of my time over a handful of trips there. The Guangdong province is a polluted mess. Flying into Hong Kong, you can't even see the city. We don't emit like that any longer, we abide by strict pollution standards. The 3rd world just opens it to the air. You want to make a difference...start there.

[Darthbelal]

If that is true, ukmaxi, then how come there's a lag between the increase of C02 and increase in tempurature? It's like stating that a pot of water will boil on a stove BEFORE you turn on the heat.

[FreeAgain2]

And CO2 is only 5% of the greenhouse gas effect - therefore Man is contributing in the area of 30% x 5% or about .015% of global warming - Global warming is assumed to be about 1 degree above some assumed 'natural baseline' and therefore man is responsible for about .015 degrees of warming, of the entire planet. .015(?)

Why does even that amount of warming seem too high?

[078Sjoerd83]

the opposite opinion. As I said, I've been totally lost in this CO2-discussion!

Now, I just don't give an F!

We have non-poluting tech's available, as a species I mean.

Given that the reaction before me dates from 7 months ago, I think more and more people start realising this when they start searching on the net, turning the CO2-discussion from present to past and as soon as these tech's become global even the 3rd world won't emit CO2 any more.

Don't let these mad scientists get to you!!!

[078Sjoerd83]

So,.. I've been totally lost in this CO2-discussion! Since I was a very little boy there's all this talk about it. I've spent a whole lot of night's laying awake feeling quilty, then blaiming myself for feeling guilty because my only contribution is my breath, to feel quilty again after a few years cause, a little older now, you realise all these products and stuff you use are contributing to. In a process I've been on both sides, switching when new facts(to me) would bounce me into

[Glasya666]

Whoever made this video lacks a basic understanding of the carbon cycle. He wrote:

"At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc."

This is 100% wrong. We are responsible for about 35% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a fact.

He also fails to point out that without that little purple area in the corner our planet would be about as warm as the moon. In other words, a lifeless rock. The greenhouse effect is very real.

[tuttt99]

There is NO correlation between CO2 and temperature in the short term either.

And your statement about th arctic and permafrost is irrelevant since there is absolutely NO proof that increasing arctic temps are due to human activity.

[SciFive]

No - it's you that lacks basic understanding.

Yes CO2 peaks 800 years after temperature peaks in the Vostok ice core data, but it is completely wrong to conclude from that that CO2 does not also cause temp to increase. All it indicates is that there is a causal link the other way too.

We are seeing one mechanism for that right now. Increased temp in the arctic is causing CH4 emissions from (what used to be) permafrost. In a few hundred years this CH4 will be CO2.

CO2 => heat => CO2.

[SciFive]

Your conclusion: 'because CO2 is a trace gas it is not a problem' is not only wrong, it is innumerate.

Numerate people see this the other way round:

'It is BECAUSE there is so little carbon dioxide that it is a problem. It means: a) CO2 is potent stuff; b) it doesn't take much for human activity to have a significant impact on the quantity.'

That is, because the numbers are small, the problem is big.

[BeondaPale]

I didn't say that CO2 was the only atmospheric gas that can trap heat. So, no, not wrong.

....Pay attention or get some sleep.

Water vapor is indeed the most plentiful greenhouse gas, followed by CO2, methane , nitrous oxide , ozone and

chlorofluorocarbons.

CO2, while not as potent as methane and the other GHGs (all of which are also on the rise due to humans, btw) is FAR more plentiful.

Water vapor is not what climatologists consider a " forcing" gas. Would you like to know why?

[tuttt99]

Wrong.

CO2 is NOT the only atmospheric gas that can trap heat. Methane and Water Vapour also both trap heat, and they do so much more effectively than CO2.

Of course all of this is totally irrelevant since CO2 levels rise after temperatures rise, not before. Therefore they can not be the reason for global warming because that would violate causality

[BeondaPale]

OK, since it appears that you are not going to try to answer the question correctly, I'll GIVE you the answer.

The main DIFFERENCE between CO2 and the 99.9 % of atmospheric gasses is that CO2 (OF COURSE) has the ability to... ready?... trap heat

Curious, right?

Now, next question, why is this important?

[tuttt99]

There are plenty of anerobic organisms that get along fine without atmospheric oxygen.

Not sure about nitrogen, so I'll give you that one if you like.