But here are the baby steps:
Total CO2 in atmosphere = 400 parts per million = 0.04%
Proportion of total CO2 to emissions (550 Gt) that is human emission (26.4 Gt) = 4.8% of all CO2 in atmosphere.
Human CO2 in atmosphere as proportion of all atmospheric gases = 4.8% of 0.040% = 0.00192%


Considering that nobody actually understands how the climate works (other than it is not exclusively controlled by atmospheric gases) it is really laughable to make such a huge deal out of 0.00192% of atmospheric gases. Juts ridiculous.

We need to get Longy on the assignment to confirm the Math if  he can get past his bias.  If it is really this simple then I wonder why a few thousand scientists disagree with you.

John_Taverner wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 9:03pm:


Do you rate yourself in 3rd, 4th or 5th position ?

All would have some more pretentious.

Like jt- not important.

Any rebuttal on the Grace sat error bars?

Guest post by Thomas Fuller

It is hard to understand many of those who are convinced that climate change will destroy civilization. Previous ideas about massive sea level rise or tipping points leading to unending temperature increases have been debunked. Conventional theory on climate change points to moderate temperature and sea level rises that can be dealt with using existing technology, although the sooner we start the easier it will be.

But for some, the need to believe (and to preach) about a coming catastrophe is so strong that they are willing to overturn their own theories to take temporary advantage of ephemeral observations that will support their apocalyptic vision of the future.

The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment has been an operational satellite mission since 2002, measuring differences in the Earth’s gravity. Pictures of our planet using GRACE look more like a partially deflated soccer ball than the pristine globe we’re more accustomed to seeing.

And according to some scientists working with GRACE measurements, Antarctica is losing ice. Not just the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet, which has been predicted to melt and succumb to mechanical pressure since the 1930s, but also the vastly larger ice sheet covering East Antarctica.

And sure enough, the ‘apocaholics’ are all over this, using it to reinforce their unrelenting drumbeat of doom-laden predictions of disastrous sea level rises.
But this is actually quite strange. According to climate change theory, ice should be increasing in Antarctica–the (very slight) increase in temperatures and the natural increase in precipitation should result in more snow over Antarctica which gets compressed into higher levels of ice. The same phenomenon is both predicted and observed in Greenland, by the way.

Instead of using this as proof of global warming, these people should be either wondering about the measurements or re-examining their theories. Because this is observed data working against the principles of their theory… But they cannot pass up the chance for a quick and easy headline that reinforces the ‘all disaster, only disaster, 24 hours a day’ routine.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/06/grace-under-fire/

Already did, guber. Now made it red for ya so you can see it.

But here are the baby steps:
Total CO2 in atmosphere = 400 parts per million = 0.04%
Proportion of total CO2 to emissions (550 Gt) that is human emission (26.4 Gt) = 4.8% of all CO2 in atmosphere.
Human CO2 in atmosphere as proportion of all atmospheric gases = 4.8% of 0.040% = 0.00192%


Considering that nobody actually understands how the climate works (other than it is not exclusively controlled by atmospheric gases) it is really laughable to make such a huge deal out of 0.00192% of atmospheric gases. Juts ridiculous.

Soren wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 2:48pm:



These are the figures.

Thousands of scientists agree with these numbers - all scientists do - because the maths is really simple.

The interpretation of the numbers - for example, that 0.00192% of atmospheric gases (the human contribution to atmospheric Co2, itself only 0.040% of the atmosphere - to be the driver of the change of a complex system (climate) that is made up of many other elements besides the atmosphere and the complexity and workings of which system is not understood by anybody, well, that interpretation is not shared by scientists, only by ideologues and activists.

The most a scientists would say that is that human human CO2 'contributes'to climate change. But that contribution is vanishingly small and in no way justifies the wild claims activists attribute to scientists.
AGW is a political claim, not a scientific one. The maths simply does not support the political and economic claims and schemes.