- Thread starter
- #41
Since CO2 composes 0.04% of the atmosphere, and mankind's production is less than 0.6% of that; while keeping in mind that H2O is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and varies between 4 and 8% of the atmospheric composition, please explain how reducing 0.0002% of the overall atmospheric composition will prevent change and preserve the climate of this planet when the instrumentally observed climate of this planet is less than 0.0000000001% of it's existence and impossible to do so just on the basis of scale?
My second question is can you provide for us just ONE solution to global warming that is born of a free market, free choice, free use, and does not require global governance totalitarian tactics; or must there be force of law for all solutions?
To your first question, you're trying to skew the argument with the smallest numbers you can find. While they may be accurate, the absolute numbers aren't as significant as the change in those numbers. We know that without CO2 the earth would be much cooler than it is today, despite its low total concentration. Therefore, a 30-40% change in historical averages with an 11-15% rise in "forcing", if you adhere to the logarithmic increase in additional forcing, would be considered highly significant in scientific circles.
To your second, that's a political question. I address the scientific issues. The political aspects are the realm of the deniers/skeptics. Whatever answer could be given, pro or con, doesn't change the fact that, if the trend towards more CO2 continues, warming is inevitable. It's simple logic based on Conservation of Energy.
Since I've at least attempted to answer both your questions, how about answering ONE of mine? How do you reconcile skepticism of AGW with the known ability of CO2 to absorb IR and the principle of Conservation of Energy? If you come up with an answer, let Westy know. The question has been stumping him for months and what you call "pwned" was actually a full-blown meltdown on his part.