This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Let us see now. According to the "scientists", of poorly measured carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, there are less than 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide.
Which means that along with 99,960 molecules of almost entirely nitrogen (N2) and to a far lesser number of oxygen (O2) molecules, less than 40 are CO2!
To think that 40 molecules would have "forcing temperature effects" or climate forcing effects on 99,960 other molecules is most absurd. That the far fewer than 2 (two) molecules of human-caused carbon dioxide molecules would have any effect at all is even more absurd.
Not so, Laurence. Several nanograms of Polonium 210 recently took out an estimated 100kg of Alexandr Litvinyenko and only a few grains of cyanide can do for an elephant. That argument risks falling into the hands of the warmisti.
I agree that the CO2 warming argument is absurd, but that is because the basic premise of it is that the CO2 acts as a "blanket", i.e. is static and stratified so that the only route out for heat energy is radiation, whereas the lower atmosphere is turbulent so that heat is carried to the top of the troposphere by convection.
You are correct. It is important to point out that the N2, O2, H2O all contribute to the temperature experienced on the planet. Even though N2 contribution to greenhouse it tiny, it does absorb a little (why is the sky blue?). O2 absorbs a little more. H20 absorbs way more and it has the added ability to act like a refrigerant at earth available temperatures and pressures. CO2 comes along and gets to claim dominance over all the rest? Huh, WTF are they smoking.
There is a thread of discussion out there about adding Acetone to your gas tank making your gas efficiency go up significantly. One gentleman on YouTube/Break/5min did a little demonstration using the OBDII connector. Attaching a device to the OBDII connector he showed significant improvements in the displayed efficiency.
He never showed us his odometer though. How many miles did he get out of the tank. All we saw was the MPG indication on the device.
Last time I looked, CO2 was not a radioactive substance, although the food we consume is completely dependent on its presence.
It might behoove one to check out the specific heat capacity of gases, before drawing conclusions.
...and, perhaps, check the spelling of behove.
Re: the previous post, certainly CO2 made from C14 or C11 and O15 will be radioactive, albeit briefly, but what is the relevance to this thread?
In reply to Disputin, "behoove" is just the US spelling of "behove". Often US spelling differs from the UK spelling in dropping a letter in a word (like the u in colour), but in this case a letter is actually added.
I think Laurence doesn't like your Polonium 210 analogy as an example where a trace amount of material causes a big effect, presumably because it's a radioactive material.
THe main problem in using the miniscule quantity or trace gas argument for CO2, and not bothering to elaborate the argument any further than that, is that there is obviously a case where the CO2 trace gas does have a very large effect on something, namely that it supports all vegetation on Earth. I remember as a schoolboy being impressed by the efficiency of the plant kingdom, the animal kingdom needed air with a pretty substantial component of oxygen whereas the plant kingdom could get by with almost negligible amounts of CO2 as their equivalent breathing gas.