Why Science Accepts Anthropogenic Global Warming and Tells Us We Need to Act

Do you generally have trouble handling hypotheticals? The point is that the argument that CO2 can't have a significant effect because it is such a small portion of the atmosphere fails on objective, quantitative analysis.
Hypothetically, there would be no life of earth.
 
Hypothetically, there would be no life of earth.
Kee-rect. Now does that make any difference whatsoever to the point I was making? Because, hypothetically, without the greenhouse effect there wouldn't be any life on this planet either.
 
Kee-rect. Now does that make any difference whatsoever to the point I was making? Because, hypothetically, without the greenhouse effect there wouldn't be any life on this planet either.
Screenshot_20240811-150219.jpg
 
Let's have a look at what I actually said that seems to have set you off about hypotheticals. From the OP:

"If the Earth had no atmosphere, the planet's average temperature would be 58F (32C) cooler. Adding back just the oxygen and nitrogen would have almost NO effect on the temperature. That 58F of warming is due almost ENTIRELY to the greenhouse effect acting on two components of our atmosphere. About two-thirds is due to water vapor and one-third to carbon dioxide (CO2). The other components having greenhouse effects are methane, nitrous oxide, chloro- and hydrofluorocarbons."

This was an explanation that the Earth is not at a habitable temperature JUST because we have an atmosphere but because we have an atmosphere which includes greenhouse gases. It also points out that despite an original presence of only 280 ppm, CO2 is responsible for one third of the 58F degrees of warming. Arguments, such as you attempted to make, that CO2 cannot do anything significant because it is only present in small quantities, fails the facts.
 

Forum List

Back
Top