Greenhouse Gases 101

15 03 2007

Ask any of the sheeple who tow the Green Party line,”What is the most important greenhouse gas?” Better yet, ask the politicians in your state, or your office staff. The likely answer you will get, if you get one at all, will be CO2 .

This shows just how uninformed the average person is regarding anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.

The graph below shows greenhouse gases. To me, it looks like CO2 is the likely culprit of climate change.


Lousy emitters! They are trashing the environment! Something must be done! CO2 is death!

Hold on there, Sunshine… this graph doesn’t show how much of the CO2 is anthropogenic. Cast your cannabis-crusted eyes on this.


OK, so a small percentage (3.22%) of CO2 is caused by man. Fair enough.

But why don’t we ever see this graph?


Wait a minute, why does CO2 look so puny now? It’s because water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas (look closely at the header on the first graph–it says “except water vapor”).

The first graph is like the ones you see in the mainstream media…ignoring water vapor, and ignoring the fact that a small percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic.

Bottom line? Less than one-third of 1 percent (about 0.28%) of global warming could be caused by humans. This is statistically insignificant.

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth’s climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

A dim-witted, tree-hugging, Prius driver from San Francisco should be able to grasp this simple concept, yet it’s nowhere in the mainstream media. I wonder why.





One response

3 07 2009
Google Earth over-simplifies CO2 science « Campaign

[…] is debated (in part because CO2 follows rather than leads temperature), but it is certainly minuscule compared with water vapor, which accounts for over 95 percent of the greenhouse […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: