[Gondring]

How can anyone believe that an increase from 0.036% to 0.037%, for example, could possibly increase air temperature?

Yeah...3% is nothing, eh?

Of course, it was 0.0278% back in 1750 and is now more than 0.038%....a 40% increase. Gee...that can't have an effect!

It's simply holding 2 watts per square meter more energy from the sun than it used to. That's increased only a full third since 1990. Nah, that can't have any impact... </sarc>

The deniers' claims are as disingenuous as the chicken littles'.

[steveab]

“It’s simply holding 2 watts per square meter more energy from the sun than it used to. That’s increased only a full third since 1990. Nah, that can’t have any impact... </sarc>”
Once the CO2 is in balance with the incoming heat energy, it is emitting as much heat energy as it is receiving.
Since the heat energy coming into contact with the square meter is never constance. I have two questions.
For how long does it take for the square meter adjust to the incoming heat energy? 10 seconds? 1 second? 5 seconds? 1/2 second?
If the incoming heat energy deceases, how far way from the CO2 particle can it’s excess heat energy travel before it sweep away into space

If a particle of atmosphere was as big as a 1/4 inch square, a million ppm would equal 20,833 lin. ft. 400ppm of CO2 would equal 8.3 lin ft or 1 CO2 particle ever 2,510 lin ft. 40,000 ppm of water vapor would equal 883 lin. ft or one ever 25 ft.

Even on the molecular level, that is a huge distance between ppm's of “greenhouse” gases

And you want me to buy into CO2 drives the climate theory?