Concentrations have increased by about 1/3 over the last 200 years, mostly in the last few decades. This is about 1/3 higher than it's been in the last 500,000 years or more.
Significant, in my post, was used to refer to "statistically significant," not to imply causation of any particular phenomena. Here's a discussion of statistical significance. http.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance A 35% increase is most definitely significant by these criteria.
Those of us who question the warmists are not well advised to question the basic scientific facts. Yes, CO2 is a trace gas, 385 or so parts per million, as compared to about 210,000 parts per million of oxygen.
But small amounts can have big effects. A tiny amount of many poisons can kill you before you hit the ground.
Pointing to the small amounts involved or poo-pooing the actual as opposed to faked science are not good strategies for resisting the warmists. They just make us look like anti-scientific yahoos.
Significant, in my post, was used to refer to "statistically significant," not to imply causation of any particular phenomena. Here's a discussion of statistical significance. http.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance A 35% increase is most definitely significant by these criteria.
Statistics can be manipulated in so many ways, that statistics by themselves, prove nothing. Again, appealing to Wikipedia as a source does not lend credence.
Those of us who question the warmists are not well advised to question the basic scientific facts. Yes, CO2 is a trace gas, 385 or so parts per million, as compared to about 210,000 parts per million of oxygen.
Questioning every part of this subject is well-advised. As has been shown by the recent debacle with the e-mails coming to light about manipulating and even falsifying the "data", even that which you wish to shield from scrutiny should be questioned. To the extent that it is not, to that extent, any conclusions which may be reached may be erroneous.
But small amounts can have big effects. A tiny amount of many poisons can kill you before you hit the ground.
Ah, but we're not talking about poisons. Injecting that particular concept into the discussion is for the purpose of "poisoning the well", as it were. Carbon, especially carbon dioxide, is not a poison. If plants could communicate, I'm quite sure they would object to the characterization of an essential element to their existence as a poison.
Pointing to the small amounts involved or poo-pooing the actual as opposed to faked science are not good strategies for resisting the warmists. They just make us look like anti-scientific yahoos.
Testing, questioning, and examining hypotheses is the very essence of the scientific method. Global warming is an hypothesis, nothing more. The very fact that its proponents object to any questioning or challenge to their hypothesis is actually a damning indictment of the untenable nature of it. They don't want it examined, because they know that it won't hold up to unbiased scientific scrutiny. Hence the rush to codify and set into place economically crippling treaties, laws, and their associated penalties whereby they can deflect and dissuade opposition, to obtain, maintain, and contain control over the masses.
GlobalWarming/Climate Change is political, not scientific.
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html
In other words, the statement that man has contributed greatly to CO2 content in the atmosphere shown on Wikipedia comes from the same IPCC report which we now know was based on tampered raw data.
Other sources quote on the Wiki page come from NOAA, one of the entities which refuses to release their raw data to FOIA requests.
Until the raw data used to compile the IPCC report are released from all three major sources which compiled and adjusted the data so they may be examined by scientists who do not receive millions in grants from leftwing sources, the so-called “facts” are not in and debate is not over.
Next time, try citing a scientific journal without roots in the Soros Foundation, Ford Foundation, Heinz Foundation, and other suspect sources of funding.
Here's how I like to argue it:
Anthropogenic Co2 is a trace amount (2%) of total Co2, which is a trace (2%) amount of total Greenhouse gases which are in turn a trace amount of our atmosphere(2%).
So Anthropogenic C02 is not a trace. It's a trace of a trace of a trace, in any science that's called... insignificant.