Source of assertion CO2 is not Greenhouse Gas?

Carbon dioxide, a benign gas, is now the hyper–volatile fuel of public policy, media hype, and world politics. Climatologists, undeterred by their inability to predict even the dominant features of the earth’s climate record – the ice ages and the glacial periods – have nonetheless scored a political coup by cobbling together three selected bits of science into a cataclysmic prediction: man is on the verge of destroying life on the planet.

The article does go on to state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, however if this was the only part of the article read then they may have possibly come up with a partial definition of CO2. This is just conjecture on my part.

Edit,

I am with Ken Z. about being called a denier I am skeptic but denier is not appropriate in my view.

I am a doubter that CO2 plays as much a role in climate change as some assert but it certainly is a greenhouse gas and certainly raises the temperature. I am skeptical that it actually drives the temperature. That is pretty much demonstrated by the cooling trend we are experiencing and generally predicted to last for the next several years. If the natural trend was to move back into a cold period, I wouldn't be confident that the extra CO2 we added would make much of a dent but it might provide some moderation in that hypothetical cooling trend.

By the way, I do appreciate being called a doubter rather than a denier. That word gets under my skin.

I think you have ask the impossible - "Give me a scientific source that CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas.!" I opened up the meteorology book I had for a class a couple of years ago and lists CO2 as a pollutant because it causes global warming - not because it is at dangerously high concentrations in the atmosphere that can hurt people (Air Pollution Meteorology and Dispersion - S. Pal Arya, 1999). I just can't find where it says in any of my books that CO2 is not a green hose gas.

I don't think you are playing fair - keep your 10 points!

I doubt anyone said CO2 is not in the greenhouse layer because that would be false. You see, CO2 is one of the gases in the greenhouse layer, but it is such a minor gas that it can be ignored as having any real effect on its function.

The greenhouse layer is over 97% water vapor. This layer is beneficial to the planet since it holds in the heat of the sun so that the planet won't freeze every night when the sun goes down.

It's a great process and it's all part of this perfect ecosystem we live in.

Greenhouse gas or no greenhouse gas, you still don't want to have too much of it in the air. That doesn't require research--rather simple common sense.

Such a claim is completely absurd. CO2 is by definition a greenhouse gas based on its absorption spectrum and dipole moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_Tra...

It's also completely absurd to claim that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. A simple blackbody physics calculation will tell you that without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be 33°C colder than it is.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lan/globalwarming/gre...

Some deniers will make the argument that CO2 *only* comprises 380 ppm of our atmosphere. To that I ask - so what? Arsenic will kill you if ingested at a concentration of 15-30 ppm. Just knowing the concentration is insufficient information. Especially since 99% of the atmosphere is composed of non-greenhouse gases (nitrogen and oxygen).

Others will argue that humans are *only* responsible for 3% of the planet's CO2 emissions (or whatever the figure is), but this ignores the fact that the planet absorbs as much (slightly more) CO2 as it emits, and adding carbon to the system which has been trapped in fossil fuels for millions of years is what's causing the atmospheric concentration to increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Or they make the water vapor argument, which ignores the fact that water vapor is a feedback and cannot initiate global warming.

When 'skeptics' can't understand these basic facts, it makes it extremely difficult to take them seriously. Especially when it's been explained to them dozens of times and they still don't get it. If you can't understand the basic physics, then you're certainly in no position to question the scientific consensus.

It's clear from reading the graphs at Vostok that temperature is leading co2 by at least 800 years. This number is posted on numerous web sites. It's just up to how many you accept or reject based on your opinions.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&...

Other scientist dismiss the effects of co2 on the climate:

""It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations." "

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

Again, you will accept or reject this scientists ideas based on your opinions.

Then lastly, you cannot show a relation between co2 and temperatures. Temperatures haven't increased in 10 years while co2 has.

If co2 concentrations were doubled or halved, you would not be able to say what the temperature would be. You may guess that if they doubled, temps would go up, if halved, they would go down. Again this would be your opinion as you would not be able to back your statement with the math.

CO2 in an extremely dense form might be capable of changing the temperature of the atmosphere by trapping heat. But there is not and couldn't be enough of it in the atmosphere to do so.

Even if mankind burned all fossil fuels on earth there wouldn't be enough CO2 created to make more than a one degree difference. So far, it's estimated that through man's use CO2 has risen only 58 ppm. Not enough to matter, because you need 283 ppm. to move the temperature up by one degree.

Burning all known fossil fuels would not add enough CO2 to make a difference by one degree.

Hate to bust your bubble but is just part of natures life cycle.

There is natures water cycle do u understand that.

Then the part of plants Absorbs CO2 and give us back the O2 but the plant keeps the C. There is another part of photosynthesis that most people don't know about and that is natures cycle of plant fossil fuels. All oils come from plants not animal. When the leaves die they will break down into fossil fuels or that is a complete life cycle of plants. I am A retired NASA Eng. and it doesn't take a rocket science to put this together.

I'm not surprised "doubters" aren't answering your question. The quote below is from NOAA.

Greenhouse Gases

The Earth's atmosphere is made up mostly of nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), with a small amount of "trace gases" (1%) mixed in. But, that tiny percentage of trace gases - such as carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, and carbon monoxide - contribute in a big way to changes in the Earth's climate.

Such trace gases, also called greenhouse gases, allow energy from the sun (known as shortwave radiation) to reach the earth's surface, but absorb energy emitted from the earth (known as longwave radiation); this affects the surface energy balance of the planet by warming the atmosphere directly above it resulting in long-term changes to global climate. Although a greenhouse also works by trapping energy from the sun, the physics is different. The roof of a greenhouse is a slab of glass that traps radiation emitted from the ground which prevents convection (i.e. rising hot air) from allowing heat to escape. The atmospheric greenhouse is based on certain molecules (e.g. carbon dioxide) absorbing radiation at particular wavelengths (such as that emitted from the ground) and reemitting a portion back to the ground. Although an excess of greenhouse gas results in global warming, naturally occurring greenhouse gases are beneficial in keeping our planet at a comfortable temperature.

NOAA conducts lab and field investigations to discover the properties of greenhouse gas molecules that contribute to heating of the Earth. Some of these, like carbon dioxide, have always been present in the atmosphere, but are increasing due to human activity.

Others might be new compounds, introduced into the air by new manufacturing processes. For example, a molecule that was designed to be used to replace ozone-eating chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was closely examined by a NOAA laboratory, revealing it could have significant implications for global warming.

NOAA has developed a worldwide air sampling network that measures trace gases in the atmosphere. By collecting air samples in remote areas, including four baseline observatories at Antarctica, Mauna Loa on Hawaii, American Samoa, and Barrow, Alaska, NOAA researchers are trying to understand where greenhouse gases come from and where they go.

http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_greenhouse....