Harking back to warmair's opening post:

http://theconversation.edu.au/orwellian-climate-double-speak-dominating-discussion-12279

Hi Warmair,
“Your figure …has no support whatever from any reputable source”

1) Who get’s to decide who and what is “reputable”?
2) My figure is supported –by a most unlikely source--reread Poirot’s post:
<<We know that the amount of anthropogenic CO2 is only a tiny percentage of the overall CO2 emitted(reabsorbed, etc).>>!
Here it is again:
<<We know that the amount of anthropogenic CO2 is only a tiny percentage of the overall CO2 emitted(reabsorbed, etc).>>!

I guess you were NOT part of her “WE”!

The real question you should be asking yourself is WHY you can find a hundred graphs/charts of every aspect of anthropogenic CO2: i) What industries make the most. ii)What countries make the most. iii)The percentage(s) increase year on year. But to find a simple graph/chart that compares anthropogenic V non-anthropogenic is like looking for the proverbial hens teeth.

Ask yourself: WHY?

P.S. (as Poirot might say) “further reading”: http://csccc.fcpp.org/question.php?csquestion_id=1

SPQR
There are only three possibilities here
1 you simply do not understand the science in question.
2 you are deliberately trying to mislead.
3 you are a double agent presenting wacky ideas so that the better informed can shoot you down in flames.

Your argument has no merit and is wrong end of story as I have demonstrated above.

Warmair,

LOL

Why ONLY three possibilities?

I could name at least half a dozen more!

Following "the AGW debate" might give a bit of an insight into "climate science" --but it gives a H-U-G-E insight into psychology!

Cheers, over and out.

The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that is attributable to man is only of importance if the total quantum of CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem.
Since there is very little evidence that CO2 is causing any real problems then the percentage put there by man is by-the-by.

The fact is we don't know with any degree of certainty how much CO2 man has put up there since we don't know what the natural level is. We know with some certainty what the level was around 1800-1850 but that doesn't mean that that was the absolute natural level. There is good evidence that CO2 levels jumped all over the place over the past 1000yrs being higher or roughly equal to the present at times over the 2nd millenium and lower (but not much lower) than the 280ppm that applied around 1850.

Mhaze

The evidence for the influence of CO2 on the climate comes from several sources and has been
recognised since 19th century.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The reason that CO2 has such a marked effect on the climate is straight forward.Co2
absorbs part of the heat radiation given off by the atmosphere, whereas nitrogen,oxygen and
argon, which make up 99.9% of the atmosphere, do not. The result is that the way in which
heat flows through the atmosphere is altered, at lower altitudes the heat flow is
retarded at high levels it is increased, thus the lower atmosphere stays warmer and the
higher atmosphere becomes cooler. This is exactly what has been observed.

Water vapour acts in a similar way to co2 in that it is also absorbs part of the heat trying to escape
the atmosphere but it is a different part. The amount of water vapour that the atmosphere
can hold is dramatically influenced by temperature with a 1 Deg C temperature increase
adding some 7% to the amount of water vapour that the air can hold. It has been
established that a doubling of the CO2 level will lead to a temperature rise of 1 deg C
which in turn will add 7 % more moisture further increasing the temperature rise.

If you find this improbable consider what would happen if you painted out all the windows
of your house. The amount of paint needed to do this is would be around the 2 parts per
million of the total volume of the house, but it would have a dramatic effect on the the
internal temperatures of the house.
Eg
volume of house 20X20X3 meters = 1200 cubic meters
glass area at 10% of wall area =20X3X4X10% = 24 sq meters
volume of paint at 0.1 mm surface thickness= 24X0.0001= 0.0024 cubic meters
1200 cubic meters divided by 0.0024 cubic meters gives us 1 part per 500000
or 2 parts per million.

Conclusion if you mess with radiation flows, you will alter the temperature. Greenhouse gases do that despite their very small proportion of the atmosphere