'we are in a closed system (not talking about energy)'
We are talking about energy. The whole climate change thing is about energy.
'whilst I'm not talking about CO2 being or not being the culprit - I have no real strong views there'
CO2 is seen as the enemy. Climate change is mainly about CO2 and, to a lesser extent, methane. If you don't see CO2 as the culprit, perhaps it isn't a culprit. And if CO2 isn't a culprit, MMCC is a fallacy.
what I do have is a view that says that people who think small changes in chemistry can't have large effects it's just plain bollocks
The addition of an ultra-low concentration of substance to a mixture generally doesn't have a large effect, especially when water is the dominant molecule (H2O as buffer). Exceptions include the addition of an active molecule (catalyst), a self-replicating virus or bacteria, etc.
The effect of an addition of a few hundred extra molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere, per 1 000 000 other molecules, is immeasurable. In measuring its effect, uncertainty is too great, especially when considering that H20, an extremely handy greenhouse gas, is present in HUGE and VARYING proportions and is present in ALL THREE PHASES being solid, liquid, gas.
'the smallest percentage change of some gases in combination with other gases can make the difference between no bang, bang and very bloody big bang.'
CO2 is, relatively, AN INERT GAS. It doesn't go bang, is more the result of a bang. The 'bang', the real energy change, occurs with H20. Picture the energy change in boiling a saucepan of water. This is the silent absorption of a MASSIVE amount of energy.
CO2 is a lightweight greenhouse gas. CO2 barely deserves mention in the atmospheric mixture (except as it pertains to biota), especially when considering:
- the logarithmic effect of CO2's absorption of solar energy
- the ubiquitous (relative to CO2) nature of H20 and its ability to store and release energy, cooling us when warm and warming us when cool
- the 'blanket effect' of H2O's absorption of solar energy relative to that of CO2
'take a tiny whiff of VX or have a tiny drop on the skin'
VX is a nerve agent designed to be similar in structure to acetylcholine which is crucial at the junction between nerves and muscles, as well as having many other functions. It is well-suited to bind at the neuromuscular junction and, when it binds, it is immovable, meaning that the biological circuit is disabled. VX is an extremely reactive molecule because it is a key which is biochemically shaped to 'fit a lock' in the neuromuscular junction. CO2 is inert. CO2 is the end point of metabolic process and is of such a (relatively to almost anything) low energy level that it is satisfied to remain in its state and not react with anything. What you need, if you want to incorporate CO2 in any reaction, is a seriously robust workup with a lot of energy input, or the elegance of a biological system, such as a plant, to get it to do anything...
