co2, that bad???

I realize I have posted the graph below a few times, but this one has some more detail added to it which is relevant.

Notice in this chart that the infrared spectrum is given which represents out-going long wave radiation. The black line is most representative of the Earth's temperature. What is of interest here is that the CO2 band-width 4-4.5 micro metres is virtually irrelevant, that is, the power of the Earth's infrared radiation emitted at the frequencies of interest is very small. Therefore the only CO2 band-width of interest is the 12-15 micro metre range. This is a relatively narrow range hidden by the use of a logarithmic scale in the graph provided below. To appreciate this fact note that the black infrared spectrum covers a range of 70 micro metres as compared to 3 micro metres. It is clear that water vapour is far more effective at absorbing infrared radiatian than CO2, around 5 times more when you consider weighting. Also water vapour is 50 times more prevalent in the atmosphere. Therefore it is water vapour which is by far the main greenhouse gas on this Earth.

The Earth's greenhouse effect contributes 30 degrees Celsius to the Earth's temperature. The contribution that CO2 makes is 0.12 degrees Celsius (30/(50*5)). A 30 % increase in CO2 as a result of industrialization would roughly result in a 0.04 degree Celsius increase (1/3*0.12). This is not significant to alter the Earth's climate. The waarming we have had in the past 300 years has been natural.

CO2 is a natural life giving gas and not a pollutant. It is colourless and odourless. This idea of out of control heating is silly, why havn't we had this before then? I mean the greenhouse effect was around before. The answer is the Earth finds its equilibrium. The amount of CO2 added by industrialization is not a problem. If ever it was a problem go nuclear and no taxes.

China, new coal fired power plant every month. What a massive problem Australia is?????????????????????????