"I was alluding to the Berettas idea that small concentrations have no effect on various outcomes in the climate"
Tinnitus I was thinking about what you said about small concentrations being able to make a large difference and i do agree with you ,small amounts of trace minerals have xllent effects,put a blue bag in a bucket of water and observe the change,drop some oil in water or fuel on a fire and yes --large changes.however all these situations are the mixing of different elements. In the case of the addition of mankind's 3.4% of Co2 of which it is estimated only 1.7% goes into the atmosphere we are in the area of margin of error measuring. I would not concede that this amount makes any difference at all as the substances are the same and not causing any reaction.
I am serious about making this planet better and have planted many thousands of trees which will not only supply work but also I believe that trees are the most efficient way to remove Co2 from the air .All vegetation needs Co2 to grow and indeed commercial glasshouses are often pumped up to a concentration of anywhere from 700ppm to 1,000ppm Co2 because the amount of food produced increases by 30% from the same number of plants. The earth relies on the "greenhouse" effect to protect and encourage life,without it we would be a barren ball in space..be careful what you tamper with. In the Jurassic period Co2 concentration was as high as 7,000 ppm and the temp was not a lot hotter than now. Interesting. There are millions of acres of marginal land available for tree planting and also a huge area of uneconomic land which would cost 10 fortunes to make productive,why not plant it in trees? The UN has spent according to USB now in excess of 57 billion dollars on climate change and produced not one useful outcome--how many trees would that have planted? Amazes me how many young people do not know that trees take Co2 out of the atmosphere and give us back oxygen ,ever wondered how that is regulated?
