you mention the physics of it
CO2 is a tiny proportion of the earth's atmosphere around 0.04% if what I have read is to be believed.

My knowledge of physics inclines me to think that it can't have that much of an effect.

and yes I have told my environmental scientist colleagues what I think.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:41, 1 reply)

As I saw in a different forum...
... if you think .04% can't have much of an effect, try injecting yourself with a tiny drop of 0.04% solution of Oxyuranus microlepidotus venom (er, whatever that is, apparently it's not very good for you). It's not a very useful analogy really, but the point is that tiny numbers can matter. Perhaps closer to the topic, atmospheric concentrations of CFCs were probably never even close to that, but ask the Australians how their ozone layer is doing...

As Ben Goldacre likes to say, I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

So how did your colleagues respond? Not saying this to prod you further, I'm genuinely curious.
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:51, closed)

a fair point about the tiny amounts and the ozone layer comment is well made!
that is based on chemistry though, rather than physics ;-)

as for what my colleagues say, it's kind of half split between them giving me looks of horror, as if I had sprouted scaly wings and horns, and ambivalence.

I need to reiterate though that I don't disagree that climate change is happening. My quandry is with the magnitude of the effect that humans are having on it.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:56, closed)

Okay, for physics rather than chemistry,
Ozone itself is at a concentration of about 2-8 parts per million (ppm) in the ozone layer. CO2 is about 380ppm in the troposphere. That small amount of ozone blocks almost all the UV energy from the sun. Trace gases, including CO2, have an effect. Fact.
(Stu Moo winner of five nobble piece prizes, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:51, closed)

That's not an appropriate comparison
The venom actively attacks bits of the human body. Continuing with the "ALL CARBON IS EVIL" thing, you'd be talking about Carbon Monoxide. CO2 is relatively benign.

I think bodyfat would be a more appropriate comparison; it's non-toxic- even beneficial- in a certain level.

Increase your bodyfat by whatever proportion we're increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and it's not that impressive a growth. It'll eventually affect your other bodily systems, causing catastrophic screwups. Limiting it is probably a pretty good idea, but only to the point where that limiting isn't having serious repercussions on your financial and mental state.
( uberdeity Wondered why Owen Lars knew of the term "hell" on, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 10:05, closed)