Exploring the CO2 Saturation Myth

In this video we examine a widely touted climate change myth. Namely, that the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are already high enough that they trap essentially all of the infrared radiation from the surface of the earth; and, that emitting more CO2 and other greenhouse gases will result in very little additional global warming.

[WeddingDJBusiness]

I had a few issues with this presentation and found the conclusions to be based on weak assumptions.
At five minutes into the presentation, the CO2 concentration in
stated as 440 ppm - this should be 410- 415 ppm.
At 5:24, it states that we have good *global* surface temperature data going back to 1890, which you then base your conclusions on later. Only a few places around the World have good data going back that far (the early 1900s) -this would include North America / Some parts of Europe - Some countries in Australasia. This is versus large swathes of the World, including Oceans and large land masses like China/Africa/South America etc., that don't have accurate long-term records going back that far.

The third factor is looking at a limited-time reference on a graph to make some causal assumptions about CO2. You need to objectively look back at a timeline to see the temperature, not just when humans started increasing CO2 but before. Twenty thousand years ago, the World came out of a glacial period and entered an inter-glacial one. If you look at the temperature graph for this period, it shows over that period, humps and hollows, but it has been steadily increasing for 20000 years. This is evident when you look at sea level rise over that time which has increased by 120 metres. All bar 50 years approx without any CO2 influence. The human part of global warming is said to have an impact from 1980 to the present. This does not argue about the saturation level of CO2. Calculations for CO2; in fact, most scientists agree that a doubling of C02 increases temperature between 1.5-4.5 C, so bearing that in mind, 200ppm-400ppm
400ppm-800ppm. Informs that there is a reduction in infrared absorption in the face of increasing CO2
Hence a logarithmic curve CO2 versus temperature should be seen if
CO2 is the main driver of temperature, which I don't believe it just a small contributor and much smaller now that it has reached 415ppm.
Note: Below 200ppm CO2 is detrimental to plant photosynthesis, so at 400-500ppm this is a much safer buffer

[pauldonohue]

Great! You should up date to show continued increases..

[qwe]

Informative video, but your conclusion is not solid. Co2 level can also be a function of temperature. Good correlation does not mean causation.

[WPS]

I think that we need to isolate the CO2 and heat trapping variables so that we can examine in a control experiment.

[jaredmccracken]

Hi there. It seems your central claim is that because (1) the records show an increased rate of warming, (2) therefore co2 is not saturated.
Please advise how you have determined that the increase in temp is not natural variability. This seems to be a major assumption.

In my view, a claim to knowing the natural variability would be required, and if claimed it would be therefore possible to backward predict everything (random events aside).

Thanks

[aarononeal]

You all need to talk about Ecosia they are a search engine that plants tress