Right! Tiny 0.01% Of Atmosphere And 0.01% Of Earth’s Biomass Drive Nearly 100% Of Climate!

Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski at Twitter posted a couple of comments that got me wondering about man’s role on climate.

The first comment was a tweet about NASA’s Jim Bridenstine who reportedly went from being a “climate denier” to changing his mind and confirming that “climate change is caused by humans”.

Readers will note that there’s nothing new here. Almost all climate skeptics will say that no one doubts that humans are playing a role in climate. But again, for the umpteenth time, the debate is: to what extent?

Changing sun and oceans no longer playing a role?

Today alarmist scientists would have us believe that that big bright tempestuous star up there in the sky stopped playing a role since the late 19th century, and that the oceans, which cover a puny 70% of our planet’s surface (sarc), also stopped playing a role.

Instead the alarmist scientists insist that today’s climate is being 90+% driven by human-emitted CO2 and the rest of the factors have been somehow disabled. If that sound preposterous, then it might have something to do with how you perceive the your planet and how different parts are interrelated.

Humans only 0.01% of world’s biomass

So how does that 90+% driver compare in scale to the rest of planetary factors? That brings us to Bojanowskis’s second comment that pricked my attention, citing the PNAS: humans make up only 0.01% of the world’s biomass.

Plants make up 80%, bacteria a whopping 15% and animals 0.3%. So of all the biomass on the planet, we are only one hundredth of a percent.

Human CO2 only 0.01% of atmosphere

Through the burning of fossil fuels, humans are also responsible for having boosted atmospheric CO2 emissions from some 300 ppm to 400 parts per million, which translates into a difference of 0.01% of the atmosphere. So what do the alarmists conclude from this:

0.01% of the world’s biomass and 0.o1% of the atmosphere are today almost solely responsible for climate changes.

The sun, oceans, volcanoes and other poorly understood major varying factors are ignored. Does all that sound plausible?

Yeah right, and the price of tea in China drives the global economy.

27 responses to “Right! Tiny 0.0127 Of Atmosphere And 0.0127 Of Earth’s Biomass Drive Nearly 10027 Of Climate!”

  1. Georg Thomas

    Often skeptics revert to the false argument that because CO2 is such a minute part of the atmosphere it could not possibly have a fatal effect on climate. In principle, it could (like an exceptionally strong poison). However, it is the argument that you advance, Pierre, that is correct. Unless the corresponding mechanism is sufficiently established, which it is not in the least, the thesis of “CO2’s homeopathic violence” lacks authority. Plus, of course, leaving many other significant factors out of consideration further disavows the unproven thesis of CO2’s super-leverage.

    By the way, what has made me highly skeptical of alarmists a long time ago is this: if you are really scared about something, you make sure you understand what goes on (say, someone tells you your house is burning, or a party turns up with the surprise claim that your house does not actually belong to you); you go out of your way to discern sense from nonsense, AND you jump at any evidence that indicates the problem is smaller than you thought or does not exist at all. If people are so scared about global warming, where are the hurrahs in the face of mitigating evidence? If anything, you would expect them to err on the side of optimism. What I observe instead is a growing propensity to accept flimsy “evidence”, if only it is useful in upholding the prospect of Armageddon.

    1. Penelope

      “the thesis of “CO2’s homeopathic violence” lacks authority.” Ah, but that’s it in a nutshell, sir. An excellent phrase.

      Alas, the coolists sometimes show nearly as much fondness for Armageddon as the warmists: “The world would be well lost if only I could be proven right.” I have not yet grown so fond of my mental processes as to abdicate the hope that our oceans will moderate the cold until our sun awakens.

  2. Tom Anderson

    By my calculations, 400 parts per million work out to be 0.04 percent. Americans can quickly work this out to be 1.44 inches in 100 yards. That is a linear not volumetric measure, to be sure, but it provides some sense of proportion.

    Also, I recently reread a comment by an atmospheric physicist who applied the Einstein-Planck formula and Wien displacement law to CO2’s infrared radiation activity at the 15-micron wavelength. By this calculations for temperature, CO2 is interacting with solar radiation at minus 80 degrees (-80) Celsius (193K). So far I have not had any response to this factoid by the administrator of any website, but isn’t how much warmth CO2 traps a threshold question?

    1. Penelope

      Tom, could you be tempted to spell out your 2d paragraph a bit more? Thx

      1. SebastianH

        He can’t because CO2 is not interacting with solar radiation, but with the emitted longwave radiation from the planet’s surface.

        1. AndyG55

          To produce precisely ZERO provable warming.

  3. Tom Anderson

    By my calculations 400 parts per million work out to be 0.04 percent of the whole, which is still hardly significant. Americans can quickly figure out that it is 1.44 inches in 100 yards, a linear rather than volumetric scale that nonetheless gives a sense of proportion.

    Recently a reread a physics download that referred to calculating radiative energy’s temperature by the frequency using the Einstein-Planck formula, and by the wavelength with Wien’s displacement law. At CO2’s 15 micron wavelength, the energy of photons CO2 absorbs and emits is at 193 degrees Kelvin (193K) or minus 80 (-80) degrees Celsius. Isn’t that a threshold question for determining how much warmth CO2 is trapping and blocking?

    1. AndyG55

      4 cents in $100. up from 3 cents.

      That’s WAY below the rate of inflation

      What’s even more pertinent is that the time for atmospheric CO2 re-emitting a photon once absorbed, is magnitudes longer than its collisional time.

      It looses the energy by conduction to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere LONG before it can be re-emitted.

      Then its just part of normal convective cooling, controlled by the gravity-thermal gradient. CO2 is just part of the conduit for atmospheric cooling.

      There is NO MECHANISM whereby CO2 can “trap” energy, or act as a “blanket”.

      Such ideas are put out purely for the benefit of the gullible, brain-hosed, nil-educated AGW cultists.

  4. tom0mason

    “Termites may emit large quantities of methane, carbon dioxide, and molecular hydrogen into the atmosphere. Global annual emissions calculated from laboratory measurements could reach 1.5 x 10^14 grams of methane and 5 x 10^16 grams of carbon dioxide. As much as 2 x 10^14 grams of molecular hydrogen may also be produced. Field measurements of methane emissions from two termite nests in Guatemala corroborated the laboratory results. “

    from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/218/4572/563

  5. DMA

    “Through the burning of fossil fuels, humans are also responsible for having boosted atmospheric CO2 emissions from some 300 ppm to 400 parts per million, which translates into a difference of 0.01% of the atmosphere.”

    There are two errors in this statement:First, Burning fossil fuels creates CO2 emissions but the atmospheric content is 400 PPM. Human emissions amount to about 4PPM each year. Second, the statement is similar to the IPCC statement that “all of the increase of atmospheric CO2 in the past century is due to human actions” which is false. Fossil fuel CO2 is only a few percent of the increase. (See works of Salby and Harde.)

    This important fact is often overlooked by skeptics as they respond to the allegation that we humans are ruining the planet and we can cure it’s ills by using wind mills and solar collectors.

    1. SebastianH

      See Kenneth what happens when you post dodgy papers and people start to believe them or “skeptic” interpretations of them? You get comments like this one here from DMA. Even though those claims have been shown to be false, the claim still sticks and gets repeated by you guys.

      Anyway, you – DMA – should do some research and recognize that the authors you chose to believe mixed up a few things. It’s not an “important fact”, it is just plain wrong. It gets rightfully “overlooked” because repeating it is a sure sign that you are willing to disinform at any cost and deeply in denial …

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Even though those claims have been shown to be false

        Uh, no they haven’t. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the carbon cycle, natural sources vs. sinks, the relative contribution of anthropogenic sources of CO2 to natural sources of CO2, the paleoclimate CO2 values, why CO2 concentrations increased throughout the Holocene as the temperature and sea levels decreased, and on and on. Your belief that 100% of the CO2 concentration changes (increase) are due to human fossil fuel burning is anything but “proven” true. Competing points of view have most definitely not “been shown to be false.” Only in your belief system have they been.

        1. SebastianH

          Sorry Kenneth, if you are believing what Salby and Horde wrote about CO2, you are a pseudoskeptic and just desperate. A true skeptic should be able to look through that nonsense and well … be skeptical. But you guys want to believe that the increase in CO2 concentration is natural, right? It’s not.

          Competing points of view have most definitely not “been shown to be false.”

          Yes they have, and unskeptic “skeptics” greeted this with insults and more pseudoscience. As I’ve said, they/you are desperate. Always looking to confirm your bias and not the least bit skeptical when something does …

          1. AndyG55

            “the increase in CO2 concentration is natural, right”

            Totally natural. It was inevitable that humans would used sequestered carbon once they found it had such amazing benefits over chopping down trees.

            Obviously the “100% human cause” for the highly beneficial rise in atmospheric plant food that you constantly rant about is a load of total BS.

            Best studies I have seen are in the range 10-20%.

            This is only GOOD NEWS for the planet, because it means that atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to rise.

            If you like, I will take you 100% value and cheer out loud, because that would mean there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that the anti-Co2 agenda can do about it.

            CO2 emissions are going to keep rising, and rising and rising from the many hundreds of new coal fired plants being built in countries that play lip-service to the scam in the hope of getting “climate funding” !! 🙂

            btw, sorry you are incapable of letting decent science like that of Salby etc passed your manic brain-washing.

            You will never face REALITY until you can.

            Just live in the FANTASY, seb..

            .. don’t EVER let any real science in. !!

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Sorry Kenneth, if you are believing what Salby and Horde wrote about CO2, you are a pseudoskeptic and just desperate.

            I truly could not care any less than I do about your opinion that I must believe what you do — that humans are 100% responsible for CO2 concentration increases, and natural CO2 sources and temperature-setting are 0% responsible — or else I deserve to be called a fake skeptic and desperate.

            As I’ve said, they/you are desperate. Always looking to confirm your bias

            How amusing.

          3. SebastianH

            It doesn’t matter how often you call what the other side says a belief. Do the math, learn the mechanisms …

            Or continue to believe the likes of Salby and Horde without any sign of skepticism.

          4. AndyG55

            Poor seb.. REDUCED to zero-evidence status yet again

            so sad.. so seb.

            you have zero-clue about the mechanisms, and

            zero clue about the maths

            Unable to follow the science of Salby etc

            Just make it up as you go along, seb.

            ignore the science.

            poor lonely seb, desperately seeking attention.

            That is his ONLY possible purpose here.

      2. AndyG55

        “Even though those claims have been shown to be false,”

        NOPE.. You are WRONG again, seb.

        Anti-science AGW bluster is NOT scientific proof.

        .. but its all you have, isn’t it, seb.

  6. toorightmate

    The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop.

  7. Paul

    First store sells 1 million dollars per year and its competitor next door sells $400 per year the next year the numbers are 1million and $404 per year. Does anybody think the 1 million dollar store notices it.

  8. SebastianH

    0.01% of the world’s biomass and 0.o1% of the atmosphere are today almost solely responsible for climate changes.


    The sun, oceans, volcanoes and other poorly understood major varying factors are ignored. Does all that sound plausible?

    They are not ignored, these factors appear in every publication about climate change.

    Does it sound plausible to downplay the role of something by claiming the small amount of it can not possibly have the effect that it has? Just as the insignificant biomass of mankind achieves great things the rest of the biomass hasn’t, a small change in the number of molecules can have a big effect.

    Also, feel free to tell us more about your prediction that the global temperature would drop by 2.5°C until 2020. What of those factors that you think we “disabled” should have had such an impact? The Sun, Oceans, and volcanoes? So why do you think that the warming that happened instead is also caused by the Sun, Ocean, and volcanoes?

    1. AndyG55

      “a small change in the number of molecules can have a big effect.”

      more seb BS… CO2 HAS NOT had any affect on temperature or climate..


      Yes, the biosphere has been deprived of atmospheric CO2 for a long time, so a small amount HAS had a big effect on plant growth.

      1. SebastianH

        I wonder how this cognitive dissonance works. On the one hand a tiny amount of CO2 doesn’t make a difference temperature or surface ocean pH wise and on the other hand CO2 has a big effect on plant growth?

        You are in very deep denial.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          You are in very deep denial.

          Oxygen has “a big effect” on animals. Deprive animals of oxygen, and they die. That’s a big effect.

          Now try adding oxygen to the air. What does that do to the temperature of the ocean? Anything measurable?

          The reason why CO2 deprivation or saturation has “big effect” on plant growth is because it is food for plants.

          1. SebastianH

            Umm, oxygen is no greenhouse gas Kenneth, but I guess you know that.

            You can be skeptic about the effect CO2 has, but the argument that the effect must be small because CO2 is just a trace gas and the concentration only changes by a “tiny” amount … that is pretty silly.

          2. AndyG55

            What scientific, measurable effect does CO2 have on anything but plant life, seb ??

            We have been waiting a LONG, LONG time, seb.

            You are being VERY silly, and displaying your incredible ignorance about the nature of ALL LIFE ON EARTH by your DENIAL of plant growth food.

        2. AndyG55

          Your abject ignorance of plant biology is well established, seb.

          No need to keep displaying it.

          Just as your TOTAL INABILITY to provide one single bit of scientific evidence of enhanced atmospheric CO2 warming anything is well established.

          Just as you are totally unable to provide evidence for CO2 causing ocean neutralisation. All you managed was the Aloha PDO based partial cycle.

          You LIE almost permanently with your face planted in your own BS.

          All measured ocean surface pH since 1900


          ZERO TREND seb.. You have NOTHING. !!

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy