So you are disputing the 1 PPM figure?
You really are simple minded. 1 PPM per year is cumulative. And, the earth's energy balance with the sun and space, called the albedo, is what the change in energy density and distribution of the troposphere is all about. Change the albedo and you change the energy balance.
So, why don't you do us all a favor and breath only air that increases in CO2 content by say, 1 PPM per unit time that is a ratio of the volume of your fucking lungs divided by the volume of the troposphere multiplied by the number of seconds in a year? See how long "just 1 PPM" is tolerable to your system.
How is it that someone who can string together words that are spelled mostly correctly and used in the proper context cannot understand that when a system is balanced at a concentration of several hundred PPM, and contains a massive ability to damp the rate of change in that concentration over short periods of time (decades to centuries) due to infrequent conflagrations, like meteors impacting the surface or the side of a mountain blowing off due to volcanic activity, but sustains a steady 1 PPM per year rate of increase, that there is not something to be concerned about?
You are uniquely obtuse.
Followed, granted at a distance, by cmitch - well, maybe that isn't fair, but your outlook on this is also somewhat distorted.
There are countless examples of human industrial activities polluting areas of the earth to the point where they are no longer able to sustain life, of any kind or those kinds that support our food chain where those forms of life once thrived. And, along with those examples of humans doing bad shit come examples of humans figuring out how to correct the problems they created, and then continue the industrialized process without continuing to pollute. Humans, as they demonstrate over and over, can exist on the earth without ruining it. They just have to try. So the issue what makes humans try?
When the only consideration is money, such as is the case with TnT dude, humans have shown they don't try. At all. Because they don't want to try - that can cost money and when money is the only consideration of value, humans have shown they will dump bad shit in the water we drink, and in the ground we subsequently build schools on, contaminating the dirt our kids play on and the water they drink. And even faced with the consequences guys like TnT dude will continue to argue to avoid losing money. Cigarettes are an example - that industry still exists today for god knows what reason, but they lied and promulgated bullshit "doubt based science" to continue selling cigarettes. The business shit the bed in the United States once the advertising was curtailed and they had to inform people smoking a pack a day was akin to grinding a layer of skin off their dicks every day and not bathing so they would get a scabby, infected.....you get the picture. So that industry assaulted the third world countries, giving them all the cancers and lung diseases they can't be treated for, and can't sue over, all in the name of profits. Immoral.
On the other hand, when money is removed from the decision making tree, humans have done some amazing things. We don't use nasty, ozone eating chlorofluorocarbons anymore (at least in this country). We have managed in some cases to eliminate diseases, nearly entirely, like TB and polio. We have cleaned a great deal of GE's PCB dumps in the NE rivers. Mercury in the fish you catch and eat is becoming less of a concern. The list goes on. Humans are only the crude, careless shitheads you described when we allow them to be only concerned with their money. It would be great if humans had some ability to temper their love of money, but, as a whole, they don't. The same is true of industrialization. If someone doesn't look out ahead at what is coming, industry will run us right into the ground at full speed because being smart about what might happen in the next ten decades is not in the Wall Street mentality. Industry needs to be controlled so that incorporated entities do not have free reign to destroy the actual inhabitants of the earth.
So, cmitch, it isn't that distorted black and white view you think that is in the hearts and minds of those who find global climate change worth trying to control. It is a matter of trying, and this time, before the catastrophic consequences begin. Some say we are too late. Which may be the case. I prefer to think we can have a positive effect if we try. And there is still too much low hanging fruit to distract industry from seeing this is worth working on today.