2011-08-23 14:11:48CO2's just a trace gas
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.24

I've heard this once too many times. 

Here's a very short response:

http://skepticalscience.com/CO2_is_a_trace_gas.html

2011-08-23 19:30:16
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2_is_a_trace_gas.html works for me, but your link doesn't ;)

I think I prefer the physical analogues (e.g. ozone or polonium rather than Ireland or Judaism) because it should avoid tangential arguments etc.

Other good ones IMO are stuff about how 'stars don't matter, they're less than 0.5% of the mass of the universe', 'Earth doesn't matter it's 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe' mass' etc

 

 

Also, I was thinking of doing a probability demonstration of why CO2 is a trace gas but can be very important, but it's a bit mathsy. Would you be interested in folding it in to your post as a more 'advanced' section or should I post it separately?

2011-08-23 19:49:37
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.239.229

Sarah/Mark - why not make make each the basic/advanced version of the "skeptic" argument - CO2 is just a trace gas?   

2011-08-23 20:26:53
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.45.38

One point further that could be made:

The force behind the skeptical argument is the assumption that the effect of CO2 is "diluted" by being immersed in other gases. However, it is not: The CO2 is not "competing" with other non-greenhouse gas molecules to make an impact.

What matters is not how the number of CO2 molecules compares to the non-GHG molecules, but how this number compares to the number of infrared (IR) photons.

Two other analogies:

- A handful of hunters and a bunch of other people are wandering through a hunting park, looking for deer. The number of deer shot in an hour depends on the number of hunters, not at all on the number of non-hunters. So the percentage of hunters in the population is entirely irrelevant; because the non-hunters are not shooting anti-guns.

- An election is determined by the majority of people who vote, not by the number of people who are registered to vote. If an election is held in a population of 1,000,000, but only 10 people show up to vote, the candidate who gets 6 votes will win, and the one who gets only 4 will lose. As a percentage of registered voters, this is 6e-6 = 0.0006 % as compared to 0.0004 %. The people who are not voting do not invalidate the votes of the people who are.

In the same way, the presence of molecules of non-GHG gases does not reduce the effectiveness of the CO2 molecules.

2011-08-24 02:12:10
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Good point by neal that CO2 in the atmosphere isn't diluted - it's only the absolute amount of CO2 (and other GHGs) that matters in the greenhouse effect.  The other 99% of non-GHG molecules in the atmosphere make no difference.

Another useful analogy is that dioxins are considered a threat to human health at concentrations of just 1 part per trillion in soil.  But that's rather similar to your arsenic analogy.

2011-08-24 04:58:03
Steve Brown

brownsg@gmail...
80.177.115.133

Another good analogy I've read somewhere is that a micron thin coating of factor 50 suntan lotion can stop most UV photons reaching skin cells even though those same photons have travelled through 50 km of atmosphere.

2011-08-24 06:37:22
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

What has happened to this post??

I would like to see this one happen as well.

I used pie charts in the past, one for all the gases, then the second with just the GHGs. With an explanation of why Oxygen etc could be eliminated. Actually an animation between the two would have looked good.

2011-08-24 06:46:34
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I don't know if this is helpful, but here are the pie charts I made, it needs an explanation of why Nitrogen etc can be removed. It's an idea that might be adaptable??

If anyone can use the idea and improve on it (such as a better way of illustrating) then feel free, they obviously don't take into account potency of the GHG.

 

2011-08-24 12:33:39
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.26

hmm. my post from lst night has disappeared... Here's as much as I remember.

MarkR: I'd be happy to collaborate on joint basic and advanced versions per Rob's suggestion.

I agree that I should stick to the more science examples (although I do like Ireland). In the basic post I just want to point out the absurdity of the "it's only a trace" argument. An advanced post can get into the details of why, which the other comments above are helpful for.

Paul- the pie charts are useful to think about. You could do a similar one with CO2-equivalents rather than straight concentration. One thing they don't show is feedbacks- e.g. in the second chart adding CO2 increases the size of the whole pie by making more water evaporate. I'm not sure how to show that.

thanks

Sarah

2011-08-24 13:37:58
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.26

Updated the post, trying to keep it short and simple (but still included Ireland).

Mark- I'd be glad to work on an advanced version.

nealjking: I see you had already grabbed this topic, #127 on http://www.skepticalscience.com/arg_list.php. Do you object if this one is posted as the "basic" response?

-sarah

2011-08-24 14:33:13
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
143.238.0.144

Sarah

 

Another thought for a visual image for a basic post - a glass of water is crystal clear but just a few drops of ink can make it cloudy.

Maybe also to counter the unconscious perception that people have that air is 'thin', show how many CO2 molecules a beam of light traverses on its way through the atmosphere. - Most people have never even heard of Avogadro's number, let alone 'get' how big it is.

2011-08-24 18:17:36
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

Glenn; that's pretty much what I was going to do.

 

I wanted to do a more advanced post including the proper radiative cross section, and get into the quantum mechanics of why the greenhouse effect is true... but I don't think I'll have the time for ages yet :(

But if someone wants to go into it it could be useful because it's relatively easy to point out which bit of the quantum or statistical/thermal mechanics make the latest 'disproof' the greenhouse effect at WUWT a load of rubbish.

2011-08-24 21:30:47
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

I think it would be better to lead with ozone as you can point out that, like CO2, it is important because of its absorption of radiation, UV rather than IR, but it does show that trace gasses are relevant to discussions based on obsorption of radiation.

I must get the mug though, it nicely summarises the despair I normally feel about work by the time it gets to the coffee break! ;o)

2011-08-24 21:45:16
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

the pie charts are useful to think about. You could do a similar one with CO2-equivalents rather than straight concentration. One thing they don't show is feedbacks- e.g. in the second chart adding CO2 increases the size of the whole pie by making more water evaporate. I'm not sure how to show that.

I feel another interactive visualisation coming on!

I'm wondering if an interactive pie chart (or similar representation) is possible.
So that changes in say CO2, can be reflected in Water Vapour.

Two ways to do it...

1. Use a maths relationship if possible and convert that into an algorithm to control the visualisation

2. Have a data lookup table that has values for water vapour (and any other gases if needed) that translates CO2 amount into the changes of water vapour and other gases.

This could be quite a neat idea if the climate boffins here think it is possible?

2011-08-24 22:00:18
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.36.123

Sarah:

Go ahead

2011-08-24 23:29:54
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

Paul D: It sounds doable to me.

'Equilibrium global averaged greenhouse effect' should be doable.

 

I know zero about animation, but I imagine a cool animation looking something like this:

1) size of pie chart proportional to back radiation from a clear atmosphere at midday at 45N (pick a place and time).

2) proportions are some defined backradiation ratio from each gas. (there are different ways of defining this, pick one)

3) You can increase or decrease CO2 then click 'run' - initially WV constant, CO2 causes warming so total pie chart area increases step by step whilst water vapour proportion increases.

 

 

I think the physics is doable.

We need an estimate of climate response to radiative forcing and can prescribe temperature changes based on the sensitivity or, if we want to see it through time, by typical feedback equations.

Then to calculate the change in water vapour it's just the Clausius-Clapeyron equation (RH has stayed pretty constant so far and models tend to expect it to remain like that).

The radiative transfer is the difficult part: we need access to atmospheric codes but I think we can do that. I suspect someone in my department has them if no-one else here can find them... then we can just create a multi-dimensional lookup table (or approximate equations) for different temperatures, WV, CO2, other greenhouse gases. Once you've defined your 'fraction' properly it should be doable from this.

2011-08-25 00:59:23
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

MarkR

Does the change in CO2 have to be fixed before running??

Or could it be changed using a slider dynamically??
So that the changes to the pie chart are sort of 'real time'. Obviously eventually if the slider wasn't moved for a while, some sort of stability would result, unless you had runaway GW!

Maybe that would be to complicated?

But to recap your idea, basically we have a 'two' dimensional pie chart in which the total circle area changes as well as the arc of the segments.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

It sounds easier to do graphically than the research visualisation (famous last words).

2011-08-25 05:24:56
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

Fixing the CO2 before running should be easy. I don't see any reason why you couldn't change it dynamically, although the number crunching would be a bit more difficult.

 

If you change it dynamically you have two choices: show the equilibrium response (easy to calculate) or run a mini energy balance model in the background.

Perhaps different choices including: 'go forwards 5 years' and/or 'jump to equilibrium', plus 'choose CO2/methane/water vapour amount to start with'?

 

 

Also a pie chart with W m-2 as an area doesn't necessarily get across the point. Perhaps on the side there should also be some kind of visualisation to show what that means? Maybe a number of lightbulbs (with a glow matching to colour of the wedges in the chart) or something?

2011-08-25 06:47:42
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

It's probably worth investigating visualisation ideas from some of the specialist sites/blogs. I agree that the two quantities should be represented differently instead of a single pie chart.

If this is also supposed to show the GHGs in relation to the all the atmosphere gases, then maybe as well as the GHG pie chart, the pie chart showing all the gases should be included alongside??

So you would have the two pie charts changing and some other visualisation showing the W m-2

2011-08-25 14:23:34
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.24

Wow- looks like visualization fest, well beyond my time or capabilities at the moment. But, not beyond commenting:

I'd suggest considering trying models other than pie charts; it's notoriously hard to give a clear idea of size with a circle. I'm imagining flat layers of varying thickness representing each GHG (try starting with CO2 and water). Actually, these could just be extra-wide bar graphs to give the feeling of a blanket.

As CO2 (and other GHG) grows, a themometer on the side shows the T increase, while the water layer gets thicker because of T-feedback. Pehaps one set of layers can show concentrations increasing and a complementary one could show effective radiative effects. Check boxes could allow slection of different GHGs, but H2O would always be present, with its concentration defined by the T. 

hmm. this is all hard to discribe without a blackboard, or at least a paper napkin.

I'd be happy to help with words to support the figure(s).

-sarah

2011-08-25 18:18:19
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
58.167.42.197

Important point in amongst the visualization fest.

This is actually an IMPORTANT rebuttal.

Unlike Neptune is Warming or It's Cosmic Rays, this one resonates deeply with Joe Average.

Instead of simply being something that a true skeptic might say, this is very much the reaction of your average man/woman/transgender person in the street.

'Something that is 0.039% of the atmosphere is a threat to civilisation! BOLLOCKS! What are these people ON!'

Get past that visceral reaction and enlighten them as to why and you have made real progress. Educated skeptics home in on Water Vapour Feedbacks, CS etc because they are actually valid areas for debate.

But 'It's only a trace gas' can sure be used to whip up the hoi-palloi. And if you can get the H-P worked up, suddenly you have political pressure.

This rebuttal carries far more weight than it seems.

2011-08-25 18:47:17
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

The visualisation is a complementary but separate project and will take some time to develop (partly because I am in the midst of creating a portfolio web site for a video artist friend who is just finishing his degree). Also depends what sort of work I might find.

Maybe later the rebuttal could refer to it.


2011-08-26 13:57:08
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.23

Back to the original KISS (keep it simple stupid) post. 

I've revised slightly, added a nifty picture, http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2_is_a_trace_gas.html.

Other comments?

I'm getting stuck on some formating that seems more complicated than it should be (aligning images, line spacing, etc).

Also, I don;t know how to move it into the argument section (#127).

thanks all.

2011-08-26 15:23:24
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
John switched the basic version over to you, so just go into the Rebuttal List in the left margin, click Edit, and put your post in there. You may want to wait until it's finished though. I'll have another look at the formatting for you this weekend.
2011-08-27 03:31:43
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

An analogy that I like (and which everyone can try at home) is a drop of milk in a glass of water. A drop is about 50 microlitres and a glass is about 0.25 litres. This means that the concentration of milk in the water is only 200ppm, yet the water is now noticeably cloudy. And milk is 90% water...

I think that the visual analogies are better than the posion analogies, partly because this question is fundamentally about the composition of fluids influencing the way radiation passes through them. The poison analogies also risk  a (distracting and idiotic) rebuttal of the rebuttal by deniers arguing  that CO2 is not a poison, it's the very gas of life for plants.

I also like the point that Neal made earlier about absolute quantities of the gas. If 10 km of the atmsophere fractionated into all its components, I calculate that the  CO2-only layer now would be about 4 metres thick. When Queen Victoria was alive, this thermal blanket was only 3 metres thick.

PS Please don't trust me on these calcs, I may have slipped an order of magnitude or more.

2011-08-27 05:26:02
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.44.227

The particular point I think is interesting about the absolute numbers argument:

- the force of the bad argument is that "CO2 is so teeny, how can it hurt you?"

- the force of my counter-argument is that the impact of CO2 is due to absolute numbers, not % of atmosphere. You could take all non-CO2 away (and get 100%) or add tons of non-CO2 extra (and reduce the % by factors of 100) and neither would make any difference to the impact of CO2. (*)

Whereas if you think of the analogy to poison, it actually IS true that if you reduce the % of, say, arsenic in water below a threshold, it becomes essentially harmless, because you only drink a maximum volume of water each day, so a reduction of % arsenic content actually matters.

(*): Actually, I think Chris Colose mentioned to me earlier that adding a lot of non-GHG gases to the existing CO2 would:

- affect the CO2 absorption lines by pressure broadening; and thus

- INCREASE the IR-absorbing power of the CO2

So reducing the % by "dilution" (but without reducing the amount of CO2) actually makes CO2 MORE POWERFUL.

2011-08-27 08:23:45The Number Rule for SkS authors...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

who are starting to write a new article ought to be:

Plug in key words into the SkS search engine to ascertain what has already been written and posted on a given topic.

Case in point: CO2 is just a trace gas

 

2011-08-27 09:51:36
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

That's the rebuttal we're creating here, badger.  Sarah's rebuttal will show up in that link when it's finished.

2011-08-27 13:15:06
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.23

Neal and Andy-

I did try to include some non-poison analogies, e.g. iron deficiency, but I don't see a better way of getting across "ppm levels can be important" in a visceral way than using arsenic.

I see what you're getting at. I'm mainly responding to "ppm numbers are tiny"; the other part of the aurgument, which you are more focused on, is "0.039% is tiny". 

So I see that the response should address both impressions of smallness: the ppm type and the % type. So far I've really only addressed the first. I totally understand your examples but am struggling to put them into really simple terms. With ink (or milk) in water, the amount of light transmitted also depends on the number of molecules in the path, not the concetration. (minus complications of scattering.) That is not an easy concept to convay simply.

This one will definitely need more advanced versions.

Dana- thanks for sorting out the admin part.

2011-08-27 13:25:18Mea culpa...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

My apologies.

2011-08-27 14:30:12
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.23

I've added a piece to try to get at the % issue. See if it works.

2011-08-27 16:04:04The importance of this rebuttal
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.177.173.40
Just to let people know, I've been emailed about this argument several times over the last week. It's probably the highest ranking myth that SkS hasn't hit yet (apart from the "scientists are just in it for the money" myth). I've been replying saying stay tuned, coming soon...

Don't try to say too much in the basic rebuttal - pick a core message and stick to it. Plenty of scope to wax eloquent in the more detailed versions. And I hope it goes without saying that somewhere in all these versions, someone needs to stress that the greenhouse effect is an empirically observed fact. To use the trace gas argument is to deny direct measurements made in the real world.

2011-08-27 20:16:50
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.116.163

Sarah,

I would express all the % numbers in terms of ppm, for easy and consistent comparison; and I would drop all examples with ppm greater than 350.

 

2011-08-27 23:15:45
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

I like the picture and the way of doing it. I think JC's message is important too: we've measured it!

 

Also: isn't it funny that you can't see through a few mm of tin foil, even though the sunlight has travelled through miles of atmosphere?

2011-08-28 14:49:06
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.21

I added a bit focused on John's comment, did a few more edits, and added some references.

I included ppm for everything, but also kept % where useful (most people are familiar with blood alcohol in % terms, at least here in the US).

Alas, some of the formating is beyond me. Help would be appreciated (I'll try to dust off my html skills for next time.)

I'm off to Isle Royale for the day tomorrow. So no more editing for the next 24 hours.

-s

2011-08-28 19:47:40
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Aluminium Foil is just a trace atmospheric material :-)

If the earth was covered with one layer of alu foil, how many tonnes would that be??

Could be a good diagram to create to make the point.

2011-08-29 10:33:08Formatting
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12
Sarah, am away from the computer most of today but will aim to tweak the formatting this afternoon (if required) so the post will be ready to go live tomorrow morning.
2011-08-29 10:37:18
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
198.217.64.127
Thanks John, it doesn't need too much, but a little tweaking would help. It's beyond my HTML formatting skills though. I always have a hard time when the graphics are alongside the text!
2011-08-29 13:23:56
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.24

John and Dana,

I figured out the html for better image alignment. So only final formating and tweaking required.

(I'm not used to your time traveling yet- your posts are coming from 12 hours in my future.)

thanks!

2011-08-29 16:05:04Greetings from the future
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.177.173.40

I've done some final very minor tweaking from the future, then popped the post into the Delorean and sent it back to your time. So the blog post is hopefully good to go and I've also moved your post into the Basic Rebuttal. So now whenever someone invokes this argument, people can point them to:

http://sks.to/trace

Thanks Sarah, this one has been sitting on the to-do pile for years, actually, so great to finally nail it down. Now we just need intermediate/advanced versions :-)

I would love if the higher up versions included the empirical observation of the CO2 greenhouse effect:

IR spectrum at the North Pole

2011-08-29 18:12:58Nice one Sarah
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
60.229.136.207

Good post Sarah - ready to go.

 

As an aside, following the link to Gregg Thompson, the source of this quote, the following gem - "The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable.". Yeah like, Doh. They went runaway till they couldn't go runaway anymore!

 

He also makes the comment that the IPCC has never demonstrated the GH effect of CO2 -JC's graph above would be great return fire.

If I was Harry Potter and had the Elder Wand, the first thing I would do is tattoo this graph inside the skull of every human on the planet.

2011-08-29 18:27:29Intermediate/Advanced Rebuttals
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
60.229.136.207

Neal King, you currently have claimed the intermediate/advanced versions of this. Are you working on these?

 

I have a couple of thoughts for the I/A versions.

Intermediate focuses on Avogadro's Number and just how freaking BIG it is. Just how many molecules there actually are in a cubic metre of Air. Thus how many GH molecules a 'beam of light' has to traverse to make its way out to space. Ergo, you don't need many as a percentage to mess around with that beam of light. Also the its clear/colourless thing. Only if you are looking at it in the visible light range - if our eyes could see into the IR the air would LOOK very cloudy INDEED.

Advanced could then build on this but also bring in the shape of molecules. N2, O2, Argon are all single or double atom molecules - restricted vibrational modes. All the GH gases have 3 or more atoms so all those 'hinges' in the molecule that allow lots more vibrational modes. And the big 2 - H2O & CO2 behave quite differently because in CO2 the atoms are in a straight line while for H2O the 'hinge' already has a 'bend' in it. Then segue to JC's graphs of OLR & DLR and perhaps also Ray PierreHumbert's Physics Today article - the difference between the CO2 & H20 Spectra etc. Starting with low concentrations and leading to a teaching moment about the more complex stuff.

2011-08-29 20:46:20
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.22

Glenn:

I'm not working on it actively now, due to time needed for paying work. Here are some notes that might be useful. At the time, I was also thinking of incorporating an explanation of the basic functioning of the GHE, but by now that would also duplicate the presentation by Riccardo.

 

CO2 is 392 ppmv (0.039%), H20 about 1%:
- About 99% of the atmosphere is greenhouse-neutral: O2 (21%) and N2  (78%)
- IR absorption spectrum for CO2, H20, and others.
- CO2 is present at up to 100 km in altitude; H20 only up to 10 km.
- Measurements of downward streaming IR at the CO2 lines: Evans, Philipona, Harries...
- The result of calculations is that RF = 3.7 W/m2 for a 2X in CO2. Since the amount of CO2 is so small, it doesn't take that much to get to 2X; we are already up to 35%.
In analogy: A small town has 2500 people. But all the elections are decided by 26 voters. How is that possible? Well, those 26 voters are the only folks in town that are registered to vote: the rest of them cannot vote, so it actually doesn’t matter what they think about the issues and the candidates. If you add more non-voters, to bring the town to a total of 26 million people, but still with only 26 voters, then elections will be decided by 1 person in 1 million. That’s the rules.

Basic: 1st layer
- What matters is the 1% of gases that are GHGs: the rest don't vote
- But CO2 is only 4% of GHGs: How can it produce 26% of the impact? 2x => 3.7 W/m2
- CO2 molecules have certain advantages over H20

Intermediate: 2nd layer
- Spectral differences: CO2 has 4-micron and 15-micron
- Distribution of CO2 goes much higher than H20, which freezes out
- High location gives CO2 greater leverage

Advanced: core of the onion
- Random walk of photons
- Optical Path Length (OPL) and photosphere


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/adding-up-the-greenhouse-effect-attributing-the-contributions/

Water Vapor: 50%
Clouds:25%
CO2: 19%
Other (ozone, methane, etc): 7%

2011-08-29 22:10:46Intermediate and Advanced have been unclaimed
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.177.173.40

So anyone want to claim these rebuttals, better claim dibs before someone else grabs them.

Nothing wrong with duplicating content from elsewhere in SkS for this one. We've looked at the whole "greenhouse effect is falsified" on multiple occasion, talking about the evidence for the greenhouse effect. So any of that content is fair game for the intermediate and/or advanced rebuttals. Or use part of content from elsewhere then include a More... link.

When we post these as blog posts, probably should include a green box at the top saying "this is the intermediate rebuttal of "CO2 is just a trace gas". If you're finding this one tough going, there's a basic version of the rebuttal at ..."

2011-08-29 22:33:50
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.24

Hi John,

Thanks- Can you check one more formating issue: the neat fishy pucture isn't showing up for me on the ppost, just on the editing form.

I'll start pulling together the ideas above for int + advanced versions.

2011-08-30 00:12:14Suggestion
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Pease add a "Further Reading" tab.  Reference/links to appropriate chapters of prominent climate science textbooks would be in order here.

2011-08-30 00:19:38Suggestion #2
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Please add a "Related Articles" tab. There a  a number of SkS rebuttls with CO2 in their respective titles. Some of thse should be refernced/linked.

2011-08-30 00:27:26CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? -- Science of Doom
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Sarah,

A reference/link to the Science of Doom's eight part series on this subject should also be inlcuded in the "Further Readings" tab. 

2011-09-01 14:46:49
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.21

Hi Bagersouth.

I'm working on imtermediate and advanced versions of this one and I'll include more further reading in those.

Thanks for the good links.

Sarah