Hopefully data from NASA's OCO-2 satellite will lead to a clearer picture of the atmosphere's CO2 levels: http://www.space.com/26403-nasa-oco2-car...
Yes, remedial math is in order. The increase is now about one half a percent each year. Humans have increased CO2 by 43% since the industrial revolution. Your math is wrong by more than 2,000 times.
Your math is terrible. Perhaps adult school is available if you can't repeat 5th grade.
This is a pretty standard denialist/"skeptic" tactic. Try to make the increase sound a lot smaller than it actually is.
And I'd add remedial *logic* to your list of what these folks need to take.
CO2 is up 0.02 percentage points, or about 40%.
Pardon me - Let me correct myself. Co2 increased a scant 0.014%, not the 0.02% I quoted.
You're playing a game. Of course adding 0.012% (or 120ppm) co2 to the amount in the atmosphere 100 years ago give the current concentration of this trace gas. But that's too low a number to scare anyone. But let's use your method of calculation for co2 AND temps. (scientists should be consistent with their methods, right?) If we ues your method to calculate the percentage increase in temps, it's no longer 2 deg over the last 100 years, but less than 0.5%. You just mix methods to lead people into believing your faith. Nothing more.
ZERO --- 'That's been responsible for global warming.'
CO2 does not drive temperature, it's temperature that drives CO2 levels. You know that.
-----------------------
[(400ppm - 270ppm) / 270ppm] * 100% = 48%
"Do you believe in global warming because you care about the planet?
It's clear that the planet isn't getting warmer, and that a 0.02% increase in a trace atmospheric gas isn't going to change the climate."
Oh my, an increase from .0260 to .0400" is really a 0.02%
Is remedial math in order?
Is remedial science in order?
