This, is really quite something. We know the Guardian has lost just about all journalistic standards, but this one really takes the cake, especially from somebody who should know better. See the screen cap below.
“The atmosphere right now is half-full of carbon dioxide”.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2014/jan/22/eu-2030-climate-change-energy-emissions-targets
Erm, riiiggght.
Let see, Mauna Loa/ Scripps says:
398.58 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in air 20-Jan-2014 http://t.co/5Q2FLbb4ix
— Keeling_Curve (@Keeling_curve) January 21, 2014
Maybe Damian doesn’t understand that whole “parts per million” thing, if he did, he’s certainly know that 398.58 is nowhere close to “half full”. The value of 500,000 parts per million is what would be considered “half-full”. He’s only off be a couple orders of magnitude.
If indeed CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere was 500,000 parts per million, we’d have a big problem: we’d all be dead.
Maybe he was thinking in terms of saturation of the CO2 effect in the atmosphere on temperature? In that case, we are closer to 90%, and additional CO2 won’t make much difference.
This graph showing CO2′s temperature response to supplement the one Doug Hoffman cites from IPCC AR4. here we see that we are indeed pretty close to saturation of the response.
click for larger image
The “blue fuzz” represents measured global CO2 increases in our modern times.


There isn’t enough carbon on the planet to get to 10%, let alone 50%. But the Guardian is a pamphlet of the left, hence of and for people who mostly cannot count. This is just another example.
He simply doesn’t know the difference between 400 per million and 400 per mille.
M Courtney says: @ur momisugly January 22, 2014 at 1:40 pm
Gail Combs, I don’t doubt you when you say “The Climate Change industry has hired Stan Greenburg”.
However, I question the fearsome reputation, effectiveness and even significance of Stan Greenburg.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Greenburg is one of the behind the scenes guys like Maurice Strong, another powerful man many people have not heard of. I mention him because he is completely over looked and he should not be. You may not have heard of him but he has been active behind the scenes in your country.
Greenberg is no light weight.
Pacific Standard The Science of Society: Why Are You So Smart, Stan Greenberg?
Richard.
We each said the subject is too large for a full answer in this thread, and I suggested you read the links obtained by using the WUWT search for climate sensitivity so I suppose you have done that.
_____________________________________
Your tone is hardly conducive to a warm reception. It would have been far easier to say ‘yes’ you are perfectly correct.
According to Archibald, a doubling of CO2 will only give 5 w/m2 of extra forcing, which a pee in the ocean. So the graph is much as i expected – increasing CO2 has little or no effect.
Thanks,
Ralph
Silver ralph:
I and Kevin Finnegan each went to the time trouble and effort of answering your technical question.
You replied that our answers were not sufficient, so at January 23, 2014 at 4:41 am I provided another and fuller answer. It is here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/22/climate-craziness-of-the-week-guardians-damian-carrington-glass-half-full-moment/#comment-1546205
As anyone reading my answers can see, I explained that the effect you were questioning depends on climate sensitivity and has no specific answer. It concludes saying
Your reply at January 23, 2014 at 1:51 pm is churlish and includes this
How dare you misrepresent me like that?!
OK. I have learned. You are filed under ‘Offensive time waster’ so I will not provide you with technical information again.
Richard
If the atmosphere was half full of carbon there would be no comments here.