I thought this question was very clear:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AufuW0IrMWoiVUFwuT78HxYFxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071120090849AAHZCzv
But apparently I have to spell it out.
Many people have argued that because atmospheric carbon dioxide is at what sounds like very low levels (387 parts per million, or 0.0387%), it can't be responsible for the current global warming. There's been another agument that CO2 isn't a pollutant becase it's plant food, but I'll ignore that one because it's irrelevant.
My analogy was that arsenic is toxic to humans at 10 parts per billion (or 0.000001%). You could make the same argument with any number of molecules. Copper is essential to most living things, but toxic at concentrations of around 3,000 ppm (0.3%).
The point is that concentration doesn't tell you anything about an molecule's effect, unless you know more about the molecule, such as its toxicity or its global warming potential.
Can we agree on this?
2007-11-20
06:53:01
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Dana1981
7
in
Global Warming