‘What Percent Of Our Atmosphere Is CO2?’: Doug LaMalfa Stumps Entire Panel With Climate Questions
Forbes Breaking News 
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) questioned witnesses at a House Transportation Committee about the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act late last month.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
source
About The Author
Unless we are totally unaware, we all see the results of accelerating climate change !
Pushing the corporate climate-change-denial conspiracy may benefit rich lister investors,
But is both irresponsible & dangerous ! : (
Are the nutters on here all Forbes investors ? LOL : )
Asking anyone what the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is a ploy to deflect from the overwhelming consensus on climate change, which is now confirmed by ELEVEN separate studies and publicly endorsed by 80 academies of science and ALL of the world's major scientific institutions. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree. La Malfa should be ashamed of pretending to not know any of this.
They laugh at their own ignorance. And these losers are making the decisions.
Yes, let’s base the future of our country’s energy policy on Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s opinions on climate change, rather than the opinions of 99% of the world’s leading climate scientists.
0.04% of one percent of
the Earths atmosphere 😱
👌😎
Yet all this still misses the point: it doesn’t matter how big or small the actual number is, but how fast it grows. And you don’t need to know the number, to know how bad it is. This matter is highly complicated but this dude makes it seem, you don’t have to worry about it, but more about „precious“ farm and logistics equipment.
And a lot of people sadly fall for this nonsense argumentation 🤦🏼♂️
Incompetent
Takes hours to charge them ..
Helping China
Destroying our country our farmers our small businesses
All living plants need Co2 to live on, which in turn returns oxygen for all animal life forms, including humans, to breathe. I've heard some kind of malarkey from Pesudoscientists saying the oceans are the main contributing factor for the oxygen in our atmosphere. Most marine life needs oxygen to live, and the wave action mixes atmospheric gases, including oxygen, keeping the waters oxygenated for marine life. A stagnant pool of water that's never moved wind or mechanical means will be very low on oxygen content.
For example, except for a few types of fish, aquariums have to be aerated. So the idea is that oceans are the main contributing source of oxygen, isn't true. I've also read here lately. Some kind of oxygen producing rock was found in one of the deepest places in the ocean. Something that important should have been on the news, dont you think?
Besides, God created this Earth, and I'm pretty sure He didn't overlook anything. Man has done more damage to this Earth from being greedy, digging it up for various metals, diamonds, etc. Never ever replacing anything. This doesn't count all the pollution all over the Earth, in the water ways using third world countries as dumping grounds for poisonous waste. All done for the mighty dollar.
Governments use more scare tactics every year. When one runs its course, it moves on to another made-up scare tactic. Think back through the decades of all the made-up crises the elite have used. One example: Remember the Ozone hole hoax? You never hear about any more, do you? There's several more. Just think about it.
Environmentalist movement has become the anti-human movement
This is information I learned about years ago. It's clear that climate change is not a result of CO² emissions given that this planet has had levels of CO² as high as .4% or 4000 ppm, during the Cambrian period. At this time plant life flourished creating the "Cambrian Explosion". Here is the scary part we should be concerned about. If the CO² levels go below 180 ppm, .018%, we are in an ice age. CO² levels are directly affected by the climate which can only be changed by the sun, not by man. So here is the question for all the academics, would you rather be at the beach with a warm sun or roaming across the frozen tundra looking for a remnant of food? If we go any lower in CO² all life on this planet will die.
This guy really just said: oh theres not thst much CO2 in the atmosphere! Nothing to worry about guys… Are you insane? Its so much more complex thsn that… Simply talk to meterologist or climate scientists. The level of education in american is profoundly disturbing… Guys be humbe about your knowledge of climate science and dont be seduced by extremely simplistic arguments like the one from this baffoon
A lot of you calling this panel ignorant when you have been fooled by the most ignorant argument about climate science ive ever heard. Help yourself and unstand that co2 has risen by 40% in the last 4 decades (approximately). Thats the headline… Not the percentage in the atmosphere but rather the change in the proportion and its green house gas effect
I like money.
The answer is this: Photon-radiating & absorbing molecules over each 1 square metre of Earth on average:
20 grammes: The weight of molecules in the surface that make all the radiation going up into the air (1.65x as much as all sunlight).
1 gramme: The weight of molecules in the surface that make all the 13.0-17.0 microns wavelength radiation going up into the air.
23,000 grammes: The weight of H2O gas molecules in the air that make and absorb broad spectral radiation, same as the surface does.
1,800 grammes: The weight of CO2 molecules in the air that make and absorb 13.0-17.0 microns wavelength radiation, same as the surface does.
2,300 grammes: The weight of water & ice in clouds in the air that make and absorb broad spectral radiation, same as the surface does, and absorb & scatter solar SWR radiation.
The above are the relevant quantities for comparison except I didn't bother with CH4, O3, N2O, <H>CFCs.
7,800,000 grammes: The weight of IRRELEVANT N2 molecules in the air.
2,400,000 grammes: The weight of IRRELEVANT O2 molecules in the air.
130,000 grammes: The weight of IRRELEVANT Ag molecules in the air
And yet, co2 is the enemy, I am sick of so called‘climate scientists’ claiming that we need to lower co2 emissions, they need to hand in their credibility, and go back to university and actually do some real research.
So genius people still can't understand that it is a very fine balance
This is such a unbelievably dumb question. It's amazing that this convinces anybody that climate change isn't real or threatening.
One year later: those idiots should be in jail.
0,04%
I quite like to breathe oxygen, and thank all my plant friends for providing it. They in turn are grateful for all the carbon dioxide they can get – from whatever source. All the rest is unscientific BS.
0.04%…the "environmentalists want us dead
Someone should seal this room, and increase the co2 level in the room from 438ppm to 1000ppm…. And let them discuss it for a few hours
I did an interest Q & A session with Bard…..
The global daily consumption of oil and gas is staggering and continues to increase. While precise figures can vary slightly depending on economic conditions and geopolitical factors, here's a general estimate:
• Oil: Global daily oil consumption is estimated to be around 100 million barrels per day. This equates to approximately 5 billion barrels per year.
• Gas: Global daily natural gas consumption is estimated to be around 400 billion cubic feet per day. This equates to approximately 146 trillion cubic feet per year.
The increasing demand for oil and gas is a major driver of climate change, as the burning of these fossil fuels releases large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As a result, there is a growing global effort to transition to cleaner energy sources, such as renewable energy, to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Is it possible to convert these figures into the amount of CO2 added to our atmosphers.?
Yes, it's possible to estimate the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere from oil and gas consumption.
Here's a breakdown:
• Oil: Burning one barrel of oil releases approximately 420 pounds (190 kilograms) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Given the estimated global daily oil consumption of 100 million barrels, this equates to approximately 42 billion pounds (19 billion kilograms) of CO2 added to the atmosphere each day.
• Gas: Burning one cubic foot of natural gas releases approximately 0.55 pounds (0.25 kilograms) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Given the estimated global daily gas consumption of 400 billion cubic feet, this equates to approximately 220 billion pounds (100 billion kilograms) of CO2 added to the atmosphere each day.
Therefore, the combined daily emissions from oil and gas consumption are estimated to be around 640 billion pounds (290 billion kilograms) of CO2.
It's important to note that these are estimates and the actual emissions can vary depending on factors such as the specific type of oil and gas being burned, the efficiency of combustion, and the carbon intensity of the energy source used to extract and process the oil and gas. Additionally, these figures only represent the direct emissions from burning fossil fuels and do not account for the indirect emissions associated with the production, transportation, and refining of oil and gas.
Despite these uncertainties, these estimates provide a clear indication of the significant contribution of oil and gas consumption to climate change.
Say 300Billion kilograms of CO2 over 100 years
That's a massive amount of CO2.
To put it into perspective, 300 billion kilograms of CO2 is equivalent to:
• 660 million tons of CO2
• 147 billion pounds of CO2
• 21 million cars worth of annual emissions (assuming an average of 7 tons of CO2 per car per year)
This amount of CO2 released over 100 years would significantly contribute to climate change and its associated impacts, such as rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss.
Do the calculation
Certainly! Let's calculate the total CO2 emissions over 100 years based on the daily rate you provided.
Given:
• Daily CO2 emissions: 300 billion kilograms
Calculation:
• Total CO2 emissions over 100 years: 300 billion kg/day * 365 days/year * 100 years
Result:
• Total CO2 emissions over 100 years: 109.5 trillion kilograms
Converting to other units:
• Tons: 109.5 trillion kg * 0.001 tons/kg = 109.5 billion tons
• Pounds: 109.5 trillion kg * 2.20462 pounds/kg ≈ 241.5 trillion pounds
Therefore, over 100 years, releasing 300 billion kilograms of CO2 per day would result in approximately 109.5 billion tons (or 241.5 trillion pounds) of total CO2 emissions.
and what is the weight of the atmosphere roughly
The weight of the Earth's atmosphere is approximately 5.15 quadrillion kilograms.
This massive weight is exerted on the Earth's surface, creating atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressure is measured in units such as pascals (Pa) or millibars (mb).
It's important to note that the weight of the atmosphere is not evenly distributed across the Earth's surface. Factors such as altitude, temperature, and humidity can affect atmospheric pressure.
What percentage over the 100 years
To calculate the percentage increase in CO2 emissions over 100 years, we need to know the initial level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1750 was about 278 parts per million (ppm).
Current CO2 levels are around 420 ppm.
Let's calculate the percentage increase:
1. Find the difference: 420 ppm – 278 ppm = 142 ppm
2. Calculate the percentage increase: (142 ppm / 278 ppm) * 100% ≈ 51%
Therefore, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by approximately 51% over the past 100 years. This is a significant increase and has contributed to global warming and climate change.
FIFTY ONE PERCENT!!!!
So something must be soaking up the CO2!!!
Scary how these “experts” making the decisions, don’t have the slightest clue or the the most basic knowledge about climate related topics!
All laughing like it's a joke. Pathetic
0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2. The proportion of the CO2 total that is attributable to the burning of hydrocarbons and other human activities is guess what… also 0.04%, which means it is an infinitesimal amount. And it has been amply demonstrated that CO2 is not a driver of climate change, and that the levels today are amongst the lowest in the history of the planet.
Plants 🪴 trees need co2 they breathe it and give out oxygen for humans etc. 😅 🎉
Dos he know that only 0.04% of a strong poison is enough to kill someone? This means nothing
Methane = 1.7 parts per million , Carbon Monoxide =1 part per 10 million ,Nitrous Oxide =
1 part per 3 million , knowledge , truth ,simple arithmetic = zero.
Qrwy pokończone
The total amount of CO2 has almost doubled in the past 100 years. What the politician is saying is irrelevant without that context.
Percent correct number is 0,0004%
400 ppm, is 400 parts of nillion
Accurate answer: Photon-radiating & absorbing molecules over each 1 square metre of Earth on average:
20 grammes: The weight of molecules in the surface that make all the radiation going up into the air.
1 gramme: The weight of molecules in the surface that make all the 13.0-17.0 microns wavelength radiation going up into the air.
23,000 grammes: The weight of H2O gas molecules in the air that make and absorb broad spectral radiation, same as the surface does.
1,800 grammes: The weight of CO2 molecules in the air that make and absorb 13.0-17.0 microns wavelength radiation, same as the surface does.
2,300 grammes: The weight of water & ice in clouds in the air that make and absorb broad spectral radiation, same as the surface does, and absorb & scatter solar SWR radiation.
The above are the relevant quantities for comparison except I didn't bother with CH4, O3, N2O, <H>CFCs.
7,800,000 grammes: The weight of IRRELEVANT N2 molecules in the air.
2,400,000 grammes: The weight of IRRELEVANT O2 molecules in the air.
130,000 grammes: The weight of IRRELEVANT Ag molecules in the air
Also, CO2 molecules both emit and absorb about 400 times as many photons as all the Sun's photons.
H2O gas molecules both emit and absorb about 1,100 times as many photons as all the Sun's photons.
The quantities are jaw-droppingly vast. These molecules travel at the speed of a cruising Jet and collide before they've gone a distance a few bacteria wide (micropscopic), 3 Billion collisions each second. Earth's surface is thinner than a human hair.
If there were no GHGs in the air then Earth's surface would match all the Sun's heat with 10 grammes of water or soil in each square metre but the air weighs 10 TONS over each square metre not 10 grammes (an eye dropper).