What? Let's say CO2 is a blanket, that works, and we throw a big blanket in the sky. Was it the blanket that caused the warming or was it us who threw the blanket up there ? Because your argument that CO2 magically appeared out of the earth is wrong. We made the blanket out of petrochemicals= fossil fuel burning.
why are you acting like a binary thinking fool. We have cycled for hundreds of thousands of years. We have been at theses CO2 levels in the past... the earth cools the CO2 levels dropped. We have carbon sinks and carbon off gassing (so it seems). The earth has the capacity absorb all the CO2 man makes. So what causes the CO2 blanket to get thrown on the earth... So far the data shows it is temperature. As it gets warmer... the earth throws the CO2 blanket on. As it gets cooler the earth takes the blanket off.
No CO2 is odorless. I believe you're thinking of H2 SO4 - hydrogen sulfide. Part of the smell of a swamp or marsh is from it along with methane.
Let's say it's all true. so what? The chinese, Indians, brazilians et al are building coal power plants, buying cars, burning rain forests, mining, doing everything imaginable to ramp up geeen house emissions, and fools here think requiring school kids to recycle water bottles or other idiotic symbolic gestures will have any effect? I understand it's all about training young kids to get accustomed to having their freedom curtailed for "good" things, but it is insulting. Nothing we can or will do is going to have the slightest effect on the climate. Liberals and enviros actually oppose a long list of things that would slow greenhouse gas emissions, eg nuke plants, increased production and use of nat gas. We're far better off spending money on things to ameliorate the effects of rising temps. At least those expenditures would accomplish something instead of just being wasted as our tithes to global warming religion will be.
"About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years. Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions." http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
first of all there is a large debate about how to measure CO2 that far back. second -- it was 5 to 10 degrees warmer 15 million years ago. so once again we see no challenge to the idea that temperature leads accumulation of CO2. not co2 leading termperature.