A picture is worth...how many ppm?

I went to Google Image and entered CO2 and on the first page among others I was shown these photos:






















I went through the first twenty pages and was shown plenty of graphs, more smokestacks a few guns (air pistols) even some penguins but I did not run across one picture like this.


I was kind of hoping for some pictures of trees and plants but with the exception of some pretty cool chart representations of the carbon cycle, flora and fauna were pretty much missing from Google Worlds pictorial record of carbon dioxide.

So I tried typing in carbon dioxide with similar results, although I did get this nice representation of carbon dioxide from Tree Hugger which was in an article titled "Carbon Dioxide Production Much Faster than Originally Anticipated"



Spooky huh?

Of course as we all know(?)Carbon dioxide is colorless and odorless so although there is definitely Carbon Dioxide in those pictures, you can not really see it, ever wonder how many people know that? As a matter of fact over 95% of all atmospheric carbon dioxide has nothing whatsoever to do with tailpipes or smokestacks or man at all-it's what the environuts call..."natural". In fact if you wanted a truer picture of CO2 emissions you would not use a smokestack you would use a picture like this:




Since decaying trees etc create far more CO2 than our planes, trains, automobiles and even Al Gore's smoke stacks. I mean we are not talking about a close race here, by about a factor of ten the Autumn picture out produces the Tree Hugger picture as a true representation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Interesting that an organization dedicated to trees would not only slight the object of their affections from their true benefit in "nature", they seem to ignore the fact that trees themselves would die very quickly without the very element they are hell bent on vilifying whether man made or otherwise.




More...