“The remaining 98.43% of climate forcing arises from sources other than anthropogenic CO2.” —Davis, 2025
When it comes to climate forcing, “atmospheric CO2 plays a minor and diminishing role in forcing contemporary global warming.” [some emphasis, links added]
Key quotes from Davis, 2025
“As a result of today’s higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, the radiative forcing power of CO2 has dropped to less than one-third of the forcing power in 1750. …
“The forcing attributable to atmospheric CO2 is so small relative to the Earth’s energy budget that 80% of heat captured by CO2 is reflected back into space by aerosols. …
“If the concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere continues to increase exponentially as it has since contemporary measurements began 67 years ago (see below), then the incremental contribution of CO2 forcing to global warming will continue to decline exponentially because the forcing power of CO2 wanes with higher CO2 concentrations owing to the aforementioned diminishing returns in marginal forcing. …
“These contributions of CO2 to temperature forcing must be evaluated against the above demonstration that 6.27% of RFCO2 [radiative forcing from CO2] between 1750 and 2020 is attributable to anthropogenic CO2 (Figure 1) while the remaining 93.73% is natural in origin.
“It follows that even if contemporary global warming were 100% attributable to increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 instead of the estimated 25%, 6.27% of this forcing would be attributable to human-sourced emissions of CO2.
“Using the more refined empirical estimates of CO2 contributions developed above, where approximately one-fourth of total forcing is attributable to atmospheric CO2, the maximum contribution of human-sourced CO2 to contemporary global warming is estimated quantitatively from empirical data as 6.27% (the computed contribution of anthropogenic CO2 forcing from 1750 to 2020, above) of 25% (the approximate mean empirical estimate of CO2 forcing of temperature, above), or 1.57% of total temperature forcing.”
Other conclusions from the study:
■ The full concentration of CO2 (420 ppm) currently provides only 0.0058% of the Earth’s surface energy, which is imperceptible.
■ There is a negative correlation (r = -0.19) between CO2 and temperature (i.e., CO2 rises as temperature falls, or temperature rises as CO2 falls) over the last 425 million years.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Richard G.
I have a tub of dry ice. 99+% CO2.
I push a can of beer into the middle of the dry ice.
Assume that the can of beer is planet earth.
Does the CO2 warm my can of beer???
Have a few more beers and I will create a puppet show to explain this to you.
Solid CO2 (dry ice) causes cooling by directly absorbing heat to sublimate (turn to gas), acting as a refrigerant, while gaseous CO2 causes warming by trapping infrared heat in the lower atmosphere, acting as an insulating blanket that prevents Earth’s heat from escaping, though it also causes cooling in the much thinner upper atmosphere by radiating heat away efficiently. The key difference is how the energy is absorbed and re-emitted in different atmospheric layers, with solid CO2’s rapid phase change using heat for cooling, and atmospheric CO2’s absorption of Earth’s re-radiated heat causing warming at the surface.
You can’t trap heat.
A blanket is a solid and can slow down heat loss CO2 is a gas AND all gasses expand and rise when heated in a open system.
The baloon pilot adds heat from his burner to make his baloon rise.
The water cycle cools the earth so yor say ing that CO2 does the opposite.
If CO2 traps heat why not put 100% CO2 in our all weather windows instea of an inert gas.
Or, bags of 100% CO2 in the attic and walls instesd of fibreglass.
I think you should have the beer
Oh no, yet another Ken Richard CO2 does nothing junk science article
“while the remaining 93.73% (of CO2) is natural in origin”
Approximately 33% of atmospheric CO2 came from man made CO2 emissions. Not 6% : Because of this accumulation, humans are responsible for 100% of the net increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750. Human-caused CO2 now accounts for approximately one-third (33%) of the total CO2 currently in the atmosphere, having raised concentrations from a pre-industrial 280 ppm to over 427 ppm today.
The CO2 is 3% to 6% man made is a conservative myth that started in the 1990s. When you repeat that myth, you never get taken seriously in the subject of climate science. As of 2026, scientific consensus that human activity—specifically greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—is the primary driver of modern climate change is extensively documented as exceeding 99.9%. Ken Richard promotes climate disinformation.
Oh no, one more attack on Kenneth Richard by Richard Greene on who reports on the studies he does w/o going into the studies he is reporting on. Your hatred of Kenneth Richard has so clouded your ability to even go into the studies he quotes but then that’s not surprising. And please give us studies that show this total bullshit 99% you keep using on his columns.
Lol I already know who is going to reply before i scroll down when I see the author.
Yeah, he is SO predictable. And other than attacking the author he never addresses the studies that Kenneth highlighted.
I read and recommend at least 60 good climate and energy articles on my website every week. I have little time for junk science studies recommended by Ken Richard. After 28 years of climate science reading, I know the difference.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/2026/01/thank-you-for-25618-page-views-in.html
False claim that only a tiny percentage of atmospheric CO2 is man-made, started in the 1990s. Under 0.1% of scientists make that false claim. Richard deliberately seeks those 0.1% studies
Proven false over the past 30 years.
My effort to fight climate alarmism will never be based on lies and myths about the climate. Both liberals and conservatives are capable of climate science disinformation. I am a fact checker.
Both humans and nature add CO2 to the atmosphere.
Nature absorbs slightly more CO2 than it emits.
Humans emit CO2 but absorb none.
Nature is able to absorb enough CO2 to capture half of the human emissions. The other half of human emissions has been increasing atmospheric CO2 for over 150 years
From 280ppm to 427ppm
There are quite a few conservatives who can’t understand this, and Ken Richard is one of them. I’m not one of them.
I want conservatives to be taken seriously about climate change.
Ken Richard cannot be taken seriously because he’s a CO2 does nothing science denier.