re: Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming

quote:

---

CO2 is not a primary contributor to our warming at the moment either. Solar energy is a much greater contributor than all of the greenhouse gasses combined.
If that's the case then warming should've peaked in 1960.

---

So if the biggest factor that determines the temperature of our planet is not responsible, then whats next?

Earth's reflectivity?

quote:

---

Natural changes in reflectivity, like the melting of sea ice, have contributed to climate change in the past, often acting as feedbacks to other processes.
Volcanoes have played a noticeable role in climate. Volcanic particles that reach the upper atmosphere can reflect enough sunlight back to space to cool the surface of the planet by a few tenths of a degree for several years.[2] These particles are an example of cooling aerosols. Volcanic particles from a single eruption do not produce long-term change because they remain in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than GHGs.[2]
The recent role of reflectivity
Human changes in land use and land cover have changed Earth’s reflectivity. Processes such as deforestation, reforestation, desertification, and urbanization often contribute to changes in climate in the places they occur. These effects may be significant regionally, but are smaller when averaged over the entire globe.
In addition, human activities have generally increased the number of aerosol particles in the atmosphere. Overall, human-generated aerosols have a net cooling effect offsetting about one-third of the total warming effect associated with human greenhouse gas emissions. Reductions in overall aerosol emissions can therefore lead to more warming. However, targeted reductions in black carbon emissions can reduce warming.

---

Nope the 2nd biggest factor has a net cooling effect.

Ok lets try the 3rd factor: greenhouse gasses.

quote:

---

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas and also the most important in terms of its contribution to the natural greenhouse effect, despite having a short atmospheric lifetime. Some human activities can influence local water vapor levels. However, on a global scale, the concentration of water vapor is controlled by temperature, which influences overall rates of evaporation and precipitation.[2] Therefore, the global concentration of water vapor is not substantially affected by direct human emissions.

---

The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor but it is controlled by temperature so there is not a lot we can do there.

The next biggest factor is clouds, but unless we find George W Bush's weather machines we can't touch that.

So that means we are left trying to alter 20% of the 3rd biggest factor affecting our climate in order to prevent climate change. If we cut our emissions to meet the Paris Climate Accords goals we would go from 400ppmv to about 280ppmv. That means if the Paris Climate Accords were 100% successful we would decrease CO2 levels by 25%, which means we would the total reduce greenhouse gas affect by 5%.

If reducing the 3rd largest contributor to earth's warming by 5% will solve the problem, then it wasn't much of a problem to begin with. If it won't solve the problem what is the point of the Paris Climate Accords, a carbon tax, or any of the other solutions to global warming?