In terms of greenhouse gasses, the biggest polluter is probably the ocean pumping all the water vapor into the atmosphere. Water vapor has by far the greatest

In terms of greenhouse gasses, the biggest polluter is probably the ocean pumping all the water vapor into the atmosphere. Water vapor has by far the greatest greenhouse effect, accounting for about 65-85% of the greenhouse effect vs human generated CO2 that directly contributes 0.12%. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calcul... If we really want to change things, we'll have to get rid of the ocean. Seriously, though, I'd like to see some real numbers that if we completely eliminated human CO2 emissions, what is the actual difference that would make? What does that say about the significance of practically achievable reduction in human CO2 emissions? What amount of CO2 would we have to recapture to make a difference? What amount can we practically capture? I am getting the impression that these numbers might paint the CO2 dilemma as completely unsolvable. Sure, maybe in some way every little bit helps, but maybe it helps like using a squirt gun to put out a volcano. It'd be nice to know just how relevant our efforts would actually be if everyone unified and did the absolute best we could do, even so far as drastic population reduction or even complete elimination of human beings. Would even such Thanos like measures do anything, or would that just be bringing a second squirt gun to the volcano?