Does anyone have the number for the portion of the 400 ppm which is produced by the industrial revolution? Along with a source?

Here you go https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2017-04/fossil_fuels_1.png
However more than half that is removed by nature, nature is very efficient at removing CO2 from our atmosphere, 4 billion years ago we had 95% CO2 nature reduced that to 0.028% and Man has pushed it back up to 0.04%
CO2 is not an evil gas it is actually essential for life on our planet, it is an energy source for nearly all plants.

CO2 levels have risen from about 300 ppm to 400 ppm since 1880. This rise is almost entirely due to deforestation and burning fossil fuels.

For a source, look up the IPCC reports. CO2 levels can be found here for example:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt

Now, the US was able to reduce its CO2 emissions in recent years by a greater percentage than any other nation. The reason for this was a shift from coal to natural gas. Did the US economy collapse? Did living standards drop? Did the US turn Communist?

Point is, the US reduced CO2 emissions and noone noticed despite the skeptics' alarmist claims that trying to reduce CO2 is practically the work of Satan himself ...

Sad how little faith you have in human ingenuity to think that the only solution is to "eschew the industrial revolution" and "lower living standards."

You may as well conclude that doing away with the widespread use of the telegraph in favor of the telephone resulted in a reduction of living standards.

So here are some numbers up until 2010, when atmospheric CO2 was about 390 ppmv.

The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as 830 gigatonnes, while in 1850 it was 613 gigatonnes. That gives an increase of 217 gigatonnes or

(830-613)/613 x 100 = 35%.

Now the total released from burning of fossil fuels (and calcining limestone) from 1850 to 2010 is 365 gigatonnes and there is an additional anthropogenic contribution from change in biomass of 156 gigatonnes, which makes a total anthropogenic increase since 1850 of 521 gigatonnes.

That is substantially greater than what has been observed in the atmosphere, so the rest is either going into the land or into the ocean (thus lowering the pH). Estimates have the oceanic uptake give a value around two gigatonnes per year, while fossil fuels and cement production release about 9 gigatonnes per year.

These numbers all come from "An Introduction to the Chemistry of the Sea", 2nd edition, by Michael Pilson. You can find the primary sources within.

A baseline value would be about 275 ppm, the pre-industrial revolution concentration. Somewhere about 280 ppm is the peak value that the earth has experienced over the past couple million years: it tends to jump to that peak from levels down in the 180 ppm range, then slowly decrease from about 280 back down to over the next 100 thousand years or so. We were well into that rise before human activities became important enough to affect the total concentration, or perhaps I should say that calculations of all human-derived emissions indicate that we contributed next to nothing until about 1800, since which the amounts have increased considerably. The large excessive concentrations (approaching 400 ppm) are not consistent with glacial-era behavior, yet that is the behavior we should expect had humans done nothing. There is really no doubt that humans have affected the atmosphere through the addition of massive amounts of CO2. the question turns on what results from that change.

not much if any.
More CO2 is released in one day today then 3-5 years of the industrial revolution. Since the emissions were so low the plants could absorb that before it built up in the atmosphere.



https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#co2-emissions-by-source

I remember the hype and nothing happened

“according to gov. scientists”


Source? Reference? Only ‘government’ scientists?


You know that most scientist agree on man made climate change, and that most scientists are not in government employ, don’t you? Or do little facts like that get in the way?


Now block me like Clown. He can’t handle rational debate either.

How about we not tamper with the planet's carbon dioxide levels, that would be nice

Learn how to write a proper question. You start out as if everybody knows what you are talking about.

CO₂