Posted on 12/24/2014 11:45:57 AM PST by PROCON
It's not, but the rise is a bit over 2 ppm per year.
Just ask the GW believers, “What is the optimal temperature?” Watch them squirm trying to answer.
Hah, I posted in another thread yesterday that when I am confronted by one of the alarmists I tell them I will go out ASAP and run a full tank of gas through my F250 just for their grandchildren, so they will be warm in the winter.
Drives ‘em nuts. Even shuts a few up completely.
The East Anglia fraud/scandal/prosecutions was pretty much the end of any legitimate movement. Now it’s a matter of hunting down and discrediting propagandists based on their use of fraudulent data.
CO2 is 400 parts per million
That is AKA 0.000400 of 1 unit
Take a pencil and put four dots on a 8x11 piece of paper.
That is 400 parts per million, if the paper = i million
2 ppm = 0.000002 of 1 unit
Their is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to raise/lower/keep in heat
Some people talk to themselves because no one else wants to listen to them, and they even lie to them selves, by telling them selves people deny climate change.
Every one knows climate has been changing one way or another for millions of years.
I’m still waiting for them to explain to me why the ice that covered New Mexico a very, very long time ago is now gone..... long before cars and factories and pollution.
Al held a news conference in Australia several years ago and one of the reporters asked him to name the island that was submerged and the tribe forced to relocate to Australia because of the polar cap melting. The reporter said he could find no record of anything like that ever happening. Evidently, Al was heckled off the stage. I’d like to hear that question asked again.
I’d also like to find ONE reporter who takes their work seriously enough to ask: “Mr. President, you are the first President in the history of this Republic to sequester virtually every document from you past. Why is that?”
The 8.5 by 11 paper is flat but air is a volume. So assume a box which is 8.5 by 8.5 by 11 and fill it with air molecules at average sea level pressure, namely 4 x 10^23 molecules of mostly N2 and O2. Now add 0.04% CO2 which is about 10^20 molecules. That is enough to intercept many of the IR photons passing through that volume even with those molecules being very small and spread out. In fact all IR photons leaving the earth's surface are intercepted in about 47 meters (the mean free path). That is one of the best arguments for why adding a bit more CO2 doesn't make much difference although it obviously makes some difference as "atmospheric thickening" agent would.
Climate change is normal, Man made climate change is a story made up by elite one percenters to prevent class movement and wealth generation.
Good retort.
Veritas!
Reminds me of drinking hot cocoa with pajama boy discussing 0bamacare.
>> Instead of providing you with yet another series of climate facts and figures
Idiots regurgitating crap they cannot possibly comprehend isn’t persuasive.
How to deal with the communist Climate Change NAZI genocidal maniac — throat-punch; then point and laugh.
I read a study about who believes in Man Mad climate change and who does not. Just as you would expect those “scientists” who are Government paid generally insist on it while those scientists who get their money from the private sector generally think it’s bunk. I think the real indicator of it’s bogus nature is greenhouses. They PAY to have carbon dioxide introduced. It makes their plants grow better. Same thing happens with the world at large, more CO-2 means better plant growth so it gets taken out of the air by plants eventually!
So they intercept the IR. The point is they have a small effect since other molecules, like moisture in the air, do the same thing and the CO2 molecules are vastly outnumbered by them.
In most cases. But in some cases the CO2 intercepts different frequency IR since CO2 and H2O vibrate at different frequencies. Also there are cases where there is 400 ppm of CO2 and 20 ppm of H2O since the latter varies from 20 to 20,000 ppm. The interesting thing is that the variation in H2O is simply due to weather and thus weather is what actually controls the equilibrium temperature of the planet which can jump up or down by 0.2C in a few weeks (equating to putative warming of decades of manmade rises in CO2).
In an attempt to prove that CO2 matters they will often point to the Arctic which is dry and thus CO2 should matter more. But while the Arctic rose by almost 0.5C per decade for a while, it has lately leveled off (6-7 years) trailing the lull in warming planet-wide. That implies that the Arctic follows not leads. They never point to the Antarctic which is even drier on average unless it is to use the funny number studies like Steig et al which smeared a bit of local ground station warming across large swaths of W. Antarctica.
Your vastly outnumbered premise is correct on average, but not always, so it is worth considering alternatives. Unfortunately the only way to test the alternatives is the worldwide climate models which do not model weather and like I said, average weather is the key factor in the variation the planet's average temperature.
“”...glaciers and they’re now gone..
This statement usually shuts up the ‘believers’. Then I’ll ask, “Do you know what scares me more than Climate Change?” The answer to that is: The idea that the government can fix it. I usually ask them to name all the successful government endeavors, besides wars.”
Excellent statement...
Excellent question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.