Look at how many problems this hoax has caused. All in the name of the marxist goal of controlling the means of production.
Not to forget that the dinosaurs must have numbered in the, as fauxcahauntus would say, buhzillions. I mean seriously, as much “fossil fuel” that’s been taken out of the ground since ‘ole Jeb shot at that ‘coon. Somebody is FOS.
Algore the King of the Climate Con Artists and his Sci-Fi fake movies
And yet the cons keep buying multimillion dollar houses on beach fronts—where the oceans will gobble them up due to global warming...
CO2 gas a molecular weight of 44 g/mol while air (mostly O2 & N2) has a MW closer to 29 g/mol. CO2 is ‘heavier’ than air and will tend to have a higher concentration near the ground.
In comparison H2O has a MW of 18 g/mol. As a vapor, water is much ‘lighter’ than air. Which is why clouds are generally high in the atmosphere; and also why a dropping barometric pressure indicates that the atmosphere has increasing concentration of water vapor.
CO2 is also soluble in water. Every time it rains most, if not all, of CO2 present in the region of rainfall is scrubbed from the atmosphere.
Just as there is a water cycle, there is also a CO2 cycle. CO2 concentration can vary greatly depending on where and when it is measured.
Claims of CO2 concentration levels both present and past should be viewed with skepticism, especially when underlying assumptions have not been explicitly stated.
“We are actually at historically low levels of CO2.” The chart right below does not support that. It shows it is near the top of a cycle that has repeated many times.
The dirty secret they do not talk about is the commercial industry of Co2 supply and storage for Restaurants and other applications. When hauled and/or stored it must be continuously vented and released to maintain a cool enough temperature to remain a liquid. So all across this country, and around the world are billions of tons of Co2 continuously venting into the atmosphere while being transported and stored. There is no other way to do it.
Vehicles do not hold a candle to this gross dumping into the air compared to the commercial industry. But we do not hear about that aspect at all. Where are the cries to outlaw artificially carbonated drinks? They are a much much bigger emitter of Co2 than vehicles will ever be. Why don’t we? Because they already know their story is a lie and they purposely ignore this issue. They are hoping no one ever catches on to this commercial/money reality.
I don’t know if this is totally correct, but it makes sense than the hoaxers do.
Serious Question???
WTF does “facts” have to do with an emotional argument based on religious beliefs??
Is there not a large blank space in the middle? Have you ever seen a story which fills in this area? Have you ever read a story that uses words like sun and ocean, which are the two enormous engines determining temperature? Cannot the stories that you have seen be inserted into one or the other circles?
I will submit there is no evidence of man-made global warming because no adherent to the popular mythology will acknowledge the existence of the sun and oceans. All I have ever seen are comments on weather events or physical phenomenon involving temperature followed by an assertion man-made global warming is the cause.
In the hard sciences of Math and Physics, the earth’s climate is known as an open system, meaning all influencers are probabilistic and not deterministic. Any assertions must be less than certain, but we are always treated to infallibility statements like those for the boiling point of water. Popular reasoning requires a complete disconnect between events and conclusions and is no more rigorous than Middle Age alchemy.
I have yet to find any article which attempts to measure the influence of the sun and ocean and then ascribe an increment to human activity. It was only since the late 70’s that it was possible to attempt to confirm changes in the sun’s radiance independent of earth. Without a rigorous solution involving those two enormous engines, models created provide outcomes no more elegant than what is left behind when a brand new puppy is turned loose in a house decorated with white carpets and white furniture.
Even before that time any true scientist would have said data collected could not be analyzed, because people had known for centuries the sun was a variable star and it was not possible to separate influences for any mathematical computations. Now that it is possible to separate the influence of the sun but not the oceans, the analysis of such a complicated interaction is still highly problematic. Therefore, political rhetoric must be substituted for application of the scientific method.
CO2 FOLLOWS the warming; it does not CAUSE it.
According to NASA, earth's atmosphere weighs 5.1e+18 kg (comes to ~5,600 trillion US tons).
According to The Engineering Toolbox, it takes 1006 Joules (of energy) to change the temperature of one kilogram of air by one degree Communist (or Kelvin).*
1006 Joules/kg/°C per 5.1e+18 kg comes to 5.712e+21 Joules to raise the temperature of earth's atmosphere by a single °C (or °K).
5.712e+21 Joules converts to 1.425 trillion Mega-Watt hours.
The largest nukular reactor in the US (in Palo Verde, Ariz.) can produce 3937 Mega-Watts if all three reactors are running @100%.
Running @100% 24/7/365, in a year's time, Palo Verde would make 34,488,120 MWh.
Running at 34,488,120 MWh per year, Palo Verde would need 41,323 years to produce the 1.425 trillion MWh needed to raise the temp of earth's atmosphere by one degree C (1.8 °F).
Or to put it in another perspective, the Global Cooling Scare began about 1970. If we had brought enough reactors online that year in a deliberate effort to raise earth's atmosphere's temperature by 1°C (or 1°K, or 1.8°F) by running them @100% 24/7/365 until today, and converted ALL of that electrical output into heat, we would have had to build 780 Palo Verde-sized reactors (assumes 100% efficiency in the conversion).
To put that in Imperial measurements (1°Communist = 1.8°Fahrenheit), Palo Verde would need 22,957 years to make enough MWh that if converted 100% to atmospheric heat could raise earth's temperature by 1°F.
Or if we had started in 1970, it would have taken 434 Palo Verde-sized reactors to raise earth's temperature by 1°F by 2023.
Today there are only (roughly) 220 commercial nuclear power plants on the planet.
What if we didn't use atomic reactors but atomic bombs to create the same 1.425 trillion MWh? We certainly seem to have enough of them lying around, right?
The Little Boy atom bomb (the one dropped on Hiroshima) exploded with a force of about 15 kt.
A thousand tons of TNT will release about 4.184e+9 Joules so 15 of them comes to 62.76e+9J.
Divide that into the 5.712e+21 Joules and you get 91,013,384,321 -- 91 billion -- Billion with a "B" -- Little Boy atom bombs. That's what you'd need to heat earth's atmosphere by 1 °C.
We couldn't cause it if we wanted, which also means there's nothing we can do to un-cause it.
This obviously is an unfathomably YUGE amount of energy, far in excess of what a gas that comprises a whopping 0.04% of our atmosphere could be responsible for.
* Yes, I am aware this specific heat value only applies to air @sea level pressure but the scale of final answer is so absurd that I couldn't be bothered to find a mean value.