[[All over the world we are hearing from people who have found themselves impacted by climate change]]
Really? And they know it is ‘climate change’ and not ‘NATURAL cyclical weather changes’ HOW exactly? How precisely do they determine that it is ‘climate change’ brought on by man as opposed to climate change that occurs naturally? What instruments are they using to determine that this climate change is somehow different from AL<L NATURALY cyclical weather changes throughout the history of the world?
Good golly people are thick! The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere due to man takes up just 0.0036% of the atmosphere-
Would someone please ask these ‘people all over the word who find themselves impacted by climate change’ to explain to us how 0.0036% of our atmosphere can possibly change the globe’s whole climates? Let’s get these brilliant minds explaining it to us-
These dolts don’t even realize how little CO2 man actually produces compared to our total atmosphere’s volume
Say you have a football stadium with 10,000 seats. You take a representative sampling of atmospheric gasses and put one molecule of atmospheric gasses in each seat. Three seats would have CO2 molecules sitting in them
I’ve been around the net researching AGW - those for it and against it. Each side has its paid for agenda with rebuttals being commonplace. But when I look at CO2 I find something very interesting that I haven’t seen any true rebuttal using facts and figures. It turns out CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with GW. All the talk about man made CO2 and volcanic activity are moot.
From http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
If carbon dioxide produced the backradiation claimed by Arrhenius, thermal conductivity measurements of carbon dioxide would be so suppressed by the backradiation of heat conducted into this material, that the correspondingly steep temperature gradient would yield a negative thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide. In reality, a 10,000ppm increase in carbon dioxide could, at most, reduce the conductivity of air by 1%. Given the actual difference between the thermal conductivities of carbon dioxide (0.0168) and zero grade air (0.0260), a 10,000ppm increase in carbon dioxide would lower the thermal conductivity of zero grade air by 0.36%. That would represent a 0.36% increase in thermal gradient, or a surface warming of 0.18% and a ceiling cooling of 0.18% of the total difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the affected air mass. In the case of a tropospheric carbon dioxide increase of 10,000ppm, that would correspond to a warming of 0.125ºC, or one eighth of a degree Celsius at the earth’s surface, offset by a cooling of 0.125ºC at the tropopause. On the scale of doubling the troposphere’s carbon dioxide, the surface warming predicted by this simple and materialistic thermodynamic approach is on the order of 0.004ºC.