Atmospheric CO2 has risen by 100 parts per million (one part per ten thousand) over the past century. That is equivalent to packing one extra person into this Bernie “everything will be free” Sanders rally.
Experts claim that this one molecule has heated the other 10,000 molecules up by more than one degree centigrade.
In order for one molecule to heat up 10,000 other molecules by 1°C, the effective temperature of that one molecule would have to be 10,000°C – about twice the temperature of the surface of the Sun.
Only a complete moron would believe something so ludicrous, which is why they say 97% of scientists agree on this utter nonsense.
In answer to your question… yes.
Greetings from Denver. 🙂
“Atmospheric CO2 has risen by 100 parts per million (one part per ten thousand) over the past century. That is equivalent to packing one extra person into this Bernie “everything will be free” Sanders rally.”
I can’t stop laughing.. great one… hilarious critique yet sad.. sad as hell because its so true and most morons out there have never, and will never be presented with the absurdity of Climate Change in this Context..
His giveaways amounted to some 47.6 Billion dollars for every second he spoke during the debate.
Colorado Springs greeting from Australia. I am a bladder person for flying. My carbonation print will.doom my grandchildren!
How can one deny that 97% of Scientists are complete morons when even Freeman Dyson thinks Obama has generally done a good job?
“Atmospheric CO2 has risen by 100 parts per million (one part per ten thousand) over the past century. Experts claim that this one molecule has heated the other 10,000 molecules up by more than one degree centigrade.
In order for one molecule to heat up 10,000 other molecules by 1°C, the effective temperature of that one molecule would have to be 10,000°C – about twice the temperature of the surface of the Sun.”
In three sentences even a moron can understand, Tony completely destroys CAGW.
You should have that as part of your header tony.
GREAT LINK AT JONOVA..
https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace
Strangely enough that link is only clickable for a few moments and then disappears. But by reloading the page I managed to get the link before it was gone.
try this.. goes to the same place
http://www.climatecurious.com
If “temperature” of molecule is speed dependent then how fast would that thing be going to be 10000 C?
Well the amu of CO2 is 44.01, so the most probable speed for the molecules of an ideal CO2 gas at 10,000 degrees Celsius is 3314.685484145328 miles/hour. The mean speed is 3740.222045783491 miles/hour, and the RMS speed is 4059.644046983137 miles/hour.
So according to you the average is above 10000 C.
And another great read… http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/eper_19.pdf
No, they are not morons. They know which side their bread is buttered on. Urge scientists to join ResearchGate because it encourages a diversity of opinions and posts figures of the experimental data at the very start of research papers. See, for example
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280133563
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281017812
They may be in for a surprise:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/612369/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-is-on-brink-of-50-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-express-news-showbiz+%28Daily+Express+%3A%3A+News+%2F+Showbiz+Feed%29
What if that extra person they packed into a Bernie rally was really hot, like, I don’t know, this guy?
https://coloradowellington.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/richard-simmons.jpg
Did you really have to go there Colorado?
You just threw a bucket of ice water on those poor molecules!
By George, Wellington…you have solved it!
CO2 is the Richard Simmons of the molecular world!
According to Uncle Bernie, that one extra molecule is the biggest danger we face in the whole, wide world. More so than North Korean nukes! More so than Iranian nukes! More so than Red Chinese nukes! More so than Russian nukes! More so than terrorist nukes! More so than the next economic collapse and global depression! Yes, the guy is a certified lunatic.
I am stunned at how many seemingly at least moderately intelligent people I am acquainted with believe in Bernie. Actually, I’m shocked. I spent the greater part of my 26 year military career fighting, and beating communism; only to see it embraced by a sizable percentage of the population. Sad really. Here in the US, if you love Socialism, just move a bit south to Venezuela or Cuba – and Spanish isn’t that hard to learn. No need for Bernie. They have it all down there.
“In a nation of children, Santa Claus wins.”
If only we could manufacture a weapon out of CO2 we could rule the world.
I am just finishing my second reading of ‘The Guns At Last Light’. The third book of the Pulitzer winning trilogy that is an excellent history of WW II in Europe from the American perspective. I’m at the part where the Reich is in it’s final days. Hitler has just ascended from his bunker for the last time to award Iron crosses to Hitler youth sworn to defend Berlin which is about to be over run by the Red hordes. Brit and Yank troops are seeing with their own eyes the true full horrors of Hitlers regime and for so many it is finally being revealed what they were fighting against.
I could not help but be struck by the similarities to some aspects of our times now. People really are no smarter now than they were then. We have not risen above the base motivations which are the root of all evil but instead seem to be falling for them once again. But it’s happening HERE!
But Tony, your argument is based on a belief in the Conservation of Energy, as are many of mine, and they do not believe in the Conservation of Energy. They do not literally say that they do not believe in it, but they are happy to ignore such arguments whenever those arguments disagree with their desired outcome.
Technically, even though 100 CO2 molecules out of 1,000,000 air molecules are the change in the number of molecules that are said to have caused a 1 K increase in temperature at the surface, the energy transferre from the infra-red absorbing CO2 molecules is still held equally by all 400 of the CO2 molecules per 1,000,000 air molecules. The required temperature per CO2 molecule consistent with energy conservation is then 2,500 K. One also has to consider the slightly greater heat capacity of CO2 compared to N2, O2, and Ar. Air has a heat capacity at constant pressure of about 29.07 J/K mol. and CO2 has a heat capacity of about 36.94 J/K mol., so the required temperature of each molecule of CO2 consistent with Energy Conservation is 2,500 K / (36.94 / 29.07) = 1967 K. This is certainly still hot enough to make Tony’s essential point.
The 1967 K is actually the additional temperature each CO2 molecule has to have to cause the 1 K temperature increase. Presumably the 300 CO2 molecules per 1 million air molecules before the “recent” 1 K temperature rise were already at an outrageously high temperature to provide the surface temperature of that time, if the large CO2 global warming hypothesis were correct. After all, the CO2 infra-red absorption effect does saturate, so the required temperature of each molecule in an atmosphere with 100 molecules would be greater than half the temperature of each when there were 200 molecules, etc. Therefore, the required temperature at 400 ppm of CO2 is much more that four times the incremental step from 300 ppm to 400 ppm or more than 4 times 1967 K = 7868 K.
Can you or anyone else demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 changes any temperature anywhere above 100ppmv? at that concentration all exitance from the 15 micron band originates at the tropopause. No further change is possible.
Co2 at what height and in what environment (aka; neighboring elemental and non-elemental molecules/density/pressure/states)?
You don’t have to work anymore, everything will be free. And how will the government get so much money? We’ll get it from the people who produce CO2.
Isn’t that how CAGW works? It’ll reach a tipping point and we will all be rich. But who will clean the pool ?
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
We live in a ‘1984’ world where “saving the planet” means far more than the effect one molecule has amongst the other ten thousand.
In this country that world is based on the fact that so many are fat, dumb, and happy and totally unappreciative of how lucky they are. Free from worrying about food, shelter, clothing, and transportation; They have time to fabricate crises that I guess somehow makes them feel their empty lives are worth living when they aren’t watching the latest episode of the Kardashians. They never seem to realize that what they have was earned by the blood, sweat, and toil of their ancestors. That the world they were born into provided them with so much of the essentials and luxuries of life from the very beginning.
great post rah , just as pertinent as tony’s head post. we need some proper chaos to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Exactly. 100%.
We have become a bunch of 24/7, politically correct, entitlement drones.
And 97% of all Lemmings agree: The taller the cliff, the better to dive off of
Viva Lemminghood!
http://wp.me/p4MyHW-aJ
My take on Lemminghood and Climate change. Climate Change: Taking up all the morphology of the lemming myth
The only problem with this post is that CAGW is going to say.. see you don’t know what you are talking about, the issue is the positive feedback from water vapor that retains the heat. You don’t have to heat up that molecule that much. … the math CAGW uses will lead you down the garden path to the wrong result. That’s how they suckered you in.. an apparently good idea, that they can use against you. And Anderson is right it’s squared not a straight line doubling.
This extra molecule must be much warmer than 10000 deg as it’s heated up a good volume of seawater as well!
This is a devastating posting for the CAGW Alarmists. In two paragraphs that anyone can understand Steve/Tony has them completely neutralised.