Its even worse than that. And as a physics professor he should know.
Compare the heat released by the burning activity that released the CO2 in the first place to the additional heat created by the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
When you work it through you and compare it to the alleged temperature rise it will leave you stunned.
Global Warming Physics Mental picture: two plastic bags a thermometer and a cigarette lighter.
Fill one plastic bag with a mole of air.
Light the cigarette lighter and let it burn for a while to release some CO2.
Fill the other bag with a mole of the now C02 enriched atmosphere
Measure the total heat released by the cigarette lighter.
Leave both bags in the sun (for twenty years - this thing works over time)
Work out how much additional heat was released to the atmosphere by the bag with C02 in it compared to the bag without C02 over that whole time period.
Compare with the heat released by the cigarette lighter in the first place.
And no I wont give you the answer because you wont believe me. You can do it with high school chemistry and a web search on the chemical reaction of burning to find out the kinetic energy released when the C02 is release in the first place.
Use the AGW data to find the change in atmospheric C02 concentrations as a percent. Convert it to a molar volume.
Figure how many additional C02 molecules have been released over the normal concentration. This is also the number of burning events (number of chemical reactions)
Use the kinetic energy released in a burning event together with the number of burning events to figure out the additional kinetic energy that has been added to that mole of gas.
Work out the temperature rise associated with this.
Compare this rise to the AGW data on atmospheric temperature rises.
Stand back stunned and rework your calculations.
Ask questions about how about if you add in the effect of oceans and some of the heat has gone there and not all into the atmosphere.
