Glen Beck, The climate of Fear

[L Gilbert]

It isn't so much the temperature change, it's anomalies happening rapidly. Given time, things could adjust to higher temperatures. We pushed the river and temperature changes are faster than most things can adapt to, as Ton mentioned.

 

[damngrumpy]

Its hard to take beck seriously so I left that scene a long time ago. In fact its hard to take Fox with any serious measure. America is poisoned by fanatics on the right and sort of left. Rush is Glen's idol perhaps lately he is trying to be as silly as
Rush who hasn't had a clever statement in months. At least they are colorful but then so was Monty Python's Flying circus and that is what the American media has become. Face it Beck is a joke, a cruel joke but a joke none the less.

 

[coldstream]

Glenn Beck is on the cover of Time this week, and was interviewed on the CBS Evening News last night.. which goes to prove the adage that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people". He extrapolated on his political philosophy which is best described as mindless libertarianism. He is for homosexual marriage, for unrestricted abortion as infringements on 'individual liberty'.

His entire notion and construct of evil is based simply and soley in 'government'. He is completely deaf to the reality of the economic chaos brought on the deregulation and consequent rise of a banking tyranny, through a collapse of government fiduciary responsibility, that has thrown millions of people out of work and out of theie homes.

He's not a conservative, and he really is a dumb, dumb bunny, whose making millions dumbing down the already vacuous American public.

 

[coldstream]

You just keep proving your ignorance. The term greenhouse effect was coined by Svante Arrhenius in the late 19th century, to explain an effect that had first been noticed by Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier in 1824. He believed that the atmosphere was trapping solar radiation, and reflecting it back to earth. Arrhenius thought this effect could explain ice age cycles. It wasn't until the 1960 that the scientific community would give props to Milankovitch for his hypothesis involving changes in earth's orbital parameters and their influence glaciation.

Gases which contribute to the greenhouse effect would be greenhouse gases...and long before computer models or any political agenda.

You're just plain clueless.

I couldn't find any verification of these people, but i know that they weren't involved with the nonsensical and fraudulent claims of AGW. Any gas could be and would be considered a greenhouse gas by this original definition. CO2, Methane and all other gases do not hold, retain or reflect heat or light any more than anything else.

It's no accident than the radical cultists of AGW, deeply antagonistic to the human cause, chose carbon, since it is absolutely essential to a developed industrial economy. It is essential to support human population is anything but subsistence conditions. It is the only hope for the third world.

That is why they chose carbon as the villain, and developed this utterly fantastastic and fraudulent Anthropocentric Global Warming political scam. It is one of the roots of a very nasty and corrupt anti-human agenda that is bamboozling the world's media and politicians... and people like you, Tonnington. ;-)

 

[Tonington]

I couldn't find any verification of these people, but i know whtey weren't involved with the nonsensical and fraudulent claims of AGW. Any gas could be and would be considered a greenhouse gas by this definition.

Umm, absolutely not. N2, O2, Cl2, these gases are not greenhouse gases. They do not contribute to the greenhouse effect, because they do not absorb infrared radiation. A greenhouse gas is any gas that is quantized by absorbing outgoing longwave radiation. It has to do with the vibration, rotation, and vibro-rotational properties of these gases. The gas absorbs and then emits this energy in all directions. As you increase the concentration, more heat is emitted downwards, and retained, which would otherwise be escaping to space. Some are called stronger than others, though this is not really true. For example, people often say methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. That is only true because of the concentration in the atmosphere of the two gases. If the concentrations of the two gases were reversed, then carbon dioxide would be a more potent greenhouse gas. It has nothing to do with the inherent properties of the molecule, only the concentration. Because the greenhouse effect is logarithmic as the concentration of the gas in question increases.

CO2, Methane and all other gases do not hold, retain or reflect heat or light any more than anything else.

Plain wrong. If there were no greenhouse gases, we would experience temperature changes daily similar to the Moon. The average temperature on Earth would be -18°C instead of +14°C.

It's no accident than the radical cultists of AGW, deeply antagonistic to the human cause, chose carbon, since it is absolutely essential to a developed industrial economy. It is essential to support human population is anything but subsistence conditions. It is the only hope for the third world. That is why they chose carbon as the villain, and developed this utterly fantastastic and fraudulent Anthropocentric Global Warming political scam.

Blah, blah, blah. Your conclusion stems from incorrect premises. If you made an attempt to learn, you might see how.

 

[coldstream]

It is the DENSITY of the Gas that is the key factor in determining if it reradiates heat. What AGW theory leaves out is that even their definition of Green House Gases, man's contribution is miniscule, insignificant compared to natural oceanic, biological and geophysical processes. You are lost in the minor case, selective anecdotes of the AGW lobby and seem quite incapable of evaluating the big picture, Tonningon. The AGW cult depends on people like you, prostrate before their sophistry, attempting to blind with scientific mumbo jumbo.

 

[Tonington]

The density has nothing to do with the classification or definition of a greenhouse gas...provide a citation for that. The concentration of the gas in the atmosphere determines the magnitude of change to the radiative forcing imposed by the gas, not the actual physical effect of radiative transfer.

Man's contribution is small by comparison...so? Explain how that matters. A tiny bit of mercury can cause large problems too. I already told you that the difference in average temperature with and without the greenhouse effect is about 32°C. Our contribution so far is about a degree. Calling it insignificant is again being ignorant of ecological responses. Ask the forest industry in BC. Ask natural resource officials about cold water fishes like salmonids. Look at the research that shows reduced agricultural yields from conditions we can expect in the future.

If you are incapable of understanding that, then ask what happens to the ocean as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. That's a serious consequence, and mostly unrelated to the radiative properties.

 

[ironsides]

"U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said earlier this month global warming, blamed mainly on burning fossil fuels, could raise sea levels by 50 cm to 2 meters (20 inches to 6 ft 6 in) this century -- higher than most experts have predicted."

Get out the waders, something is happening.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090923/sc_nm/us_climate_antarctica

 

[Extrafire]

No matter how many times you repeat this, it will still not be fact. We have observational evidence of an atmosphere which is in energy imbalance. That is, more radiation is being retained, and less is escaping to space.

No shyte! Ya think that may have anything to do with the fact that the globe has been on a warming trend for the past 150 years? Duh! But my point that you replied to was that there's no evidence of AGW. Emphasis on the A. Got it now?

Not only that, but we have corollaries to that fact. The upper atmosphere cools, as the lower atmosphere warms. Because more energy is retained in the bottom layer of the atmosphere (trapped by greenhouse gases), less is going to space, and that means the upper atmosphere cools. There is no other explanation for those facts. Solar causes of warming would warm all layers of the atmosphere.

Solar warming primarily affects the oceans (and to a lesser extent, the land) which then warm the air.

If the current warming was caused by CO2 (whatever the origin) there would be a more rapid warming of the troposphere which is where the majority of heat transfer by CO2 takes place. It ain't happening. No matter how many times they looked they can't find it. Now go and educate yourself with all the facts.

 

[Extrafire]

And as to models, what would be the alternative for experimentation? Scientists use experiments as one means of elucidating natural causes and mechanisms at work in dynamic systems. For agricultural science, we have greenhouses, pastures, animals, and yes even models.

There is no analog for the Earth. So how do you experiment without a model? How do you attribute anything without a statistical model? The study I linked to ( and Anna did as well) is in agreement with the IPCC models, only with tighter error bars. That's a pretty good confirmation when observations are backing up what the models predict.

THe models are at odds with observational evidence. Models can be a good tool, but they are not of themselves evidence.

 

[Extrafire]

Greenwashing or marketing doesn't mean that the issue is trivial.

A climate change that happened about 50 million years ago, was much larger in magnitude than what we have experienced to date. It was 6°C, compared to our almost one degree now. The difference is speed. Today the surface of the Earth is warming almost 60 times faster (0.17°C per decade versus 0.003°C per decade) than it was during that 6°C change at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary.

The average rate of climate change during the last glaciation (much more recent than 50 million years ago) was up to 15 degrees per century. The average rate of climate change (up or down) during the last 5000 years was 2.5 degress per century. The rate of warming for the past 30 years is 1.5 degrees per century.

Somehow I'm not frightened.

 

[Extrafire]

I think it is nice that people are trying to lower our carbon footprint by trying to recycle, but I think it is about a least 50 years to late. We are going to cycle into a period of change, and if the "Nordic Heat Pump/Atlantic Conveyor" does get shut down by global warming life will change for all mankind.
TGlobal Ocean Circulation

Recycling doesn't lower our carbon footprint, it enlarges it.

And the Atlantic conveyor will not shut down. As long as the wind blows and the earth revolves the ocean currents will flow. You can read it here for a fee: Access : Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns : Nature

"Antarctic ice core records vividly illustrate that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels today are higher than levels recorded over the past 650,000 years (see figure below). Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen 30 percent in the last 150 years, with half of that rise occurring only in the last three decades. It is a well-established scientific fact that CO2 (and other gases emitted from industrial and agricultural sources) traps heat in the atmosphere, so it is no surprise that we are now witnessing a dramatic increase in temperature."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/past-present-and-future.html#6

Past atmospheric CO2 levels have been as much as 25 times as high as now. As a matter of fact, we're living in one of the lowest CO2 levels in the lifespan of the earth. Besides, it's a well established fact that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow temperature increases. Global warming CAUSES CO2 increases.
The Reference Frame: CO2 vs temperature: ice core correlation & lag

Ancient ice shows warming ahead of CO2

 

[Extrafire]

It isn't so much the temperature change, it's anomalies happening rapidly. Given time, things could adjust to higher temperatures. We pushed the river and temperature changes are faster than most things can adapt to, as Ton mentioned.

Nonsense! The earth has experienced larger and faster climate change many times in the past. Current changes are well within the norm.

 

[L Gilbert]

hhhmmm The number "5000" sure seems to have some significance with people.

AFP: Current warming sharpest climate change in 5,000 years: study

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/iscurrent.pdf

Glaciers melt 'at fastest rate in past 5,000 years' | Environment | The Observer

Glaciers are melting at their fastest rate for 5,000 years - Environment - The Independent

Past Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Graph:

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]

[/FONT]​

 

[Extrafire]

It is the DENSITY of the Gas that is the key factor in determining if it reradiates heat. What AGW theory leaves out is that even their definition of Green House Gases, man's contribution is miniscule, insignificant compared to natural oceanic, biological and geophysical processes. You are lost in the minor case, selective anecdotes of the AGW lobby and seem quite incapable of evaluating the big picture, Tonningon. The AGW cult depends on people like you, prostrate before their sophistry, attempting to blind with scientific mumbo jumbo.

What AGW hypothesis leaves out is the fact that the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic, the more that is in the atmosphere, the less effect any additional CO2 will have. Depending on who's figures you use, doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause an increase of .5 to 1.5 degrees, almost as warm as the Medieval Climate Optimum.

 

[L Gilbert]

I forgot to add the source for the map: Climate History

 

[L Gilbert]

Cool. Here's a detailed argument against the sometimes exaggeratedly high effect of CO² .

Cold Facts on Global Warming

 

[Extrafire]

Warming Climate Can Support Glacial Ice: It Did In Much Warmer Times
Warming Climate Can Support Glacial Ice: It Did In Much Warmer Times

Study Says Glaciers Formed During a Very Warm Period
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/world/europe/11glacier.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Science debunks Glacier Park warming alarm
Science debunks Glacier Park warming alarm - by James M. Taylor - Environment & Climate News

RECENT GLACIER ADVANCES IN NORWAY AND NEW ZEALAND
IngentaConnect RECENT GLACIER ADVANCES IN NORWAY AND NEW ZEALAND: A COMPARISON O...

Melting glacier 'false alarm'
Melting glacier 'false alarm' - Telegraph

Global warming could be causing some glaciers to grow, a new study claims.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Tyne | Global warming boost to glaciers

Glaciers in Norway Growing Again
DailyTech - Glaciers in Norway Growing Again

Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
DailyTech - Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years


Lots more where that came from....

 

[L Gilbert]

All from 2008 or earlier? Nothing current?

 

[L Gilbert]

Here's a nifty site:

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the third-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring minimum sea ice extent in 1979. While this year’s minimum extent was greater than the past two years, it is still below the long-term average, and well outside the range of natural variability.

- from 17 Sept 2009