Now I know why righties are so deluded about global warming

I was just watching Glen Beck. And he was saying that the snow on his ranch, the Artic vortex, and the science ship getting stuck in the ice is proof that there is no global warming, in his dramatic way with videos of Al Gore in the background.

Is he REALLY that dumb? It seems like he is denying even that the earth is warming! It boggles my mind that someone like him could be that dumb.

I got so mad I threw something at the TV and then turned the channel.

But now I understand why so many righties are so mistaken about AGW. They watch and listen and read dumb shit like that.

 

Your more then Chicken Little... your Winston Smith.

How sad.....how very very sad....

 

I think it has little to do with science, it's more a suspicion when all the anti business communists start piling on and exaggerating

George Bush the First, was the first major politician to stand up and declare himself publicly to be "An Enviromentalist" and back then, they were all considered to be left wing whackos

so there's the science, and the solution

and the left wing exaggerates the science, because they are licking their chops at the solution

and the right wing denies the science, because they can't tolerate the solution

 

a. greenhouse gases such as aerosols cause cooling.
(most aerosols cause cooling)

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...osols/page3.php

Scientists believe the cooling from sulfates and other reflective aerosols overwhelms the warming effect of black carbon and other absorbing aerosols over the planet. Models estimate that aerosols have had a cooling effect that has counteracted about half of the warming caused by the build-up of greenhouse gases since the 1880s. However, unlike many greenhouse gases, aerosols are not distributed evenly around the planet, so their impacts are most strongly felt on a regional scale.
Despite considerable advances in recent decades, estimating the direct climate impacts of aerosols remains an immature science. Of the 25 climate models considered by the Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), only a handful considered the direct effects of aerosol types other than sulfates.


1. co2 causes cooling...

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...ant-growth.html

A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming.

The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.


2. CO2 is a powerful coolant and thermostat per NASA science.



http://science.nasa.gov/science-new...12/22mar_saber/


Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

3. Change in co2 follow but lag change in ocean temps.


Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.



See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008





The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

The paper:

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Ole Humluma, b,
Kjell Stordahlc,
Jan-Erik Solheimd

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/...global-warming/

 

whatever, the general consensus is the earth is warming. They have known this for 100 years, long before Henry Ford.

Most accept that the industrial revolution has exasperated and speeded up the process.

The dispute is, what to do about it? and also, can we do anything about it? and also, should we even care?

after that, you can toss science out the window, the debate is just an argument between pro business anti business

I'm still waiting for somebody to show me that a world run by the government will warm slower than a world run by me

 

Just curious, but why do you watch Glen Beck when you disagree with everything the man stands for?

I don't watch Al Sharpton, or Chris Matthews, etc. Why do it?

 

I don't watch Sharpton either. I just can't stand his voice. Does that make me a racist?

I don't normally watch Beck, but I occasionally do, along with Fox News. One of my criticisms of the right is that they only watch news that agrees with their beliefs and therefore never learn anything new. So I feel it's only fair that I occasionally look at what the right is watching.

Beck is freakin' whacked though. The man should be institutionalized. To suggest that since the world has warmed 1 1/2 degrees so therefore there will be no snow or ice is beyond stupid. Of course he is only repeating what much of the other crazed ignorant righties are saying and that's what they want to hear.

 

According to your fellow liberals, it probably does. But not to me.

There's a difference between watching NEWS that one doesn't like vs. OPINION one doesn't like.

 

"Get a hold of yourself. Calm down. Stop watching <s>Faux News</s> MSNBC. Everything will be all right. This is all inflated beyond reality hysterical bullshit designed to get you idiot <s>righties</s> lefties all in a lather. Chill dude."

 

Exactly.