Chill settles over 'global warming':Public concern over supposed "climate change" continues to erode

One News Now ^ | 10/26/2009 | Pete Chagnon

[IbJensen]

According to the latest Pew Research Poll, only 35 percent see global warming as a very serious problem, down from 44 percent last year. Fifty-seven percent believe there is solid evidence that man is driving climate change, down from 71 percent in 2008.

As the public concern over climate change continues to erode, Lord Christopher Monckton -- the former advisor for science policy to Lady Margaret Thatcher -- says the alleged science behind manmade climate change is eroding as well.

Christopher Monckton"First of all, it's now been demonstrated by measurement that CO2 has only one-sixth of the warming effect on the planet than the U.N. had previously thought," he states. "It's therefore harmless and generally beneficial."

He adds that even if the U.N. were right, nothing economically could be done to fix the problem.

"You would have to forgo the emission of one trillion tons of CO2," Monckton explains. "And that is 33 years of global output -- the entire emissions of the whole world for 33 years -- in order to forestall just one Fahrenheit degree of future temperature increase."

The drop in public concern over alleged climate change comes at a point when the U.S. Congress is considering a massive energy bill that critics say would cut carbon emissions while dramatically raising energy prices.

[IbJensen]

Fifty-seven percent believe there is solid evidence that man is driving climate change, down from 71 percent in 2008.

That would mean that 43% of Americans appear to be sane, while the 57% are, like the 'scientists' who puke out this garbage, are complete imbeciles.

[Mercat]

I remember a year ago being asked by someone who was not particularly political but generally well informed (oxymoron?) “Do you really not think that Global Warming is a threat?” She was incredulous and I’m sure thought I had a few screws loose. I’ve thought it was a scam from the get go.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[restornu]

Climate chief Lord (Vanity) Stern: give up meat to save the planet

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Frenchtown Dan]

The effect of co2 was off base by 6 times??

When they started blaming cattle flatulence for it, I knew it didn’t make sense. Trying to make all of us burger lovers guilty. Well, a few hundred years ago there were millions of buffaloe on the great plains, huge numbers of caribou in the tundra, Much larger herds of grazing animals in Africa, and elsewhere. Didn’t they fart too?

We are definatley contributing to polution, but whether or not humans are making the planet warmer has never been proven.

[Frenchtown Dan]

I should have added that the fact that scientists were trying to blame methane which has a much greater greenhouse effect also led me to believe that co2 wasn’t really the culprit, and the global warming fanatics were grasping at straws.

[Vinnie]

I was just half-listening to a Brit on the local radio.

He claimed while in Antarctica, under the ‘hole in the ozone’ his eyes actually changed color, permanently.!!
( I suspect to brown)

Sounded like a Coast-to-Coast candidate.

[exDemMom]

I have never once seen any mechanism proposed by which CO2 content can possibly raise the energy (heat) content of the air.

[justa-hairyape]

What warming ? We have a major snowstorm breaking out in the western US with one forecaster stating we may see snow in the outer suburbs of Vegas. That would be snow near Las Vegas City limits in OCTOBER ! Not January and not February.

Lots of Snow in the West... Severe Storms and Blizzard

Also predicts a Big October blizzard in Nebraska. East coast should be okay, but the next storm may drive the cold there way eventually.

[TChris]

We are expecting up to 2 FEET of snow over the next few days, here in Cheyenne.

[z3n]

"I have never once seen any mechanism proposed by which CO2 content can possibly raise the energy (heat) content of the air."

The greenhouse effect doesn't raise the energy content of air. It insulates energy so that it doesn't dissipate into space as quickly.

The greenhouse effect is a very real phenomenon. Just ask the Venusians. LOL. We shouldn't get distracted debating the basics. The problem is how much of a greenhouse effect CO2 really has.
Water vapor is far far far more significant effect on greenhouse effect, and water vapor is highly variable.

This stuff is junk-science scare tactics, and most people are catching on to it.

Inform them properly, and they will reject the propaganda.

[Buckeye McFrog]

all the billions of dollars being fed into the spin by the Soros Machine cannot compete with one look at the thermometer

[JoeMac]

I think the decline in the belief in global warming is due to the fact somebody finally convinced Al Gore to shut-up.

[narses]

Blonde?

[exDemMom]

I remember learning in physics (way back in the 80s) that air is the best insulator against heat flow. If the whole "greenhouse" thing is based on the insulating properties of a trace gas in the atmosphere--that CO2 actually raises the R value of air, rather than acts to hold heat--then I'm less convinced than ever. An insulator slows heat flow; CO2 would act equally to slow the flow of heat in from the sun as well as out. Venus is not a good example of the "greenhouse" properties of CO2. Being significantly closer to the sun than the Earth, it receives significantly more solar energy. Mercury is even hotter, and I don't think it even has an atmosphere.

Water holds heat a lot better than air. That's what I've always considered responsible for the ability of water to act as a greenhouse gas.

I don't recall ever reading anywhere that the earth was hundreds of degrees hotter when the CO2 content was thousands fold higher than now.

[z3n]

Air is only a good insulator when it is trapped in pockets or layers. I'm no physicist but I believe it is because air only conducts heat by convection (movement of the energy laden molecules in the fluid). This is why clothing (wool, and other materials that insulate, like dual panes of glass) have air gaps/pockets/layers in them.
Air by itself can and will transfer energy. It will try to obtain an equilibrium, and use forces like convection to transfer energy around.
That is why air by itself (like the atmosphere) unrestricted is not a good "insulator". Air trapped in small enough pockets must try to convect energy, and then radiate it through the outlying material. That is inefficient transfer of energy.

The greenhouse effect is something slightly different.
Think of a green house. You are trapping air inside, and you are allowing energy in (ultraviolet and infrared radiation) and you trap or insulate it with a material so that the air does not deliver the energy back out through airflow. Then, you can grow plants in your greenhouse when the outdoor temperatures are lower. You allow energy in, but you slow it's dissipation.

The atmosphere has some greenhouse effect. Water vapor or humidity is a good relative insulator. This is why arid areas (deserts) can be so hot in the day and get so chilly at night. The heat is allowed to dissipate because there isn't as much atmospheric humidity to hold it, and to trap it.

That is why I say we should stay focused. There's no reason to debate the greenhouse effect itself, really. You can try, but I think it's a diversion.
The issue is CO2.
CO2's greenhouse effect is relatively negligible compared to water vapor, particularly at the levels it exists in earth's atmosphere, but there are always other things to consider, which is why the science is somewhat theoretical. If you increase some gasses levels in the atmosphere, it changes other properties, not just greenhouse effect. For example, some gases may help insulate or hold heat, but can also increase the reflection of solar energy.