Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Nye the Science Guy: Climate change more important than economy [VIDEO]
Daily Caller ^ | 5-9-2012 | Michelle Fields

Posted on 05/10/2012 6:26:07 AM PDT by servo1969

Bill Nye the Science Guy told the Daily Caller on Tuesday that climate change is a bigger problem than the economy or high unemployment.

He also said that “this notion that government is inherently bad is new,” and after the November election, President Barack Obama will “have a freer hand.”

Bill Nye, who was in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday speaking on behalf of the Planetary Society, said that he is “very concerned about climate change,” adding that, “you can talk about the economy and short-term jobs and so on — but there are much bigger problems.”

On the president, who Nye supported in his first run, the former television host said, “He has a lot of constraints until he gets re-elected. He can’t do what, certainly, my parents would have thought were routine things — social programs. This notion that government is inherently bad is new.” Nye added. “Whoever’s in charge can’t do anything about it until after the election. … He’ll have a freer hand.”

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bill; climatechange; global; globalgovernance; globalwarming; gorebullwarming; newworldorder; nwo; nye; warming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last
Bill Nye is a 'true believer'.
1 posted on 05/10/2012 6:26:12 AM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: servo1969

What a moron.


2 posted on 05/10/2012 6:28:23 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (Liberalism: Carrying adolescent values and behavior into adult life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Bill Nye the JUNK Science Guy

Fixed it.

3 posted on 05/10/2012 6:29:05 AM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
""This notion that government is inherently bad is new.”"

Tell that to our founding fathers who created this paradise you were raised in you idiot. You may have a science degree, but your way of thinking outside that realm is truly asinine.

4 posted on 05/10/2012 6:30:35 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Billie boy is absolutely correct. Global warming lie is a bigger problem than the economy because it is a LIE and a POWER GRAB FOR YOUR MONEY, a TOOL for CONTROLLING the assets of innocent people.


5 posted on 05/10/2012 6:32:36 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I would say liberals are a bigger problem than the economy.


6 posted on 05/10/2012 6:33:23 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Some day our schools will teach the difference between "lose" and "loose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

If we don’t get 0 out, it won’t matter any way.


7 posted on 05/10/2012 6:34:01 AM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (Criminaliens or Crimigrants...0bamao's people?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
"this notion that government is inherently bad is new

That statement right there, shows the guy is an idiot.

8 posted on 05/10/2012 6:34:10 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I would say liberals are a bigger problem than the economy.


9 posted on 05/10/2012 6:34:33 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Some day our schools will teach the difference between "lose" and "loose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Nye attended “Sidwell Friends” school, so it’s not big wonder he grew up a flaming liberal. Also, he has a BS degree and an “honorary” doctorate.


10 posted on 05/10/2012 6:35:07 AM PDT by JaguarXKE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

“It is a kind of spiritual snobbery that makes people think they can be happy without money.” Albert Camus


11 posted on 05/10/2012 6:36:17 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
On the president, who Nye supported in his first run, the former television host said, “He has a lot of constraints until he gets re-elected....

Da! I vill transmit to Vlad.

12 posted on 05/10/2012 6:37:39 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
"This notion that government is inherently bad is new.” Nye added"

Yeah Bill, it only goes back to 1776

13 posted on 05/10/2012 6:41:21 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (I like Obamacare because Granny signed the will and I need the cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Knew there was a reason I always thought he was an idiot.


14 posted on 05/10/2012 6:42:35 AM PDT by MtBaldy (If Obama is the answer, it must have been a really stupid question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JaguarXKE

Plus his degree is in mechanical engineering, not physics or anything to do with climatology.


15 posted on 05/10/2012 6:43:10 AM PDT by TheCipher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I used to like his show until I found out what a flaming lib he is.


16 posted on 05/10/2012 6:45:32 AM PDT by caver (Obama: Home of the Whopper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

In a sense, he’s right. It’s more important to expose the real agenda of the global warming/climate change frauds, as their primary goal is to change our economy and implement a socialist, centrally planned system. The environmental movement hasn’t really been about the environment for some time now, but just another prong of attack of the left to destroy America. Removing the bogus EPA and its ridiculous regulations will go a long way to stimulating business and thus jobs.


17 posted on 05/10/2012 6:45:34 AM PDT by EscapedDutch ("Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money" - Lady Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines released more green house gases than the Industrial Revolution. How are we supposed to undo all the volcanoes, human activity and the heat form the sun?
18 posted on 05/10/2012 6:45:43 AM PDT by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Bill Nye is just another media moron.
He may have a mechanical engineering degree, but so do I, and that only said he attended class.


19 posted on 05/10/2012 6:46:02 AM PDT by BuffaloJack (End Obama's War On Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Bill was funny when he was in a comedy troupe. Not so much now.


20 posted on 05/10/2012 6:46:02 AM PDT by TangoLimaSierra (To the left the truth looks like Right-Wing extremism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
“Bill Nye,please stop by the White House on your way out for a grant on studying the effects of global warming on minorities.”
21 posted on 05/10/2012 6:48:03 AM PDT by 4yearlurker (No matter who you vote for,the government eventually gets in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“this notion that government is inherently bad is new

That statement right there, shows the guy is an idiot.

I think the American Revolution sprang out of the idea that government is inherently bad, hello, earth to what’s his face


22 posted on 05/10/2012 6:48:39 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JaguarXKE

oh lord, isn’ t that where sasha and malia go to school


23 posted on 05/10/2012 6:49:31 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Bill Nye, the lyin’ guy..


24 posted on 05/10/2012 6:50:06 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... so should voting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

This looks like a string of quotes designed to scare patriotic Americans. I knew Bill Nye was liberal, but this is over the top. The comments on Obama having a freer hand if re-elected are also likely to be true. I hope all decent Americans are prepared in case we have to face this nightmare.


25 posted on 05/10/2012 6:53:18 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Can we afford as much government as welfare-addicted voters demand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
It's not about truth. It's all about the money and the power.

Governments around the world are utterly lost in debt financing the out of control social programs and such that got them elected and keep them in office. Panic time!

"Global Warming" is a the ultimate dream come true for politicians everywhere!

Done right, it is a vastly deep money well that politicians can tap into and thus keep their power, while granting them absolute power at the same time!

Does Nye realize he's just another useful idiot? Probably not, but let's hope his audience does.

26 posted on 05/10/2012 6:55:14 AM PDT by GBA (Isaiah 9:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Bill Nye the Science Jerk


27 posted on 05/10/2012 7:03:45 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I just want to jump in on the “this guy is an idiot” bandwagon.


28 posted on 05/10/2012 7:08:05 AM PDT by Codeflier (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama - 4 democrat presidents in a row and counting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
On the president, who Nye supported in his first run, the former television host said, “He has a lot of constraints until he gets re-elected. ...Nye added. ...after the election. ... He’ll have a freer hand.”

Sort of like with missile defense, eh?

Open Mic Catches Obama Asking Medvedev for Space on Missile Defense
March 26, 2012

"In a private conversation about the planned U.S.-led NATO missile defense system in Europe, President Barack Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for space on the issue.

This is my last election,” Obama told Medvedev. “After my election I have more flexibility.”

“I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev said, referring to incoming President Vladimir Putin."

http://fox8.com/2012/03/26/open-mic-catches-obama-asking-medvedev-for-space-on-missile-defense/

29 posted on 05/10/2012 7:08:48 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL

I was thinking that “Bill Nye the leftist boot-licker guy” would be more appropriate...


30 posted on 05/10/2012 7:09:25 AM PDT by Zeppo ("Happy Pony is on - and I'm NOT missing Happy Pony")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines released more green house gases than the Industrial Revolution.

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause [historically -etl]. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
_______________________________________________________________

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) — Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

31 posted on 05/10/2012 7:12:03 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
Here's a sunspot chart showing the various peaks and dips throughout the past centuries. Note the "Medieval Max". It corresponds to the "Medieval Warm Period". The "Maunder Minimum" corresponds to the "Little Ice Age", and the "Modern Max" to the recent warming trend we had been experiencing, at least until the past 15 years or so.

"Changes in carbon-14 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere, which serves as a long term proxy of solar activity. Note the present day is on the left-hand side of this figure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity

32 posted on 05/10/2012 7:12:51 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Here is what I wrote to him when he asked me for money to lobby to restore 0bama’s cuts to NASA:

Bill,
You guys were all excited about Barack Obama. Now you are finding out what we who actually read some of the things he wrote knew all along. The only science he supports is the science that says we are guilty of damaging the planet. Obama thinks that America should not be better than any other country in the world and since we were obviously better in manned space exploration and planetary science missions he is working hard to cut us down to size. No amount of lobbying can change his mind because he is a dedicated Marxist and always has been. Your only hope is to kiss up to him and hope he doesn’t treat you like Uncle Joe Stalin used to treat scientists who questioned the party line.


33 posted on 05/10/2012 7:13:30 AM PDT by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
From BBC News [yr: 2004]:

"A new [2004] analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past. They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer."..."In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface.
This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

34 posted on 05/10/2012 7:14:55 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ETL

OOPS I left out something. Copy should read:

Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines released more green house gases than the Industrial Revolution. How are we supposed to undo all the volcanoes, human activity and the heat form the sun? /S


35 posted on 05/10/2012 7:16:57 AM PDT by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Thanks for this thread.

________

” - - - This notion that government is inherently bad is new.” Nye added. “Whoever’s in charge can’t do anything about it until after the election. … He’ll have a freer hand.”

HEY! BILL NYE! Yeah, YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Point # 1: Remember Thomas Jefferson? He thought that Government should be as small and frugal as possible, because it was a necessary evil.

The original 13 States fought against the most powerful government in the World for YEARS because the British “government was inherently bad.”

The “Don’t Tread on Me” Flag is older than the Betsy Ross American Flag.

Point # 2: “ - - - after the election. … He’ll have a freer hand.” is EXACTLY what Marxist Dictator Obama told the Russians he would do. Dictator Obama used the term “more flexible.”

If you Science is as “flexible” as your sorry knowledge of American politics, then maybe you should move to Kenya with Obama.


36 posted on 05/10/2012 7:17:38 AM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Hugo Chavez on "climate change"...

From GreenLeft.org

VENEZUELA: Chavez calls for global offensive for socialism
August 31, 2005

excerpts...

"The environment is suffering damage that could be irreversible — global warming, the greenhouse effect, the melting of the polar ice caps, the rising sea level, hurricanes — with terrible social occurrences that will shake life on this planet."

"I believe this idea has a strong connection with reality. I don't think we have much time. Fidel Castro said in one of his speeches I read not so long ago, 'tomorrow could be too late, let's do now what we need to do'."

"I believe it is time that we take up with courage and clarity a political, social, collective and ideological offensive across the world — a real offensive that permits us to move progressively, over the next years, the next decades, leaving behind the perverse, destructive, destroyer, capitalist model and go forward in constructing the socialist model to avoid barbarism and beyond that the annihilation of life on this planet."

--Hugo Chavez, at the 16th World Festival of Youth and Students, held in Caracas on August 8-15, 2005

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/640/640p16.htm
_______________________________________________

From The Washington Times, January 12, 2009

Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Group sees 'global governance' as solution

by Stephen Dinan

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

lots more...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/
_______________________________________________

Here's a link to an image of a Google cache of the Socialist International's webpage that originally included Obama's "Climate Czar" Carol Browner.
http://24ahead.com/images/si-csws-cache-as-of-011009.jpg

37 posted on 05/10/2012 7:18:53 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Who needs the Mythbusters when we have FR to bust myths like Bill Nye the Obama Guy?


38 posted on 05/10/2012 7:24:43 AM PDT by equaviator (There's nothing like the universe to bring you down to earth again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines released more green house gases than the Industrial Revolution.

Not even close. Counting water vapor (which is frankly ridiculous) gets Pinatubo up to 491Mt. Mankind emits about 20,000 Mt of water vapor a year. Again, comparing water vapor is ridiculous because it is short lived. The realistic comparison is CO2 and Pinatubo loses big: 42Mt versus 7000 Mt for manmade.

39 posted on 05/10/2012 7:28:11 AM PDT by palmer (Jim, please bill me 50 cents for this completely useless post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: palmer

You got a source? There are articles here that say Mt Pinatubo released more Greenhouse gas than the industrial revolution.


40 posted on 05/10/2012 7:33:05 AM PDT by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ETL; mountainlion

Forgot to mention, the 7000Mt human emission is annual. Pinatubo’s 41 Mt was one-time.


41 posted on 05/10/2012 7:33:51 AM PDT by palmer (Jim, please bill me 50 cents for this completely useless post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
Bill Nye the JUNK Science Guy

True, but tragically he was positioned by the media years ago to pass those junk science concepts on to our kids. He's just another little cog in the Progressive Brainwashing Machine.

42 posted on 05/10/2012 7:36:48 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Greenhouse advocates can’t see the obvious

Posted on by | 5 Comments

The question: Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?

The short (and obvious) answer: Because trivial changes in the abundance of an essential atmospheric trace gas are not a significant driver of climate.

This, however, appears too complex for “climate scientists”

Provoked Scientists Try To Explain Global Warming Standstill – … The hunt for this missing energy, and the search for the mechanisms, both natural and artificial, that caused the temperature hiatus are, in many ways, a window into climate science itself. Beneath the sheen of consensus stating that human emissions are forcing warmer temperatures — a notion no scientist interviewed for this story doubts — there are deep uncertainties of how quickly this rise will occur, and how much air pollution has so far prevented this warming. Many question whether energy is missing at all.

For answers, researchers across the United States are wrestling with a surge of data from recent science missions. They are flying high, sampling the thin clouds crowning the atmosphere. Their probes are diving into deep waters, giving unprecedented, sustained measures of the oceans’ dark places. And their satellites are parsing the planet’s energy, sampling how much of the sun’s heat has arrived, and how much has stayed.

“What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,” said Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist and former lead author of the United Nations’ climate change report, during a recent visit to MIT. “And that’s all good. There is no silver bullet. In this case, it’s four pieces or five pieces of silver buckshot.”

This buckshot has included some familiar suspects, like the Pacific’s oscillation between La Niña and El Niño, along with a host of smaller influences, such as midsize volcanic eruptions once thought unable to cool the climate. The sun’s cycles are proving more important than expected. And there are suspicions that the vast uptick in Chinese coal pollution has played a role in reflecting sunlight back into space, much as U.S. and European pollution did decades ago. (GWPF)

http://junkscience.com/2011/11/03/greenhouse-advocates-cant-see-the-obvious/

43 posted on 05/10/2012 7:37:48 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
Here's the source for Pinatubo: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/Emissions/Reports/Pinatubo/pinatubo_abs.html

The manmade CO2 is highly dependent on economic activity and can be accurately estimated from sales of fossil fuels and by-products. The economy is tied to fossil fuels; ending the use of fossil fuels means ending the economy and vice versa. The powers-that-be supporting Bill Nye and others like him know this.

44 posted on 05/10/2012 7:38:09 AM PDT by palmer (Jim, please bill me 50 cents for this completely useless post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Nye the anti-science guy, so incompetent he was kicked out of disney as an exhibit.


45 posted on 05/10/2012 7:40:44 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer

“7000 Mt for manmade”

Numbers about man made emissions have also been greatly exaggerated. I’d like to see actual spreadsheets of those numbers, but, of course, since liberal Luddites make up the numbers we’ll never see their math.


46 posted on 05/10/2012 7:40:54 AM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
He also said that “this notion that government is inherently bad is new,”

Yeah, it's one of those radical, new Tea Party ideas. "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776.

(but then I guess global warming would give more time for "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot")

Now as for Nye's "Science is right so pass out the government cash and screw freedom" attitude, I believe that it was covered by President Eisenhower's farewell address:

... Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

So he warned both that science may become controlled by the government through the process of government funding, with opinions outside the government defined orthodoxy withering from lack of funding and that the same government's policy might be controlled by scientists, forming a vicious cycle. That sums up the global warming industry very well.

47 posted on 05/10/2012 7:41:36 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (You only have three billion heartbeats in a lifetime.How many does the government claim as its own?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
See 'source link' at bottom to view missing charts and graphs...

Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

For those interested in more details a series of data sets and charts have been assembled below in a 5-step statistical synopsis.

Note that the first two steps ignore water vapor.

1. Greenhouse gas concentrations

2. Converting concentrations to contribution

3. Factoring in water vapor

4. Distinguishing natural vs man-made greenhouse gases

5. Putting it all together

Note: Calculations are expressed to 3 significant digits to reduce rounding errors, not necessarily to indicate statistical precision of the data. All charts were plotted using Lotus 1-2-3.

Caveat: This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other. It does not take into account all of the complicated interactions between atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished by better computer models than are currently in use.


Greenhouse Gas Concentrations:
Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic)

1. The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases, and supplemented with information from other sources (2-7). Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!

TABLE 1.

The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)
(all concentrations expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent of Total
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 288,000 68,520 11,880 (2) 368,400 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 848 577 320 1,745 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 285 12 15 312 0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 25 0 2 27 0.007%
Total 289,158 69,109 12,217 370,484 100.00%

The chart at left summarizes the % of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere from Table 1. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored.

But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:

Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )--(ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers.


Converting greenhouse gas concentrations
to greenhouse effect contribution
(using global warming potential )

2. Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion:

( concentration ) X ( the appropriate GWP multiplier (3) (4) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse contribution.:

TABLE 2.

Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2

This table adjusts values in Table 1 to compare greenhouse gases equally with respect to CO2. ( #'s are unit-less) Multiplier (GWP) Pre-industrial baseline(new) Natural additions (new) Man-made additions (new) Tot. Relative Contribution Percent of Total (new)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 288,000 68,520 11,880 368,400 72.369%
Methane (CH4) 21 (3) 17,808 12,117 6,720 36,645 7.199%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 310 (3) 88,350 3,599 4,771 96,720 19.000%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) see data (4) 2,500 0 4,791 7,291 1.432%
Total 396,658 84,236 28,162 509,056 100.000%

NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.

Compared to the concentration statistics in Table 1, the GWP comparison in Table 2 illustrates, among other things:

Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400 / 509,056)-- (ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 2 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor).

Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases.

To properly represent the total relative impacts of Earth's greenhouse gases Table 3 (below) factors in the effect of water vapor on the system.


Water vapor overwhelms
all other natural and man-made
greenhouse
contributions.

3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

TABLE 3.

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics Percent of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor ----- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%
Total 100.000% 100.000%

As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (5). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!


Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations
of greenhouse gases

4. Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).

Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.


Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

TABLE 4a.

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of Greenhouse Effect

% Natural

% Man-made
Water vapor 95.000%

94.999%

0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%

3.502%

0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360%

0.294%

0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950%

0.903%

0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072%

0.025%

0.047%
Total 100.00%

99.72

0.28%

When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.

From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.


" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "


Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal


Research to Watch

Scientists are increasingly recognizing the importance of water vapor in the climate system. Some, like Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations in Earth's atmosphere.

His research indicates that air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today. Such increases in atmospheric moisture during our current interglacial period would have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases.


" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "

Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.

Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!


|| Global Warming || Table of Contents ||

References:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:on the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo

3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine

Useful conversions:

1 Gt = 1 billion tons = 1 cu. km. H20

1 Gt Carbon(C) = ~3.67 Gt Carbon Dioxide(CO2)

2.12 Gt C = ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2

This page by: Monte Hieb
Last revised: March 2, 2007

Source:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


48 posted on 05/10/2012 7:41:36 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL

My view is that the global warming from increased CO2 is rather small and benign. The big reason for the hubub up to the early 2000’s was a bunch of natural warming in the 80’s and 90’s, first from solar and then from the ocean (which lagged the solar). The current lull in warming is not due to less solar (that’s a myth propagated by the alarmists) but because the natural warming cycle has ended and we now have negative PDO. The lowered solar of 2007-9 has yet to manifest in the atmosphere. It will appear from the ocean with a lag just like the warming.


49 posted on 05/10/2012 7:42:31 AM PDT by palmer (Jim, please bill me 50 cents for this completely useless post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

We used to enjoy his show when our younguns were younguns. Now, he is just another, albeit high-ish profile, looney addle-pated crackpot apologist for the religion of human caused planetary climate change.

Scary how much this zip-head may have influenced children who are now adults of franchise age.


50 posted on 05/10/2012 7:43:34 AM PDT by petro45acp ("Don't" read 'HOPE' by L Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman...it will bring tears to eyes. BOR!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson