Richard Alley Dances to Explain Ice Ages, CO2 and Global Warming

[Sugardaddy501]

@sunshine3sky seconded

[nigelelsass]

@anon3560 : I know, I know - I am not enough into conspiracy theories to understand... :-)))

[nigelelsass]

@anon3560 : Anyway, enjoy having your taxes on wealth creation (income tax) instead of activities with negative side-effects. How is your deficit doing? Our 2-3 billion budget surplus is doing well.

How does it feel to be the socialist? The debtor?

[nigelelsass]

@anon3560 : BRILLIANT - The greenhouse effect which makes that we are warmer than the average temperature of the Moon (which receives the same radiation as it is at the same average distance from the sun) is a conspiracy be the Oligarchy... they travelled to the past to tell scientists like Fourrier and Boltzmann what to establish... BRILLIANT - damn, did you even graduate from high school?

[nigelelsass]

@anon3560 : That is just because you live in a shitty country which taxes the hell of you - so you need to be angry at something. Try Switzerland - it is both more capitalist and green that the US - with less bureaucracy - but also less conspiracy theorists who believe there is a plot at every street corner. I feel sorry for you.

[nigelelsass]

@anon3560 : Actually, taxing energy if at all makes me more free.

(1) IF put on income, taxes are unavoidable (unless you work less or use loopholes)

(2) IF put in energy, taxations can be largely decreased by adjusting consumption to the new economic optimum.

Please note that you cannot "switch to CFL" to reduce your income tax. You cannot change your refrigerator to reduce income tax. If taxation is on energy you have more room for decision - as trade offs are offered.

[nigelelsass]

@anon3560

(1) the carbon tax only affect large emitters - not me.

(2) the biofuels we use th most are from biomass residues (doesn't compete with food)

(3) I am free to use as much energy as I want - I just pay the fair price

(4) How is corruption in a market slavery? aren't then all Americans slaves as you have so much corruption?

(5) The greenhouse effect is settled science - even if you reject it on faith (your religion)

Overall you fail at proving my supposed "enslavement"

[nigelelsass]

@anon3560 :

(1) Do you have PROOFS of what you say for Australia???

(2) There are no interference of the UN - only a report published yearly.

(3) nobody is stupid enough here to see it as "police of the air we breath" - if at all measures improved a bit the air quality (this is more freedom as polluting is not a right)

(4) renewable energy makes us more free and independant from other countries - more self-reliant.

(5) my elec. bill has gone up, my income taxes accordingly down (zero sum)

[nigelelsass]

@anon3560 : I have to ask you: AS I LIVE IN A COUNTRY WITH STRINGENT CARBON POLICIES - Please explain to me EXACTLY which aspect of my life is controlled - I am really dying for your answer - so we can check your assumptions against reality !!! Come on, bring it on !!!

[nigelelsass]

@anon3560 : Nice to see that you put ideology first, science last - it doesn't surprise me.

FYI: Putting ideology before facts is precisely what fascists regimes have done.

[pseudotruth]

@EasyEs

"I also took the lead in a small private sector study....."

Well somebody had to walk the dog.

[pseudotruth]

@EasyEs

You sound like another liar who makes bogus claims - Tim Ball.

[kaxitaksi]

Never underestimate the power of denial..

[pdblouin33]

In 50 years, battery technology will be so advanced that we will use renewables+nuclear to charge our electric cars, and batteries to dish out solar power at night that was accumulated during the day.

Car manufacturers are all starting to build electric cars and it will fuel R&D into efficient batteries.

[cristop5]

But according to Glenn Beck people like Dr Alley are inspired to fabricate all this stuff because they crave a global communist government.

[uknowispeaksense]

@cristop5 Once you use Glenn Beck's assertions as a basis for an argument you have already lost the argument.

[pdblouin33]

@cristop5 Even if that was true, it makes no sense. There is no logical pathway between correct science and global communism.

[cristop5]

@pdblouin33 If you use faith and a lot of imagination, you can picture Richard Alley pining for a system of gulags as he delivers his lessons. But this is quite a difficult thing to do without outside help. That's where Glenn Beck and Alex Jones come in. They have white boards, slide shows etc to help you overcome your own common sense and replace it with fantastic theories about secret organizations, secret agendas etc. Far more exciting than a sad story about us fucking the planet up.

[EasyEs]

Err 500 million years worth of fossil fuels put in the earth, by man? That is a absurd statement, the vast majority of hyrdrocarbons are not trapped in large bodies, there is little chance that the recovery factor will ever reach greater then 40% for the small fraction that is trapped in economic viable pools.

[uknowispeaksense]

@EasyEs 500 million years of accumulation, accretion and lithification of peat swamps etc. What he is saying is that what nature took 500 miilion years to accumulate, we are taking out in only 500 years. i don't know if your statement about the 'vast majority...." is true or not but the fact is, the hydrocarbons that we do use are more than enough to alter the climate drastically. Once the warming reaches a critical point many of the other hydrocarbons like clathrates will be released.

[EasyEs]

@uknowispeaksense A very small fraction of carbon is trapped in coal. I do know that a small fraction is trapped in hydrocarbons. look up what a cyclotherm is. Most Carbon is trapped in carbonate rocks and ocean sedimemts.

This idea that ocean calthrates will release is total nonsense and not supported by any real indepth science. They are just as likely to release during a drop in sea level during a glacial advance due to shelf instability.

[uknowispeaksense]

@EasyEs so you don't believe that we can attribute the burning of fossil fuels to date to observed changes in temperature as well as acidification of the oceans and whatnot? Permafrost clathrates are already thawing and releasing large amounts of methane. There is evidence that the end-Permian may have come about as mass release of methane from melting clathrates.

[EasyEs]

@uknowispeaksense-CO2 has some effect on climate

That effect isn't enough to change climate much with out feedbacks kicking in. I am not convinced that the climate is set at a hair trigger around 300-600ppm.

Permafrost calthrates are allways melting or freezing. What do you think happened during the last interglacial when all of Eurasia and North America were covered with them over a much wider expanse then today. As for the Permian, that makes for good tv but not science.

[pseudotruth]

@EasyEs

Another half-wit denier who is all opinion and no knowledge.

[EasyEs]

@pseudotruth Hmm well no I contributed to a project supported by the Canadian government regarding sediment shelf instability and worked with people who would be considered the experts on sub sea clathrates. I also took the lead in a small private sector study focusing on paleoclimate and paleographic reconstructions using qualitative and quantitative analysis using biostratigraphic markers using arctic delta sediments spanning the last 40ma.

Your experence again?

[pseudotruth]

@EasyEs

I have encountered many like you who make false claims, none have been what they claim. Any half-wit can make such claims, but your other posts indicate your true state of knowledge. My opinions are driven by the science, yours clearly are not.

[EasyEs]

@pseudotruth. Sure dude, your a real expert and have done real science. Well back to working for an oil company for me. I left the public sector to work in the private. Money was mostly the driving force. Hope that drives you nuts. Oh and I changed my Liberal MPs mind regarding the seriousness of climate change. To bad you were not there. 

[pseudotruth]

@EasyEs

I know you're a troll. Nothing you say is reliable.

[EasyEs]

@pseudotruth I was having a back and forth with the person above who commented on my pointing out the absurd claim that by burning fossil fuels we are going to return the atmosphere to a similar composition of the time they were sequestered in rock. Absurd and you have not commented on that because someone at real climate has not written on it and Greenman hasn't made a video about it.

You are trolling, bring something to the discussion or go away.

[jffryh]

@3:56 he says our grandkids' grandkids will live. well, I guess that's a little reasuring.

[AshtrayanConvict]

@jffryh At a ball game, I bought a hot dog wrapped in a napkin. When I was done, I just tossed it in between the seats.

[jffryh]

@AshtrayanConvict Thanks for sharing. I don't get it. Were you trying to make any kind of point with this comment? I like to eat hot dogs too sometimes. might be better for the climate if we were vegetarians, but we need govt action to save the planet. there's worse things in the world than a used napkin on the ground. so good for you.

[AshtrayanConvict]

@jffryh One time while I was swimming I ate some lunch. When I was done, I tossed the bottle in the river so no one would step on broken glass and just tossed the rest of the trash on the ground

[aerobique]

he rocks

[JonThm]

Nature does nuclear fusion usiong high pressure water, or the turbulent flow of steam - see my blog!

[WhiskeyTango12]

There's my crazy Geo Sci teacher. Go Alley!

[JonThm]

My PhD told us how to do nuclear fusion from water - like the deep sea, and green plants do. Oh, and your heart!

[hawbster]

@JonThm I'm confused, do you mean fission?

[JonThm]

% is parts per hundred. ppm is parts per million, so we add 4 .0s But we get such small %s!

[JonThm]

My posts are facts from my PhD. Every passed an exam? Or do you prefer PR from nuclear power? That is what GW is. Also wrong since 1995.

[BlueManaos]

@JonThm

A science PhD who doesn't understand ppm & percentages. You have destroyed any credibility you might have had!

I suspect your 'PhD' is made of hot-air.

[utesonline]

The world for the last tens years has been getting cooler, Arctic ice is the thickest its been for ten years, check the facts, we are over you alarmist bed wetters spreading your crap, the games up, and the bad science that the global warming scam was founded on is the only thing going into meltdown..

[BlueManaos]

@utesonline

'The world for the last tens years has been getting cooler, Arctic ice is the thickest its been for ten years, check the facts,'

It's you who should check your facts, because I did check and you were not telling the truth!

Climate is measured over 30 years, But just for fun, let's look at the last 15 years.

tinyurl com/ ydczxsa

Arctic Ice -

tinyurl com/y8g4tos

tinyurl com/ykruxea

Owned LIAR! So you can stick your so-called 'facts' where the sun doesn't shine!

[Santaflin]

Actually current CO2 concentration is 388,63 parts per million in January, which amounts to 0,038863 %.

The follow argument is meaningless. Absorption of warmth is a physical given of CO2. It's not boiling us instantly, we just have to change a few things before things get really rough in 50-100 years.

[JonThm]

The warmest period on record, was the warm middle ages - when man released no CO2. The world has been cooling since 2005.

[BaileysBeads]

Indeed the warmest period on flawed records being limited to central England.

Impressive, really impressive.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

no, the warm period from the middle ages was isolated to Northern Europe. This has nothing to do with global temperatures. When past measurements were taken from all around the world rather than just northern europe the "hockey-stick" graph was arrived at.

[JonThm]

El Nino likewise has nothing to do with global temperatures.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

Yes, that's correct, the El Niño's and La Niña's don't have anything to do with climate, even though they effect the whole globe, because they only last about 2 to 3 years. However, their effects are noticeable. If you look on a graph of global temperature averages of the last century, you'll see that the line goes up and down, but with a general upward trend. These ups and downs are from the Niños(as).

[JonThm]

El Nino affects teh heat spread over the Earth, nto the permeativity of air top IR light. Mind you, CO2 at 0.000037% has no effect either! My PhD area.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

History demonstrates the falsehood of your statement. Basic physics attests to the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that increases atmospheric temperatures in relatively high quantities, and we have released at least 50 million years worth of carbon stores in a little over a century. This is NOT natural, and it IS causing detectable changes.

[JonThm]

CO2 is exhailed by animals, and throguh history FOLLOWS the wax and wane of plants - it reacts TO the weather. The major green house gas is water vapor. Basic biology.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

You think I don't understand the carbon cycle? I'm a pathobiology major. I understand biology. CO2 does not "react" to whether, it is a contributing factor in altering climate. Water is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, however, the water cycle ensures that about the same amount of water vapor is suspended in the atmosphere at any one time. However, CO2 and CH4 are rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere because of our emissions, causing a greenhouse effect.

[JonThm]

There is 10% H2O vapor in the air, 0.000037% CO2 -= which reacts to plant growth cycles, and ahs no effect on the climate. Mans CO2 and CH4 are incidental to natures. GW was PR from nuclear power: You their stooge.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

Have you even glanced at the data? I'm sure you haven't otherwise you wouldn't have said, "Mans CO2 and CH4 are incidental to natures.". So I'll do you a favor and send you the data through private message (it won't fit here).

[BlueManaos]

@JonThm

'Mind you, CO2 at 0.000037% has no effect either! My PhD area.'

Dr., I suspect your '0.000037%', is in error!

[JonThm]

@BlueManaos Data New scietist. NASA has confirmed CO2 still at 2 ppm over the Pacific. And GW is about the whole world!

[BlueManaos]

@JonThm

You have a tendency to post nonsense, which if it's your area of study, means you're not being honest.

I note you give no reference. I will assume that your claim is false, as indeed should everyone who encounters claims unsupported by a reference. BTW, is New Scientist a P/R scientific Journal? AFAIK it isn't.

For all I know it's a printing error, or wrong. But one thing's for sure, I don't believe you.

[pondman27]

@BlueManaos

When science is driven by the economics of taxation & gloabl markets, well all manner of rediculous BS will begin to spew forth.

Now if this Dick was worth his salt, perhaps he should be predicting the rate of warming. Since the physical evidence (not manipulated data) clearly shows this last winter to be an absolute gripper (that has still not retreated) I suspect that like too much more, its BS.

[BlueManaos]

@pondman27 Your ignorance is incredible.

Weather is not climate and the heat continues to accumulate.

google Noaa global anomaly

That winter had effectivelyno effect on global temperatures.

Pull your head out of your ass.

[pondman27]

@BlueManaos

Climate describes regional conditions of what!!! WEATHER

So whether the weather will warm or cool is the real question. Statistically & in all other respects, cooling is the more likely, especially since your obsession with CO2 is with a trace gas that is heavier than the rest of the atmospheric gases.

[pondman27]

@BlueManaos Nonsense is it! Odd that, since it is demonstrable that my areas are built & perform in the real world, but these fictions are of the ether, unprovable, incapable of predicitng within the short or even medium term (as admitted by the former head of the IPCC). Never acknowledge the sun or cosmos. The earth is to be seen as a black body! Nothing of the flux of electromagnetism that ensures that the earth always grows.

[pondman27]

@BlueManaos

Now let us test your capacity to think without regergitating the babble stitched in by those that square the circle and have placed mortar upon your head.

How high up a mountain must you go, before plants cannot be seen?

How high before you can not breath? Why do boat owners regard propane with great respect. Clue, think about weight!

[LokiScoutSniper]

Well he just gave reason why it's not man made.

[ReduceGHGs]

What tha?

Read about the orbital variations and how they influence climate.

It is a fact that our historically reliable scientific institutions concur that HUMANS are warming the planet through the use fossil fuels and deforestation. The consequences are not good.

Try listening to what he's saying.

Here's a good site where you can learn more. UCSUSA(dot)org

[LokiScoutSniper]

Look I agree with you to a extent. Deforestation is bad and fossil fuels do pollute. But the Earth is not going to be destroyed. Mankind has less effect than you think and Earth has seen worse. You should know there are plenty of scientists who disagree with man made global warming. But thanks for being one of many who support those who's solution is nothing more than world-wide economic control. Clean renewable energy would come quicker if people thought more like a capitalist than socialist.

[ReduceGHGs]

It certainly is true that the "earth" is not going to be destroyed by us. I never said it was. The biosphere that sustains will become less habitable.

And there are very few respected scientists that are naysayers. Most of those have opinions but no studies to back them up. Many others are corporate think-tank sponsored (like bob carter) and have questionable credibility.

There's no credible debate. Humans are deteriorating the only habitat that can sustain us.

FMI... UCSUSA(dot)org

[pondman27]

@ReduceGHGs

Read about solar variability, the maunder minimum, the eltromagnetic universe & chilling statrs, but most of all, go & re-read the carbon cycle & look up its physical & thermal properties. A non-issue driven by the same think tanks as have slaughtered millions of innocent humans.

[ReduceGHGs]

@pondman27

I recommend not kidding yourself. If you have the expertise, which I highly doubt, to formulate a reasonable argument for your position then send a copy of your study to the NAS, NASA, AAAS, SOCC, NCAR, AGU or any of the rest of the qualified institutions. We would all be happy if the current state of the science was telling us that there's nothing to be concerned about. Do some HONEST reading.

[pondman27]

@ReduceGHGs

"Do some HONEST reading"

Not a bad idea! Lets add a few more (why not!)

Add UN UK USA NAU MI5 MI6 MOS(t)SAD FOI AIPAC CFR MOD DHS Oh & the list goes on WTO WHO ... UFO! Foxtrot Oscar!!

I'm off, these rants of delusion epoch is ending. Time will tell & less than you think.

As I have said, welcome to the Age of Aquarius the water bringer from the cosmos.

[ReduceGHGs]

@pondman27

Yea, who needs all that scientific evidence. It just doesn't matter! Lets just go blindly along, care free, moment to moment and not use the organ that got us into trouble in the first place. Que Sera, Sera. Right?

[pondman27]

@ReduceGHGs When science & its evidence becomes the servant of corporations & thier politics, it becomes as corrupted. As for blindness, well so far, the advocates of runaway temperatures seem incapable of seeing frther than thier own noses. May frosts & plumes of ash, a quiet sun & a new moon.

[psteveens]

@pondman27 May frosts & plumes? You confuse weather and climate. It is also a logic error to generalize from the specific. And I doubt you are qualified to judge the capability of the scientists.

In the end, as I've said before, ALL of our respected scientific institutions basically agree that HUMANS are deteriorating our only habitat. Good evidence for the rational layman.

[pondman27]

@psteveens Ah! the confusion of weather & climate! That explains it all...!

Constantly we have heard the words, "cold snap", and even mention that it is possible the planet will cool for a decade! Yet the lie as to run away warming goes on. As for qualification to judge, I do not judge any individuals in this, just the rediculous hypothesis. Nae a scientific institution on your list, lets see WHO is funding them.

[psteveens]

@pondman27 No, it doesn't explain it all. This is a VERY complex science. Did you really think that you had a grasp of what was going on without the necessary education and training? Silly.

No, you are NOT qualified to judge the hypothesis. You've made that clear.

[pondman27]

@psteveens "This is a VERY complex science". Oh really, what a surprise. Necessary education eh! & training! ... bless me. Not read very much have you... Not read about the real scientists that once in a while disagree with the GIVEN wisdom. There are a few great names come to mind. Galileo being but one in a long list.

Science my dear fellow, is best taught from the living along with the forces of attractions. Not qualified! Are you sure about that!

[psteveens]

@pondman27 So, you apparently came upon your expertise by, what, perhaps you were born with it? How did Galileo gain his insight?

You didn't answer any questions so you actually answer all of them.

You are NOT trained. And you haven't even read a book about it.

Next time you go to the doc will you hope for similar expertise? LOL!

[pondman27]

@psteveens

"You are NOT trained". An interesting accusation coming from an upholder of the the official message. You would be correct, I am NOT a trained (human), are you?

As for expertise, the work I do in the real world will vouch for that. Science has been consumed by controversy, this non-issue is no different.

[psteveens]

@pondman27 So now that we've demonstrated that YOU aren't well informed tell me what studies or which reliable scientific institutions do you rely on. Or, if everyone that knows anything about this wacko, tell me how the person, YOU, that doesn't know anything about this stumbled upon all the right answers?

I'm on the edge of my seat!

[pondman27]

@psteveens "reliable scientific institutions do you rely on"

Which ones might they be then? Why rely upon studies when the living world has no capacity or inclination to deceive. You do know that Galileo was treated poorly by the powers of the time. How odd that you missed the significance. Here is another, Kepler, Johannes.

[pondman27]

@psteveens

Good evidence for the past four years and indeed going back to 1853 does not show anything other than the warming from the last solar minimum save from the stable of CO2 caused climate change. Right now, I bet there is not a man or woman of the land, that believes this utter crock.

What are your specialist knowledge areas pstevens? How do you know the claimis true?

[psteveens]

@pondman27 Again, you make the vain and transparent appempt to play scientist. What is your background?  How many years have you in study and in the field? What? You have NONE?

How about this, what was the last book you read about how humans are affecting the biosphere, the carbon cycle, ocean acidification, etc. What? You haven't read any? No kidding.

[pondman27]

@psteveens Now you ask for my portfolio! You'll see it soon enough. More than a quarter of a century & a list of living examples, failures & successes. Some describe them as living machines. Water is the stuff of life, Carbon is the building block, it is designed to fall back to earth & accumulate in the rich verdant valleys.

It is not the human that creates such poisonous realms, but the ruling powers.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

did you even listen to the video? He absolutely did not.

[pondman27]

@LokiScoutSniper

But the lie is partially Mann made!

They love thier Al-Gore-ithms & the myth of the bell curve.

How to create an illusion, where hot is cold & visa versa.

Carbon is of the earth, oxygen of the sun & hydrogen of the universe. An old ditty from a wizard I once knew.

[TheGoldenWaffle]

People who try and call this man wrong will never understand reality, and how everything affects everything.

And of course, to evaid the already present disasters that we are facing, the people who try to say "nay nay" still say "nay nay."

Well, if we don't do anything about this, those "nay nayers" wont have anything to "nay nay" about.

Funny --, is it me, or does the phrase "nay nayers" rhyme with the word republican?

[Chick6517]

would say believing to have contracted terminal eye cancer, and therefore actually having to change one of the lines in Paper towns.

[alantmac]

bearded male feminist, i bet he's a Mac user as well

[AcePilot101]

Mr. Ethlred,

Can you please explain to the class the cause of summer?

[freddykurger]

another kook(sigh)

[kevo999]

How gay is it to call people fags. Your expertise is amazing, clearly.

[winstonsmith00]

It's too bad people find so many excuses for not listening to science so they can choose their most comfortable political opinion. That's just that kind of shit thinking that will inevitably doom civilization.

[roninkross]

74,000 years ago, the Toba volcano erupted in a VEI 7 explosion that pumped more than 10,000 times as much CO2 into the air as Mt. St. Helens did. At the maximum, Mt. St. Helens was giving off 22,000,000 kg of C02 daily, so Toba was putting out at least 22 billion kg per day. The ash cloud was so thick that it caused cooling that nearly wiped out the human race.

One good blow from mother nature could wipe us all out without trying. We should be more worried about genetically modified food.

[torus2]

Quirky is right.

The man speaks the truth though.

[AcePilot101]

1. Vostok ice core samples indicate that Carbon Dioxide levels rise for 21,000 years and then stop.

2. The tilt of the Earth's axis gives us summer and winter.

3. The wobble cycle (Precession of the Equinoxes) is about 26,000 years and causes global warming (more C02) and ice ages (less C02).

[ethlred]

Please explain how the heck the precession of the Earths rotation could possible cause an increase or decrease in CO2 levels. The two are completely independent of each other.

[JoeTFriday]

You asked the right question, ethlred. Aside from pretending to show that the surface facing the sun gets warmer than those at an angle to its rays -- an elementary school science lesson leaving out the proof -- Alley explains _almost nothing_, rather, he makes pronouncements. He may have thoughts on the connection between precession and CO2, but he's not going to waste it on this crew. Is this because he is teaching teachers, whose job in turn is not to explain, of course, but to indoctrinate?