I just had to say something about a load of crap PBS show I watched a few days ago. It was an episode called "Earth Emergency" on a program called NOVA. This program was about human caused global warming. In watching it I found out what the real emergency was. The unwillingness of the media to tell you the truth about things. In the program, the main think they brought up about a zillion times was a "feedback loop" in various aspects of human caused global warming. From what I remember, they never once said exactly what that meant. They used the word "reinforcement" quite often. But that was misleading. What a feedback loop really means is the warmer it gets, the faster it will get even warmer. I wonder if all the scientists they talked to were purposefully being misleading or if what they had to say was just edited to make it seem that way.
They even brought up the came old crap about what the Earth will be like in the year 2100. But because of the ever faster exponential nature of human caused global warming, it would be a miracle if there will be any humans in the year 2050. I was watching a program by Bill Nye called "Global Meltdown." In it he spoke to an ex college or university professor who had been studying the problem for about 15 years. His predictions were even more dire than mine. What he discovered caused him to quit his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday. Which he thought could happen in around 20 years.
In the program they also said that methane was about 25 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. But that is in a 100 year time frame. Though methane has a half life of about 20 years. Which means that in about 20 years after it's release, half of it would have broken down into just plain old CO2. In a 20 year time span, methane is actually 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's bad news.
For the main polluters, the wealthy, they would most likely choose profits over the eventual death of most of the planet. And they are the ones who tell you how to think. Also, from what I have seen, most people have drank that Kool-Aid. But who knows. Maybe I can cause a stampede amongst the sheeple.
You didn't post a link to anything thus your post is properly called a RANT.
Will address a bit of your meandering babble, more later:
Stampeder,
"What a feedback loop really means is the warmer it gets, the faster it will get even warmer. I wonder if all the scientists they talked to were purposefully being misleading or if what they had to say was just edited to make it seem that way."
My reply,
The
Positive Feedback Loop is the second part of the AGW hypothesis, which is all based on modeling constructs, after 30 years of this we see no evidence of it occurring which of course why there is no current warming and no indication of accelerated warming just accelerated lying and fearmongering a sign mental illness as there is no data to support it.
Stampeder drones on,
"In the program they also said that methane was about 25 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. But that is in a 100 year time frame. Though methane has a half life of about 20 years. Which means that in about 20 years after it's release, half of it would have broken down into just plain old CO2. In a 20 year time span, methane is actually 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's bad news."
My reply,
Methane as a GHG with a
tiny warm forcing effect far less than the already very small warm forcing effect of CO2 it is why CH4 is barely mentioned by even warmist/alarmists as they KNOW it contributes negligible to the "heat budget"
This 25- or 85-time GHG potency is irrelevant as it contributes so little in the first place, but you fell for this nonsense because you are ignorant of the "heat" budget that shows it less than 1% of the Trenberth published heat budget calculations.
cFact
From Methane Madness
Excerpt:
Many scary claims are made that methane is even more potent than CO2 and thus should be controlled as much as CO2. But here is a simple fact. Yes, methane is about 85 times more powerful than CO2 on a molecule-by-molecule basis. Still, methane’s importance is greatly diminished because there is so little CO2 and methane in the atmosphere is even less. Look at how little CO2 and methane are actually in the atmosphere: Nitrogen, Oxygen, and other gases make up 99.96%. CO2 comes in at a puny 0.04% and methane at 0.0002%, practically zero. So now the question is, how does that contextually compare to the Earth’s total radiative forcing effect?
From Figure 1
v, we see 1.8 Watts/m2 for CO2 and methane by 0.6 w/m2. For a benchmark contextual comparison, the combined radiative forcing of CO2 and methane is barely 0.5% of the Earth’s solar energy budget of 340 W/m2. And of which the human-made portion of this CO2 radiative forcing increase is a miserly 0.008% and methane a laughable 0.005% of the Sun’s total radiative forcing budget.
In Figure 1,
vi we saw that both methane and CO2 are logarithmic functions, meaning as the volumes keep increasing, the incrementally added energy diminishes, eventually reaching their asymptotic limits
LINK
Stop ignoring the dominant Water Vapor effect that is around 95% of the total GHG effect!
