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

Skip to comments.

NOT THAT SIMPLE - GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
NY Post ^ | February 26, 2007 | ROY W. SPENCER

Posted on 02/26/2007 10:09:00 AM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 next last
Roy W. Spencer is principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala. He is also U.S. team leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA's Terra satellite.
1 posted on 02/26/2007 10:09:06 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Global warming is like evolution. Can't prove it to be factual but can add anything to it that you want in order to fit the agenda.


2 posted on 02/26/2007 10:12:32 AM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I blame the Sun.


3 posted on 02/26/2007 10:13:48 AM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; honolulugal; SideoutFred; Ole Okie; ...


FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown




4 posted on 02/26/2007 10:14:23 AM PST by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Were it not for weather, the natural greenhouse effect would cause the surface of the Earth to average 140 degrees. Wonder why we never hear that fact stated? I believe that when the stabilizing effects of precipitation systems are better understood and included into the models, predictions of global warming will be scaled back.

Despite current inadequacies, climate models are still our best tools for forecasting global warming. Those tools just aren't sharp enough yet.

Excellent article. Our Al Gore Luddites will not accept it, though.

5 posted on 02/26/2007 10:15:36 AM PST by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; palmer
In fact, a silent majority of scientists still think that global warming could end up falling anywhere between a real problem and a minor nuisance: They can see reasons for it going either way. Call them the global-warming moderates.

Yep, that's pretty much true.

palmer, did you ghostwrite this for Roy?

6 posted on 02/26/2007 10:15:39 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Goracle has spoken - it's unanimous - all scientists agree - humans are destroying the Earth - dead by July - report to re-education center immediately.


7 posted on 02/26/2007 10:16:08 AM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

8 posted on 02/26/2007 10:17:07 AM PST by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Scanning the Gore-bat sites right now, but this scientist's reputation will almost certainly be smeared within the next 24 hours, alongside the usual posts about how Bush's cronies "illegally" marked-up climate reports, suppressed Jim Hansen from making political statements, and covered up administration links to Exxon Mobil.

There is something fascinating about how the loony left tries to tie everything to the petroleum industry.


9 posted on 02/26/2007 10:20:47 AM PST by cyberdasher (Wikistan.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Roy W. Spencer is principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala. He is also U.S. team leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA's Terra satellite.

A cautionary view from a government scientist? Heresy!! No funding for his research next year.

10 posted on 02/26/2007 10:21:18 AM PST by CedarDave (Vietnam Vet Remembers -- This Time ... SUPPORT the Troops, COMPLETE the Mission)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
What, you mean Algore is not being completely honest with the public? Say it ain't so, Joe.

I've worked on a couple of computer simulation models and if just one key assumption is incorrect in the model (e.g., out of 50 such assumptions), then the results can easily be thrown off by 50-100%. I'm surprised by the level of certainty that some outstanding scientists express in their testimony to congress. I'd say that some of them are exagerrating the level of certainty in this research in an effort to scare the world into action. I would rather see them say that there's a lot of uncertainty in this research, but at the same time the potential consequences of global warming are also very severe. That's a more honest approach that should get more support from the public.

11 posted on 02/26/2007 10:21:24 AM PST by defenderSD (Holds the San Diego high school football record for most interceptions by a slow white guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

That's a good name for an alternative rock band: The Global-Warming Moderates


12 posted on 02/26/2007 10:21:28 AM PST by jdm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
CO2 concentrations - now running at 380 parts per million (ppm), up about 40 percent in the last century - are indeed one possible explanation for our current warmth. But we also know that our climate is a nonlinear, dynamic system - which can go through sizeable gyrations all by itself.

One question needed to be asked, is the increase in CO2 concentrations the cause of warming or a result of warming due to other changes (e.g. variation in sun's radiation output or other factors)?

13 posted on 02/26/2007 10:24:33 AM PST by CedarDave (Vietnam Vet Remembers -- This Time ... SUPPORT the Troops, COMPLETE the Mission)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

The darlings of Hollywood and the leftards must always have a 'cause' in which to direct their energies to magnify their egos and show that they have a soul. The last time it was AIDS. Oh, the ribbons they sported and the concerts they had. Wasn't it great? But AIDS is more rampant than ever. That went out of fashion and now GLOBAL WARMING is more hip. Break out the 'blue ribbons' and let's have a few concerts with 'Riders on the Storm' as their theme song. I'm sure it will change all the weather patterns.


14 posted on 02/26/2007 10:25:06 AM PST by BigFinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Good point, and increasing CO2 concentrations could be both a cause and a result of warming (or only a cause or a result). A while ago, one guy posted that as the oceans warm up the dissolved CO2 in the oceans forms gas bubbles that rise out of the ocean into the atmosphere. This would only be happening to a slight extent because of the very slight warming of the oceans observed recently. It's just like the fizz bubbling out of your soft drink as it warms up in your glass.


15 posted on 02/26/2007 10:29:41 AM PST by defenderSD (Holds the San Diego high school football record for most interceptions by a slow white guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Even the UN study says that cow farts and termites are a far greater source of greenhouses gases that industrial sources.


16 posted on 02/26/2007 10:33:16 AM PST by The Great RJ ("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
"CO2 concentrations - now running at 380 parts per million (ppm), up about 40 percent in the last century - are indeed one possible explanation for our current warmth. But we also know that our climate is a nonlinear, dynamic system - which can go through sizeable gyrations all by itself."

So CO2 is up by 40%. Does that make it just over 1% of atmosphere or is it still sub 1%?

17 posted on 02/26/2007 10:37:03 AM PST by libs_kma (Monica blew while Al-Queda grew.....Oh well, Clinton happens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma

Still well under 1%.


18 posted on 02/26/2007 10:37:58 AM PST by RockinRight (When Chuck Norris goes to bed at night, he checks under the bed for Jack Bauer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It is also worth noting that the solar constant above the atmosphere is subject to both fluctuations and uncertainty in measurement that are within the margins of that required for the current claimed warming trend.


19 posted on 02/26/2007 10:40:42 AM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"CO2 concentrations - now running at 380 parts per million (ppm), up about 40 percent in the last century - are indeed one possible explanation for our current warmth." If memory serves, the concentration of 1000 parts per million is needed to raise the global climate temp by an entire one degree ... is that right? ... So if that's correct, and the natural global ocean circulator lowers ppm concentrations by 500 ppm with every ten feet of snow deposited in galciers on landmasses ... wow, that al goreghoul must be smarter than Einstein to have reached his 'conclusions'.


20 posted on 02/26/2007 10:41:41 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 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