FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Posted on 05/18/2007 12:20:32 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
New Zealand Weatherman on Global Warming: 'It's All Going to be a Joke in 5 Years' Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 18, 2007 - 15:03.
The air continues to seep out of the global warming consensus balloon, ladies and gentlemen.
Meet Augie Auer, the former University of Wyoming professor of atmospheric science turned New Zealand meteorologist who isn’t buying what soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry global warming alarmists are selling.
As reported by the New Zealand Timaru Herald (emphasis added throughout):
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, [Auer] maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.
"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.
Unlike folks such as Gore, Sheryl Crow, Laurie David, and Leonardo DiCaprio, Auer has actually studied and taught this science. As such, he walks the walks AND talks the talk:
Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
Auer correctly concluded: "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt."
Yes it has, Doctor. Unfortunately in this instance, the hunt is more serious because there are a lot more people involved, and the consequences far more dire.
See point #5 in my profile; note link #11 in references.
I know you are a beliver in AGW. I am sure the Soros backed hacks at realClimate has spun another fantastic tale. They always repudiate anything that would indicate "natural" causes, but they ALWAYS support anything says it is AGW.
We will never come together on this issue. I respect your beliefs and appreciate your passion. You add to the discussion.
The only thing I know is that the solutions of Gore, et all will destroy our way of life, and KILL millions in the third world. I believe in my heart in the capacity of free humans to adapt and not be afraid of what changes lie ahead. Gore, et al have the irrational obsession with wanting to do something NOW. I believe the reason is that they know as the years pass, this fraud they are trying to perpetuate will unravel big time. Thank you and have a good night.
Thanks for the ping.
Both are true. The question is what is the net effect? The answer is that it can't be measured because of extreme uncertainties in our knowledge of the ocean conveyer and local effects.
The ice core record can't show changes like the current spike in CO2 because, apart from the last 10-20k years, it lacks the resolution to show anything other than many decades or even centuries averaged into single readings.
The article is poorly worded. The 18% or so increase that you pointed out (BTW, I agree it probably mostly manmade) turns into a 3.2% increase in greenhouse warming because the relationship from CO2 concentration to warming is logarithmic.
Hey! There are going to be big bucks in being in the front of the wave of the next panic. Maybe we could cash in!
Because they don't understand that .045% is actually .00045, or 45/100,000. They lose it in the math.
Good! Now we can BLAME the nitwits...
Please cite a source. I would like to review that data. Thank you.
Actually, that's the part that they are lying to everyone about. The warming is not the result of an increase in CO2. It is exactly the opposite. The rise in CO2 preceeds the rise in temperature. The rise in CO2 is the result of the rise in temperature.
I wish I could remember the name of the scientist I heard on the radio explaining this, but when he was asked what was the one most important thing people needed to know about all the hysteria about man-made global warming, that was what he pointed out: the rise in temperature comes first, then the rise in CO2 as a result of that.
Thanks for the link to an outstanding lecture!
20 years ago my science teacher told our class the world would be fresh out of oil in 5-10 years...
Good! Now we can BLAME the nitwits...
IN a larger sense many of them are nitwits but in a specifically strategizing sense their leadership is infested with dangerous anti capitalists who want to blame every negative event, be it an iceberg melting or a ghetto kid commiting a crime, on the economic system that has created such wealth for the common man around the world.
Thanks for the link to “Aliens Cause Global Warming.” I printed the article and plan on sharing it with others I’ve been talking to about the false science used to prove global warming.
Crichton is simply the best at conveying scientific information in a manner that non-intellectuals can understand.
I'd go so far as to say it mostly starts at publication.
Review committees are there to keep the journals from embarasing themselves. They are not the complete process which is open to outsiders that can make a coherent case.
The 'Hockey Stick' is a perfect example, but don't ask the MSM about it.
‘It’s All Going to be a Joke in 5 Years’”
Yep and the joke will be “how could we have been so wrong.We’re going into another ice age,the earth is freezing, we’re all going to die,aasaaaaaiiiiiiiyyyyyiiiii
A quick google search for "CO2 historic rate of change" returns many hits. The first of which is at:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/05/co2_ice_cores/
Not a primary source. But it should get you started.
To Quote:
Until very recently, the fastest rate of change was an increase of 30 parts per million over a thousand years. We have seen the same increase, 30ppm, in the last 17 years.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
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.