As Global Warming has come to fill the void for those without a set of moral beliefs, let's be sure to keep
their church and state separate. That is, their religion should be funded only with voluntary contributions.
.
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.
There some in my refrigerator, if it hasn’t evolved and left.......
In any case I'd have a hard time explaining why the oceans absorbed CO2 at an rate higher then proportional to the atmospheric rate.
Again I ask where does it say the 3.2% is an annual rate? I just don't buy it.
Read this and you will understand what I mean:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32261.html
Someone mention the Alar Scare earlier here; his work was never intended to be used politically.
Clinton did the right thing by naming him but he was poorly treated by his fellows for breaking with the rush to condemn all manmade chemicals that we still see.
We had the coldest April in Michigan in 95 years. The temperature dropped down into the 30s last night - in the middle of May!!!!
.
You are confused about the difference between the MSM and the scientific process.
Peer review does take time to expose frauds. Not a lot of time, but some.
Still in the sixties in Nashville, Tennessee with a stiff NNE wind.
Of course the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen. The oceans are warming and releasing more CO2.
The warming is causing the increase of CO2 - not the other way around.
The Chicken Littles have it backwards.
Clouds only increase nighttime temps --- a blanket effect --- while lowering day time temps -- a reflector effect.
Clouds also result in increased participation as rain or snow. Snow cover is also reflective while rain storms actually dissipate heat from the atmosphere.
Does increased water vapor in the atmosphere act as a balance or an amplifier? Don't ask the IPCC. There models don't include water. They pretend it isn't there.
You claimed his carrier was ended. It clearly was not.
Peer review works.
Let me introduce you to my old friend Occam.
Exactly. When I read that they don't include precipitation in their models, I said to myself, "How can any serious scientist jump on the Gore bandwagon." It's astounding that the fraud of AGW has gotten this far.
They just ignore any negative feedback effects and calculate the positive feedback using the 'Finaglers Constant' Method.
Finaglers Constant is defined as FC=(Observed value/Desired value)
In spite of remediation efforts, a fair assortment of things went wrong because of Y2K related problems. I have read (but I don’t know the details) that there was a fatal railroad accident in Russia with a documented connection to Y2K. Agreed, this is much less than the alarmists predicted.
This singular FACT should stop all this global warming scare in it's track. I can't believe how so many schools around the world require viewing of Gore's movie. It's astounding how they are glad to scare the children over a non issue. Its brainwashing on a massive scare. The left, so anti-human as usual.
scare= scale.. sorry
If you haven't already watched it - you need to view the BBC's "The Great Global Warming Swindle". They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that increases in CO2 follow warming trends - not precede them.
I am not confused at all. I have degrees in Engineering. I have been schooled in the scientific method. The frauds like Gore and the MSM say there's consensus in the scientific community.
Do you believe the science is settled?
Do you not understand at it's core the entire AGW is solely a totalitairian movement?
Gore-bots will NEVER accept this fact.
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.