Clouding the Debate

Roy W. Spencer believes in global warming. He just thinks it's the Earth's fault. Climate debate can be hazardous, but this former NASA scientist is preeminently qualified to weigh in: In 1989 Spencer and colleague John Christy pioneered a method of measuring global atmosphere temperature using satellite microwave sensors, an achievement that earned awards from NASA and the American Meteorological Society. Today Spencer oversees a research team for an Earth-monitoring satellite from his office at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. In his spare time he writes books throwing cold water on the idea that global warming is mostly caused by people.

Roy Spenser frames the discussion about average warmer temperatures and reduced cloud cover as a question, and leaves it to us to follow the logic. It does seem warmer temperatures would evaporate more water. This water vapor should rise into colder regions of the lower atmosphere where it begins to condense. As it begins to condense, wouldn’t it form clouds and add to the cloud cover then existing? Lacking U.N. accepted credentials in the proper discipline, I could be missing something, right?

In opposition to Roy Spenser we have the now exonerated Michael Mann who tried to “hide the decline” of global warming credibility by shopping his Op-ed titled Subverting Global Warming Science. However, the emails involving Mann, Jones, etal disclose consistent tactics manipulating peer review and repelling requests for basic data, now found destroyed. The U.N. relies upon the flawed papers of Michael Mann and Malcolm Hughes to establish research standards for global warming investigations. These papers moved from selective interpretation of selective tree ring, ice core, and coral reef data to seamlessly incorporate selective instrument measurements of recent centuries. They subjected data to linear regression analysis, which also proves mathematically the same visual image appears for clusters of boulders within a landslide as for Stonehenge. Small wonder such research produces models unable to predict past, present or future temperatures.

By the way, I read the emails Michael Mann refers to about standing and subfossil (dead, but un-decayed) Siberian larches. An important undisclosed fact is that as time progressed trees were found further and further south, meaning Siberian weather was becoming ever colder. Therefore, reasonable interpretation of tree rings would have confirmed a decline, not increase, in temperatures. See email of 10/9/98 from Rashit Hantemirov to Keith Briffa.

If there ever was any science for man caused global warming, it long ago ran off into a cul-de-sac of political apologetics fueled by extravagant grant income dependent upon approved results. Acceptable outcomes are mandated to distract from the fact carbon dioxide (CO2) represents less than four particles for 10,000 within the atmosphere, thereby making finding Waldo in a puzzle more likely. Water vapor that CO2 bonds with (think of carbonated water) for mitigation is 25 times more plentiful in the atmosphere, and 2.5 million times more plentiful in oceans. The natural engines driving mitigation of a CO2 molecule having minimal atmospheric presence are awesome when one considers a single hurricane uses enough energy to power Japan for a year. Habibbullo Adbussamatov contravenes political scientific consensus by suggesting changes in sun radiance accounts for changes in Earth temperatures. Data from NASA’s 2005 Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey reveal Mars temperature variations correlate with the Earth’s. Legitimate research would grasp these orders of magnitude and obvious correlations.

Our politicians, becoming patricians, embrace this current popular research and scientific heresy , because legislation controlling energy means controlling most aspects of people’s lives.

What moron doesn’t believe in global warming. I am sitting in a small cowtown an hour north of Sacramento, California. 16,000 years ago, the lot my house sits on was buried under a few miles of glacial ice. In the last 16,000 years, it has warmed up plenty.

That the earth is warming is indisputable. The ONLY question is, what is man’s role in that warming that began 16,000 years ago?

Seeing as there was very little population, let alone industrialization, until about 300 years ago, seeing as man could have had NOTHING to do with that warming for at least 15,700 years of that 16,000 year period that the glaciers receded from the Grand Canyon of Arizona north to the artic region of Canada, I feel fairly confident that man has had NOTHING to do with that warming.

For a small clue, go outside and look at the white ball of flaming mass sitting up in the sky for a few hours. As soon as you go blind, you’ll start to realize the intense power that massive, nearby flaming ball of hydrogen is assuredly almost solely responsible for that warming of the past 16,000 years

In fact, I think every believer in anthropogenic global warming should be made to stare at the sun for a few hours and then come back and let us know if they still believe man’s impact on climate is more significant than the sun’s.

I’m real curious what they would say. /sarc

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.