Posted on 02/11/2009 12:55:49 AM PST by neverdem
You will understand what an endless loop means if you click on the slideshow.
Hansen is a fanatic, a freaking Moonie about this.
Dr. Gray deserves our cheers and should be a required speaker at public schools where only one point of view is n presented.
What is it about astronomers? Carl Sagan and his 'greenhouse effect' and now this:
...For those that aren’t familiar with him, Dr. Gray is a Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University who is best known for his hurricane forecasts. He is a highly trained and respected meteorologist with decades of practical experience in monitoring the earth and its climate. In the letter he points out that Dr. Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is not a trained climatologist nor a meteorologist. His formal background is actually in astronomy which does make one wonder how he has become one of the primary mouthpieces for anthropogenic global warming (AGW), or manmade climate change...
Perhaps it is because astronomers trained their telescopes at Venus, a planet about the same size as Earth and one that has a very definite greenhouse effect, and the sight made an emotional impression that overbalanced the reason.
Sure, if you have methane and CO2 at the kind of concentrations Venus has you do get a greenhouse effect, but Venus is NOT the same as Earth. The concentrations are extremely high, and there are no correcting mechanisms (like life) to reduce methane and CO2.
Venus Temperature Still Uniformly High
This recent high temperature formation of Venus is consistent with its high surface temperature, > 462 °C (736 K / 864 °F) measured by Venera and Pioneer Venus (PV) probes, identical in completely different regions of the globe. The surface rocks are hot enough to melt lead and zinc. Proof that the temperature is driven by interior heat comes from the striking uniformity of this temperature - only one or two degrees deviation from pole to pole and on the day and night sides. Given the Venus day/night cycle of 117 earth days, it is obvious that incident sunlight, which is completely extinguished in the lower cloud layer, has absolutely nothing to do with the surface temperature. The global lower cloud layer, at 48 km over the entire planet, is also driven by the great interior heat...
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/planets_venus.html
is there a link to Part 1?
or is that the letter referred to in the article?
What surprises me, is that this anthropogenic global warming hoax continues to “live.” Even when you look into the history of man caused global warming it started with someone in the late 1800s who decided that his fellow man had too many fires and too much industrialization because more carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere. When the alchemists (including Jim Hansen) discovered that carbon dioxide did not cause global warming, but followed periods of global warming, they just continued their quest to prove that mankind was causing global warming by putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere! This Quixote like work would be amusing but it has become a billion dollar industry!
When told that water vapor clearly dominates our daily weather and climate, they counter-claim that the “real” cause is a mini-volume of an inefficient or even questionable greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide that lets at least 92% of the heat pass right through). These alchemists also ignore that fact that there are practically zero concentrations of it in the upper atmosphere because it is heavier than air. Facts and science do not matter to the alchemists.
Because these illogical and unscientific claims have gotten this far is a reflection of the dumbing-down of the entire world!
Carbon dioxide is really NOT a global greenhouse gas, and should not be presented as such, especially in the concentrations that exist today. Water vapor and clouds are the primary drivers of climate change, as driven by the Sun, whether it be cosmic rays or variations in solar radiation, or magnetic field changes, or distance from the Earth.
Thanks for posting this.
LOL, perfect. That deserves recycling.!.!
Fair enough, but wouldnt an extremely thick atmosphere help to keep that heat in?
Linking the source involves a substantial download. That's why I copied and pasted/posted just the source code. I would start there on links about the author or archive. The reason I posted this is because of Dr. Hansen's formal area of expertise, i.e. astronomy, not climate or climate change.
A 'thick' atmosphere also significantly reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. Even though it is much closer to the Sun than Earth, Venus recieves 40% less solar energy from the Sun.
It’s not astronomers in general, it’s the a-holes.
NASA’s Hansen to Obama: Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth
NewsBusters | January 1, 2009 | Noel Sheppard
Posted on 01/01/2009 11:15:42 AM PST by St. Louis Conservative
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2157266/posts
James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
(Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ )
epw.senate.gov | Jan. 27, 2009 | Marc Morano
Posted on 01/27/2009 5:33:23 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2173112/posts
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Venus' atmosphere is 96% CO2, while Earth has 0.038% CO2. It's a big stretch to think that Earth's CO2 would generate a significant greenhouse effect.
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.
