•Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, the recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award for his satellite-based temperature-monitoring work, explained that scientists know almost nothing about global warming: “We don’t know how strong global warming is, what it’s caused by, whether it makes severe weather worse, when it started, when it will end and whether it’s good or bad.”? The science is simply too immature — that’s why the standard “climate change”? models can’t explain why global temperatures have been flat for 17 years.
http://nypost.com/2014/08/10/how-the-ep ... d-science/
other credentialed scientists in article....
Award winning NASA scientist on global warming
Moderator: Global Moderator
Award winning NASA scientist on global warming
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
Re: Award winning NASA scientist on global warming
Clearly Roy is a Koch brother lovin tea bagger..............
Re: Award winning NASA scientist on global warming
Ah, that article is written by Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition.
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5129
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Award winning NASA scientist on global warming
From "The Hill" yesterday afternoon.
... M
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... um=twitter
The White House, the United Nations, even the Vatican are in full court press for action to reduce manmade global warming at the climate summit in December.
We offer a dissenting opinion.
Many well-intentioned people believe manmade global warming is so dangerous we should spend trillions trying to prevent it by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which would require tremendous reductions in fossil fuel use.
Spending all that money on mitigating climate change takes resources away from more urgent problems like access to pure drinking water, sewage sanitation, adequate nutrition, communicable diseases, air and water and solid waste pollution, and access to electricity, all of which are of greatest concern to the world’s poor.
Additionally, the claims of dangerous manmade warming are almost certainly false. They require that CO2 has a very strong warming effect, not just by its own direct warming but far more because of positive feedbacks. That hypothesis is written into the computer climate models on which the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and various government agencies and national academies of science based their conclusions.
But models and their scenarios are not evidence but hypotheses useful for prediction and policymaking only if validated by real-world observations. But on average, they simulate twice as much warming as actually observed. Over 95 percent simulate more warming than actually observed, so the errors are not random but driven by bias. And none simulated the complete absence of statistically significant warming the last 17 to 27 years, depending on which database you consult, 18 years and 8 months, according to the satellite record, the most reliable.
So the models provide no rational grounds for any predictions about future temperature, and therefore none for any policy.
Which brings us to how climate policy relates to the world’s poor.
Because CO2’s warming effect is much smaller than previously thought, spending trillions reducing CO2 emissions will make little or no difference in future temperature or “impacts” tied to it. But it will harm everyone in the world – the poor the most.
Why? Aside from depriving the world of the fertilizing effect of added CO2, because getting energy from alternatives to the source of CO2 emissions, fossil fuels (and nuclear and, where there’s enough strong river current, hydro) is much more expensive, which is why today roughly 85 percent of all energy used in the world comes from fossil fuels. The greater alternative energy’s contribution to electricity generation becomes, the higher the price must go, and, because wind and solar are intermittent, the less stable the grid becomes.
That will be uncomfortable for middle- and high-income people in developed countries, but for the poor, it will be devastating. In fact, it already has been in, for example, the United Kingdom, where in each of the last five or six winters thousands more premature winter deaths have occurred than in previous years because Britain’s policy of replacing coal-fired power plants with wind and biomass drove fuel prices up, causing “fuel poverty.”
The impact in developing countries would be much greater. No society has ever overcome poverty without abundant, affordable, reliable energy, especially electricity. No other source comes close to fossil fuels to meeting those three requirements—abundant, affordable, reliable.
In developing countries, smoke generated by burning wood, other biomass, and dried dung as primary cooking and heating fuels kills some 2 to 4 million every year. The poor there desperately need large-scale, cheap, on-demand electricity.
The world’s poor need high-volume, steady, instant-on-demand, affordable electricity, which comes only from being on a grid supplied by large-scale generating plants powered by fossil fuels or nuclear (the technical demands of which are beyond most developing nations, not to mention security concerns). Wind, solar, and biofuels simply cannot produce that scale of on-demand, unfluctuating power except at far higher costs.
Prohibiting developing countries from increasing fossil fuel use means condemning them to poverty and the high rates of disease, premature death, and other suffering that invariably accompanies poverty—and, ironically, the environmental degradation that also accompanies it—for generations.
These are some of the reasons why the “BRIC” countries—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—have no intention of entering a binding agreement to limit CO2 emissions at in Paris. They are focused, as they should be, on lifting their people out of poverty, and their rising emissions, driven by rapidly rising coal use, will dwarf whatever reductions other nations might achieve.
They’re also reasons why we believe no countries should embrace such an agreement, or institute similar policies domestically (e.g., the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s “Clean Power Plan”). An open letter we’ve all signed offers further reasons. A series of YouTube video interviews with outstanding scholars, and a major paper issued a year ago, make the case in more depth. And a brief petition now puts the point simply: “For the Sake of the Poor, Don’t Fight Global Warming!”
Beisner, Ph.D., is founder and national spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Spencer, Ph.D., is a principal research scientist in Climatology at the University of Alabama and U.S. Science team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer aboard NASA’s Aqua Satellite, the source of global satellite temperature data. Clough, M.S., Th.M., is president of Biblical Framework Ministries, an ordained minister, a meteorologist, and retired U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center Atmospheric Effects Team Chief. Terrell, Ph.D., a specialist in environmental regulatory economics, is associate professor of Economics at Wofford College.
... M
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... um=twitter
The White House, the United Nations, even the Vatican are in full court press for action to reduce manmade global warming at the climate summit in December.
We offer a dissenting opinion.
Many well-intentioned people believe manmade global warming is so dangerous we should spend trillions trying to prevent it by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which would require tremendous reductions in fossil fuel use.
Spending all that money on mitigating climate change takes resources away from more urgent problems like access to pure drinking water, sewage sanitation, adequate nutrition, communicable diseases, air and water and solid waste pollution, and access to electricity, all of which are of greatest concern to the world’s poor.
Additionally, the claims of dangerous manmade warming are almost certainly false. They require that CO2 has a very strong warming effect, not just by its own direct warming but far more because of positive feedbacks. That hypothesis is written into the computer climate models on which the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and various government agencies and national academies of science based their conclusions.
But models and their scenarios are not evidence but hypotheses useful for prediction and policymaking only if validated by real-world observations. But on average, they simulate twice as much warming as actually observed. Over 95 percent simulate more warming than actually observed, so the errors are not random but driven by bias. And none simulated the complete absence of statistically significant warming the last 17 to 27 years, depending on which database you consult, 18 years and 8 months, according to the satellite record, the most reliable.
So the models provide no rational grounds for any predictions about future temperature, and therefore none for any policy.
Which brings us to how climate policy relates to the world’s poor.
Because CO2’s warming effect is much smaller than previously thought, spending trillions reducing CO2 emissions will make little or no difference in future temperature or “impacts” tied to it. But it will harm everyone in the world – the poor the most.
Why? Aside from depriving the world of the fertilizing effect of added CO2, because getting energy from alternatives to the source of CO2 emissions, fossil fuels (and nuclear and, where there’s enough strong river current, hydro) is much more expensive, which is why today roughly 85 percent of all energy used in the world comes from fossil fuels. The greater alternative energy’s contribution to electricity generation becomes, the higher the price must go, and, because wind and solar are intermittent, the less stable the grid becomes.
That will be uncomfortable for middle- and high-income people in developed countries, but for the poor, it will be devastating. In fact, it already has been in, for example, the United Kingdom, where in each of the last five or six winters thousands more premature winter deaths have occurred than in previous years because Britain’s policy of replacing coal-fired power plants with wind and biomass drove fuel prices up, causing “fuel poverty.”
The impact in developing countries would be much greater. No society has ever overcome poverty without abundant, affordable, reliable energy, especially electricity. No other source comes close to fossil fuels to meeting those three requirements—abundant, affordable, reliable.
In developing countries, smoke generated by burning wood, other biomass, and dried dung as primary cooking and heating fuels kills some 2 to 4 million every year. The poor there desperately need large-scale, cheap, on-demand electricity.
The world’s poor need high-volume, steady, instant-on-demand, affordable electricity, which comes only from being on a grid supplied by large-scale generating plants powered by fossil fuels or nuclear (the technical demands of which are beyond most developing nations, not to mention security concerns). Wind, solar, and biofuels simply cannot produce that scale of on-demand, unfluctuating power except at far higher costs.
Prohibiting developing countries from increasing fossil fuel use means condemning them to poverty and the high rates of disease, premature death, and other suffering that invariably accompanies poverty—and, ironically, the environmental degradation that also accompanies it—for generations.
These are some of the reasons why the “BRIC” countries—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—have no intention of entering a binding agreement to limit CO2 emissions at in Paris. They are focused, as they should be, on lifting their people out of poverty, and their rising emissions, driven by rapidly rising coal use, will dwarf whatever reductions other nations might achieve.
They’re also reasons why we believe no countries should embrace such an agreement, or institute similar policies domestically (e.g., the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s “Clean Power Plan”). An open letter we’ve all signed offers further reasons. A series of YouTube video interviews with outstanding scholars, and a major paper issued a year ago, make the case in more depth. And a brief petition now puts the point simply: “For the Sake of the Poor, Don’t Fight Global Warming!”
Beisner, Ph.D., is founder and national spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Spencer, Ph.D., is a principal research scientist in Climatology at the University of Alabama and U.S. Science team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer aboard NASA’s Aqua Satellite, the source of global satellite temperature data. Clough, M.S., Th.M., is president of Biblical Framework Ministries, an ordained minister, a meteorologist, and retired U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center Atmospheric Effects Team Chief. Terrell, Ph.D., a specialist in environmental regulatory economics, is associate professor of Economics at Wofford College.
Re: Award winning NASA scientist on global warming
The political outcry and response is about centralizing power and wealth redistribution not actual belief that we can actually attain improved outcomes in global climates.