Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the last year or so I have become convinced that this is indeed what has happened…..the models are all doing the “same thing wrong”..........
I also provide the first evidence that the short-term feedbacks in the IPCC models are substantially the same as their long-term feedbacks in response to anthropogenic radiative forcing — a key finding if we are to ever apply our short-term satellite observations to the long-term global warming problem.
I challenge modelers to address this important issue, because the current, crude level of model testing has NOT been sufficient to validate feedbacks in climate models. Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
His credentials:
Quote:
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming. About Dr. Roy Spencer « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
Quote:
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, author of the best selling book Climate Confusion, is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama ..... formerly was Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA. Dr. Spencer also serves as the U. S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is co-developer (with Dr. John Christy) of the original satellite method for precise monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. He is the author of numerous research articles in scientific journals, has testified before Congress several times on global warming, and given briefings for the Cooler Heads Coalition. Great New Climate Blog from Dr. Roy Spencer | cooler heads (http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2857 - broken link)
Nevertheless, I am sure we will hear people saying he is a crackpot.
Gore also has significant financial interests in ethanol. Those investments are really not an issue except in his case where he has a very clear conflict of interest being the poster boy for the environmental movement. Should also be noted he lives in a mansion that consumes 12 times what the average home consumes and he justifies it by buying the carbon credits. Hypocrisy is not a strong enough word to describe him.
I'm sure there are many people such as himself that truly believe in this and are taking actions that they feel are necessary but it's buffoons like him that are driving this movement and it drives me nuts when I hear them speak about the sacrifice that WE need to make. Just remember when hes we need to sacrifice he means you need to sacrifice only to the benefit of his own interests.
Gore also has significant financial interests in ethanol. Those investments are really not an issue except in his case where he has a very clear conflict of interest being the poster boy for the environmental movement. Should also be noted he lives in a mansion that consumes 12 times what the average home consumes and he justifies it by buying the carbon credits. Hypocrisy is not a strong enough word to describe him.
I'm sure there are many people such as himself that truly believe in this and are taking actions that they feel are necessary but it's buffoons like him that are driving this movement and it drives me nuts when I hear them speak about the sacrifice that WE need to make. Just remember when hes we need to sacrifice he means you need to sacrifice only to the benefit of his own interests.
Hey Coalman, Glad you are on here - I was going to PM you. Read the articles at Roy Spencer, Ph. D. (scroll down and read the articles on the front page) -- I think you will find them very interesting.
What gets my attention is that Dr. Spencer is co-developer (with Dr. John Christy) of the original satellite method for precise monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites.
Great New Climate Blog from Dr. Roy Spencer | cooler heads (http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2857 - broken link) looks interesting also.
More interesting articles regarding the coming Ice Age. Remember, folks, these were the authorities then, just like the authorities we have now (and, in some cases, the exact same authorities). Does any of this sound familiar, complete with increased storms, if you replace "Ice Age" with "Global Warming"?
No these guys were not "the experts" in any sense. They were a dissenting opinion, as they are today. Lowell Ponte, who wrote "The Cooling" originated the concept. He had been a CIA weather analyst supervising cloud seeding over the Ho Chi Minh trail. He was out of work and needed an idea for a book. He was also a rabid anti-Communist and a rabid anti-semite. He is a rabid global warming denier today. The other guy (Spencer?) who promoted this was also a meteorologist (not a climatologist). Ponte's book made the Times best seller list and they both toured the talk show circuit for a few months. I saw him on Carson and read the book. Ponte didn't do the math, it was the other guy. As soon as they showed their work, a math error by a factor of one-thousand was found and the idea died a quick and timely death. Meanwhile, both Time and Newsweek wrote up the sensational story like a set of conjoined twins. The White House and Congress decided they wanted to know what was up. They tasked the National Research Council to review the subject. (NRC was the only government agency with the resources to do so at the time). Their conclusion was that there was not enough evidence to prove either idea, but there was significantly more evidence in favor of global warming. They then enumerated what was needed to evaluate the situations, which was the weather satelites and computer models we have now. This was the only scientific report of any kind issued by any government agency during the 1970's. When the NRC report came out, National Geographic ran a brief article describing both theories and the NRC finding that both could not be proven based on the data existing at that time. There were no articles on the subject in the scientific journals until the following decade.
Following Al Gore's movie, the Neocons dug up these three articles in the popular press and built their myth that "the experts" predicted an ice age during the 1970's and therefor the experts today don't know what they're talking about. The only problem with it is, its baloney.
Gore also has significant financial interests in ethanol. Those investments are really not an issue except in his case where he has a very clear conflict of interest being the poster boy for the environmental movement. Should also be noted he lives in a mansion that consumes 12 times what the average home consumes and he justifies it by buying the carbon credits. Hypocrisy is not a strong enough word to describe him.
I'm not a huge Al Gore fan, and as with most (all?) politicians, yes, there's a degree of hypocrisy. But in fairness.....
Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.
The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.
"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.
Quote:
Shinn said Gore's renovations are impressive because his home, which is more than 80 years old, had to meet the same rigorous standards as new construction."
One of the things that is tremendously powerful about what the Gores have done is demonstrate that you can take a home that was a dog, and absolute energy pig, and do things to correct that," Shinn said.
Quote:
The Green Building Council's certification program has four levels, with platinum being the highest followed by gold. Gore's home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification.
Electricity usage at the home remains well above regional averages, but Gore's power consumption decreased by 6,890 kilowatt hours, or 11 percent, between June and August, despite the heat wave.
Gore's electric use increased again after he had to take his solar panels off-line in August so his new geothermal system could be integrated into the system. But his natural gas use has dropped 93 percent in the three months since the geothermal pump was activated.
For a HUGE 80-year-old house, it seems to me that Gore has made several significant improvements in the energy efficiency of his home.
I respect your opinion.
But what I meant by gain, which perhaps you did pick up on, was not your gain personally. You had stated to beware of those who say global warming is not true because they may have a financial gain behind their stance. I propose that can also be true for many who take a stance saying global warming is indeed a fact.
I am on the fence as to global warming, the cause, etc. The more reading I do the more embedded on the fence I become.
I do respect yours also, believe me. I also suggest you plan on getting off the fence at some point.
Picture a theatre full of people. The manager announces there is a fire, and orders everyone to exit the bulidling. A group of jerks block the exits and say, "Wait a minute. He hasn't convinced me. Until I am convinced personally, everyone else must stay." Now what is appropriate in that situation? Who is operating withing their rights? Who is behaving responsibly? What are the consequences if the manager is wrong? What are the consequences if the thugs are wrong? Which side would you join if you had to pick one?
This is the situation we face at this moment. These are the tough choices we face at this moment. Like the people in the theatre you can ride the fence for a while, but who knows how long? We can pretend its a matter of opinion. After all the manager says one thing and the thugs say the opposite. Why don't we all just take a nap?
I'm not a huge Al Gore fan, and as with most (all?) politicians, yes, there's a degree of hypocrisy. But in fairness.....
.
My numbers are from from 2006, 07? , I'm going from memory. If he has improved his home that is wonderful however the fact remains he was using an extraordinary amount of energy when he was preaching to the rest of the nation we needed to conserve. Still doesn't matter becsue a house of that size even using geo-thermal is still going to use a lot of energy. That's besides the fact he's in region that geo-thermal is suitable, once you get into colder climates where it colder it becomes less effective..... How much do you think the installation for such a sytem cost? answer: $$$
I'd do geo thermal in my own home if the investment wasn't so high. From your article:
Quote:
They spent an undisclosed amount to lower their use of fossil fuels for electricity and heat in the home
It's undisclosed because the cost must have been jaw dropping. He can afford it, Joe six pack cannot.
I do respect yours also, believe me. I also suggest you plan on getting off the fence at some point.
One can support conservation, improved methods of energy, etc. and not believe in the global warming theory. It's not a matter in which doubting the theory equals not supporting improvements. I am concerned about US energy policy being based on a concept which may/may not be true.
One can support conservation, improved methods of energy, etc. and not believe in the global warming theory. It's not a matter in which doubting the theory equals not supporting improvements. I am concerned about US energy policy being based on a concept which may/may not be true.
Absolutely. I think we need to be energy independent, and the sooner the better. Solar, wind, geothermal, tides, whatever is out there. I consider energy to be a national security issue. I'm certainly opposed to a new president getting rid of coal by making it too expensive for those companies. We need breathing room to bring in the new stuff, and the technology for the new stuff is improving all the time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
