Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5";p="
Then there is this noted scientist and expert on weather and climate:
"I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people, " says Bill Gray.
"BILL GRAY, professor emeritus. He is often called the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert. He's the guy who, every year, predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical storm season. He works on a country road leading into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, in the atmospheric science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists"
"Gray believes in the obs. The observations. Direct measurements. Numerical models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.
"Few people know what I know. I've been in the tropics, I've flown in airplanes into storms. I've done studies of convection, cloud clusters and how the moist process works. I don't think anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions better than me."
In just three, five, maybe eight years, he says, the world will begin to cool again."
"Bill Gray has a favorite diagram, taken from a 1985 climate model, showing little nodules in the center with such labels as "thermal inertia" and "net energy balance" and "latent heat flux" and "subsurface heat storage" and "absorbed heat radiation" and so on, and they are emitting arrows that curve and loop in all directions, bumping into yet more jargon, like "soil moisture" and "surface roughness" and "vertical wind" and "meltwater" and "volcanoes."
"It's a big can of worms!" Gray says. It's his favorite line.
The models can't even predict the weather in two weeks, much less 100 years, he says.
"They sit in this ivory tower, playing around, and they don't tell us if this is going to be a hot summer coming up. Why not? Because the models are no (*)(*)(*)(*) good!"
Gray says the recent rash of strong hurricanes is just part of a cycle. This is part of the broader skeptical message: Climate change is normal and natural. There was a Medieval Warm Period, for example, long before Exxon Mobil existed."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301305_pf.html |
My
emphasis
For starters: his opinion. Show me the evidence he bases his opinions on.
Dr. Gray "believes" in observations. Anyone here want to guess how the paths of hurricanes are predicted? I'll give you a clue, meteorologists don't use crystal balls. So Dr. Gray's lack of trust in numerical models appears to be a bit misguided.
His misuse of the term weather also discredits him. No one is attempting to predict the
weather in 100 years; climatologists are attempting to predict the
climate in 100 years. Look up the difference.
Your story on Dr. Gray is an appeal to authority. His opinions are not backed by evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5";p="
Still lots of controvery and conflict among scientists. So, yes Raytri. I read all the pros and cons opinions on global warming. I've yet to see any hard and fast proven conclusions that what we're seeing now is NOT more a part of the natural phenomonon of climate.
|
But have you studied the
evidence. Have you, JP, read the "Working Group I: The Science of Climate Change". No, I didn't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5";p="
And as far as consensus of scientists....look at where the funding is going for your answer. The funding is going to those who are trying hard to prove that global warming IS caused by man.
|
Sure it is. And Bush was the one that planned 9/11. Oh wait! We don't have any evidence of that either?
The funding is going to scientists who are studying our climate. End of story! Unless you have evidence that their agenda is other than the advancement of science, your allegation is nothing more than another conspiracy theory.
So you JP post one scientist who disagrees with the consensus based on
opinion. I give you Hansen (NASA) and Kevin Trenberth, (National Center for Atmospheric Research), who base their conclusions on
data.
JP, which doctors' conclusions would you accept: a doctor that looked at you and, without gathering any data concluded that you were healthy or
2 doctors who've done blood tests, ie gathered data, and told you you had diabetes?
For every scientist who is of the
opinion that humans are not the part of the reason for GW, I'll match you 2 scientists who conclude from the
data and evidence that humans are partly responsible.