All three staff meteorologists at [American] KLTV, the ABC affiliate broadcasting to the Tyler-Longview-Jacksonville area of Northeast Texas, joined forces last November to deliver an on-air rebuttal of the idea that humans are changing the earth's climate.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, representing the work of hundreds of scientists from 130 countries, had declared eight months earlier that warming of the atmosphere was "unequivocal" and that greenhouse gases from human activities were "very likely" the cause of most of the warming since the mid-20th century.
The three KLTV weathercasters - appearing in a Nov. 8 story by a station news reporter - let it be known, however, that they were unconvinced.
Meteorologist Grant Dade: "Is the Earth warming? Yes, I think it is. But is man causing that? No. It's a simple climate cycle our climate goes through over thousands of years."
Read more of the story by Bill Dawson at 'The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media' by clicking here: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/0608_tv.htm
Further in the article there is also comment that:
The disagreements between television weathercasters and climate scientists involve "a jurisdictional war," and "there's nobody free of sin in this matter," Knight said. "I'm seeing a row here, but it's not a bad row."
On one side, there seems to be "a disdain in the orthodox scientific research community for those who are not smart enough to get a Ph.D. or do research, and instead go into the fluff of television and just forecast the weather," he said.
On the other side, "there's a certain amount of disdain from television meteorologists who are predicting the weather for those who pontificate about what their [climate] models show," he added.
Knight summed up his own view of climate change this way: "There's no question that warming is going on. To say it's a hoax is to deny the data. To say it's all human-caused is foolish, too."
Luke
you do know what endogenic heat is?
Eyrie - "Nothing logical about your view Luke. CO2 is a lousy greenhouse gas even in large quantities is the reasonable conclusion."
Nobody ever said that CO2 is a good greenhouse gas and it does not have to be to have an effect. We are not concerned with efficiency here just the effect that CO2 has in Earths atmosphere.
Here is a list of greenhouse gases:
http://www.answers.com/topic/ipcc-list-of-greenhouse-gases-1?cat=technology
Methane for instance is 39 times better than CO2 at trapping heat and there are other compounds that are better still.
The only time that you would be concerned about efficiency of greenhouse gases is if you say given the task of warming Mars. For this you would use more the efficient greenhouse gases like methane rather than CO2. If you have read the science fiction book Red Mars there is something in it call the Russel Cocktail. Kim Stanley Robinson is good in the way he can mix science with story telling and he got the mix of greenhouse gases right in this instance.
http://www.redcolony.com/art.php?id=0012131
"Margarita Marinova, a research assistant at MIT, has an idea that could change the face of Mars forever. She claims that one-hundred factories on the Martian surface, constantly releasing large amounts of PFCs, or super-greenhouse gases, would lead to an increase in temperature similar the climate of Canada's. She claims that in 60 years these PFCs could do the trick.
But what do these "super-greenhouse gases" contain? The "Russell Cocktail" as it is described in Robinson's Mars Trilogy (Nov. 1993, Jun. 1995, Jul. 1997,) is a mixture of carbon, sulfur, and fluoride. The resulting mixture would be an artificial greenhouse gas that, when distributed across the planet, would raise temperatures in a relatively short period of time."
However CO2 is the gas we are emitting and efficient or not it is having an effect. Thank goodness it is inefficient compared to the others - at the rate we are emitting it we would have cooked ourselves long ago if it was as efficient as methane.
No you fail gramps. There is no evidence of endogenic heat.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5628/2056
So you sly old fox how does it feel to have your skanky old Mars CO2 ruse shredded in front of your eyes - come in spinner. ROFTL.
No you fail gramps. There is no evidence of endogenic heat.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5628/2056
So you sly old fox how does it feel to have your skanky old Mars CO2 ruse shredded in front of your eyes - come in spinner. ROFTL.
Luke
Fail: Endogenic Heat 191
Heat capacity of Earth's atmosphere of air and Martian CO2 atmosphere dimwit Louis.
SJT
How about going on gardening leave?
Luke
"There is 50 TIMES more heat capacity on Earth than Mars. What are those energised molecules going to transfer their heat from being energised by longwave into. You could warm up every molecule and it would make diddly squat difference as the atmosphere is that thin."
Heat capacity of what. You are a scientised clown.
"Skeptics say, no-one can predict the future."
I guess all those economists who say they can predict the result of complying with the Kyoto Protocol will stop doing so?
""There's lots of arm waving about the lack of atmosphere and how a thicker atmosphere enhances the greenhouse effect but no sensible physics, just assertion that it is so.
Why do other non greenhouse gas molecules make a difference? The CO2 molecules can run in to each other and warm by conduction as well as radiation and there's also plenty of convection on Mars.
""
Argument from ignorance, ""If I don't understand it, it can't be true""