Skip to main content

Dr. Roy Spencer on Global Warming, 'No one knows' Comments

Many of our readers have urged Catholic Online to interview Dr. Roy Spencer as a leading, qualified skeptic on the issue of anthropogenic global warming. On Monday, Marshall Connolly interviewed Dr. Spencer to hear his expert opinions on the issue. Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 69 Comments

  1. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    Gio, if you need to justify your change of daily habits then perhaps try to rationalise such action without pretending that CO2 is 'carbon' or than that CO2 is actually 'heating' something. The 'global warming crowd' are demanding much more than 'recycling or turning off a light'...in reality the former uses more electricity than original production whilst the latter is futile effort.
    Live stock respire and produce CO2, they do not produce 'carbon emmisions'. 'Carbon' is not emmitted by people. Consumption does not produce 'carbon'. Some propduction processes produce carbon but such is trapped by filters within the flue and chimney. What you would see in media images is generally water vapour.
    If you're into 'feel good' effort then go for a walk, by all means, but please don't attempt to substitute 'warming by anthropological CO2' to justify daily exercise. There is still no observable 'warming by anthropological CO2', no 'global warming', just the preexisting trend that is observably linked to the behavior of the Sun.

  2. Gio
    1 year ago

    Some, most often among the evangelical protestant crowd, believe science and God are diametrically opposed. Well, the new idolatry (greed and idolatry are often used interchangeably in sacred scripture) is materialism and consumerism. What a better way for God to remind us of how our secular temptations will lead us than by reminding us by turning up the heat.

    From what I have seen, the global warming crowd is only suggesting small changes in our daily lives, like recycling or turning off a light. Do we need to eat several plates at a buffet? Shall we eat for fullness or nourishment? Livestock create a lot of carbon emissions, that's why some propose meatless Mondays, which I feel divinely inspired by meatless Lent Fridays. Do we need extra cylinders in our car?

    @Tim, carbon is not just emitted by people, but it is also a waste product of production and consumption.

  3. Tim
    1 year ago

    Global warming is completely fake, and all its for is to have control of the people, and when they say its man caused, CO2, Did you know that there trying to say that when we breath out that were killing the earth? When the plants like he trees suck it up and produce air? ROFL. Its just about money and depopulation saying that we might aswell kill ourselves. Only thing that is real is general pollution, and take care of the earth as god has said. The global warming is a joke and scientist don't even have a consensus on it, meaning if the all cant agree then its pretty obvious there's something wrong, as science is proven and made into fact and what is not science its not fact. AL Gore is all about profit and carbon credits for company's and soon to come if people don't fight it, carbon tax.

    Global Warming - Emerging Science & Understanding

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFxxdH67kwY&list=PL52BA91A13C0B12E6

    Oh and you wanna know about AL Gores finical gain? Look into what he did a year or two before this, then he announced it in the 90s if no one knew about it for over thousands of years...lol.

    Heres a video that will teach you all about how global warming is fake, and if you have a science background, it should all make sense im sure he facts and if not then there's the qualified people there to talk about it.

    Be great if this awakens your minds everyone!

  4. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    There is no observable affect of CO2 upon a pre-existing warming effect Layzej, and as I've previously noted to you the observed effect of increased CO2 upon plant's growth rate is why CO2 can be called 'plant food'. Observation is obviously no your 'friend' Layzej.
    Dr Curry was not used by me as a 'support', but to indicate that Science is not as sure as the climate activist! That was infact the very point you railed against, that Science is not as sure of this (supposed) problem's reality as you (and other warmist activists) would want to make issue of. Again there is no observation of CO2 warming, anthropogenic or otherwise.
    You list institutions in a manner of politics Layzej, what you need to do is show obvious warming effect on the pre-existing trends already noted to have existed...there are none still and there never were such which is WHY the effort to pretend a political process was sufficient.

    The expert then did note that 'no one knows' and in so doing did kick from beneath you (and other activists) their 'soap box'...that you feel 'un-empowered' is why you behave here as you do, in a desparate manner that defies logic and common sense. The radiative properties of CO2 then are relevant only in noting that CO2 cannot actually warm itself, instead it shed energy into Photons.
    As such CO2 itself remains cool and by increasing the mass of CO2 within the atmosphere you increase a cooling mass...not a 'warming' mass. So then regard the cooling mass of CO2 needing to maintain a THERMAL equilibrium. The WARMER molecules are (by relative mass) of Nitrogen, Oxygen and Water! Nitrogen has greatest opportunity to impact the planet's surface and so warm conductively. Nitrogen cannot warm 'radiativly'.

    Next is Oxygen, similar to the situation of Nitrogen but in a less amount and gains some warmth by contact conduction with Nitrogen...the concept of a thermal equilibrium a gain needs be noted.
    Water can warm radiativly and can achieve a (kinetic) temperature greater than Nitrogen...but CO2 cannot.
    The ranking of 'greenhouse' effect tacks those other molecules on after H2O but with political purpose only. Such then attempts to confuse what is 'heat' and what is a photon. That effort is failing to produce any observable effect as a photon's energy is NOT 'heat'.

    The politically inspired 'greenhouse effect' does confuse energy of photons with 'heat'...apart from water (which doesn't shed energy back into photons efficiently) there is a conversion of kinetic gains (warming) back into photons.
    This presents those molecules as radiative COOLERS. So the atmosphere becomes 'brighter' but then also (kinetically) COOLER. Again, regard the information collated by the author of this article (links used included):
    "See 'Carbon Emissions' NOT affecting The Globe"
    (http://greenhousebullcrap.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/see-carbon-emissions-not-affecting-the-globe/)
    ...as there really is no CO2 problem to be observed in regard to the actual environment, and there never was. There are no confusing or contradictory claims made by myself Layzej, you only try to pretend there are to sidestep that only real fact you can otherwise present...there are no observable warming effects of (anthropogenic) CO2.
    Such facts render your entire effort down to a 'basket' case at best. Scientists voting are not worthy of the title 'Scientist', regardless of how they group themselves...the American Physical society, supposed dozens of other national and international scientific bodies including the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the guest in the above article and Dr Curry.

  5. Gerald Kelleher
    1 year ago

    What the empirical modelers have done is define global climate to suit their agenda,in this case morph short term weather and its modeling into long term weather and then pass it off as climate science.There is this huge leap between weather and climate without much thought given to its rickety foundations yet it is on this basis that an era has lost its mind in the belief that it can control the planet's temperature to within a certain range or 'climate change' as it is known.

    Axial inclination of a planet defines what the planet's climate is,if a planet has close to a zero degree inclination like Jupiter it will have an equatorial climate,if it has close to a 90 degree inclination like the planet Uranus then it will have a polar climate.The old perspective of no tilt/no seasons first proposed by Copernicus has to give way to a planetary climate spectrum between equatorial and polar -

    ".. the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of days and nights would be observed. On the contrary, it would always be
    either the longest or shortest day or the day of equal daylight and darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever the character of the season, it would remain identical and unchanged." Copernicus De Revolutionibus

    It can be argued that the subtleties are so great that it is necessary to suspend 'climate change' science as it is presently understood in order to get the matter straight,clean and clear before humanity gets bombarded with unnecessary concerns or neglecting real concerns like pollution.

  6. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    Regard the information collated by the author of this article (links used included):
    "See “Carbon Emissions” NOT affecting The Globe"
    (http://greenhousebullcrap.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/see-carbon-emissions-not-affecting-the-globe/)

    ...as there really is no CO2 problem to be observed in regard to the actual environment, and there never was.

  7. Layzej
    1 year ago

    Hi Peter,

    I am having trouble finding coherency in your argument. On the one hand you say that no one knows the effect of added atmospheric C02, and on the other you say that we are certain that atmospheric C02 has no effect. These are contradictory positions.

    You use Dr. Curry to support your first argument. She thinks that the impact may be far worse than mainstream science does - so I'm still not clear how that supports your position.

    You claim to know the Real Truth about the radiative properties of C02. Every scientific academy from Newton's Royal Society in Britain to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Physical society, as well as dozens of other national and international scientific bodies including the churches own Pontifical Academy of Sciences all disagree with you. Even the guest in the above article and Dr Curry - who you site as an expert - both disagree with you!

    For this conversation to continue you will need to show:
    1) Why we should believe your Real Truth about the radiative properties of C02 over all of the scientists and scientific societies.
    2) How your 'No one knows" position should give us comfort when the experts you site to support this position believe that the problem could be far worse than mainstream science suggests
    3) How you are able to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory opinions.

    You have made a number of other contradictory and confusing claims:

    1) It's not warming: "Without any warming to support the wild claims made of alarming climate warming"
    2) The extra C02 in the environment is actually caused by the warming - not causing it: "We know that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere always follows periods of global warming,"
    3) Atmospheric CO2 is actually causing the world to cool: "NASA presents an observable cooling process"

    You would do well to sit back and solidify a coherent position before proceeding with this conversation. You would earn good will by admitting openly which of the many contradictory positions you have rejected after careful reflection.

  8. J. Bob
    1 year ago

    layzej,
    in your previous post you refer to "basic physics established over 150 years ago.".

    In real life there is some distance from "basic physics" to real world situations. Let me give you an example, using the transfer of heat from say the land, or ocean surface, to the atmosphere, via convection. While the laws of physics may apply, there are a number of coefficients in the laws of physics that are empirical (nice word for experimentally determined). These coefficients vary all over the place, depending on whose source one uses, or the local physical conditions.

    Getting back to the convection issue, heat transfer is computed by noting, among other things, estimated local wind velocity, surface conditions (trees, desert, wave height, air turbulence,etc.) to determining dimensionless numbers ( including Grashof, Nusselt, Prandlt, Reynolds, etc.) which in turn are used to compute the estimated heat flow to the atmosphere. These are hardly exact numbers, but are estimates. And as such, depend upon how they are used.

    So while the basic physics may be known, how it is applied, & if all the laws are properly applied, is another matter. If you doubt my comments, I would suggest you get, read & understand a text book on Heat Transfer, & see how basic physics is applied to real life situations
    .

  9. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    Red Olston, you try to paraphrase out of context... my comment was specific: "how can 'smoking' be even rationally considered analogous to any situation regarding the activists claims of 'climate change' by anthropogenic CO2 'emissions'?" which shows your not even noticing what is mentioned in your haste to type-cast others. There is no point in attempting to pretend to an analogous situation involving smoking.
    There was not even 'missing' warming to begin with, 30 years ago it was suggested that ~1C degree was 'unaccounted for by source' but in so claiming known science involving solar behavior was deliberately overlooked. There really was never more than a discrepancy due to instrument error to cite. Citing then a 'potential' for warming as instrumentation wasn't sufficiently accurate to measure 'global' temperature is at the core of the 'climate crusade' still.
    There is not shown a problem, there is not observed a problem and there is then no rational rationale behind demands to even 'react'...react to what? There is no potential problem made by CO2, the warming predated the claims of anthropogenic effect, that warming altered in line with solar behavior and a ~0.5C degree rise (per century) altered to become a ~0.7C degree rise (per century) then ...still with regard to solar behavior... that warming rise is decreased. Realise that the 'trend' has been overall +ve for thousands of years and then particularly since the 'little ice age'.

    There is no great alteration in weather patterns, no increase is storm frequency or energy, sea level rises are not altered from their slow (and historical) increases! Arctic and Antarctic ice are not beyond their 'norms' whilst their cyclic behaviors have not altered but display quite natural variations. There is no risk from 'doing nothing' as nothing you've mentioned, Red Olston, is actually displaying unusual behaviors!
    There is been warming ...I have presented a link that details such ...there has not been observed ANTHROPOGENIC warming, that been relabeled 'global warming' within the political platform you attempt unsuccessfully to protect. There is no observable anthropogenic effect Red Olston, there is no pollution being made by anthropogenic CO2, and there is no concern for this planet's actual environment made by that political effort promoting of 'sustainability' that you seem protective of.
    For example: "Climate Change Madness: Do the Europeans know what they are doing?"
    (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/04/30/climate-change-madness-do-the-europeans-know-what-they-are-doing/)
    "British leaders are making some truly bizarre decisions in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and comply with European renewable electricity mandates. For example, they are converting a coal-fired plant to burn wood chips that are shipped from the United States. A wood burning plant qualifies under the European rules for meeting electricity generation mandates from renewable energy for the purpose of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from energy producing sources. But this move is sheer lunacy for it will increase rather than decrease emissions while increasing the price of electricity to consumers. Yet the British parliament has whole-heartedly embraced the move. Have legislators gone mad? ..."
    Do you even know what you're fighting for Red Olston? It is most certainly not the environment of this planet (which needs CO2, btw).

  10. Red Olston
    1 year ago

    Peter,

    "how can 'smoking' be even rationally considered analogous to any situation"
    Your statement says two things to me:

    1) In a conversation - you're the kind of person who does not listen to what the other person is telling you, but instead of listening and responding, thinks of what they themselves want to say and then responds without responding. This does not make for very meaningful conversation.

    2) You have completely missed the point

    Smoking is a perfect analogy in my mind. But it could be any risky behavior. The point is that if we can even agree on a premise - that human behavior MIGHT be responsible for SOME of the warming, then we can agree that there is a risk associated with this. Life is risky, there is no way to avoid it - but in my own experiences, I look before I leap and I'm honest with myself about what I know and what I don't know.

    Here is what I hope you hear:

    Why are we allowing ourselves to be reactionary to this (waiting for something bad to happen first)? People like you are saying "there is no problem, so lets keep living the way we are and not change - let's wait until the studies tell us different". Or until something bad actually happens. Meanwhile, everyone else is saying, "we should alter our behavior NOW because it could take a long time for science to sort this out, and by then it could be too late". In other words, lets be CONSERVATIVE about our options. Lets not spend every penny of our environmental goodwill and take this planet to the brink of what can be done before we start changing. It's okay to have some savings, the economies will survive regardless of whether everyone on the planet drives a car, or has cable television.

    Again, if reasonable people can agree, not that human behavior IS causing 100% of global warming, but that it's possible we're responsible for SOME of the warming, then it stands that we ought to start acting now, to not take unnecessary risks. There is a whole strand of effects that we don't yet understand, from little things to big things - changed weather patterns, economic losses from increased tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes, rising sea levels, extinction. We need to be out in front of this and rationally thinking about risk associated with doing nothing, risk associated with doing something now, and then make a decision together.

    It's fairly clear to me that you are too busy talking to hear anything, and will most likely not get any value from my words, nor have the insight to consider something other than what your wrongly equipped preconceived notions, but I felt the necessity to respond IN CASE I WAS WRONG regarding my preconceived notions about you.

    Humanity is a work in progress, we don't understand how all systems work together on the planet. We do understand that the temperature here is rising, and that our way of lives is contributing more than all the other millions of species combined. Although you act like you KNOW there isn't any global warming, this isn't a fact. It's an ill conceived opinion. Don't forget that you are human Peter.


Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Revelation 20:1-4, 11--21:2
Then I saw an angel come down from heaven with the key of the ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 84:3, 4, 5-6, 8
Even the sparrow has found a home, the swallow a nest to place ... Read More

Gospel, Luke 21:29-33
And he told them a parable, 'Look at the fig tree and indeed ... Read More

Saint of the Day

November 28 Saint of the Day

St. Catherine Laboure
November 28: St. Catherine Laboure, virgin, was born on May 2, 1806. At an ... Read More