3
   

NASA says, no to global warming. "Alarmist computer models"

 
 
RexRed
 
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2011 02:45 am
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

excerpt:

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models...
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2011 03:01 am
@RexRed,
This whole global warming thing reminds me of all the contradictory and wrong things we have been told about what to eat over the years. One must understand how the body works before we can talk about what foods should or should not be put into it. Likewise we need to understand how the Earth works before we can predict what the increasing population will do to it. We will certainly have in the not too distant future a mass die off of peoples as famine hits, but these claims that we can know what will happen to the climate are ridiculous. We are only just beginning to understand how the temperatures and gases are regulated, just last week a study came out showing that cities sink ten times the carbon dioxide that was claimed earlier....that is a big error.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2011 03:15 am
@hawkeye10,
There is never ending threads on this subject however I agree that climate change had been ongoing long before mankind came on the scene and is so complex we are not anywhere near to be able to produce useful computer models on the subject.

Mankind current actions may or may not be having some meaningful effects on this ever changing pattern of climate variations.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2011 03:18 am
@hawkeye10,
This is one examples that we liberals need to take a lesson about becoming lemmings over an issue. Ive been a holdout against global warming (along with a few other of my fellow geologists) and weve been pretty much dismissed by our own kind. Global warming has become a shibboleth for progressives. SO much so that simple logic and evidence have been also dismissed if it interfered with a good story.

"Heat sinks and "trailing indicators" have also been dismissed by climate scioentiosts whose entire careersdepend on GW grantysmanship. Anyway, we should really be watching long term climate as our planet adjsuts to the latest sunspot cycle. Weve gone through (and are still going through )an unusual period of NO SUNSPOTS. The last times we had low sunspots we had two back to back events called "The Little Ice AGes"
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2011 04:52 am
Even if global warming is of no concern, the naturalists-green earth advocates need a huge war chest of money to confront future bio concerns, global protections and concerted efforts. The earth's people need to empower these green movements so that our earth stays green and so that natural habitats/environments of wildlife are not decimated by greedy corporate polluters. There are some people who are of the opinion that we humans can't maintain the earth without animals. The alarming rate that animals are becoming extinct is of great concern. This will take a world effort not just the effort of a few (no offense) "liberals".

Green earth is not a political thing but a duty thing that every person has to abide by on this planet. We all need to pay our share into the earth fund. It is not that we have an option, the earth is a duty. Like the duty we have to our nation and and to each other. The social duty to treat others fair and honestly. Caring for the earth is not an option where we can just select it from a check box of items, it is a compulsory item.

Is the entire green initiative based upon a fear that we are warming the earth or is it based upon the ideal that there are vital global green issues that will need attentions by science and ingenuity... That we may need to be able to make global scale changes. This will require great global scale efforts.

The advocacy to benefit the earth is a duty when it comes to global disasters and the science it takes to understand these disasters like Chernobyl and Japan. How do we scientifically clean up the radiation in these nuclear disasters? There must be a way to deactivate the nuclear charge of materials within the epicenter of the disaster. A bacteria that would eat the radiation and burp out some unobnoxious gas like oxygen. Or maybe if they blew off a counter energy blast there that was able to suck the radiation back into antimatter or something similar.

I guess that is why the sun is so successful because there are not many bacterias that are stronger than its ability to shine. But the clouds are water and bacteria's way of obstructing the sun on earth.

Perhaps there are bacterias that are able to live and exist within the sun. They are impervious to the sun's immense energy pressures, much like certain fish in the deepest oceans are impervious to pressures there. These bacteria are possibly able to withstand the sun's energy and could easily withstand energy at Chernobyl. They could absorb the radiation from the epicenter. These global questions are important to every living resident of our fragile planet.

The wind energy, thermal energy, solar, tidal, bio-eco etc...

One current global concern is the great garbage patch in the pacific. What are we going to do about that? That is just one example of global issues that concern the whole world. This garbage patch is not only a huge detriment to the ecosystem of the pacific ocean but also a great concern on what these chemicals are going to do once filtered through into the various currents all over the world.

This garbage patch is going to start bleeding poison out and it is going to circulate all over the world where else would it go our oceans are one big open system. So it may raise the ph acidity value of the total ocean by some unknown number.

What impact will this have on the many diverse ecosystems? Suddenly instead of clean water they are being fed a compound of water and polymers with residues of general toxic sludge.

What will this do to fragile ecosystems when their water is contaminated? This garbage patch has no other place to go but back into our lakes to evaporate up from the ocean's surface and to become plastic oily rain in the clouds and to rain down plastic upon each and every one of us.

This may be what it takes for everyone to realize it is time to try and effect cleanup and change in global pollution issues.

Our diligence can even be needed if it were to come down to something as simple as being able to manipulate the earth's temperature. If it were as simple as just turning a thermostat dial and the earth were warmer. Or turning it down to make the earth cooler. Well all is good as long as the person with their hand on the dial is trustworthy or skilled enough to turn the dial the exact right amount.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2011 06:55 am
@RexRed,
Sorry but mother nature any numbers of times in the earth history had wiped 95 percents or so of all types of animals life off this planet without any help of a yet unborn mankind.

How dare you fight mother nature if she wish to reduce once more the total numbers of animals types? Laughing

Oh by the way mankind is part of nature.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2011 08:33 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Sorry but mother nature any numbers of times in the earth history had wiped 95 percents or so of all types of animals life off this planet without any help of a yet unborn mankind.

How dare you fight mother nature if she wish to reduce once more the total numbers of animals types? Laughing

Oh by the way mankind is part of nature.
Mother nature could be testing us to see if we are worthy to exist. Do we care enough about our own existence to save ourselves from our own destruction?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2011 09:42 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
This is one examples that we liberals need to take a lesson about becoming lemmings over an issue. Ive been a holdout against global warming (along with a few other of my fellow geologists) and weve been pretty much dismissed by our own kind. Global warming has become a shibboleth for progressives. SO much so that simple logic and evidence have been also dismissed if it interfered with a good story.
the problem is it was not just progressives and liberals who got behind the global warming story, the consensus of scientists did as well. A few months back a saw a claim that something like 85% of scientists are liberals, which seems like a problem to me and maybe this accounts for what now seems like a rush to judgment , but science cant be getting such major answers wrong if science is going to maintain what remains of its credibility. We have seen over the last decades a lot of junk science, and a lot of corruption of science with pressure to keep quiet of the results are not what is wanted as well as organized efforts to make sure that the wrong people and studies looking into the wrong questions dont get funded.....science can ill afford the disgrace of being majorly wrong on the biggest questions of the day. Today the question is was science correct about the claimed connection between burning fossil fuels and so called global warming, but this comes after two decades ago we made a difficult and hugely expensive shift away from CFC's because science said they were sure that the stuff was killing the Earth, but now we a not so sure, because we now know that the previous understanding of how the ozone layer works is wrong.

Quote:

Dr. Will Happer of Princeton wrote “The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC. Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the US Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” (President Bush Sr’s seaside residence in New England). The ozone crusade also had business opportunities for firms like Dupont to market proprietary “ozone-friendly” refrigerants at much better prices than the conventional (and more easily used) freons that had long-since lost patent protection and were not a cheap commodity with little profit potential” (link).

Even James Lovelock agrees. James Lovelock formulated the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment. He later became concerned that global warming would upset the balance and leave only the arctic as habitable. He began to move off this position in 2007 suggesting that the Earth itself is in “no danger” because it would stabilize in a new state.

James Lovelock’s reaction to first reading about the CRU emails in late 2009 was one of a true scientist:

“I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.

I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.

Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”

On a March 2010 Guardian interview, Lovelock opined:

“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing…We do need skepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.”

Will Happer further elaborated:

“The Montreal Protocol may not have been necessary to save the ozone, but it had limited economic damage. It has caused much more damage in the way it has corrupted science. It showed how quickly a scientist or activist can gain fame and fortune by purporting to save planet earth. We have the same situation with CO2 now, but CO2 is completely natural, unlike freons. Planet earth is quite happy to have lots more CO2 than current values, as the geological record clearly shows. If the jihad against CO2 succeeds, there will be enormous economic damage, and even worse consequences for human liberty at the hands of the successful jihadists.”

LIKE GLOBAL WARMING THE DATA DOESN’T SUPPORT THE THEORY

The ozone hole has not closed off after we banned CFCs. See this story in Nature:

Scientific Consensus on Man-Made Ozone Hole May Be Coming Apart


As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

STILL COMING

Yet like the cultists whose spacecraft didn’t arrive on the announced date, the government scientists find ways to postpone it and save their reputations (examples “Increasing greenhouse gases could delay, or even postpone indefinitely the recovery of stratospheric ozone in some regions of the Earth, a Johns Hopkins earth scientist suggests” here and “Scientists Find Antarctic Ozone Hole to Recover Later than Expected” here.

“The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date.” Dr. John Brignell, Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton, on Number Watch (May 1) PDF

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/new-rate-of-stratospheric-photolysis-questions-ozone-hole/


By Will Happer Princeton University
Quote:
The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC. Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the US Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” (President Bush Sr’s seaside residence in New England). The ozone crusade also had business opportunities for firms like Dupont to market proprietary “ozone-friendly” refrigerants at much better prices than the conventional (and more easily used) freons that had long-since lost patent protection and were not a cheap commodity with little profit potential.

I was the Director of Energy Research at the US Department of Energy at the time, and I knew very well that the data to support the treaty was not there. Ever since Dobson’s first expeditions to Antarctica in the early 1900’s, we had known that ozone levels were always low over the Antarctic, but we had no real idea of what the natural fluctuations were. As far as we know, there has always been an ozone hole over Antarctica, with a size that varies from year to year. The size of the hole has hardly changed since 1990, as you can see from NASA’s site.

I don’t know what the current status is, but two or three years ago, some researchers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology remeasured the rate of ozone destruction by the key chlorine oxide, and they found a number about 6 times smaller than the one promoted during the freon-ban crusade. Even the establishment value was really not big enough to cause substantial ozone depletion. The ozone hole over Antarctica involves high-altitude “ice” particulates, made from a witch’s brew of water, nitric acid, chlorine etc. It is not clear if freon has made any difference to this. The behavior of these ice crystals may be more determined by the stratospheric temperature and the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere, all changing with time at the poles. At any rate, stratospheric freon and its breakdown products are steadily diminishing, but little is happening to the ozone hole.

As Director of Energy Research, I argued strongly for better measurements to be sure we understood the science well enough to support the Montreal Protocol. I did manage to get a new network of UVB sensors deployed to measure year-to-year changes of ground-level UVB. The existing network was an embarrassment to the alarmists since it showed stable to decreasing UVB levels. I thought that this might be analogous to the urban heat island problems that so vex ground-based temperature measurements. Suburbs had grown up around the old network, so there was the possibility that air pollution was increasingly attenuating UVB. The new DOE network had real rural sites, as far as possible from urban smog. These activities really infuriated Al Gore, who had me fired as soon as possible after becoming Vice President.

The Montreal Protocol may not have been necessary to save the ozone, but it had limited economic damage. It has caused much more damage in the way it has corrupted science. It showed how quickly a scientist or activist can gain fame and fortune by purporting to save planet earth. We have the same situation with CO2 now, but CO2 is completely natural, unlike freons. Planet earth is quite happy to have lots more CO2 than current values, as the geological record clearly shows. If the jihad against CO2 succeeds, there will be enormous economic damage, and even worse consequences for human liberty at the hands of the successful jihadists.

http://appliedclimate.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/the-ozone-hole-should-we-be-alarmed/
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 01:42 am
Apparently the NASA article is biased and full of "Gaping Holes"...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 03:02 am
@RexRed,
Interesting to see just how many people are skeptical of the human induced global climate change. I felt like I've been pretty much alone on the skeptical side.

Another tid bit of information about the effects of the earths climate comes from a NASA video about the Hipparcos mission. First a little bit of back ground information. The Hipparcos mission was designed to chart the stars position and movement within our milkway galaxy. Not only other stars but our own sun and they discovered the plausible path through our galaxy. But what does that mean?

Well it means that the movement of our solar system in and out of the gas pockets of our galaxy have an effect on earths climate. But how? Well there are theories that the spiral arms of the galaxy actually look like that due to a tremendous pressure wave which compounds the gas and stars together forming the spiral arm. This means that as the sun and our solar system including earth move in and out of these pockets of increased pressure they have an effect on the earth's climate.

I'll link the video below. If you don't want to watch the entire video you can skip to the relevant part which is at 7.50.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0_s9W3QaO0&feature=channel_video_title
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 04:00 am
@RexRed,
Maybe, be we must be mindful that this same inability of scientists to follow the science (truth) that we have already talked about in this thread leads to heretics being attacked by their peers once they gather the will to speak. I remember Thomas Moore saying that he was a darling of the psychotherapists, was invited to speak often at conferences, until he started talking about a problem in the profession. At that point it was demanded that he back down and shut up about the subject, and the refusal cost him his good standing in the profession. This came a few years after he was forced to back down on his work Dark Eros: The Imagination of Sadism when after he got popular it could not be allowed to stand that he was not properly hostile to the exercise of power in relationship and sexuality. Moore did back down that time, in speeches he would assure everyone that he agreed, and when a new addition came out he put all kinds of qualifiers in the forwards. Moore seems to have made his peace with being an outlander, he is still speaking his mind although with a tiny publisher. Moore is out with a new book, this time taking on the healthcare industry, it is ranked 126,496 in sales at Amazon. He is fine with that, he says that he is writing for the next generation, he believes that in 50 years or so people will pick up his work and read it with a more open mind than moderns can manage....to include the scientists.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 04:27 am
@RexRed,
I dont trust the government to run the trains on time, I certainly dont intend to trust them with trillions of dollars to make the planet cooler when we might have a major catastrophe that will require all our finances to fix . Meteors, comets, earthquakes, volcanoes... lets save our money in case we have a real catastrophe instead of an imagined one like global warming .
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 05:38 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

I dont trust the government to run the trains on time, I certainly dont intend to trust them with trillions of dollars to make the planet cooler when we might have a major catastrophe that will require all our finances to fix . Meteors, comets, earthquakes, volcanoes... lets save our money in case we have a real catastrophe instead of an imagined one like global warming .
The polar caps are melting for the first time in many thousands of years... Doesn't sound imagined to me, not like errr, creationism... But conservatives are used to imaginary scenarios anyway.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 05:57 am
Does anyone on this thread have a shred of critical thinking?

This is an article posted in Forbes (a conservative magazine) that was written by a Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute.

This is a propaganda piece. It is based on one study that doesn't even say what the article implies it says.

This is what NASA actually says.

Quote:
Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling: ...


http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

In other news, smoking still causes cancer and Humans still evolved from earlier primates in spite of all the "science-laced" articles you can find to the contrary.

BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 09:26 am
@maxdancona,
You buy into both man created climate change being proven and creationism?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 06:40 pm
@BillRM,
You misunderstood Bill.

I go with the science in each of these "controversies".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Water on the moon??? - Discussion by mysteryman
Should NASA go to Mars or back to the Moon? - Discussion by rosborne979
NASA has become a transition problem for Obama - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Pictures from Mars - Discussion by engineer
The Artemis mission - Question by bearnard45
Why NASA's Mars Drill Isn't Working - Discussion by livinglava
 
  1. Forums
  2. » NASA says, no to global warming. "Alarmist computer models"
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2021 at 06:07:39