Global warming news

[Alsatian]

An interesting study has been released in the journal "Remote Sensing" co-authored by Dr Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite. NASA satellite data over the years 2000 thorugh 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than global warming models assume. This means the models are flawed and their predicted results are in error. How much in error? I don't know. The article summarizes the article's conclusions -- summarizing accurately or not, I haven't read the article itself -- that far less global warming occurs due to greenhouse effects (greenhouse gases including but not limited to CO2 -- others being Methane, for example) than UN computer models have predicted. These findings further support prior studies that indicate increases in atmospheric cabon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. Read the article.


http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

[ipscshooter]

On a related note, a scientist who published a report about polar bears drowningcaused due to global warming, which was featured in Algore's "Inconvenient Truth," has been placed on administrative leave and is under investigation for scientific misconduct in connection with that study...

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-ar...082217993.html

As I've said before... It's all about money, power and control, NOT actual man-made global warming.

[Alsatian]

I have long held the position that the anthropogenic (e.g., human caused) global warming debate has been unscientific because it lacked quantification. While I may not have explicitly stated this, I would have likely added that it doesn't have good measurements either.

Most of the APG (anthropogenic global warming) stihk has been provided by dire predictions about what the future holds, not what measurements have shown. These predictions are based on computer modeling. As one who has done computer simulation -- high fidelity simulation of aircraft for FAA level-D certified flight simulators -- I know that the results of simulation are only as good as the simulation models used. Turns out the APG models are pretty shabby. What else could be expected? The "science" is immature. How immature? Read the link above. They didn't have a clue, it appears, what the real rate of heat transfer would be and have only now measured this. This heat transfer information would appear to dramatically modify the mathematical calculations of heat build up.

Give it some thought. The simulation predicts that more heat will be trapped and build up. If it builds up, what prevents the heat from building up until the temperature is 1 billion zillion quintillion degrees? (I'm an an engineer, and I promise you that is a REAL number!) Heat radiation prevents total thermal runaway. The system achieves a steady state where heat loss equals heat input. But the perturbation of a different atmosphere (the increased concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases "perturbs" the system, alters the system) results in changing the set point of the system, changing the point of equilibrium. But it is important to know HOW MUCH the equilibrium point changes. It is important to QUANTIFY this altered equilibrium point. To do this, you need the relationship of heat loss rate which is central and key to this whole simulation. So it now appears that they had totally guess-work kind of numbers in place for the heat loss, heat radiation part of this calculation. And this is a mature science?

Where is that tired old saw of Al Gore's now? "The science is settled on this." How can it be settled when new data -- perhaps the first germane data EVER collected -- totally revamps this key and essential part of the heat equilibrium calculation?

Expect this study to make waves. Granted, this is science and the politicians and the news media seem to be singularly immune to science . . . but the scientists are not. I find it hard to imagine that the AGW zealots in the scientific community can bury their heads in the ground and pretend this information is not absolutely essential.

[Alsatian]

We are not at a point where the AGW theory is dead, far from it. But in my view there is a consistent trend of bad news for the AGW zealots and no offsetting good news. While reports of the death of AGW are premature, I like to contemplate a day when a thorough post mortem of this AGW brouhaha is conducted. How about cutting the nuts off of all those people who solemnly pronounced that the science on this is settled and that those who opposed AGW theory were troglodytes? How about those who coerced equations to filter out undesirable -- because they did not support AGW theory -- data trends? How about those who practiced systematic exclusion of papers critical of AGW from scientific journals? How about those who allowed unsupported, absurd reports of all Himalyan glaciers melting in 35 years in a key UN report on global warming knowing that the reports were unsupported and contended by glacier experts?

What I would most like to see happen -- although most certainly this will not happen -- is that the scientists who let their activist zealotry supplant their scientific humility be debarred from ever again practicing science. They have totally discredited themselves. Science demands that you dispassionately pursue the understanding of the material world: these guys have not done that but the contrary. They are not scientists but some sort of co-opted political operatives. I have nothing but contempt for them.

[LBR]

As I've said before... It's all about money, power and control, NOT actual man-made global warming.

Exactly. A lot of so-called "science" is controlled by who is in charge of the purse strings. Doesn't take a rocket scientist (pun intended) to figure that one out.

Chad

[Fieldmouse]

Well, what did it for me besides the fact I li ed through the coming ice age not long ago, there isn't enough CO2 in the air to do squat. Then add in how far down the chart man is when it comes to being producers of CO2. Its all about the money. I agree.

[sachiko]

Well as more and more of the truth leaks out, we may be hearing less and less about carbon footprints, etc. One good thing about science is that, errors are eventually corrected.

[LBR]

One good thing about science is that, errors are eventually corrected.

Ya' think? I know it was a bit before your time, but you can find it on the internet fairly easily--like FM, I lived through the "ice age" that was predicted in the 70's. As far as I know, that idiocy was never corrected, just forgotten--just as this "global climate change" garbage will be all but forgotten.

The money paid to all the charlitan "scientists" who "proved" it will never have to be paid back, the power doled out to individuals over it will never have to be accounted for. algore will never have to return his Nobel prize, or the money that came with it, or the money and power he accumulated from this farce.

We may indeed hear "less and less" about things like "carbon footprints"--that's a best case scenario--it just fades away like other "scientific" global con games where citizens pay the price.

And people wonder why I'm such a skeptic????

Chad

[LBR]

My bad--I just realized the current idiocy HAS been "corrected". It started out as "global warming", and it was "corrected" to "global climate change". Same big stinking steaming multi-billion dollar pile of "scientific" con artist flop, just a different name.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for any "corrections". Waayy too much money to be made by "scientists" and politicians yet.

Chad

[Knightia]

As I've said before... It's all about money, power and control, NOT actual man-made global warming.

Yep- follow the money( and what & who 'they' want to control etc )- same here im not going to hold my breath( need all the oxygen i can get)- im not to hopefull its all going away anytime soon either-( between the UN, (some)Us polticans, greenies ,taxpayer funded green subsidies &(US, chinese) companys etc involved & all the moneys they can milk out of the taxpayer & the gulliable etc)( a whole lot of $$$$$$)

" They" have a well(multi source) funded( even if it has to be funded in part by china with intrest) () various medias propaganda machine.( including the US goverment)

Saw a commerical recently(a emotion stiring plea to save the EPA?>) saw just a very small part of it- so far- i believe in it they where feeding a baby what looked like powdered coal.
( i dont keep up much on what there teaching the kiddys in public schools etc in various places)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html

Learn the Basics

The Earth's climate is changing, and people's activities are the main cause.



Our world is always changing. Look out your window long enough, and you might see the weather change. Look even longer, and you'll see the seasons change. The

Earth's climate is changing, too, but in ways that you can't easily see.
The Earth is getting warmer because people are adding heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels.
.................................................. ............................
( I watched algors movie awhile back( dont remember a lot of it - but i do remember- i was less then impressed & it seemed like he thought he was talking to 5th graders) Mean & evil sunbeams?

Al Gore: You Know More Then Your Parents‏ - YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbXxFUjDMiE4 min - Feb 4, 2009 - Uploaded by wrightroadradio
Al Gore tells a groupd of 12 year olds that they have more info then their parents on a number of issues and therefore know more about ...


( play on there emotions & fears)
( get themwhile there young,easy to control & hoodwink pied piper?)




Reading- The false promise of green energy(will get there other book next time in town- Climate of extreames:Gobal warming science they dont want you to know.


And another The improving state of the world

( all from the cato? institute i think)