New Study debunks global warming models

[star2city]

New NASA data blows gaping hole in Global Warming Computer Models

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth

[Teeder11]

New NASA data blows gaping hole in Global Warming Computer Models

Alabama-Huntsville Press Release

Interesting. Thanks!

[gjw007]

New NASA data blows gaping hole in Global Warming Computer Models

Alabama-Huntsville Press Release

The alarmist crowd will take the current conditions and fit it to their agenda. They have been discredited before but that hasn't stopped them. Remember, 30 years ago it was global cooling by these people. Having said that, we should be careful about spewing garbage into the air and into the water.

[almostheavenin2011]

Look at the author and his website that he works for and who funds them and then stop and think if he was being objective.

[almostheavenin2011]

They are funded by the Koch Brothers and Exxon.

[Goon]

The alarmist crowd will take the current conditions and fit it to their agenda. They have been discredited before but that hasn't stopped them. Remember, 30 years ago it was global cooling by these people. Having said that, we should be careful about spewing garbage into the air and into the water.

I can remember when I was in grade school that the environmentalists said that we would return to the ice age and half of North America would be covered in ice... After last winter I was wonder if that theory might have become reality... Then we have shills like Al Gore telling us that the oceans would rise because of the polar ice caps melting and we would experience extreme temps in either direction. It's funny how these environmentalists try to jam their agenda down our throats based on their false science, if they don't like the data they just changed the results to suit their cause. I am glad that their theory has been debunked... Because of environmentalists are paying almost 4.00 a gallon of gas and we now are supposed to use light bulbs that are a hazardous material if they break. Nice to see the Alarmists debunked.

Associated Press — Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.

Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.

The federal agency where he works told him he was on leave pending the results of an investigation into "integrity issues." A watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear, but a source familiar with the investigation said late Thursday that placing Monnett on leave had nothing to with scientific integrity or the article.

The source, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing investigation, wouldn't comment further.

The watchdog, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on Monnett's behalf Thursday with the agency, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Investigators have not yet told Monnett of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group's executive director. His group released excerpts of interviews investigators conducted with Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason, in which they were questioned about the observations that led to the article

Edited August 1, 2011 by Goon

[Big A HG]

Those Global Warming fools have been debunked a long time ago. Anyone who believes in their nonsense buys into it for reasons other than fact.

Think about this. When "scientists" first started hypothesizing these global warming theories, they began to receive large government grants to continue their work. Because of these grants, more scientists jumped on board. Any scientist who doesn't, misses out on these large sums of money, hence the reason so many jumped on board.

Luckily, there are enough researches with a conscience to debunk and discredit the fools who are after the almighty dollar. In the end, it's all about the benjamins. Look how much money some of these fools, like the "expert" Al Gore, have made? You can hardly blame some of them.

[Bison Dan]

Greenhouse Gases:

95% Water Vapor

4% CO2

CH4, N2O, CFC's make up the rest.

Of the CO2 total 96% in naturally occuring. So man made CO2 is about .12% of all Greehouse gases. And we're the problem??

[xI Hammer Ix]

Those Global Warming fools have been debunked a long time ago. Anyone who believes in their nonsense buys into it for reasons other than fact.

Think about this. When "scientists" first started hypothesizing these global warming theories, they began to receive large government grants to continue their work. Because of these grants, more scientists jumped on board. Any scientist who doesn't, misses out on these large sums of money, hence the reason so many jumped on board.

Luckily, there are enough researches with a conscience to debunk and discredit the fools who are after the almighty dollar. In the end, it's all about the benjamins. Look how much money some of these fools, like the "expert" Al Gore, have made? You can hardly blame some of them.

You always find what you're looking for, especially when you're getting paid to find it. People forget the climate is coming out of what's called The Little Ice Age. Long story short much research needs to be done on the climate. Current climate models are based off a Venusian atmosphere. That being said, the same physics that apply to Venus apply to Earth. I'm all for renewable energy and ending dependency on oil. If for nothing else, to clean up our home.

[LB#11]

Greenhouse Gases:

95% Water Vapor

4% CO2

CH4, N2O, CFC's make up the rest.

Of the CO2 total 96% in naturally occuring. So man made CO2 is about .12% of all Greehouse gases. And we're the problem??

I think Bison & Sioux fans agree that Global Warning is a farce. Hard to believe Al Gore made a cool 100 Million on something so far fetched. I wonder if his wife Tipper gets half?

[Bison Dan]

I think Bison & Sioux fans agree that Global Warning is a farce. Hard to believe Al Gore made a cool 100 Million on something so far fetched. I wonder if his wife Tipper gets half?

I think she got half and then dumped his ass.

[Hayduke]

I think Bison & Sioux fans agree that Global Warning is a farce. Hard to believe Al Gore made a cool 100 Million on something so far fetched. I wonder if his wife Tipper gets half?

I'm a die hard Sioux fan and I don't agree that it's a farce. I think there is plenty of scientific evidence that shows that there is something to the theory of global warming.

But, I'm not here to debate this. I only come here to show support and discuss Sioux sports.

My point: Don't lump us all together pal.

[FargoBison]

Global warming isn't a farce but the thought that man was the driving force behind it probably is.

[LB#11]

I'm a die hard Sioux fan and I don't agree that it's a farce. I think there is plenty of scientific evidence that shows that there is something to the theory of global warming.

But, I'm not here to debate this. I only come here to show support and discuss Sioux sports.

My point: Don't lump us all together pal.

It just pisses me off that these politians use Global Warming to further their agenda. I've been in the transportation business for over 30 years. I'm sure you know nothing of a $9000 tax they put on new trucks or all the things our current administration is doing to put us out of business. If you want to defend Obama, do your best...he's a complete idiot when it comes to business. Obama will go down as our worst President and that's counting Jimmy Carter. Sorry Pal...GO SIOUX

[Goon]

Global warming isn't a farce but the thought that man was the driving force behind it probably is.

Global warming is a farce...

[passit_offthegoalie]

What are you doing reading Forbes? I know you aren't that rich.

I don't know why you "Republicans" are always so concerned about the plight of the poor millionaires and billionaires out there. They're doing just fine, they don't need any more help.

I also noticed the study you posted was done by NASA. Here's another thing straight from NASA's website that I think you should take a look at:

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Stop listening to whatever big business-backed politicans and Fox News tells you, for Christ's sake.

[Hayduke]

What are you doing reading Forbes? I know you aren't that rich.

I don't know why you "Republicans" are always so concerned about the plight of the poor millionaires and billionaires out there. They're doing just fine, they don't need any more help.

I also noticed the study you posted was done by NASA. Here's another thing straight from NASA's website that I think you should take a look at:

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Stop listening to whatever big business-backed politicans and Fox News tells you, for Christ's sake.

Are you sure? Because, if you're a fan of the Fighting Sioux, then you have to believe that global warming is not true at all! Didn't you get the memo? Didn't you know that we all watch Faux news and believe anything the GOP tells us? All Sioux fans. Every one. Todos!

[FargoBison]

Global warming is a farce...

If it is I would be sitting in a glacier right now. The earth obviously has warm cycles and cold cycles, what causes them are very much up for debate. Maybe you are thinking of Anthropogenic(man-made) Global Warming.

[redwing77]

I read somewhere that the scientist that is mainly attributed to being the main authority on global warming was also the same guy who, in the 1970s (IIRC) who was calling the alarm out for Global Cooling.

In the end, what I began to believe is that you don't allow alarmists towards any of the major repetitive events or environmental factors that have had a historical tendency to imitate, when graphed out, a sine wave.

Temperature and Climate cycles are one of these sine waves.

Sure, we affect it, but not to the extent that the alarmists speak of.

And by the way, I've yet to review other countries outside the U.S.'s environmental laws. Maybe because I can't find them online. Ours is a novel sized document. I wonder what Russia and China's are like?

Maybe the environmentalists should attack the countries that aren't writing books after books on laws and other ways to restrict how businesses do business and how those businesses can affect the environment they are in.

If that doesn't work, we can immediately improve our environment and its policy by doing away with California. 1 reason would be we get rid of the smog infested Californian cities such as LA. 2nd reason is that we get rid of the looniest environmentalists. Sure, that still leaves the Pacific Northwest, but their population base isn't as large and I think we could easily marginalize them.

[wxman91]

Sad to see a group of Sioux (and even Bison) fans so uneducated about the topic of anthropogenic climate change

Greenhouse Gases:

95% Water Vapor

4% CO2

CH4, N2O, CFC's make up the rest.

Of the CO2 total 96% in naturally occuring. So man made CO2 is about .12% of all Greehouse gases. And we're the problem??

Man's burning of previously sequestered carbon is the sole reason for the 40%+ rise from pre-industrial levels of CO2 to the current levels. Prior to man's activities, CO2 was "traded" between the atmosphere, earth and oceans in a natural cycle. Now, all of these reservoirs are accumulating carbon that had long ago been put in the ground.

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, but the amount of water vapor is a feedback based on temperature, not a primary forcing.

I read somewhere that the scientist that is mainly attributed to being the main authority on global warming was also the same guy who, in the 1970s (IIRC) who was calling the alarm out for Global Cooling.

In the end, what I began to believe is that you don't allow alarmists towards any of the major repetitive events or environmental factors that have had a historical tendency to imitate, when graphed out, a sine wave.

Temperature and Climate cycles are one of these sine waves.

Sure, we affect it, but not to the extent that the alarmists speak of.

And by the way, I've yet to review other countries outside the U.S.'s environmental laws. Maybe because I can't find them online. Ours is a novel sized document. I wonder what Russia and China's are like?

Maybe the environmentalists should attack the countries that aren't writing books after books on laws and other ways to restrict how businesses do business and how those businesses can affect the environment they are in.

If that doesn't work, we can immediately improve our environment and its policy by doing away with California. 1 reason would be we get rid of the smog infested Californian cities such as LA. 2nd reason is that we get rid of the looniest environmentalists. Sure, that still leaves the Pacific Northwest, but their population base isn't as large and I think we could easily marginalize them.

Global cooling was never a mainstay scientific theory. It was always dwarfed in scientific publications by theories about warming. The first writings about CO2-induced warming were well over 100 years ago. The "cooling" scare came about because of two separate issues colliding: the PDO/AMO cycle resulting in several cold winters in the US, and the confirmation of the Milankovitch cycles in the ice core record which showed that we were close to being "due" in the interglacial cycle. As usual, the media in their infinite quest for ratings, chose to focus on the disaster ice age scenario. Never trust the media to faithfully report on science, they always leave out the relevant caveats and go with the most ridiculous, dire scenarios. That goes for AGW too.

I don't know if the sine waves you are talking about are the 11-year solar cycles, the PDO/AMO ocean cycles, or the ice ages, but the most relevant one at the moment is the PDO/AMO because it is on the decadal scale. There does seem to be a sine wave aspect to the global temperatures over the past century. There are theories about whether this is all ocean-related, or may also have to do with aerosols, especially in the post-WWII era. Either way, if there is a true sine wave, it is superimposed upon a long term rising trend. If this is the case, and what we've seen over the past decade is the downturn in the sine wave countered by the rising trend (resulting in a generally flat period of global temps), then we should be looking for a rising temperature regime to begin again later this decade or in the 2020s, with a very sharp upward trend especially in the 2030s and 2040s. Things that could change this would be a very, very deep solar min, or a resumption of higher solar activity. Solar energy, measured by irradiance, cosmic rays, and other variables, has been flat or in decline for 3 to 5 decades, and is unlikely to have played much of a role in the later 20th century warming.

Just for clarification - I do have an AtSci degree, but not in climatology. My job does not depend one way or the other on this matter. I do not subscribe to the Al Gore catastrophic theory, and I think many to most on the "warming" side are sick and tired of him. I am saddened that this became a political issue, and both sides are to blame for that. Reagan may have been a great leader, but one of his greatest missteps was the demonization of people looking out for the environment. I am for a combination of energy sources in the US, with a movement more towards nuclear for power generation and nat gas for power and transportation. Common sense solar, wind, and geothermal combined with a smart grid should also play a role.

[MplsBison]

Sad to see a group of Sioux (and even Bison) fans so uneducated about the topic of anthropogenic climate change

Man's burning of previously sequestered carbon is the sole reason for the 40%+ rise from pre-industrial levels of CO2 to the current levels. Prior to man's activities, CO2 was "traded" between the atmosphere, earth and oceans in a natural cycle. Now, all of these reservoirs are accumulating carbon that had long ago been put in the ground.

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, but the amount of water vapor is a feedback based on temperature, not a primary forcing.

Global cooling was never a mainstay scientific theory. It was always dwarfed in scientific publications by theories about warming. The first writings about CO2-induced warming were well over 100 years ago. The "cooling" scare came about because of two separate issues colliding: the PDO/AMO cycle resulting in several cold winters in the US, and the confirmation of the Milankovitch cycles in the ice core record which showed that we were close to being "due" in the interglacial cycle. As usual, the media in their infinite quest for ratings, chose to focus on the disaster ice age scenario. Never trust the media to faithfully report on science, they always leave out the relevant caveats and go with the most ridiculous, dire scenarios. That goes for AGW too.

I don't know if the sine waves you are talking about are the 11-year solar cycles, the PDO/AMO ocean cycles, or the ice ages, but the most relevant one at the moment is the PDO/AMO because it is on the decadal scale. There does seem to be a sine wave aspect to the global temperatures over the past century. There are theories about whether this is all ocean-related, or may also have to do with aerosols, especially in the post-WWII era. Either way, if there is a true sine wave, it is superimposed upon a long term rising trend. If this is the case, and what we've seen over the past decade is the downturn in the sine wave countered by the rising trend (resulting in a generally flat period of global temps), then we should be looking for a rising temperature regime to begin again later this decade or in the 2020s, with a very sharp upward trend especially in the 2030s and 2040s. Things that could change this would be a very, very deep solar min, or a resumption of higher solar activity. Solar energy, measured by irradiance, cosmic rays, and other variables, has been flat or in decline for 3 to 5 decades, and is unlikely to have played much of a role in the later 20th century warming.

Just for clarification - I do have an AtSci degree, but not in climatology. My job does not depend one way or the other on this matter. I do not subscribe to the Al Gore catastrophic theory, and I think many to most on the "warming" side are sick and tired of him. I am saddened that this became a political issue, and both sides are to blame for that. Reagan may have been a great leader, but one of his greatest missteps was the demonization of people looking out for the environment. I am for a combination of energy sources in the US, with a movement more towards nuclear for power generation and nat gas for power and transportation. Common sense solar, wind, and geothermal combined with a smart grid should also play a role.

Why try to convince those who don't want to be convinced? Why try to be intellectual with those who are anti-intellectual?

[Flatland]

wxman... You had a decent post, but as a "skeptic" I have a bit of a problem with people who hold the warming position. It primarily has to do with the poor rhetoric and catastrophic scenarios that the "warming" side put forward which has so many on this board upset. The fact is that solutions that have been put forward (carbon tax, cap-and-trade, etc.) provide a nearly negligible impact while enacting a serious economic burden. The fact is that I haven't been sold on the fact that a warmer world is worse than a cooler one. Clearly, we want to have clean energy technology, but CO2 is far from a pollutant; especially compared to most industrial gasses which for the most part have been tremendously reduced over the past several decades.

I was happy to see that you are at least willing to talk about ocean cycles and solar irradiance, but you're totally downplaying solar irradiance's effect. Recorded data over the last 400 years has had solar irradiance at it's highest until this last decade. Actually, this cycle has been surprisingly inactive compared to the previous cycles. Also, do you have a source for the 40%+ number? One problem that I always have with this argument is that increased temperatures will cause CO2 to be released from oceans/streams/lakes. How much of the increase in CO2 is simply due to an increased temperature? I know that this is one of the proposed feedback loops, but if solar irradiance, ocean cycles, or something else is primarily responsible this greatly would downplay the anthropogenic argument.

[Hayduke]

hmmmm....

Seems that not all Sioux and Bison fans see this issue the same way. Not all views are identical. Despite the fact we cheer for our respective schools' sports teams.

Shocking

[LB#11]

hmmmm....

Seems that not all Sioux and Bison fans see this issue the same way. Not all views are identical. Despite the fact we cheer for our respective schools' sports teams.

Shocking

Hi Pal...Don't know where I said ALL Sioux and Bison fans see this issue the same way. In response to BisonDan I said "I think Bison & Sioux fans think Global Warming is a farce. Hard to believe Al Gore made a cool 100 Million on something so far fetched. I wonder if his wife Tipper gets half?"

The stock market lost 266 Points on the news of the debt deal today...time to wake up America before he gets it all.

[Cratter]

Is it just me or didn't that article just reaffirm global warming is real and exists?

Just not at such a rapid pace "computers" thought, NASA (other people trying to predict) have a says global warming is still "real".