NASA Warns Global Warming Models Wrong -Don't Account for Cooling Factors

[james&olya 1,121]

Wow!!! Snow!!! and ice!!! Well, that just proves that GW is a hoax. Yessirree, I can drive a hummer without worrying anymore! It is cold outside today so global warming isn't happening. Of course, we can just forget last year's record heat wave across Russia, that was probably a commie plot!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Wow!!! Snow!!! and ice!!! Well, that just proves that GW is a hoax.

It does for many. Not for me but since this has been brought up as standard evidence that GW isn't happening, I thought I'd help cut the wait for this kind of response and just post it myself.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It does for many. Not for me but since this has been brought up as standard evidence that GW isn't happening, I thought I'd help cut the wait for this kind of response and just post it myself.

[TigerTeddyBear 26]

It takes a special type of idjit to think that that we are not contributing to the warming of our planet. I doubt ya'll are stupid... maybe just willfully ignorant. It's BASIC science. I make fun of my wife because she believes that the reason farts stink is because they pass by $#*t during evacuation. This is basically the same... except the deniers thoughts are the farts... and the $#*t is their brains.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I make fun of my wife because she believes that the reason farts stink is because they pass by $#*t during evacuation.

[james&olya 1,121]

It takes a special type of idjit to think that that we are not contributing to the warming of our planet. I doubt ya'll are stupid... maybe just willfully ignorant. It's BASIC science. I make fun of my wife because she believes that the reason farts stink is because they pass by $#*t during evacuation. This is basically the same... except the deniers thoughts are the farts... and the $#*t is their brains.

I like your approach but I have a tiny little fear you might pxxs off a few folks here!

[웃 910]

In 2010 we have 300 million Americans.....In 2050 the number will grow to 400-500 million

In 2010 there are 6.7 billion people....By 2050 there will be nearly 10 billion

I don't think we should be too worried...Yet...Unless you are an environmental wacko

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

you do know that all the scientists are wrong - we're really having global cooling. any brief periods of it being warm are just more indication that this is true.

[tmma 467]

Michelle - it's a fallacy that there are two sides to the issue of GW, from the believers to the deniers. Science doesn't work that way. The science is conclusive on these points:

Global Warming is real - the temperature of the earth is rising dramatically and CO2 emissions are significant factor in speeding up the warming. Where in previous Climate Change, a 1.4 degree rise in temperature would happen over thousands of years, we've seen it rise that much in less than 200.

The deniers believe it is hoax, that the science is bunk, and that there's no way that we can scientifically measure the impact CO2 emissions on warming the planet.

You seem to be somewhere in the middle of that - you accept that GW is happening, but you don't believe or see how we can determine human impact on the warming the planet with any degree of certainty and that is simply false.

We can and should be taking bold measures in reducing CO2 emissions across the globe. This is the consensus among climate scientists across the world. That position only becomes controversial when the deniers fear that implementing such measures would mean that we'd all be living in grass huts and riding bicycles.

The current prediction is that the temperature will rise about 2 degrees over the next century. Scientist already can predict what just one degree temperature would do to the environment. Keep in mind, the earth's temperature has remained fairly stable for thousands of years and even when there was Global Warming in the past, it happened over tens of thousands of years, not centuries.

So, what part of that is nutty or not in line with the solid science on climate?

I never said anything was nutty. I think you assumed I am a ' denier'-- I'm not and I try not to use labels or whatever because I think that weakens the conversation and ultimatly brings it down to a name calling insult fest or a peeing contest. Which is silly IMO.

I've said this before...I wish you could see that we actually agree on more than we disagree on. basic scientific facts are undeniable, but I'm thinking that because I am not using alarmist type language or aggressive vocabulary in relation to the climate issue, that I don't feel as strongly as you do on the subject. I do- i've spent a part of my career studying/analyzing and modeling this very thing and that's also given me an insight into just how easily manipulated and wrongly interpreted the models can be- and that there has been a number of analysts and scientists I have worked with that whenever the fallability of the modeling is highlighted are shot down and they are on the wrong end of the funding budget for the next year.

You also said i don't understand basic science..... lol..I do ....If i don't then i wasted a ton of $$$ and 12yrs of my life at uni.

Yes there are certain things we are not eye to eye on... but i think that has more to do with you missing my point-or me not using the right vocabulary or me being reluctant to bet the farm on one or 2 particular models or publications..... as I always look at who is funding said research as that ( to me) makes all the difference...sadly for science.

But-It's all good and the fact that these topics come up and people are researching and questioning is a good thing!

Hope that made sense...i'm in a hurry. sry.

Edited January 5, 2011 by tmma

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I never said anything was nutty. I think you assumed I am a ' denier'-- I'm not and I try not to use labels or whatever because I think that weakens the conversation and ultimatly brings it down to a name calling insult fest or a peeing contest. Which is silly IMO.

I've said this before...I wish you could see that we actually agree on more than we disagree on. basic scientific facts are undeniable, but I'm thinking that because I am not using alarmist type language or aggressive vocabulary in relation to the climate issue, that I don't feel as strongly as you do on the subject. I do- i've spent a part of my career studying/analyzing and modeling this very thing and that's also given me an insight into just how easily manipulated and wrongly interpreted the models can be- and that there has been a number of analysts and scientists I have worked with that whenever the fallability of the modeling is highlighted are shot down and they are on the wrong end of the funding budget for the next year.

You also said i don't understand basic science..... lol..I do ....If i don't then i wasted a ton of $ and 12yrs of my life at uni.

Yes there are certain things we are not eye to eye on... but i think that has more to do with you missing my point-or me not using the right vocabulary or me being reluctant to bet the farm on one or 2 particular models or publications..... as I always look at who is funding said research as that ( to me) makes all the difference...sadly for science.

But-It's all good and the fact that these topics come up and people are researching and questioning is a good thing!

Hope that made sense...i'm in a hurry. sry.

There are and have been plenty of nutty things said in this thread and on this forum from deniers, like believing that GW is a hoax, or that NASA would lie just to get funding. If there are nutty things said by people who believe in GW, which I'm sure there are, I haven't seen anything said here in this forum that was nutty.

You did question the rationality of the EPA to be able to regulate CO2 emissions in an earlier post or thread, so maybe you could elaborate why you don't think the EPA can or should regulate CO2 emissions when it has a record of regulating organic compounds that have been detrimental to the environment (ozone depletion, acid rain, etc.).

Pooky's post framed the discussion as being two-sided, which is a fallacy. The scientific conclusion I pointed out earlier are not up for debate, they are conclusive. We can argue over what are the most effective ways to reduce CO2 emissions from the atmosphere, but there is no question that we must reduce CO2 emissions in order to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which even if we were to completely stop all the burning of all fossil fuels, would take about a century to return atmospheric CO2 levels down to what they normally should be, but we shouldn't be defeatists and say there is nothing that can be done at this point. Scientists are looking into all possible remedies, from burying CO2 to reforestation, but there won't be one single solution. The most important solution, however, will be to greatly reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

Edited January 5, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

you do know that all the scientists are wrong - we're really having global cooling. any brief periods of it being warm are just more indication that this is true.

Must be. The winters have gotten colder year after year ever since we moved down here.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

In 2010 we have 300 million Americans.....In 2050 the number will grow to 400-500 million

In 2010 there are 6.7 billion people....By 2050 there will be nearly 10 billion

I don't think we should be too worried...Yet...Unless you are an environmental wacko

I'm willing to bet a population crash will occur before 2050, with or without GW.

[luckytxn 2,263]

There are and have been plenty of nutty things said in this thread and on this forum from deniers, like believing that GW is a hoax, or that NASA would lie just to get funding. If there are nutty things said by people who believe in GW, which I'm sure there are, I haven't seen anything said here in this forum that was nutty.

You did question the rationality of the EPA to be able to regulate CO2 emissions in an earlier post or thread, so maybe you could elaborate why you don't think the EPA can or should regulate CO2 emissions when it has a record of regulating organic compounds that have been detrimental to the environment (ozone depletion, acid rain, etc.).

Pooky's post framed the discussion as being two-sided, which is a fallacy. The scientific conclusion I pointed out earlier are not up for debate, they are conclusive. We can argue over what are the most effective ways to reduce CO2 emissions from the atmosphere, but there is no question that we must reduce CO2 emissions in order to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which even if we were to completely stop all the burning of all fossil fuels, would take about a century to return atmospheric CO2 levels down to what they normally should be, but we shouldn't be defeatists and say there is nothing that can be done at this point. Scientists are looking into all possible remedies, from burying CO2 to reforestation, but there won't be one single solution. The most important solution, however, will be to greatly reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

No supposed science you have ever shown has proven conclusively that C02 emissions are bringing about a GW. In fact it has been shown that CO2 is not causing anything of the sort. It is only conclusive in a weird Gore led sheep frenzy maybe. H20 has been shown to be a huge contributor by the psuedo science also so we should maybe regulate water too? It is a bunk science and has been shown to be all bunk so far. Real science does not need to fabricate data, suppress data, suppress anyone that says different. Also a majority of scientists in the world has said it was bunk. Of course the few that get money to espouse the falsity are the only scientists saying it. Even your so called great NASA has said the data was false now.

Go ahead sheep and keep trying and keep being shown what utter morons you all are.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Shhhhh.

The talking points for the sheep is that GW is also Global cooling. Don't try to toss in anything that may make their little brains explode. I am sure some new talking points will be handed down to the sheep to start uttering soon.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

No supposed science you have ever shown has proven conclusively that C02 emissions are bringing about a GW. In fact it has been shown that CO2 is not causing anything of the sort. It is only conclusive in a weird Gore led sheep frenzy maybe. H20 has been shown to be a huge contributor by the psuedo science also so we should maybe regulate water too? It is a bunk science and has been shown to be all bunk so far. Real science does not need to fabricate data, suppress data, suppress anyone that says different. Also a majority of scientists in the world has said it was bunk. Of course the few that get money to espouse the falsity are the only scientists saying it. Even your so called great NASA has said the data was false now.

Go ahead sheep and keep trying and keep being shown what utter morons you all are.

Where did you pick up this opinion? Anything to back that up? From what I've read a majority of scientist still support global warming.