Home | About Us | Writers | Contact Us
Search

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Permalinks
Greenhouse Gasses Aren’t Going To Be A Problem For Centuries Say Scientists From NASA…Wait, What?
Written By : John Hawkins

You’ve heard the same arguments many times over, haven’t you?

Conservative: I’m pretty skeptical of global warming.

Global Warming Alarmist: YOU HATE SCIENCE! POLAR BEARS WILL DIE BECAUSE OF YOU!

Conservative: Okay, give me some scientific evidence that proves global warming is occurring?

Global Warming Alarmist: There’s a scientific consensus it’s occurring!

Conservative: “Scientific consensus” isn’t the same thing as “scientific evidence.” How do you explain the fact that global temperatures haven’t gone up in the last 15 years or that we know for a fact that temperatures haven’t corresponded with the increase in greenhouse gasses this century? What about the fact that it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is today?

Global Warming Alarmist: DIDN’T YOU HEAR ME? YOU HATE SCIENCE! POLAR BEARS WILL DIE! SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!

Conservative: Ehr….okay. So, you mentioned scientific consensus again. Even if there are more scientists who believe manmade global warming is occurring, there are thousands of informed scientists who say it’s not.

Global Warming Alarmist: ANY “SCIENTIST” WHO DISAGREES ISN’T QUALIFIED OR IS BEING PAID OFF TO CLAIM WE’RE NOT ALL GOING TO DIE!

You get the idea, right?

Well, that last point? It wasn’t true in the first place, but it’s going to be even harder to argue after this,

A group of top NASA boffins says that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.

According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis – they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe – more carbon dioxide has important effects on them.

…The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today’s 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would be a further 0.3°C cooler compared to the present sims.

International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently devoted to keeping global warming limited to 2°C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2°C.

It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there’s really no need to get in an immediate flap. If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming. There are lots of other factors in play, of course, but nonetheless the new analysis is very reassuring.

So, we have NASA scientists saying that greenhouse gasses aren’t going to cause manmade global warming. Say what you want, but it’s yet more SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that the global warming alarmists are wrong.

0
  • Don_cos

    we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming.

    Which means we have time to take measured steps toward alternate energies rather than a blind rush into oblivion.

  • Kingfisher

    Well……..yeah John but they’re not actors, musicians or politicians so they don’t know nuthin’!

    (/lib moonbat)

  • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

    “an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise”

    Look, Liberals! SCIENCE!

    • Anonymous

      Why does science hate mother-earth?

  • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

    For me, the item released by the NASA/NOAA boffins doesn’t represent a refutation of their earlier statements, merely a refinement of them based on adding a newly discovered variable to their infamous prediction model. Apart from the new prediction it contains, what this story points out, however, is the parlous state of the climate prediction models.

    I’ve been saying all along that I didn’t think the models had captured anywhere near all of the variables involved in producing and regulating global climate. For that reason, I have contended all along that it was highly premature to say with such certainty that our global climate would warm or cool or stay the same based on those models.

    Since the mid-80′s climate science has been working to support the foregone conclusion that their earliest models produced. Unfortunately, their earliest models were rudimentary and incomplete. Rather than approaching those models with dispassionate reason and open minds, a core group of climate scientists have sought to prove their earliest models at any cost. In the process, they’ve sought to enhance their own importance and reputations by heavily politicising their earliest findings and then desperately trying to keep any “sceptics” from publishing contrary findings. All while sucking billions of dollars out of the science research budgets of those who fund scientific research.

    I watched a rerun the other night titled The Dark Secret of Hendrik Schön. It’s about a physicist who quickly rose to prominence right out of graduate school. His insights and findings had the potential to completely revamp our thinking about Moore’s Law and the device size limitations which rule the electronics domain. He was hailed the world over for his genius. He produced and published papers at a prodigious rate. He garnered millions and millions of dollars in research funding from the US and other governments. He was the Golden Child of the physics community and of Big Science (the magazines Science and Nature, Bell Labs, professional societies, etc) accepted him uncritically. He was a Rock Star.

    The only problem was that he’d faked most of what he’d published. Dozens of peer-reviewed published papers had been based upon fraudulent findings. People, peer reviewers, publishers, colleagues, academics had all been duped, not so much by Jan Hendrik Schön, but by their own desire to believe in the findings he published. They all acted to support their own foregone conclusions that Schön had found the Holy Grail of electronics research – the path to atom-sized transistors. Rather than dispassionately and critically examining his body of work, they accepted it and him because doing so fit with their own biases and pre-determined notions. It was only through the efforts of a few dedicated sceptics who started looking into his papers that the truth was discovered and the ‘magic’ of Schön exposed.

    The Schön story is important because of the parallels it holds to the AGW story. While some of the details between the two stories differ, ultimately, they both represent a failure of the peer review process and of Big Science to disentangle themselves from their own biases and foregone conclusions.

  • Anonymous

    “Greenhouse Gasses Aren’t Going To Be A Problem For Centuries Say Scientists From NASA…Wait, What?”

    Anybody wanna bet that crazy pelosi and the lunatic-left in the lamest-duck-ever House will now try to cut the NASA budget by 99.99999% because they had the audacity NOT to blindly promote the lunatic-left climate hoax?

  • Anonymous

    I foresee The One defunding NASA in the near future.

    • Anonymous

      My thoughts exactly.

      Anyway, why are they wasting their money on this sort of research which has nothing to do with their founding purpose: outreach to the Muslim world.

    • Gayunemployedmexican

      Since when has Obama taken an alarmist position on global warming? U.S. crude oil production has increased since Obama became president:

      It had been decreasing under Bush:

      OMG Bush was a communist! And Obama must be secretly a CEO at Haliburton. It all makes so much sense now.

      • Gayunemployedmexican

        For some reason I can’t publish the link…just google U.S. oil production and check out the EIA link.

      • Anonymous

        Obama’s been an alarmist since the beginning. Some headlines from Google and Bing search ‘obama global warming’:

        Obama Proposes New Global Warming Agency
        President Obama Says Global Warming is Putting our Safety in Jeopardy
        Obama Pledges to Attack Global Warming

        Just clicking on a handful of links in that search shows quite obviously that Obama is an alarmist. I don’t understand how anyone could miss it!

        • Gayunemployedmexican

          A global warming agency is fine…. I don’t see how that is inherently alarmist. What is it’s budget? How many people will work there? What powers will it have? I see nothing wrong with taking early reasonable action to curb a future threat. Perhaps its goal is to research global warming, inquire into the science behind it. Did he actually push for the agency, was it just mentioned once?

          He said it is putting future generations in jeopordy. He also did not commit us like most other countries have to a set goal, at least in that article. I don’t see anything alarmist about his actions.

          If you want to name something he has actually done that is alarmist than do so. Otherwise talk is cheap, especially from politicians who know they will be running for reelection.

          • Anonymous

            Global Warming isn’t even a viable theory, so putting ANY government money towards it is alarmist. Tens of thousands of skeptical scientists including thousands of skeptical physicists have spoken against global warming. Money towards something that doesn’t exist or at least has nothing to do with humans at best is inherently alarmist. And yes, he pushed for the agency, I told you how to find these articles.

            He has stated that something that has no proof and is likely nonexistent is putting future generations in jeopardy. THAT IS ALARMIST. He supports carbon trading, THAT IS ALARMIST. How many more facts about is alarmist beliefs do you need?

    • aegean

      Thought he already did?

  • Anonymous

    “The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science . . .”

    More accurate science? Poor wording.

    Either way this is going to annoy some entrenched political and economic elites. I expect a lot of pressure in the future on NASA to ‘revise’ their conclusions and a vicious smear campaign against Bounoua and her peers.

    There is a lot invested in global warming killing us all, they won’t go down easily just because the facts are against them.

  • wildcar

    I’m not a global warmist by any means, but something in this article disturbs me. It states that if CO2 levels were to reach 780 ppm, the resultant temperature increase would be only 1.64 degrees C. If I remember my conversion correctly, that would equal an increase of 34.952 degrees Fahrenheit. This can hardly be considered insignificant. Am I missing something?

    • therealend

      Kind of. It would be a 2.952 degree Fahrenheit increase not 34.952. When converting an actual temperature from one scale to the other, you need to add or subtract 32 since the Celcius scale starts with the freezing point of water at 0 degrees and it is 32 degrees. To convert a temperature change, you wouldn’t need to adjust by 32 degrees. That is if the temperature was 0 C and it rose to 1.64 then the Fahrenheit temp would start at 32.000 and rise to 34.952 which is only a 2.952 increase.

  • Quiet_reason
  • Bobashcroft
  • just sayin’
Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info

Users Online
Features
Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN