Skip to comments.The group the 'Right Climate Stuff´ says there's no need to worry about catastrophic global warming
Posted on 03/09/2014 9:27:59 AM PDT by Signalman
The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the worlds recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.
So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon in a new report.
Its an embarrassment to those of us who put NASAs name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming, says the projects leader Hal Doiron.
Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees including seven astronauts who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organizations promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.
During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line. While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as death trains no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species. Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment.
Doiron and his team now hope to set the record straight in a report called Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity For Use In Regulatory Decisions.
Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the emission of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.
Doiron is similarly sceptical of the computer models used by climate alarmists. He and his team argue that the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed because they dont agree with each other and dont agree with empirical data.
Doiron says: I believe in computer models. My whole career was about using computer models to make life or death decisions. In 1963 I had to use them to calculate whether, when the lunar module landed on a 12 degree slope it would fall over or not and design the landing gear accordingly. But if you cant validate the models and the IPCC cant then dont use them.
cold=low crop yeild.
warm+co2=good crop yeild.
(Generalization in effect!)
All Right! These guys are the A-Team!!!
What is 1.2%? If it is Kelvin, that is 285 (avg. global temp. 12C or 54F) X .012 = 3.42 degrees Celsius or 6.156 F. to 15C or 60F
Such models are worse than useless; they are dangerous if used for decision making.
If computer models can not reach the same conclusion with regularity they can not be depended upon to as a means to make predictions of outcomes.
Ballistic computers are computer models used to decide how to launch rockets or canons shells.
if you have two ballistic models and one model that tells you your canon shell will land on London and another tells you that your shell will land on Paris how can you safely fire your canon?
Of course the answer is that you cant. If your models are so different that they disagree with each other by a large margin you must determine which is correct before you can make a decision.
We got psychotic Muslims on the brink of getting their hands on nukes thanks to B. Hussein and Traitor Johnny and liberals are concerned whether or not Joe Q. Public is driving a Prius. Yes, a nuclear war is perfectly OK for the environment but not a freakin’ car.
True, and hasn’t then been a successful effort!
It comes from all directions, the misinformation. My local radio station has a morning talk show. They always have someone on from the zoo to talk about the animals. This lame brained woman was talking about polar bears and how they were in extreme danger because of “climate change.” I contacted the radio host to ask him how he can let these lies go like that all to be polite with the nice zoo lady.
Let’s face it - if they can’t even tell us with much accuracy what the weather is going to be in a week, how can they even begin to talk about decades? Especially when they refuse to consider any other factors but human-generated CO-2 - no consideration of the multitude of volcanic eruptions, solar activity/inactivity, etc.
Fortunately, it looks like good men are coming forward finally to fight back. Our very survival is at stake if the Enemy continues to shut down all affordable and effective energy sources.
They’re using Celsius...
12 Celsius = 53.6 Fahrenheit
12 X .012 = .144
12.144 Celsius = 53.8592 Fahrenheit
As Hal Doiron says; Its an embarrassment to those of us who put NASAs name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,
These guys put men into space with a slide rule. The idiots today can’t function if the internet goes down. Who will you believe? The ones who put their theories to the test or the ones who put their theories so far into time they won’t have to live with criticism.
With all due respect, I don’t think that’s how it works.
If I have ice at 0C and raise its temperature 100%, that would be 1.00 X 0C + 0C = 0C?
But if I go by total thermal energy above absolute zero, then I get a more rational 1.00 X 273.15 + 273.15 = 546.3K = 273.15C. = 491F.
You can’t multiply (percent is multiplication) heat in Celsius without dealing with the 273.15K that is 0C. Ice water is quite hot in Kelvin.
Download Dorian’s executive summary.
“We have also concluded that increasing levels of GHG in the atmosphere cannot cause more than 1.2oC of additional warming above current global average temperatures, before all economically recoverable fossil fuels on the planet are consumed. This maximum possible additional AGW should be offset to some extent by a forecast of reduced solar output over the next couple of centuries, and that has already started to occur. Longer term, because of orbital mechanics cycles of the earths orbit around the Sun and small cyclical variations in tilt of the earths spin axis with respect to the earths orbital plane, we should continue a gradual global cooling trend into the next major glacial advance that should begin in about 10,000 years and last for about 70,000 years before the next major warming trend begins.”
It appears the coming Ice Age cycle may need to be moderated by GREATER release of CO2 or a human disaster similar to the last Ice Age decimation of plant and animal/human populations will occur.
With a 10,000 year horizon to the start, maybe Congress will have passed a budget de-funding the EPA by then and we can start burning coal again before we all freeze.
Doggone it. I was gonna take the snow tires off this weekend. BTT
and just when I was thinking about buying a new spark plug for my lawn mower.
Don’t panic. If you can get a good deal now, just put it in the drawer in yer garage for 70,000 years and you’ll be fine. You know they’re gonna be more expensive then, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.