New Study; Earth is Safe From ‘Global Warming’ Say the Men Who Put Man on the Moon
The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world’s 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.
“It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s 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 organization’s 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 don’t agree with each other and don’t 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 can’t validate the models – and the IPCC can’t – then don’t use them.
From James Delingpole at Breibart: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/08/Earth-is-safe-from-global-warming-say-the-men-who-put-man-on-the-moon
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html
PDF here: ExecutiveSummaryBoundingGHGClimateSensitivityForUseInRegulatoryDecisions140228(1)
=============================================================
TRCS Conclusions & Recommendations
Jan 2013 & Feb 2014
Detailed proof and references available at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com
in Reports dated Jan 2013, April 2013, and Feb 2014
1. The science that predicts the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not settled science. (Jan 2013)
2. Our US government is over-reacting to concerns about AGW. (Jan 2013)
3. It is scientifically embarrassing that the EPA has declared CO2 to be a pollutant that must be regulated, since it is a naturally occurring substance required to sustain human, animal and plant life, and for which there is no substitute. (Jan 2013)
4. We have concluded that the IPCC climate models are seriously flawed because they don’t agree very closely with measured empirical data. After a 35 year simulation the models over-predicted actual measured temperatures by factors of 200% to 750%. One could hardly expect them to predict with better accuracy 300 years into the future required for use in regulatory decisions. (Feb 2014)
5. We have developed a straightforward analysis, based on empirical data, not unproven models, which bounds the maximum possible global warming that could be caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. (Feb 2014)
6. We have defined and demonstrated use of a more appropriate Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) metric derived from empirical data for use in regulatory decisions requiring accurate predictions of global temperature changes due to changes of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. (Feb 2014)
7. There is no convincing evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) will produce catastrophic climate changes. AGW can only produce modest amounts of global warming that will likely be beneficial when the substantial benefits to crop production from more CO2 in the atmosphere are considered. (Jan 2013) and (Feb 2014)
8. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, we have time to study global climate changes and improve our prediction accuracy. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause. (Jan 2013)
9. Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) calculations should be based on empirical data-based transient climate sensitivity metrics with much less uncertainty than the inappropriate IPCC Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) metric uncertainty range that is computed from the flawed IPCC climate simulation models. (Feb 2014)
10. ECS is computed from a hypothetical, unrealistic scenario, used only for comparison of computer model results, where CO2 levels are suddenly doubled in the atmosphere and the ECS temperature change is computed over 1000 years later. It is unscientific to base CO2 regulations on ECS computed from unproven climate models, as currently planned by EPA and DoE. (Feb 2014)
11. The ECS uncertainty statistical distribution used for justifying EPA and DoE CO2 emissions regulations is based on wild speculation, not reliable empirical data. (Feb 2014)
12. A market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels must begin by 2055 just to meet energy demand as dwindling reserves of economically recoverable fossil fuels drive up their costs. (Feb 2014)
13. Assuming an orderly market driven transition from fossil fuels to alternatives that do not emit CO2, atmospheric CO2 will remain below 600 ppm. (Feb 2014)
14. The maximum CO2 level of 600 ppm is expected to occur after 2100, probably about 2130, and will begin to decline thereafter. (Feb 2014)
15. Based on our analysis of empirical data measured over a period of 163 years, that provides a conservative TCS value of 1.6oC, the maximum expected Green House Gas (GHG) temperature rise from present levels will be less than 1.2oC (2.1oF) (Feb 2014)
16. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2-only, not the higher sensitivity to all GHG incorporated into the IPCC ECS uncertainty range. (Feb 2014)
17. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions, not climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels, such as in the ECS and TCS metrics, since a large fraction of CO2 emissions each year enter our oceans, not our atmosphere. (Feb 2014)
18. Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) has low uncertainty and is a more appropriate metric than ECS for predicting GHG global warming trends over the next few centuries since much of the uncertainty in ECS results from hypothesized climate changes that take place more than 300 years into the future. (Feb 2014)
19. High values of SCC computed by EPA and DoE using their flawed computational process, result from unrealistically high temperatures causing rapid melt of permanent ice sheets on the planet that have been growing for thousands, and in some cases, millions of years. The scientific reality of such speculation needs to be reviewed. (Feb 2014)
20. An independent and objective scientific review board should be convened to review the EPA and DoE methodology for computing Social Cost of Carbon used in regulatory decisions. (Feb 2014)
Most read source on climate – cool. Here is a simple theory! Its probably a good idea to stop shitting in our own back yard. Isn’t it time to move away from our dirty reliance on carbon? Everything in moderation and ‘AGW’ is out of the equation. Knew I should have been a rocket scientist. So keep dirtying your backyards, but I know there is a better way. Quit wasting your mental energy. O’Yeah – I invented that by the way!
Still chuckling @B.P. Yep, some people can screw up a shoot sandwich. But what is really amazing to me is how little reason there ever was to suspect the bewitched gas. HITRAN data from the sixties already clearly showed that the meat of the outgoing CO2 absorption spectrum was saturated by Beer-Lambert. Sure, there is some left on the shoulders, but to build an edifice of doom on that foundation?
I know you guys hate this stuff because we can’t yet write equations for it, but we are dealing with a sociological phenomenon that speaks to human nature in a very troubling way.
I shit in my own back yard all of the time. I have a septic tank and tile field. Do you shit in someone else’s back yard?
When discussing SCC (Social cost of carbon) they also need to figure in the POSITIVE benefits of CO2, not just the possible negatives. 30% increased crop yields and possibly adding half of a degree C or so to earth’s temperature since the LIA is clearly a positive at this point.
Maybe slightly OT, but is related to weather and climate and models and prediction. Just had an “expert” on Channel 10 TV News talking about two cyclones strickig Queensland, Australia, being difficult to predict what will happen. And the magic words used… “…the outputs from our climate models cannot predict what will happen…”!!! No $hit Sherlock!
“ICureHouse on March 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm” comment:
Please explain the euphemism you used scientifically. Or were you just typing to produce more toilet paper?
How many millions of people to you plan to take credit for killing due to higher energy costs?
The Monster (@SumErgoMonstro) said at March 8, 2014 at 4:59 pm:
Check out this computer model:
#include
main() {
printf “Hello, world! ________/”;
}
——— End of Quote ——–
Hmmm, probably won’t compile, try:
#include
main() {
printf(“Hello, world! ________/”);
}
There you go peer reviewed. 🙂
Oh PLEASE! Who are you going to believe: an activist blinded by a cult, Al Gore (the politician inventor of the internet) or real scientists who have achieved the amazing and near-impossible
Speed says: March 8, 2014 at 4:00 pm… a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent. What’s that in degrees?
This little joke started a few posts back. Check back regularly to tune into out host’s wonderful ironic sense of humo(u)r.
If the evidence of the Sun’s descent into a Maunder Minimum-like phase is any indication, I would think it unlikely that there will be any net temperature increase globally by 2160. Of course, I don’t exactly expect to be around come the year 2160, so can’t very well prove my pint. But I think it’s a very reasonable possibility that we could be even colder than today, perhaps even plainly slipping into the next age of glaciation.
Those American NASA scientists and engineers did something that can never be replicated ever again.
They landed men on another planetary body, the Moon, for the first time ever in human history and then went on to do it another five times ,.
And brought those 18 astronauts, twelve of whom walked on the Moon’s surface home again to that cradle of mankind, the Earth.
The other moon shot that never made it, Apollo 13, was an incredible example of ingenuity and extraordinary engineering skill when it all went wrong in deep space and the engineers had nothing but their own knowledge and skill to finally bring those three Apollo astronauts home in what should have been by any accepted standards, a fatally stricken space vehicle.
When it went wrong they admitted it and fixed it or people died and those astronauts would have died in the full glare of the world’s peoples.
Climate science with it’s totally unproven, unvalidated and unverified models and the claims that so many catastrophe advocating climate scientists have made of an imminent and impending human created disasters based on nothing more than the output of those unproven climate models is directly responsible for the implementation of highly restrictive energy policies that are aimed at making energy of every type grossly expensive and increasingly unaffordable in an all out effort to force the reduction in energy use to counter those unproven outcomes from those unproven, unvalidated and unverified climate models.
Those same climate modellers and climate advocacy scientists are therefore directly responsible for the totally avoidable deaths of not a possible two or three astronauts as were the NASA engineers but the real deaths of tens of thousands of the elderly and weak and poor due to the grossly increased cost of energy, a cost increase proposed and supported by the radical extremist advocates of climate science and the disgustingly callous green organisations.
It is called “heat or eat” as the poor can no longer afford to do both.
In the UK where the cost of energy has been forced up by the polticals in accordance with the dictates of the climate catastrophe advocating scientists, in 2013 winter deaths rose by 29% over past winters.
In Germany some 600,000 to 800,000 citizens are being cut off from power each year as is also the case in the UK, because they can no longer afford the cost of energy. Plus also the tens of thousands of avoidable deaths from the winter cold due again to the poor and elderly on very limited incomes no longer being able to afford that great and extraordinary development that has given mankind the Industrial Revolution and all the immense good that has entailed for mankind, cheap utterly reliable always available energy, the very foundation on which our civilisation is now based in it’s entirety.
Even in the Lucky Country, Australia, the social service organisations are finding large numbers of the lowest earning are being cut off from power as they also can no longer afford to “heat or eat” thanks to the nefarious advocacy of the climate catastrophe scientists and the stupidity and moral turpitude of the Rudd and Gillard Labor and Green governments of the past.
Those NASA rocket and space scientists and engineers all those 50 years and two generations ago over a period of less than two decades using little more than slide rules, rudimentary computers and good old fashioned brains and intellect not only landed Man on the Moon but they brought their nation, the USA and the world’s peoples together in that moment of time for the celebration for what is one of all of mankind’s truly extraordinary feats.
Fifty years and two generations later Climate scientists using the most powerful computers on Earth and light years ahead in sophistication compared to the NASA engineers computers let alone those slide rules can’t even predict the most important climate affecting phenomena on Earth, the ENSO and it’s phase more than a couple of months ahead.
They, after 30 years and the destruction of a trillion dollars worth of treasure and wealth due entirely to the unfullfilled and plain inept predictions to so called Climate Science can’t even provide an accurate figure by which increased or even decreased CO2 will affect and change global temperatures within a range of some 1.3C to 4.5 C or when this might happen if it does.
In those old NASA engineer’s terms that same level of science applied to the Apollo space craft would have put the astronauts on the one way way trip to eternity and would have done so for every launch that was made.
Today climate science and climate scientists, totally unlike those old NASA scientists and engineers, over the last two decades as well as being totally responsible for those tens of thousands of completely avoidable deaths from energy deprivation, have deeply divided nations and peoples and societies and families.
They have no other currency except “fear: fear of future and fear of events to be as predicted by those climate scientists. Mamy of them have used that public Fear to enforce their own status and position.
And it is all for what?
The advocacy of those fear creating, climate catastrophe advocacy scientists is increasingly being seen as an outright lie, a lie that has no proof, no support, no direct evidence, only a correlation with the rise in CO2 and the increase in global temperatures over a 20 year period now almost matched by an equally long period where the supposed correlation has ben broken.
The climate scientists and climate modellers have failed to provide a single verifiable prediction on the global climate let alone believable predictions for the future climate beyond those that the average witch doctor or shaman would be able to derive from some chickens entrails.
The legacy of climate scientists and climate science will one day be seen through the eyes of the future as the most corrupt and corrupting episodes against humanity that science has ever embarked on in all of human history.
The effort is appreciated.
Shame about the errors. In high finance if a report has a comma missing some directors throw the report in the bin even if its right because its like missing a comma in a program.
I would contend that the existential energy involved in this planet’s course through the solar system, and the energies involved in the sun sunspots, earth’s oceans, earthquake, volcanic and tectonic activities, render any notion of the relative energy of “human activity” as having any measurable impact on this planet’s atmospheric and general condition as utterly preposterous.
It is, moreover, a fallacy to argue from a particular phenomenon to assert a general proposition about a system as complex as the earth’s atmosphere and climatic causation.
I might have found the Eureka moment that we have all been searching for. It occurred to me the other night. It is late now for me, so I will show my thoughts tomorrow, as it will take some hours to put together a cohesive story. I am still going over the many angles of this story in my inner thoughts. By coincidence I also just had to spend an hour and a half screwing with my computer due to some kind of interference. My antivirus had issues plus the stability was off on the computer. That could have to do with a sharp conversation, which I have been engaged in over at ‘The Conversation’. The ‘scientist’, one David Arthur, that I was debating was extremely, extremely annoyed with me. I notice that over at the ‘No global warming for 17 years’ page that a warmist has been enlightening everyone with his views. This coincided with my sharp conversation, and the word usage is very similar in content between the two. Coincidence? Maybe yes, and maybe no.
I hope that this is what I think it looks like, because I then want to use it to beat these guys soundly about the head and shoulders with it. Keep your fingers crossed and a prayer in your heart.
Ah, but are we safe from global cooling?
Climate scientists want to interact more directly with the public
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-climate-scientists-interact.html
they want to unconfuse ‘the public’
I am afraid that even if aliens from another galaxy far, far away who had learnt how to bend space, travel backwards in time , could build new Suns and learnt that co2 does not cause warming, came to this planet and announced this to the alarmists they would still call the aliens deniers.
It is good to hear of scientists (and related field workers) standing up and telling the world that Hansen is an embarrassment to their professions. A few years ago most scientists were too cowed to make such public statements, and even on WUWT some scientists feel they must hide their identities behind internet identities. The big beasts in climate science have been more expert at intimidation than honest data analysis.
Recovering the reputation of science is every bit as important as recovering climate science for science. Both have to go hand in hand. This sia good news story.
These people who put Americans on the Moon using only the technology of the 1960s and 1970s had a lot of common sense as well as intelligence, which stood them in good stead under real life conditions. Compare them to the inhabitants of Ivory Towers of Ignorance like James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones. If these Climate Right Stuff Men had been using un-adjusted (by James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones) data, they might even have come up with 0 degrees C as the effect of CO2 on the temperature.
Willis’ previous article on up and down welling radiation makes that look more and more like the real answer.
I wish them well in their attempt to convey common sense and scientific truth. Two things sadly lacking in today’s politics.
And the motto of the Mission Evaluation Room engineers who supported Flight Operations:
“In God we trust, all others bring data”
So it’s getting cold in 200years.
(most oil and coal gone by then?)
I’m glad its warm now.
CureHouse says:
March 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm
” Isn’t it time to move away from our dirty reliance on carbon?”
___________________________
What energy source would you suggest we rely upon instead? Do the math…
Would you decrease the reliability of power grids? What of the suffering and deaths which would result? Would you increase the price of energy through taxation and other artificial means to curtail consumption? What about outright government- sponsored banishment of energy production? What then of those who can’t afford the costs to heat their homes and who are already dying by the tens of thousands in first- world nations due to political acts supporting “green” agendas? Is the reduction of human populations through early deaths, especially among the poor, also one of your goals?
Should we also ignore the true benefits which CO2 has on the biosphere?
You aren’t doing yourself any favors with such crude remarks as you made.
[my bolding]
These people are just like the moon landing deniers and conspiracy theorists. /sarc