Hot Air: Global Warming Models Are Craptastic!
……

Global warming has been a joke for years the science is so bad. I can’t believe we still talk about it. Wait, actually its now ‘climate change’ because the earth is actually getting cooler right now.
Follow the money and this stuff is easy to figure out. What a hoax.

indyrowe on July 16, 2009 at 4:11 PM

I thought it was a hoax since the age of 12, when I was sneaking around in Grandpa’s basement and found a whole bunch of books published in the 70’s about the great crisis of ‘Global Cooling’.

Global Cooling? That was rubbish I thought. Everyone ‘knew’ now the real problem was global warming.

It was only a few months until I put 2 and 2 together.

30-40 years ago everyone ‘knew’ the world was going to freeze to death. 10 years ago everyone ‘knew’ the icecaps were going to melt and flood the world.

Imagine what ‘they’ will ‘know’ tomorrow.

I should say that the solar cycle was at an interval of 11 years when sunspot activity was high, however with the lower sunspot activity upon us the cycle quite possible to last in the 13-14 year interval. I cannot remember where I read this info.

larvcom on July 15, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Not to mention (and I apologize for not using scientific language to explain this) but there also seems to be a ‘cycle of cycles’ where the 11 year cycles increase and decrease in sunspot intensity. This ‘Cycle of cycles’ seems to repeat itself every 1000-1100 years or so.

n 1998, temperatures peaked, and have declined since.

This statement is completely false. Temperatures have risen over the last ten years. 1998 was a very hot year and was an outlier (something the hysterical environmentalists ignored at the time). Saying it’s cooler now that it was in 1998, therefore global warming is mythical would be like saying the stock market is down from it’s 2007 peak and therefore stocks are always a losing investment. You’re cherry-picking.

Analysis of temperature trends is not based on *one year*. It’s based on *all* the available data. If you look at the trend over the last 30 years, over the last 100, it is a steady, if erratic, rise.

I am, however glad to see that the more hysterical models are falling out of favor. Maybe if we get more of this the debate will move to a more sensible paradigm.

Do they? Ask Al Gore. This is bogus, and he knows it. All this is about, as with cap, and tax, and health care, it’s about power, and control, and most importantly, even though they espouse the evils of it….Money!!!

The problem with the Venus model is we simply don’t know for sure what Venus used to be like; was it ever like earth with all that water to absorb or release CO2 depending on conditions? Was their photosynthetic life on land and sea on Venus?

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 15, 2009 at 7:56 PM

I read a study recently that claimed that Venus never cooled off enough for liquid water to form. As a result, all the water has always been in the atmoshpere.

Another interesting thing about Venus, is that when you get high enough in the atmopshere so that the pressure drops to one atmosphere (The pressure at sea level here on Earth),
the temperatures are pretty close to what you find on earth at sea level. Despite the fact that Venus is closer to the sun.

damn my silly fingers keep hitting the wrong keys

chemman on July 15, 2009 at 7:13 PM

It’s not your fault.

The keys keep moving.

New sunspot cycle just started… like last week. We were in a period of almost no sunspots for quite awhile… but were due to start a new cycle.

Romeo13 on July 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Maybe we have, maybe we haven’t. Won’t be able to say for sure for several months.

We had an uptick in sun spots around August of last year as well. Then the sun went quite until two months ago. Last month there was a slight drop in sun spot activity. July has been relatively quiet so far.

Here’s a site that tracks solar activity. It gets updated once a month.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

Here’s another site for day to day tracking

http://www.solarcycle24.com/index.htm

It’s been 5 days since the last sun spot.

What’s really interesting is watching the Ap index. (I’m not sure exactly how it is defined, but it has something to do with the sun’s magnetic field.) This value fell off the shelf back in 2005 and has been getting lower since.
(In 2005, the current slide in temperatures began in earnest.)

Are you confusing Al Gore and John Kerry?
KW64 on July 15

It’s an honest mistake. It’s just they all look alike!

Since anthropogenic global warming has to this point only occurred in the models, …

I should think that statement alone pretty much nails it.

This is Gores MO. Swift Boat ads was true. I remember Al Gore and other guys testifying about horrors our GIs was doing to Vietnam people. Many of those testifying was later shown to not seen any combat, they were support logistics guys. Al Gore wanted to be president early on, thats why he went to Vietnam to become a war hero. When that didn’t work out he became prince war protester to launch his political career, never mind trashing the Vietnam Solder. To this day people have this idea of the Vietnam solder as some kind of monster that never was. Vast majority of our guys were heroes, one not being Gore. Gore should be made to eat his vomit lies.

Ed Laskie on July 15, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Are you confusing Al Gore and John Kerry?

Thankfully, some actual scientists have finally begun doing actual science, rather than political hackery in pursuit of government funding. Maybe the best way to prevent anthropogenic global warming is to destroy the only environment where it takes place — in the flawed models used by hysterics.

More like scientists are realizing that the days of “while you’re up, get us a grant” are well and truly over, and with no government money to chase the only thing left is to try and regain our lost credibility. Which is a pain in the tail for those who never sold it, but for letting the charlatans claim the title of scientist, them’s the breaks.

How’d that prediction work out, anyway?

If the models assigned too much reliance on carbon emissions as a cause, then their predictions for future temperature increases become completely unreliable.

I thought that it was a given of weather science that models are not supposed to be predictive.