I'm not surprised that the climate models do not match the real world.

The entire AGW hoax has been completely exposed by a NASA study of radiation over the previous decades. The Global Warmers need to get a life.

Bob Hamilton

William Connolley, arguably the world’s most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore, has lost his bully pulpit. Connolley did not wield his influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position at Wikipedia, the most popular reference source on the planet.

Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.

His career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle their accomplishments or make them appear to be frauds, Wikipedia barred him — again unanimously — from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.

I have written several columns for the National Post on Connolley’s role as a propagandist. Two of them appear here and here.

Climate change is far less serious than ‘alarmists’ predict, an eminent NASA scientist has said.

Dr Roy Spencer, who works on the space agency’s temperature-monitoring satellites, claimed they showed ‘a huge discrepancy’ between the real levels of heating and forecasts by the United Nations and other groups.

After looking at the levels of radiation in the atmosphere over the past ten years, he believes the Earth releases a lot more heat into space than previously thought.

This means carbon dioxide emissions do not trap as much heat or force temperatures up as much as global warming bodies fear.

Dr Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, said his satellite readings between 2000 and 2011 show far smaller temperature rises than six climate models which are used by international governments and corporations to predict changes to our climate in the future.

He said: ‘The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show.

'There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.’

However critics say his research is over too short a period to draw conclusions and ignores other factors.

Dr Spencer is the first scientist to examine the data from Nasa satellites in relation to climate change.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020427/Climate-change-far-alarmists-predict-says-NASA-scientist.html#ixzz1ThAlqfoS

GLOBAL WARMERS NEED TO GET A LIFE. . .

Robert L Hamilton

Richardson Texas USA

I agree with Clive that it is no surprise the models are not perfect; however, there are still plenty of other studies that do show the Earth is warming. The Spencer and Braswell 2011 study just indicates that the models predicting global temperatures rises may be over-estimated. However, I do agree with some of the comments made by other climate scientists that indicate that a lack of rigorous statistical/error analysis of the data in the study.

Regardless it adds to the debate on how much the Earth will be affected by global warming not that global warming is (or is not) occurring. I highly recommend reading the article (I posted the link above) rather than relying on news media reports because there are some journalists that do a horrible job of interpreting a scientific study.

Bob, this article does not suggest global warming is a hoax. Rather that it has been hyped up. If you have read my previous posts I have warned about trying to link everything (e.g. Joplin, MO tornado) to global warming because it leads to a distrust of science when such links are found to be weak or non-existent. Looking at the data, there is substantial direct evidence to indicate that global warming is concurring., it is possible that CO2 is not the main contributor; however, there are many other greenhouse gases which are typically overlooked. Even Roy Spencer's blog doesn't claim that global warming is not occurring, but rather it is from natural phenomenon.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

Anthony, When I first saw the IPCC HockeyStick graph I thought it was

faked because it did not show the Little Ice Age.

If we look backwards for the last 2000 years we had the

Little Ice Age ~(1550-1850 AD)

Medieval Warm Period ~(950-1250 AD)

Dark Ages Cool Period ~(700-900 AD)

Roman Warming Period ~(200 BC-600AD)

See: Temperatures of the Past Six Millennia in Alaska

http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jan/25jan2011a7.html

However, that does not mean we should carry on as if nothing is happening.

We are going to run out of fossil fuels and all avenues should be explored to

find alternatives.

What I strongly object to is the way that the IPCC is distorting research funds

so that anyone wanting to research a subject that might go against MMGW

will be denied grants, and causing millions of dollars to be wasted on Carbon

Credit schemes.

Traduce esto: realmente creen uds que existen alternativas, cuando es precisamente ese grupo que no quiere participar en ideas y proyectos , los que ahora estan siendo beneficiados por el letargo del mundo ante este problema que definitivamente causara el declive de la humanidad que no es autodefendible de perdurar siendo dominante como especie.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse effect.' When one molecule radiates energy, that molecule cools; when that energy is absorbed by another molecule that molecule warms. The net result is NADA. AGWers cannot understand this simple fact.

Robert L Hamilton

Richardson Texas USA

Robert,

Again you fail to understand the basic principles of global warming. We are not talking about a NET increase in energy, but a LOCALIZED one, in this case the entire surface of the planet (very localized when compared to the vast expanses of space). If this energy remains at the surface of the Earth longer, it increases the temperature of the Earth's surface. Using this logic, global warming is possible, and it is occurring (there are multitudes of studies confirming this). Your argument is only valid when discussing total NET energy. If you want to argue against anthropogenic global warming you may have a case (although more and more evidence is showing humans do have an impact on the climate); however, you cannot claim global warming is not occurring. As I stated earlier even Dr. Spencer is not claiming that global warming isn't occurring.

But, the Warmers cannot base their 'science' on something that, in fact, does not exist. A recent issue of 'Science' -- From the American Association for the Advancement of Science -- Seems to be saying we cannot distinguish between Green House effect and Natural causes of ' warming.' The Warmers have now lumped the two together in their zealous and continual requests for more funds to study Warming -- for which there is no clear proof of its existence. (Cf. 'Science,' p. 764, V. 334 dated 11 Nov 2011)

Robert L Hamilton

Richardson Texas USA

el calentamiento existe pues el cambio de masa por obtener energia que se disipa rapidamente hace que aumente la entropia y cause mas desorden. Entonces el sistema TIENDE a producir mas calor por usar energia contenida, la masa nueva co2 y agua en la atmosfera hacen que se retenga mas calor del sol y hay disturbios globales en el clima que no sustentan la vida como la conocemos y ocasionan el declive del hombre como especie dominante a su extincion, nomas imaginense vivir a temperaturas promedio de 25 grados centigrados. Viviria asi el hombre y por cuanto tiempo y que pasaria en esas temperaturas, HABRIA PLANTAS, HABRIA AGUA SUFICIENTE PARA TODOS?

Robert,

Hulme et al. 2011 Science 334 p. 764-765 never said they could not distinguish human-influenced weather events and 'tough-luck' weather events. There is no discussion of natural causes of warming, only on weather events and if they are human-influence or 'tough-luck'. It is pointing out that Probabilistic Event Attribution (PEA) is placing money specifically to help those who are impacted by human-influence weather events. Just as any good ambulance chaser knows, people will try to tie all weather events to being human-influence got get a slice of the money. The authors advocate funding for all weather-related events

"Whether a particular risk event was triggered by human or natural meteorology, there is an ethical imperative to build social resilience and institutional capacity to deal with all weather-related risks. The crucial point is that climate adaptation investment is most needed where vulnerability to meteorological hazard is high, not where meteorological hazards are most attributable to human influence."

This article does not support your view that the Green House effect and Natural Causes of warming are lumped together.

Also feel free to read Kerr Science 334 p. 1040. This article discusses how human activities are increasing extreme weather conditions. Again this article also states positions that I have made, that specific events cannot be directly attributed to global warming; however, increases in frequency of these events can be attributed.