New data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
studies appearing in two respected scientific journals raise serious
questions about the science underlying alarmist predictions of global
warming.

NASA: Predictions "Exaggerated"
In the March 13 Journal of Climate, Ken Minschwaner of the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology and Andrew Dessler of the University of
Maryland reported on atmospheric research they conducted for NASA.
Discussing the importance of water vapor assumptions in climate models, they
noted, "In most global climate models, an initial warming caused by
additional CO2 and other greenhouse gases leads to enhanced evaporation at
the surface and a general moistening of the atmosphere. Since water vapor is
a strong infrared absorber, the added moisture causes further warming. The
amplifying effect can be quite large, increasing the global average warming
by 70%-90% compared to calculations that maintain a fixed water vapor."

According to the new NASA data, water evaporation has not increased nearly
as much as alarmists have predicted and have factored into their computer
models.

As a result, according to the March 18 New York Times, "Dr. Minschwaner said
the new research raised questions about the high end" of temperature
predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which
estimates the Earth's climate could warm 2.5 to 10º Fahrenheit in the next
century.

According to Environment & Energy Daily, the new data show "predictions
about global warming have exaggerated its potential effects."

"Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our
atmosphere," stated a related March 15 NASA press release, "some climate
forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases."

Stated NASA, "In most computer models relative humidity tends to remain
fixed at current levels. Models that include water vapor feedback with
constant relative humidity predict the Earth's surface will warm nearly
twice as much over the next 100 years as models that contain no water vapor
feedback."

However, "The increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not
large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity," NASA quoted
Minschwaner as saying.

"These new findings will be useful for testing and improving global climate
models," said NASA.

Computer Models Fail Test
Another study, published at the same time as the analysis of new NASA data,
also undercut claims that computer models are accurate predictors of future
climate.

The study, published in Climate Research (25:185-190), noted that "an
important test of model predictive ability and usefulness for impact studies
is how well models simulate the observed vertical temperature structure of
the troposphere under anthropogenically-induced-change scenarios."

In other words, the predictive accuracy of alarmist computer models can be
assessed by feeding past atmospheric data into the models and observing how
well the resulting predictions match up with the current climate. "If this
predicted feature of global warming is not evident in the real world,"
stated Sherwood Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change, "there is little reason to believe anything else the models
predict, including both the cause and (or) magnitude of the observed surface
warming."

Importantly, according to the Climate Research study, "at no time, in any
model realization, forced or unforced, did any model simulate the presently
observed situation of a large and highly significant surface warming
accompanied with no warming whatsoever aloft."

Moreover, noted the study, "significant errors in the simulations of
globally averaged tropospheric temperature structure indicate likely errors
in tropospheric water-vapor content and therefore total greenhouse-gas
forcing. Such errors argue for extreme caution in applying simulation
results to future climate-change assessment activities and to attribution
studies (e.g. Zwiers and Zhang, 2003) and call into question the predictive
ability of recent generation model simulations."


Read more at: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14871



SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON

And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true
scientists now agree that global warming is a fact.

What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists from around the world
signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio
de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind
the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure
has grown to over 4000.

He also doesn't tell you that recently a Gallup Poll of eminent North
American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the global
warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the
end of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before releasing the
report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft.

Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual
scientific analysis said:

1. "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate
change to ...man-made causes."

Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the
world - bar none.



read more at: http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm






The Nonsense That Is Global Warming

Some years ago a British newspaper arranged a square-off between a
meteorologist, an astrologer and a woman with corns, to see who could best
predict the weather. The woman with corns won.

In almost every newspaper around the world and at least once a week,
some report surfaces suggesting we stay worried in the light of latest
figures and analyses. Not only is Global Warming occurring, we are assured,
but it is now accelerating at some alarming rate and pretty soon the poles
will have all melted, the sealevels will have risen and all low-lying atolls
and seaside villages will be covered over with this calamitous rising tide.
And apparently this gigantic catastrophe is due to human behaviour.

We are informed that if our wicked CFC and CO2-producing ways
continue, we will be doomed as a civilisation. Today we are so buffeted by
what is put forth as irrefutable evidential science as to the nature of the
so-called problem, that we don't even think to question it on any basic
level. What is still essentially viewpoints and nothing more, based on tiny
sample data and extrapolated, is now promoted as scientific fact, regardless
of the lack of real evidence. The voices of the many diligent scientists
calling for real hard evidence are drowned out by those who have the ear of
a worldwide media hungry for sensational and emotive headlines.

The Misleading Picture
The result is that the picture many now have is of the Earth heating
up and hotter now than it has ever been. But... 1999 was cooler than the
year before and since 1998 the world has been cooling. The hottest day in
all recorded history was at Al Azizah in Libya back in 1922. There was
warming from the 1880s to the 1940s, then a cooling for the next 40 years.
Some of the hottest years were in the 1930s, when builders in Britain began
putting pipes on the outside of buildings because frosts were only a memory.
Then the thermometers turned around and from 1940 right up to 1980, global
mean temperatures fell by about 0.3degC. All those houses in Britain started
getting burst pipes.

Some over-reacted and called it the start of a new Ice Age, due to
global warming. Er..pardon? Yes, a heating up OR cooling down now was,
apparently, because of global warming. The 40 year downturn in temperature
was in spite of supposed rising CO2 levels due to the new industrialisation
after the war, showing then that rising CO2 does NOT fit into the scenario
of Greenhouse gases.

Look outside. Do you see any global catastrophe? Point to an ocean
that is rising. Point to a methane cloud. Demonstate in any lab how CO2
could rise or significantly increase in the atmosphere and therefore be
harmful.

Fact: CO2 occupies 0.035% of the atmosphere. If it doubled it would
only be 0.07%. We can all live with that. 99.9% of all the world's CO2 is at
ground level or below, 71% being dissolved in the oceans.

Fact: Like CO and N2O, CO2 is heavier than air. By how much? The
molecular weight of air is 29, that of CO2 is 44, nearly double. CFCs have a
MW of 100. It is therefore utterly impossible for these super-heavy gases to
rise to form a 'greenhouse cover.' Wind and diffusion can transport gases
but that is to do with mother nature, not man, and the warmers are claiming
a rising of gases is taking place due purely to humans and quite apart from
wind, thermals, tornadoes and whatever else the processes of nature will do.
Our question is, what can possibly make heavier than air gases rise 20 miles
to get above 99% of the atmosphere and significantly increase the constant
water-vapor-dominated greenhouse cover that enables life to continue to
thrive at an average temperature of 13-15degC on the surface of this planet?

CO2 does not rise. If it did, fire extinguishers wouldn't work. A
party balloon blown up with the breath would fly straight upwards as if it
was filled with helium. Moreover CO2 dissolves in seawater. More CO2
produced just means more is going to dissolve. Scientists are still trying
to find out the finer points of how it gets from the sea to the trees. They
know of the great cycle in which land goes under other land, heats and spews
out as volcanoes. CO2 is thrown out and drifts with rain to ground, gets
into trees as CO2 and into rocks as CO3, than finds its way back to the sea,
then into chalk, which is compressed plankton, and then to the seafloor
which becomes part of the continental drift which produces volcanoes at its
extremities. CO2 is kept aloft by upper level turbulence. Otherwise it is
always drifting down, not up. CO2 is found in centuries-old ice in
Antarctica, way before any industrialisation on Earth. It is a natural part
of the atmosphere and as such has a stable cycle of its own.

Fact: The atmosphere on the planet Venus is 100% CO2, produced
entirely from volcanoes. Because it is closer to the Sun , its atmosphere is
in turmoil all the time. On the other hand Mars, also with a CO2 atmosphere
is so frigid its polar caps are solid CO2, which we call dry ice. The
coldness comes purely because Mars is further from the Sun . If CO2 alone
heated planets up, Mars would be much warmer than it is.




read more at: http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp