New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[Denny Crane]

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted.

Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

 

[barfo]

One way to be sure you are reading an unbiased article is to note that it uses the word "alarmist" more than a dozen times.

barfo

 

[Eastoff]

If it's true, that's great to hear. But the author is employed by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland institute helped Phillip Morris to try to show second hand smoke doesn't have side effects.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

fuck there goes my beachfront property in nevada, i was gonna flip houseboats too

 

[Denny Crane]

One way to be sure you are reading an unbiased article is to note that it uses the word "alarmist" more than a dozen times.

barfo

Kinda like the president repeating "balanced" in his speech the other night. 3 times in one sentence even.

The guy has a point to make. Bash the writer if you must, but ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

 

[blazerboy30]

If it's true, that's great to hear. But the author is employed by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland institute helped Phillip Morris to try to show second hand smoke doesn't have side effects.

Then read the actual report and paper.

 

[barfo]

Then read the actual report and paper.

Good advice. And put it in context by reading a good sample of the rest of the scientific literature.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Kinda like the president repeating "balanced" in his speech the other night. 3 times in one sentence even.

The guy has a point to make. Bash the writer if you must, but ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Well, your link takes me to a 'not found' page. But when I tracked down the page you were trying to link to, it tells me Roy is a believer in "intelligent design".

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world

Not impressed.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Denny, very impressive and irrefutable article. I think the Gore led global warming alarmists are pretty much done circling the bowl and are now floating out to sea. But, they accomplished their main goal of making a lot of money off their alarmist trick. Those people were smart.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, your link takes me to a 'not found' page. But when I tracked down the page you were trying to link to, it tells me Roy is a believer in "intelligent design".



Not impressed.

barfo

I think you meant this page:

http://aqua.nasa.gov/about/team_spencer.php

 

[Denny Crane]

This is kind of neato, too. Shocking!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ced-on-leave/2011/07/28/gIQALNfPeI_story.html

APNewsBreak: Alaska researcher who documented polar bears demise in Arctic is placed on leave

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, July 28, 4:00 PM

JUNEAU, Alaska — Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.

Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.

The federal agency where he works told him he’s being investigated for “integrity issues,” but a watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear.

The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on his behalf Thursday with the agency, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Investigators have not yet told Monnett of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group’s executive director.

A BOEMRE spokeswoman, Melissa Schwartz, said there was an “ongoing internal investigation” but declined to get into specifics.

 

[maxiep]

I'm in the camp that we contribute to global warming, but I don't think it's very much, like pissing in the ocean. Furthermore, it's not worth crippling our economy by raising the cost of energy when China, Russia and India are belching out massive amounts of greenhouse gases.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I'm in the camp that we contribute to global warming, but I don't think it's very much, like pissing in the ocean. Furthermore, it's not worth crippling our economy by raising the cost of energy when China, Russia and India are belching out massive amounts of greenhouse gases.

I tend to agree. To be sure, people have done some harm here but I think the damage is grossly overstated.

 

[Klinky]

I think global warming is too much of a hot button topic for people to wrap their heads around & the science can go one way or another. People should focus on local issues regarding water, air, energy & waste management. You can see smog, you can see shitty water, you can see a giant stinking landfill. It's much harder to put your head in the sand when the sand is covered with garbage.

 

[jlprk]

http://xkcd.com/164/

 

[mook]

97% of scientists recently polled in a recent survey of 1370 climate researchers concluded climate change is real.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...elmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

Find me a single major scientific organization that believes global climate change is a hoax and I'll start listening. None do. The fact is that every major scientific body that has voiced an opinion on the subject has sided with the general consensus of climatologists.

If 97% of geologists predicted Oregon was going to fall into the ocean in the next decade, people would be heading for the hills. Because the threat is more diffuse (spread over a wider time frame and over larger geography) the science is somehow "inconclusive." The science isn't that inconclusive (well, science always has room for improvement. That's the beauty of science.) It's the politics that's inconclusive.

 

[mook]

Here's a great deconstruction of this specific article:

This article is written by The Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is a professional disinformation firm. Their business is to write plausible-sounding lies, then trick media outlets into publishing them.
If The Heartland Institute writes something, it's not just wrong, you can be sure the reverse is true. Moreover, it also tells you that some big corporation is throwing large amount of money to ensure you are staying in the dark. In this case, ExxonMobil paid The Heartland upwards of $500'000 as part of a larger effort to delay cap-and-trade legislation in Washington.
The Heartland Institute is scary scary stuff. They rely on the fact that constructing proper counter argument takes vastly more effort than to make stuff up. If people consistently insist for proper counter-argument to their articles, they will stay ahead, and they win. It's a technique called Gish Gallop.
The scientist, Roy Spencer, has destroyed his credibility in matters of global warming, by publishing flawed results, being caught, but then nevertheless encouraging disinformation firms to use his papers for advocacy.
References:
What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?
The Heartland Institute Publishes a Bogus List of Scientist with Doubts
and a documentary on the issue, documenting how the Heartland's tactic was first developed by the tobacco industry to fight lung-cancer science :
Naomi Oreskes talk on Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscure the Truth about Climate

 

[huevonkiller]

One way to be sure you are reading an unbiased article is to note that it uses the word "alarmist" more than a dozen times.

barfo

barfo you need to address the scientific information collected in the article, that's all that matters. Not the political semantics or etiquette.

Yeah they said "alarmist", they find it amusing how stupid the UN is.

 

[huevonkiller]

There's a reason NASA knocked UN the fuck out recently. Climate Change is real because Arctic ice levels correlates with Sun irradiance. Not because global warming is caused by Co2. The Medieval warm period lasted 600 years, you can't take a 50 year computer model and apply it like those moron computer geeks do at the UN.


Most alarmists in the media waste time pretending their is a "consensus" whatever that means. Even Denny believes in Global warming...... The issue is simply more complex then that.

Most meteorologists do not believe in man made "global warming".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

97% of scientists recently polled in a recent survey of 1370 climate researchers concluded climate change is real.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...elmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/...onsensus_Does_Not_Exist_Among_Scientists.html

Find me a single major scientific organization that believes global climate change is a hoax and I'll start listening. None do. The fact is that every major scientific body that has voiced an opinion on the subject has sided with the general consensus of climatologists.

If 97% of geologists predicted Oregon was going to fall into the ocean in the next decade, people would be heading for the hills. Because the threat is more diffuse (spread over a wider time frame and over larger geography) the science is somehow "inconclusive." The science isn't that inconclusive (well, science always has room for improvement. That's the beauty of science.) It's the politics that's inconclusive.

Dude Climate Change IS real, it just isn't anthropogenic. And you can't do anything about it, and the stupid legislation from alarmists hurts our economy.

You can find plenty of scientific arguments Denny has already addressed, in previous threads. No one has ever addressed him properly here, from all the material I've read.

 

[huevonkiller]

@Bob Greenwade, It all depends on how you want to spin the data. The time frames used in

almost all CO2 recordings is way too small, for example this one http://co2now.org . Here

is some data for you to consider:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately

20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global

temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to

the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous

Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous

had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former

geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2-

impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous

Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than

400 ppm."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

"Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the

fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400

years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so on."

"Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation

and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output.

"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a

much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role,

contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect."

"The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by

historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named

because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period

occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before humans

invented industrial pollution."

CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long

before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal

gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.

As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in

Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both

temperatures and CO2 have been on the increase for 18,000 years. Interestingly, CO2 lags

an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not

a primary driver of the temperature changes (9).

Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a

previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this

cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the

earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the

"greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises

about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide

(NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water

vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human

activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.

Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from

all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons

come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such

sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than

4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current

atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste

product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon

dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit

from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient.

When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by

terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most

terrestrial carbon dioxide.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly

proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect

on global climate!

Posted by: Observer | February 03, 2011 at 02:31 PM

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...is-as-real-as-evolution-and-the-big-bang.html

CO2 concentrations with historical perspective. The Earth has usually been warmer than the current period we are in.

This is why you don't base computer models off of a few decades.

 

[Denny Crane]

97% of scientists recently polled in a recent survey of 1370 climate researchers concluded climate change is real.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...elmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

Find me a single major scientific organization that believes global climate change is a hoax and I'll start listening. None do. The fact is that every major scientific body that has voiced an opinion on the subject has sided with the general consensus of climatologists.

If 97% of geologists predicted Oregon was going to fall into the ocean in the next decade, people would be heading for the hills. Because the threat is more diffuse (spread over a wider time frame and over larger geography) the science is somehow "inconclusive." The science isn't that inconclusive (well, science always has room for improvement. That's the beauty of science.) It's the politics that's inconclusive.

So I click on your usatoday.com link and it links to a study by the National Academy of Sciences. So I click on the link in that article to the actual study http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract, and it is an attack piece on the credibility of the experts who disagree. I find it odd that they don't find MIT professors of client science to be credible, or the guys who run the data collection facilities whose data is put through all the faulty climate models, or geologists with 35 years tenure at universities with high visibility climate studies programs, this guy from NASA who has been in charge of the collection of satellite data for 20 years, etc.

You realize that 97% of govt. subsidized snake oil salesmen say snake oil is great for you.

 

[barfo]

barfo you need to address the scientific information collected in the article, that's all that matters. Not the political semantics or etiquette.

Yeah they said "alarmist", they find it amusing how stupid the UN is.

Then Denny should post the scientific article, not partisan bullshit. I was responding to what he posted. If he wants to improve his posts, I'll improve my responses to his posts.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Then Denny should post the scientific article, not partisan bullshit. I was responding to what he posted. If he wants to improve his posts, I'll improve my responses to his posts.

barfo

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdf

Published in this peer reviewed journal:
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/

Enjoy it, barfo.

 

[huevonkiller]

Then Denny should post the scientific article, not partisan bullshit. I was responding to what he posted. If he wants to improve his posts, I'll improve my responses to his posts.

barfo

Just for the record, I'm making fun of the UN not trying to go after you personally.

 

[barfo]

So I click on the link in that article to the actual study http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract, and it is an attack piece on the credibility of the experts who disagree.

Could you cite something in the paper that you find to be evidence that it is an 'attack piece'? I looked at it and they don't seem to be attacking anyone.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Could you cite something in the paper that you find to be evidence that it is an 'attack piece'? I looked at it and they don't seem to be attacking anyone.

barfo

What's the title? "Expert credibility in climate change"

You don't have to read very far beyond that, but feel free.

 

[barfo]

What's the title? "Expert credibility in climate change"

You don't have to read very far beyond that, but feel free.

C'mon Denny, you can do better than that. Analysis != Attack.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

C'mon Denny, you can do better than that. Analysis != Attack.

barfo

Is that the best you can do?

Of course it's an attack. See post #21. I forgot to mention guys who've contributed to the IPCC reports.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Then Denny should post the scientific article, not partisan bullshit. I was responding to what he posted. If he wants to improve his posts, I'll improve my responses to his posts.

barfo

Let me suggest this- rather than waiting until people post what you want them to before you weigh in, why not post better to begin with and perhaps change the direction of the debate.

 

[mook]

Most meteorologists do not believe in man made "global warming".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Your link doesn't really talk about meteorologists. It's just a link to some climatologist contrarians. It doesn't cite a single organized scientific body of any credibility. I certainly won't deny that there are scientists who disagree with the general consensus.

Out of curiosity, however, I did find an article that does support your claim about meteorologists: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html

But it also had some interesting counter points:

The American Meteorological Society, which confers its coveted seal of approval on qualified weather forecasters, has affirmed the conclusion of the United Nations’ climate panel that warming is occurring and that human activities are very likely the cause. In a statement sent to Congress in 2009, the meteorological society warned that the buildup of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to “major negative consequences.”

Yet, climate scientists use very different scientific methods from the meteorologists. Heidi Cullen, a climatologist who straddled the two worlds when she worked at the Weather Channel, noted that meteorologists used models that were intensely sensitive to small changes in the atmosphere but had little accuracy more than seven days out. Dr. Cullen said meteorologists are often dubious about the work of climate scientists, who use complex models to estimate the effects of climate trends decades in the future.

But the cynicism, said Dr. Cullen, who now works for Climate Central, a nonprofit group that works to bring the science of climate change to the public, is in her opinion unwarranted.

“They are not trying to predict the weather for 2050, just generally say that it will be hotter,” Dr. Cullen said of climatologists. “And just like I can predict August will be warmer than January, I can predict that.”