Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

    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.
    .

  • #2
    A relative of mine worked at NASA, and did research like this. According to him, we have an infinitesimally small understanding of how the atmosphere works (of course, scientists will rarely claim they understand anything), and the alarmist publications have more to do with keeping the researchers who do this type of research funded (i.o.w., so that they can keep their jobs intact). The climate research club claims are in part motivated by self-interest.

    Comment


    • #3
      that makes sense.

      Comment


      • #4
        No link to source much less original data? Given that DFG is notoriously retarded and routinely posts articles of laughable validity I think I will wait for an actual reputable source before believing that all science has suddenly been proven wrong.
        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Oerdin View Post
          No link to source much less original data? Given that DFG is notoriously retarded and routinely posts articles of laughable validity I think I will wait for an actual reputable source before believing that all science has suddenly been proven wrong.
          Source http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

          All it took was typing the first sentence into google.
          "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James Napier

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Zoetstofzoetje View Post
            The climate research club claims are in part motivated by self-interest.
            Well, they are human, aren't they?

            Note that the article does not dispute global warning, not even the human inpact on it. It has to focus on 'alarmism' (WTF?) to make a point.
            "post reported"Winston, on the barricades for freedom of speech
            "I don't like laws all over the world. Doesn't mean I am going to do anything but post about it."Jon Miller

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by germanos View Post
              Well, they are human, aren't they?

              Note that the article does not dispute global warning, not even the human inpact on it. It has to focus on 'alarmism' (WTF?) to make a point.
              Yes, the alarmism remark threw me off somewhat as well. The aim of the article is to prove that these scientists are alarmist, so to describe them as such in a by-the-way fashion is a mistake. It puts the cart before the horse.

              In this case the point made by the author is that a peer-reviewed scientific article suggests that previous thinking on the effects of global warming was based on a faulty premise (inaccurate modelling). If that premise is faulty, then the assumption is in fact borne out by the evidence presented in the article.
              Last edited by Zevico; July 31, 2011, 03:37.
              "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James Napier

              Comment


              • #8
                A study on how much heat in Earth's atmosphere is caused by cloud cover has heated up the climate change blogosphere even as it is dismissed by many scientists.

                Several mainstream climate scientists call the study's conclusions off-base and overstated. Climate change skeptics, most of whom are not scientists, are touting the study, saying it blasts gaping holes in global warming theory and shows that future warming will be less than feared. The study in the journal Remote Sensing questions the accuracy of climate computer models and got attention when a lawyer for the conservative Heartland Institute wrote an opinion piece on it.

                The author of the scientific study is Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama Huntsville, a prominent climate skeptic. But even he says some bloggers are overstating what the research found. Spencer's study is based on satellite data from 2000 to 2010 and is one of a handful of studies he's done that are part of an ongoing debate among a few scientists.

                His research looked at cause and effect of clouds and warming. Contrary to the analysis of a majority of studies, his found that for the past decade, variations in clouds seemed more a cause of warming than an effect. More than anything, he said, his study found that mainstream research and models don't match the 10 years of data he examined. Spencer's study concludes the question of clouds' role in heating "remains an unsolved problem."

                Spencer, who uses what he calls a simple model without looking at ocean heat or El Nino effects, finds fault with the more complicated models often run by mainstream climate scientists.

                At least 10 climate scientists reached by The Associated Press found technical or theoretical faults with Spencer's study or its conclusions. They criticized the short time period he studied and his failure to consider the effects of the ocean and other factors. They also note that the paper appears in a journal that mostly deals with the nuts-and-bolts of satellite data and not interpreting the climate.

                "This is a very bad paper and is demonstrably wrong," said Richard Somerville, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. "It is getting a lot of attention only because of noise in the blogosphere."

                Kerry Emanuel of MIT, one of two scientists who said the study was good, said bloggers and others are misstating what Spencer found. Emanuel said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback. He said what's being written about Spencer's study by nonscientists "has no basis in reality."
                http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=14192061

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Zevico View Post
                  All it took was typing the first sentence into google.
                  you expected better of oerdin?
                  I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.
                  [Brandon Roderick? You mean Brock's Toadie?][Hanged from Yggdrasil]

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Who would have suspected that low altitude cloud formation and their albedo effects were (and continue to be) a big unknown? Shocked!
                    "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                    “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I hear much about how hot the summers are, but very little about how COLD the winters have been.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What? I've heard a lot of comments about winter being cold from people who are like "ha ha ha it's cold outside global warming is a hoax ".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          DFG. You didn't bother to post a URL for your source. I love the "objectivity" of the author as he/she describes other computer models as "alarmist".

                          Anyways, this is complete garbage. Earth is not the only atmosphere we need to or have observed in order to understand these systems. Certainly, out understanding of these principles is a dynamic process. But campaigns of misinformation designed to protect lucrative short term business models that endanger our long term survival cannot change what is readily observable and verifiable.

                          Sooner or later, people will realize we are stuck in a delicate lifeboat all by our lonesome. The psychopaths that are threatening to sink the boat will simply be thrown overboard if they can't behave themselves. It's just how humans solve problems when the tribe is threatened.
                          To us, it is the BEAST.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sava View Post
                            DFG. You didn't bother to post a URL for your source. I love the "objectivity" of the author as he/she describes other computer models as "alarmist".

                            Anyways, this is complete garbage. Earth is not the only atmosphere we need to or have observed in order to understand these systems. Certainly, out understanding of these principles is a dynamic process. But campaigns of misinformation designed to protect lucrative short term business models that endanger our long term survival cannot change what is readily observable and verifiable.

                            Sooner or later, people will realize we are stuck in a delicate lifeboat all by our lonesome. The psychopaths that are threatening to sink the boat will simply be thrown overboard if they can't behave themselves. It's just how humans solve problems when the tribe is threatened.
                            Oh yea, sorry about that.

                            The latest news and headlines from Yahoo News. Get breaking news stories and in-depth coverage with videos and photos.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Cold weather smashes records
                              Martin Palmer, Thursday June 11, 2009 - 18:01 EST

                              A bumper start to the ski season, Canberra frozen, snow over the Melbourne hills, widespread severe frost and records are falling.
                              A bumper start to the ski season, Canberra frozen, snow over the Melbourne hills, widespread severe frost and records are falling. The cold snap is abating slo...


                              Deep Freeze Breaks Cold Weather Records
                              Feb. 12, 2008
                              Howling winds and freezing temperatures are pummeling states across the nation.

                              Record cold weather roundup – hundreds of new cold and snow records set in the last week
                              Posted on January 2, 2010 by Anthony Watts
                              From the “weather is not climate department. Oh the weather outside is frightful…. Prisoners used to shovel snow-bound US capitol Here’s the roundup of cold and snow records for t…


                              Here is just a few as example. I have noticed that the winter cold records do not get as much attention as the the summer heat records.
                              Just an observation I have noticed.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X