New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold 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.

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

Ah, your search for something or someone who can justify your own views has turned up Dr Spencer. So let's have a look at just who Dr. Spencer really is:

Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[22]

The declaration states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

In The Evolution Crisis, a compilation of five scientists who reject evolution, Spencer states: "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... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[26]

stlhead - You do know what "peer-reviewed" science journals are, right?

Environment and Climate News is most emphatically NOT a peer-reviewed science journal...it's a political/religious policy recommendation rag...and virtually nothing in it is "science", it's all opinion used to backup the policies of the Heritage Foundation and the Heartland Institute, two anti-science religious/policy foundations.

If you're looking for anything resembling science, I'd not start there...or end there, either.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Most of their op/ed stuff is published in order to refute actual peer-reviewed science...all you have to do is spend five minutes reading their website to see how full of schit they are...a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate polluters.

Todd, the peer-reviewed science journal the article speaks of is Remote Sensing, not Environment and Climate News.

"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."

"Remote Sensing" just reports raw data...any analysis of the data, or policy recommendations made upon the data, comes from somewhere else...in this case, from Environment and Climate News and the fruitcakes at the Heartland Institute.

Fish on...

Todd

...and a quick Google search of what is being done with the above-referenced data finds only right wing and religious wingnut blogs using it to support opinion that flies in the face of all actual peer-reviewed science.

You can believe it if you want, make weather and climate a political or religious argument, but if you do, realize that you are not being informed about anything other than the agenda of the monetary backers of those orgs.

Fish on...

Todd

Damn AM, must be cuz it's my Bday or sumpin. I have agreed with your last two posts!

Funny how guys who wnat so badly to believe, will grasp any shred of evidence while ignoring the overwhelming mountain of evidence.

Oh, gee..............science that supports my beliefs.

That's real, solid science right there.

The science that doesn't support my beliefs is all junk science.

If you need to determine what science is soilid and real and which science is junk, just ask me.

You get a choice...use verifiable facts to form your opinions, or use your opinions to create unverifiable facts to support them.

One uses an IQ of at least normal level...the other, not so much.

You know which one you are.

Fish on...

Todd

Correct.

I'm the one that determines that. You can call me "the decider" if you want.

That might come as a surprise to the Southern Baptists and AME parishioners that support Creationist Theory.

I just told you ON THE COMPUTER that I'm the decider.

Pay attention, dammit.

FP,

You posted, "Actually, if you could prove or disprove human caused global warming people wouldn't be arguing. They'd be convinced by the proof."

I disagree. I run into people who I won't label as morons all the time who will argue and never agree with situations analogous to 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5. No matter how many times or ways you present the empirical evidence, they just won't. Some people are not receptive to logic.

There are innumerable scientific investigations that are nonetheless valid where the experimental design doesn't allow control groups or double blind testing. They don't prove their results and are typically worded along these lines: "a preponderance of the evidence suggests . . . " Climate change and global warming and many features of investigation fall in this catagory. Heck there are probably more than a few fisheries research investigations in that bucket too.

As for assumptions that are highly dubious, maybe you can point me to one of those highly dubious one that is being used to suggest global warming. I don't follow the subject as closely as I'd like.

Sg

I just love this argument as it is one of the stupidest one can have. Climate change? Not yes but hell yes BUT it has been going on for millions of years. But in more recent time check out the average temperature during the Roman Empire, followed by the Little Ice Age, followed by warming which has continued into the present. My goodness the History Channel has done a great program that shows the interaction of human events such as the Dark Ages to the French Revolution and the weather of the Little Ice Age Era. Don't even want to do volcanoes or sun spots / solar winds or the planets axis shift as they have changed weather through the history of the planet.

Now if you want to argue the human expansion and denuding of forest around the world and the impacts, or the long term effects of our steady poisoning of the oceans, now they are good subjects. But global warming? Of coarse it is going on as it has since the end of the Little Ice Age and will we have a climate rotation different than earlier in human history?

I don't know but neither do those running around braying about it. But the climate is not changing? Christ give me a break and they need to pull their collective heads out of their asses. The planet is doing what it always has and nobody knows all the answers but we are learning. That is the thing, WE ARE LEARNING BUT TRUELY KNOW LITTLE but the awnser is in the planets history just got to unravel it.

Like much of the Warmist Church's "scientific consensus"....another "study" turns out to be a fraud.


JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general's office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

On Thursday, Ruch's watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett's behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have "actively persecuted" him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.

Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.

Aunty,
Just cause your husband is not fully evolved...

I fail to see how true creatonism, which believes all branches of humanity come out of the direct hand of God and, presumably one couple, Adam and Eve, could be racist, since we are of the same linage; compared to evolution that beleives humans are evolved and that some races might not have evolved at the same rate or to the same level. Yes, I know that many religions have great prejudices, but I believe them to aborations of the original belief systems from which they came. I know that I was raised in an extremely conservative family, and while I did see that they looked at some people differently, my earliest moments almost all include those of other races. I remember distinctly my father driving around our new neighborhood in 1973 and inviting a large group of african American's kids to our house so we could have freinds. Up to a few years ago my Mom was still in contact with members of that family. We were always taught that everyone was equally created and equal in the eyes of God, and that to act differently would be a sin. The first people I every heard trying to dispute that were using evolutionary theory to claim differences.

Adam and Eve in the Garden: two children, Cain and Able, Cain kills Able, Cain is banished forever from the Garden, he marries a member of a tribe nearby. Where did the tribe come from?

Sooo, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?