"New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism"

maquiladora

I've seen never an article use the word 'alarmist' so many times. But it looks like climate models might need to be adjusted? What do ye think.

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.

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

Tabnabs

tldr?

satellite data = good

alarmist computer models = bad

:cool:

stevenmu

Interesting data, but since it's to do with climate change I expect both sides to claim it proves their argument conclusively and go back to calling each other names.

odyboody

Good old tool bar.:rolleyes:

Find what: models

Replace with: alarmist computer models

Sponge Bob

stevenmu wrote: »

Interesting data, but since it's to do with climate change I expect both sides to claim it proves their argument conclusively and go back to calling each other names.

There is no such thing as climate change...the climate is always changing and always will. Climate change is a constant, not an issue.

The data does, however, tend to make life harder for the "Global Warming" school of atmospheric scientists and their manipulated temperature records.

thetonynator

Sponge Bob wrote: »

There is no such thing as climate change...the climate is always changing and always will. Climate change is a constant, not an issue.

The data does, however, tend to make life harder for the "Global Warming" school of atmospheric scientists and their manipulated temperature records.

so first it was global warming . . . .then it was climate change . . .now its global warming . .or both . . or neither?

My head hurts . . .

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the author of that article is a fellow at a right wing think tank. the first words you see on their website is "free market solutions".

whether or not what he's saying is correct, no one on the global warming side of the argument will listen to him.

stevenmu

How about "man made climate change" ?

BEASTERLY

thetonynator wrote: »

so first it was global warming . . . .then it was climate change . . .now its global warming . .or both . . or neither?

My head hurts . . .

It doesnt matter, as long as you realise that its VERY VERY bad! And therefore you will have to buy as many overpriced green solutions as possible and pay extra taxes to combat it. But its going to be OK because we constantly have more and more people researching it with taxpayers money! All we need to do is keep the government and the public ALARMED!

gbee

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The data does, however, tend to make life harder for the "Global Warming" school of atmospheric scientists and their manipulated temperature records.

It's an inconvenient truth that they altered the data, some seemingly deliberately so too.

Bens

Oh no. No we'll have to think of something else to tax.

Nabber

Remember the early 90s when the hole in the Ozone Layer was going to kill us all? Fun times eh? SKin cancer was up all over the place, if you didn't agree you were ignorant to the obvious, opening your fridge and spraying deodorant was an attack on the planet Earth...

What happened to all that? My school teacher got quite angry when I didn't agree with that theory....

Global warming reminds me of those days.... Oil is going to run out by the 1980s.... People will believe anything....

I love all these theories, can't wait too see what is next.
My guess is the next big thing is going to be drinking water.....

Is acid rain still eating away at buildings?

Birdnuts

Nabber wrote: »

What happened to all that? ?

They banned CFC's and the ozone hole is slowly recovering(ozone protects the planet from excessive UV radiation that causes skin cancer and the like).

PS: I have an open mind on the Global warming debate but lets not go down the road of saying that because a particular phenomenon might not be as signficant as first thought that every thing is hunky-dory on the planet. Problems like declining fish stocks, deforestation, desertification, declining fresh water supplies, pesticide pollution etc. are all still there and continue to get worse in many parts of the world:(

gbee

Birdnuts wrote: »

Problems like declining fish stocks, (

Indeed a recent bombshell was delivered by China who had been deliberately over reporting their catches, giving an indication that fish stocks were on the rise again. :mad:

morticia2

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

the author of that article is a fellow at a right wing think tank. the first words you see on their website is "free market solutions".

whether or not what he's saying is correct, no one on the global warming side of the argument will listen to him.

It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. Fossil fuels are finite and peak oil was reached in 2006. We need a replacement for oil as a transport fuel within 10 years, regardless of whether we are boiling or freezing.

Unless of course, everyone's happy to stop flying and pay for $200-300/barrel oil (just wait till yiz see what THAT does to the international banking system).

Hate to say it, but the weather/climate issue is the least of our problems

And I'd love to see how the "free market solutions" brigade manage against raw geology....when it's gone, it's gone.

Birdnuts

gbee wrote: »

Indeed a recent bombshell was delivered by China who had been deliberately over reporting their catches, giving an indication that fish stocks were on the rise again. :mad:

I could get into a rage about the disasterous EU fisheries policy and foreign factory ships stealing Africa's fish, but I haven't the energy after a long and trying week:mad::(

cgarrad

Peak oil is rubbish,



Peak cheap oil is not.....

John mac

the sun will swallow us up eventually,

gbee

John mac wrote: »

the sun will swallow us up eventually,

I propose a "Swallow Up" TAX, this is serious folks, we need 300% of your income to avert this one.

4gun

The warmist will probably say that the reason so much heat is leaking from the atmosphere is because it is over saturated and cant hold no more :rolleyes: