PDA

View Full Version : New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism



djones520
07-28-2011, 10:11 AM
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.



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

Well buggers.... all that CO2 isn't trapping the heat causing massive global wide changes in climate. But it is still providing good fodder for agricultural plants. :D

The Night Owl
07-28-2011, 12:09 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Well buggers.... all that CO2 isn't trapping the heat causing massive global wide changes in climate. But it is still providing good fodder for agricultural plants. :D

What the article states is that the amount of energy being trapped is less than what is predicted by the models, not that it isn't being trapped. Anyway, it's encourging to see the deniersphere moving away from arguing about whether global warming is occurring and toward arguing about how much global warming is occurring.

txradioguy
07-28-2011, 01:54 PM
What the article states is that the amount of energy being trapped is less than what is predicted by the models, not that it isn't being trapped. Anyway, it's encourging to see the deniersphere moving away from arguing about whether global warming is occurring and toward arguing about how much global warming is occurring.

The only one in denial about anything concerning this stuff is you.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-28-2011, 02:08 PM
What the article states is that the amount of energy being trapped is less than what is predicted by the models, not that it isn't being trapped. Anyway, it's encourging to see the deniersphere moving away from arguing about whether global warming is occurring and toward arguing about how much global warming is occurring.


The argument has ALWAYS been whether or not it was anthropogenic.


In the last few years, warming may not have taken place, but no one denies that since the mid - late 1970's average temps have increased. However, if you wish to compare that to the mid 1930's, we seem to have a lack of warming also. You see, things are Cyclical and that is what we have ALWAYS said. We have questioned how MUCH of the increase was due to measurement error (like stations that were positioned near heat sources etc), and how much was due to cherry picking time frames, but ALWAYS with the knowledge that the one thing constant about our climate is change.

It is YOUR side that has tried to deny those facts.

The Night Owl
07-28-2011, 02:29 PM
The argument has ALWAYS been whether or not it was anthropogenic.

In the last few years, warming may not have taken place, but no one denies that since the mid - late 1970's average temps have increased.



That's not true. As of 2010, 20% of Americans don't believe global warming, natural or anthropogenic, is even happening. And 23% don't know. These are large percentages and I can assure you they're not on my side.

http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/AmericansGlobalWarmingBeliefs2010.pdf

txradioguy
07-28-2011, 03:38 PM
The argument has ALWAYS been whether or not it was anthropogenic.

It is YOUR side that has tried to deny those facts.

And expect the Climate Hoax folks to start moving the goal posts and back tracking now that the unmanipulated data isn't backing them up...similar to what the Foul Owl is doing already.

Sonnabend
07-28-2011, 08:07 PM
What the article states is that the amount of energy being trapped is less than what is predicted by the models, not that it isn't being trapped. Anyway, it's encourging to see the deniersphere moving away from arguing about whether global warming is occurring and toward arguing about how much global warming is occurring.

What the article states is that yet more proof is coming forward that AGW is a hoax and a lie.

Apocalypse
07-28-2011, 10:58 PM
Got to say with all the stuff blowing holes in Gore's Warming Hoax.

I wonder how his "Climate Reality Summit" will go over in a month and a half?



“24 Hours of Reality will focus the world’s attention on the full truth, scope, scale and impact of the climate crisis. To remove the doubt. Reveal the deniers. And catalyze urgency around an issue that affects every one of us.”


Al Gore Chairman of the Climate Reality Project

AmPat
07-29-2011, 12:28 PM
What the article states is that the amount of energy being trapped is less than what is predicted by the models, not that it isn't being trapped. Anyway, it's encourging to see the deniersphere moving away from arguing about whether global warming is occurring and toward arguing about how much global warming is occurring.

Please explain how the global ice fields melted without the horrible assault of the evil Conservative SUV plan? Here's my thoughts:

* Your ugly Prius is not making a difference in global temperatures- Neither is my gas guzzling Pick-up.
* Man has done nothing significant to increase the temps or the rate of temperature climb, God's fireworks (called volcanoes) have had a far greater effect.
* China, Brazil, and India have far exceeded the US pollution yet the temps and rate of climb are unaffected, why?

I don't dispute that global warming is happening, it has been going on since 30,000 BP (Before Prius). When are the Global warming radicals (those who enthusiastically embraced the hoax) going to introduce these FACTS into their models???:rolleyes:

The Night Owl
07-29-2011, 12:42 PM
* China, Brazil, and India have far exceeded the US pollution yet the temps and rate of climb are unaffected, why?


The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

AmPat
07-29-2011, 01:04 PM
The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

1. So the trend of the last couple of ten-thousand years continues---Shocking!
2. The UN and other studies done when, when the Hoax was lucrative and "scientists" were making bank on the hysteria?

djones520
07-29-2011, 01:12 PM
The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

.14 degrees C warmer then 1979 now. .26 degrees cooler then when that last article was updated.

AmPat
07-29-2011, 01:15 PM
.14 degrees C warmer then 1979 now. .26 degrees cooler then when that last article was updated.

Hmmmm,,,,

Seems that my Tennessee math is struggling a little. Does this suggest we are doomed to another Ice Age?:eek:

I wonder if the Global Warming alarmists would trust the tools of the surgeon from four hundred years ago as much as they apparently trust the 400 year old thermometers?:confused:

Articulate_Ape
07-29-2011, 04:04 PM
The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.




So what cause it to be warmer 400 years ago and back in 1850, Einstein? Wooden SUV's?

Apocalypse
07-29-2011, 09:32 PM
OK Night Owl. Got some hard facts for you.

First up, Ocean Heat.


“Over the period 2003–2010, the upper ocean has not gained any heat, despite the general expectation that the ocean will absorb most of the Earth’s current radiative im- balance.http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/katsman_voldenborgh_grl_all.pdf


http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images-2011/temperatures_ad-ljungqvist-500.png (http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images-2011/temperatures_ad-ljungqvist.png)

Then explain this graph of the last 2000 years.

http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images-2011/interglacial_temps-petit-500.png (http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images-2011/interglacial_temps-petit.png)

Or the last 400,000 years.

The Night Owl
07-30-2011, 12:33 PM
http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images-2011/temperatures_ad-ljungqvist.png"

Then explain this graph of the last 2000 years.

http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images-2011/interglacial_temps-petit.png"

Or the last 400,000 years.

A good article explaining why current climate change is not natural...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-global-warming-be-caused-by-natural-cycles.html

Apocalypse
07-30-2011, 01:30 PM
You haven't explained any thing.

Look at the last 2000 year graph.

Why was there a much larger peak in temp about 900/1000 AD? It was much warmer then. What caused it?

Look at the 400,000 graph.

Explain the cause of each of the 4 other peaks. Couldn't be man, so what caused it?

And if global warming is happening. As predicted by all "Experts" Ocean temps. should increase.

But as I provided, ocean temps have in fact remained the same. How can this be happening as AGW is to cause the ocean temps to rise and melt the ice?

Explain it all!

The Night Owl
07-30-2011, 02:29 PM
And if global warming is happening. As predicted by all "Experts" Ocean temps. should increase.

But as I provided, ocean temps have in fact remained the same. How can this be happening as AGW is to cause the ocean temps to rise and melt the ice?

Explain it all!

The question you're asking is answered in the very study you provided a link to. Had you read more than one sentence, which you probably got at some denier site which took it out of context, you would have read the following...

Over the period 2003–2010, the upper ocean has not
gained any heat, despite the general expectation that the
ocean will absorb most of the Earth’s current radiative im-
balance. Answering to what extent this heat was trans-
ferred to other components of the climate system and by
what process(-es) gets to the essence of understanding cli-
mate change. Direct heat flux observations are too inaccu-
rate to assess such exchanges. In this study we therefore
trace these heat budget variations by analyzing an ensemble
of climate model simulations. The analysis reveals that an
8-yr period without upper ocean warming is not exceptional.
It is explained by increased radiation to space (45%), largely
as a result of El Ni˜no variability on decadal timescales, and
by increased ocean warming at larger depths (35%), partly
due to a decrease in the strength of the Atlantic meridional
overturning circulation. Recently-observed changes in these
two large-scale modes of climate variability point to an up-
coming resumption of the upward trend in upper ocean heat
content.

Articulate_Ape
07-30-2011, 02:43 PM
So what cause it to be warmer 400 years ago and back in 1850, Einstein? Wooden SUV's?*

















* Attempt #2

Rockntractor
07-30-2011, 02:50 PM
So what cause it to be warmer 400 years ago and back in 1850, Einstein? Wooden SUV's?*

















* Attempt #2It appears he has some questions to answer before he adds any new spam to the board.

The Night Owl
07-30-2011, 05:40 PM
So what cause it to be warmer 400 years ago and back in 1850, Einstein? Wooden SUV's?*

* Attempt #2

I don't understand the question. 400 years ago, Earth was in the middle of a cold period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Apocalypse
07-30-2011, 06:13 PM
I don't understand the question. 400 years ago, Earth was in the middle of a cold period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_AgeHe has the wrong time frame, but I don't.

Explain the increase 1000 - 1100 years ago.

If man is the fault of global warming, then how did man cause this?

AmPat
07-30-2011, 07:00 PM
I don't understand the question. 400 years ago, Earth was in the middle of a cold period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

So are you prepared to admit that the earth CYCLES from cooling to warming or do you insist upon the Chicken Little AGW nonsense?

Rockntractor
08-01-2011, 06:50 PM
Night Owl has some unanswered questions here!
Perhaps you should answer these Nightie.

Articulate_Ape
08-01-2011, 07:04 PM
I don't understand the question. 400 years ago, Earth was in the middle of a cold period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

I am aware of that, but it was you that said:


The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.


So, I asked an obvious question: What caused that rate of increase and what caused 1850 to be so warm? Surely their cars wouldn't start during the "mini ice age" and John Deere was probably too focused on his steel plow line to get that diesel combine of of the drawing board.

Throw me a bone here, Bill Nye. I'm the boss, need the info.

Rockntractor
08-01-2011, 07:26 PM
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a388/xxboxx65/GIFS/1181911796832.gif

The Night Owl
08-03-2011, 09:50 AM
So are you prepared to admit that the earth CYCLES from cooling to warming or do you insist upon the Chicken Little AGW nonsense?

It would be absurd to suggest that Earth hasn't gone through periods of cooling or warming brought on by natural forces but science can't account for the rate and level of warming Earth has seen in recent decades-- except by including human activities.

The Night Owl
08-03-2011, 09:51 AM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/image.php?u=217&dateline=1312335723

Hahaha!

Sonnabend
08-04-2011, 07:11 PM
They can't account for it: translation- they don't know and so blame it on humans with no proof to back it up.

Bwahahahaha........:D

Articulate_Ape
08-04-2011, 08:40 PM
They can't account for it: translation- they don't know and so blame it on humans with no proof to back it up.

Bwahahahaha........:D

Yep. That and they have boat payments. Politics is driving the AGW dog and pony show. The participating "scientists" are just doing what anyone would do. Agree and here's $XXXXXX.XX in grant money and tenure, disagree and here's $0.00 in grant money, no tenure, and "how long will you be staying with us, not counting tomorrow?".

It takes a brave and dedicated professional to resist a system that offers such choices. Sadly, the weak will always group together to defend themselves against a threat from the few who attack their dogma and gravy train.

In the history books the whole AGW thing is going to be to hard science what the Bernie Madoff thing was to serious, thoughtful, and balanced investing.

The Night Owl
08-05-2011, 10:19 AM
Regarding the Roy Spencer paper:


“Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback”

Filed under: Climate Science— mike @ 29 July 2011

Guest commentary by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo

The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately the paper itself is not. News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites have publicized the claim from the paper’s news release that “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming”. The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.

...

Even so, the Spencer interpretation has no merit. The interannual global temperature variations were not radiatively forced, as claimed for the 2000s, and therefore cannot be used to say anything about climate sensitivity. Clouds are not a forcing of the climate system (except for the small portion related to human related aerosol effects, which have a small effect on clouds). Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems. Clouds may provide feedbacks on the weather systems. Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results.

The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback

AmPat
08-05-2011, 10:32 AM
OMG, whatever will the Hootie do? What is his fate? Will he flap his wings to cool the globe? Will he merely sit on his tree and sound the alarm until he is ultimately cooked?

Stay tuned for the next installment of Hootie Sounds The Alarm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Again!

Articulate_Ape
08-05-2011, 12:00 PM
Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo have to make those boat payments, so they can't let anything threaten their gravy train.