New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Messages
6,779
Reactions
1,194
I'll just leave this here...


New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

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.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
 
Messages
3,753
Reactions
615
I read that article earlier. Pretty interesting. If you want to understand all of this global warming BS, just follow the money. Most of the guys trying to sell the global warming scare tactics get govt funding to keep themselves employed. If there's no crisis, there's no funding for their studies. Wasn't it global cooling several years back. Riiiiiight. When they debunked that, they had to come up with a new crisis to keep the cash coming.
 
Messages
4,996
Reactions
2,224
Where is the link to NASA's report - I dont know John Taylor or for that fact trust him on anything. For all I know he is a the leader of his own company. To me this proves nothing.

James Ruby
As well you shouldn't. This "report" is simply a misrepresentation of NASA's finding by a biased think tank that was created solely to support free market idealism. In other words it is an organization with an agenda sponsored by corporate interests. NASA has taken no such "anti-warming" stance nor have they promoted any such ideas. The fact that this guy gives himself a misleading title does not change the fact he is purely a mouth piece for a corporate sponsored organization.

He does not work for any recognized global authority on climate and no such organization has taken an "anti-warming" position. If you really want to follow the money, the only positions against global warming can all be easily traced back to free market interests.
 
OP
Trlsmn
Messages
6,779
Reactions
1,194
Here is the data white sheet with the science and the references. If you disagree please attack the science instead of the source.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

References
1. Knutti, R.; Hegerl, G.C. The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation
changes. Nature Geosci. 2008, 1, 735-743.
2. Randall, D.A.; Wood, R.A.; Bony, S.; Colman, R.; Fichefet, T.; Fyfe, J.; Kattsov, V.; Pitman, A.;
Shukla, J.; Srinivasan, J.; Stouffer, R.J.; Sumi, A.; Taylor, K.E. Climate models and their
evaluation. In IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Solomon, S., Qin, D.,
Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L., Eds.; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2007.
3. Aires, F.; Rossow, W.B. Inferring instantaneous, multivariate and nonlinear sensitivities for
analysis of feedbacks in a dynamical system: Lorenz model case study. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc. 2003, 129, 239-275.
4. Stephens, G.L. Cloud feedbacks in the climate system: A critical review. J. Clim. 2005, 18, 237-273.
5. Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of
unknown radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res. 2010, 115, D16109.
6. Jacob, D.J.; Avissar, R.; Bond, G.C.; Gaffin, S.; Kiehl, J.T.; Lean, J.L.; Lohmann, U.; Mann, M.E.;
Pielke, R.A., Sr.; Ramanathan, V.; Russell, L.M. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change:
Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties; The National Academies Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 208, p. 207. Available online: The National Academies Press
openbook.php?isbn=0309095069 (accessed on 9 July 2011).
7. Forster, P.M.; Gregory, J.M. The climate sensitivity and its components diagnosed from Earth
radiation budget data. J. Clim. 2006, 19, 39-52.
8. Forster, P.M.; Taylor, K.E. Climate forcings and climate sensitivities diagnosed from coupled
climate model integrations. J. Clim. 2006, 19, 6181-6194.
9. Dessler, A.E. A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade.
Science 2010, 330, 1523-1527.
10. Rasmusson, E.M.; Carpenter, T.H. Variations in tropical sea surface temperature and surface wind
fields associated with the Southern Oscillation. Mon. Wea. Rev. 1982, 110, 354-384.
11. Wielicki, B.A.; Barkstrom, B.R; Harrison, E.F.; Lee, R.B., III.; Smith, G.L.; Cooper, J.E. Clouds
and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES): An earth observing system experiment. Bull.
Amer. Meteor. Soc. 1996, 77, 853-868.
12. Brohan, P.; Kennedy, J.J.; Harris, I.; Tett, S.F.B.; Jones, P.D. Uncertainty estimates in regional
and global observed temperature changes: A new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res. 2006, 111,
D12106.
13. Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D.; Christy, J.R.; Hnilo, J. Cloud and radiation budget changes
associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007, 34, L15707.
14. Lindzen, R.S.; Choi, Y.-S. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its
implications. Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci. 2011, in press.
 
OP
Trlsmn
Messages
6,779
Reactions
1,194
As well you shouldn't. This "report" is simply a misrepresentation of NASA's finding by a biased think tank that was created solely to support free market idealism. In other words it is an organization with an agenda sponsored by corporate interests. NASA has taken no such "anti-warming" stance nor have they promoted any such ideas. The fact that this guy gives himself a misleading title does not change the fact he is purely a mouth piece for a corporate sponsored organization.

He does not work for any recognized global authority on climate and no such organization has taken an "anti-warming" position. If you really want to follow the money, the only positions against global warming can all be easily traced back to free market interests.

Study co-authorDr. 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.
Perhaps you might actually read the article before bashing it? Just a thought, carry on...

Where is the link to NASA's report - I dont know John Taylor or for that fact trust him on anything. For all I know he is a the leader of his own company. To me this proves nothing.

James Ruby
Study co-authorDr. 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.
Perhaps you might actually read the article before bashing it? Just a thought, carry on...
 
Messages
381
Reactions
24
OP
Trlsmn
Messages
6,779
Reactions
1,194
Well Trlsmn, I hate to burst you bubble, but James M. Taylor and The Heartland Institute are not exactly models of unbiased information. If you want to see what I'm talking about, go to: Richard Littlemore | 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts - about the Heartland Institute?

:huh:
Are you guys blind or do you not see this in the article?

Study co-authorDr. 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.
 
Messages
4,996
Reactions
2,224
Perhaps you might want to understand that the UAH campus is about the size of a Wal-Mart and that the gentlemen you seem to be promoting as experts are not affiliated with NASA in any official capacity in any field regarding climate. In fact Spencer is little more than an ex-employee of NASA that worked on gathering short term satellite data on weather patterns. UAH has also been blasted in the past as supporting corporate interests (I used to live on Governor's House drive 2 minutes from the campus). In fact Lockheed Martin used to subsidize most of their staff.

Please link any validating information published officially from NASA. I doubt you will find any.

Roy Spenser's opinions are mostly based on assumption made over month long studies and are scientifically laughable since decades long studies are needed to make conclusions like the ones he jumps to based on speculation. This is also the same man that is a huge supporter of "intelligent Design." He has also been exposed many times as someone who has a little experience but has taken a lot of money to lend his name to conservative publications regarding climate. He in fact has little scientific weight but is instead considered a bit of an outsider by most of the scientific community. He is more concerned with ideology than he is science. Still, he does not try to say climate change is not happening. his official stance is that it is most likely a natural occurrence that we cannot stop.

It really is a dead give away that you have an agenda here when you so frequently post misleading information on a cause that you have very little stake in or understanding of other than what is put forth by right wing media. You seem to have somehow come to think the corporate interests in the issue are your interests as well. You like to try and disprove a completely understood and accepted scientific principle by posting conservative interpretations of data without actually providing official opinions from the people that actually collected the data. Once again...how about you post any official opinions from any national recognized authority on climate that states global climate change is not occurring at an alarming rate.
 
OP
Trlsmn
Messages
6,779
Reactions
1,194
There's always a reason why the person isn't good enough for you guys. Apparently now a Doctorate and actual NASA scientist isn't enough to qualify as credible. :s0112::s0114::s0112: Well who is credible enough to be worthy of credibility? The only people you "Global Whatever it is This Week" will believe is anyone who agrees with you.

Feel free to give all your money to these people but don't vote to take my money you idealists! :s0155:
 
Messages
4,996
Reactions
2,224
There's always a reason why the person isn't good enough for you guys. Apparently now a Doctorate and actual NASA scientist isn't enough to qualify as credible. :s0112::s0114::s0112: Well who is credible enough to be worthy of credibility? The only people you "Global Whatever it is This Week" will believe is anyone who agrees with you.

Feel free to give all your money to these people but don't vote to take my money you idealists! :s0155:
And just how is acknowledging the fact that the earth is warming, the climate is changing, and that man-made contributions to said change are possible and therefore possibly avoidable? Just who stands to gain from promoting climate change if it is not happening? We all know who is clearing financially benefiting from pretending it isn't happening.
 
Messages
1,106
Reactions
394
Trismn
I mean no offense but the report by John Taylor after rereading it does not have NASA representation - it is a report by JohnTaylor and he is using NASA in name only, Mr. Taylor has no authorative postion inside NASA he is an independent. I would have more respect if his report came from NASA and not Mr. Taylor - point me at NASA's version on NASA's website and I will concede your point. Also why does it not say which "peered-reviewed scientific journal"? You maybe right but it will take more than someone saying NASA said so, show me where NASA says it.

James Ruby
 
Messages
1,106
Reactions
394
I did some research on Roy Spencer that put the scientific paper together
here are some views of his
He testified before the Waxman committee's examination of political interference with climate science on March 19, 2007.[20][21]

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."


Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design as the mechanism for the origin of species.[25] On the subject, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

Based on his beleifs I am sceptical of his position as a scientist. I have no right to tell him what he should believe but based on his stated positions I do not wish to believe what he is telling me.

Respectfully

James Ruby
 
OP
Trlsmn
Messages
6,779
Reactions
1,194
And just how is acknowledging the fact that the earth is warming, the climate is changing, and that man-made contributions to said change are possible and therefore possibly avoidable?
Please, do tell how we avoid climate change?

Just who stands to gain from promoting climate change if it is not happening? We all know who is clearing financially benefiting from pretending it isn't happening.
Who gains? The government who charges taxes gains, the people who sell the carbons swaps gain? Foreign countries who could care less about carbon and who will be gladly sucking up the displaced jobs gain. Do you think these people running carbon swap derivatives will be the super rich or the poor?

OK since I answered your question here's one for you, who do you think losses with schemes like Cap and Trade? or have you given that any thought?

Feel free to address all those points and not just the "convenient" points.
 
OP
Trlsmn
Messages
6,779
Reactions
1,194
I did some research on Roy Spencer that put the scientific paper together
here are some views of his
He testified before the Waxman committee's examination of political interference with climate science on March 19, 2007.[20][21]

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."


Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design as the mechanism for the origin of species.[25] On the subject, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

Based on his beleifs I am sceptical of his position as a scientist. I have no right to tell him what he should believe but based on his stated positions I do not wish to believe what he is telling me.

Respectfully

James Ruby
Post links, you ask for them so in turn you need post links to the actual information.
 

UPCOMING EVENTS

Cerberus Training Group - Skill Builder - Pistol/Rifle Combo
Cerberus Training Group
47 Cattle Dr, Goldendale, WA 98620, USA
Albany Rifle & Pistol Club (ARPC) Gun Show
Linn County Expo Center
3700 Knox Butte Rd E, Albany, OR 97322, USA
Cerberus Training Group - Skill Builder - Pistol/Rifle Combo
Cerberus Training Group
47 Cattle Dr, Goldendale, WA 98620, USA
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Gun Show
Battleground Community Center
912 E Main St, Battle Ground, WA 98604, USA

LATEST RESOURCE REVIEWS

  • J&B Firearm Sales
    5.00 star(s)
    Good local shop
    Picked up a rifle yesterday from J&B. This was the second or third gun purchase over the last few years from them. I always enjoy stopping by...
  • H&K Gun Shop
    5.00 star(s)
    The only place I have found 9mm in stock
    I’ll admit I didn’t even know this place existed, as I don’t tend to go into Forest Grove often. But it’s a giant (looks bigger from the...
  • Revelation Arms
    4.00 star(s)
    Depends who answers the phone
    I was given the number to Roger Loock by Beaver Creek Armory, as I needed parts I had ordered from MCarbo installed on a Kel-Tec Sub2000. On my...
  • Coastal Farm & Ranch - Cornelius
    3.00 star(s)
    Lesson learned
    I’ll take some responsibility here, as I took the employee at their word instead of doing a thorough inspection. Short story is that I asked for a...
  • MK Tactical
    5.00 star(s)
    Good guys!
    I stop in here every once in a while to see what Michael has in the clearance section, and to ask questions when I have a project in mind...
Top Bottom