New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

[luckytxn 2,264]

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.htmlLink:

[rsn 135]

You've got it wrong, it's called "climate change" now.

[Zero Sum 305]

Its the end. All those Alarmists will surely commit mass Seppukku now that they have been exposed as tax money thieves.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Its the end. All those Alarmists will surely commit mass Seppukku now that they have been exposed as tax money thieves.

just think of the carbon dioxide reduction!

[Zero Sum 305]

just think of the carbon dioxide reduction!

In line with the paper, it doesn't address actual CO2 levels or the actual gradual heat sink effect- although it will be trumpeted incorrectly that its exactly what is being addressed. The measurements only provide for an apparently unknown or under appreciated physical mechanism for heat dissipation to outer space.

[luckytxn 2,264]

just think of the carbon dioxide reduction!

No. More than likely they will keep whining about this or find something else and thus using more CO2.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

An Op-Ed piece from Forbes? Are you serious?

Try clicking on that hypertext link to this study that the author, James Taylor is editorializing on. It's a dead link.

I even tried to find the study online, but found nothing. Perhaps you could find an actual link?

[Zero Sum 305]

In line with the paper, it doesn't address actual CO2 levels or the actual gradual heat sink effect- although it will be trumpeted incorrectly that its exactly what is being addressed. The measurements only provide for an apparently unknown or under appreciated physical mechanism for heat dissipation to outer space.

And I wasn't disappointed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

An Op-Ed piece from Forbes? Are you serious?

Try clicking on that hypertext link to this study that the author, James Taylor is editorializing on. It's a dead link.

I even tried to find the study online, but found nothing. Perhaps you could find an actual link?

Still waiting....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I did find this out about the author, James Taylor. He's from the Heartland Institute.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms.^[5][6][7] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics.^[8]

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

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

An Op-Ed piece from Forbes? Are you serious?

Try clicking on that hypertext link to this study that the author, James Taylor is editorializing on. It's a dead link.

I even tried to find the study online, but found nothing. Perhaps you could find an actual link?

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

I think you put Steven into a panic.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Still waiting....

Hey some of has to work to pay for the welfare of the bums.

Try this link. It is a pretty good size pdf but if you still are unable on how to click links correctly I can later when done working copy and paste the whole pdf page by page here. Also I did a google and way more than Forbes has published this. Not many Socialist leaning publications but a lot of regular ones have.

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

[luckytxn 2,264]

http://www.mdpi.com/...92/3/8/1603/pdf

I think you put Steven into a panic.

Thanks. I didn't see that you did it already. Beer on me when you get through the area.

Still waiting....

To bide the time you could have rad and replied on the other thread the couple of proofs I posted. Geez.

[Zero Sum 305]

I'll read it...

BTW, in all your anti-government funding rants, do remind yourselves the science tested in this article was funded by:

This research was sponsored by DOE contract

DE-SC0005330 and NOAA contract NA09NES4400017.

[Zero Sum 305]

It is concluded that

atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due

primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in

satellite radiative budget observations.

(A smoking gun, totally). A Real Blow indeed.

In simple terms, radiative changes resulting from temperature change (feedback) cannot be easily

disentangled from those causing a temperature change (forcing).

Seems like a safe and rational simplification of the central problem reviewed.

In the real climate system, it is likely there is almost always a time-varying radiative forcing

present, as various internally-generated changes in clouds and water vapor oscillate between positive

and negative values faster than the resulting temperature changes can restore the system to radiative

equilibrium. This means that feedback diagnosis will, in general, be contaminated by an unknown

amount of time-varying internal radiative forcing N. If those forcings were known, they could have

been subtracted from the measured radiative flux variations before diagnosing feedback, e.g., as

has been done for the feedback response of the coupled climate models to transient carbon dioxide

forcing.

Central to the difficulty of feedback diagnosis is the very different time-dependent relationships

which exist between forcing and temperature, versus between feedback and temperature. While there is

a substantial time lag between forcing and the temperature response due to the heat capacity of the

ocean, the radiative feedback response to temperature is nearly simultaneous with the temperature

change.

The time varying radiance is diurnal. Problem is acknowledged.

Here we will provide evidence that those temperature changes instead had a strong component of

radiative forcing, with radiative accumulation preceding, and radiative loss following temperature

maxima.---By examining regression coefficients between temperature and

radiative flux at a variety of leads and lags, rather than at just zero time lag, we can identify behaviors

of the climate system that otherwise cannot be discerned.

In itself another modeling method.

What follows is actual observational data. Take heed of figure 3a. If anything it shows something really important about the lag of time for that heat dissipation to outer space that if anything, may be strengthening the case of most climate scientists in what they claim is evidence for a very real effect that has pronounced itself over the last decade.

Nevertheless, they clearly state (again, a real hard blow again):

Our preliminary work on this issue suggests no simple answer to the question. We conclude that

the fundamental obstacle to feedback diagnosis remains the same, no matter what time lag is

addressed: without knowledge of time-varying radiative forcing components in the satellite radiative

flux measurements, feedback cannot be accurately diagnosed from the co-variations between radiative

flux and temperature.

One possible mechanism they bring up:

We hypothesize that

changes in the coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation during the El Niño and La Niña phases of ENSO

cause differing changes in cloud cover, which then modulate the radiative balance of the climate

system.

So indeed... a real downer for all those tax-funded scientists such as the very ones you think are disproving GW with tax-funding they're not supposed to be receiving since its a well known conspiracy that the GW scientists are a mafia that prevent any dissenting science from taking place on Government dime.