Reply With Quote
Silly CC.
The debate is over.
Love,
Al
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
By James Taylor | Forbes – 22 hrs ago
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 Ins ute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Silly CC.
The debate is over.
Love,
Al
http://www.heartland.org/
LOL..The Heartland Insi ute....
Interested to look over the actual info but in the meantime LOL at any "news article" that uses the term "alarmist" over and over. Love me some non biased journalism.
Roy Spencer is good with many aspects of satellite observation, but he's also come out in the past and said it was cooler after having made mistakes. Once the mistakes were fixed he then had to turn around and say MY BAD. Credit to him to admit the mistake, however.
George Gervins Afro
LOL
Oh, I see. This is a response to another study (Dressler 2010) and it was just accepted for publication. Will wait to see it once its out.
why would you be bothered by that? this is a well balanced article by a reputable objective website.
You dumbass. It was Yahoo news, from forbes. The study was by a NASA scientist in a peer reviewed scientific journal. It was an article reporting on the study. You are SUCH an ignorant ass.
Its an op ed published in Forbes and then carried by yahoo. Its not a news article, though. The study hasn't been published yet, its only going to be published so its hard to remark on what is actually in it.
I don't know why they're still studying this issue because there's already a consensus -- a CONSENSUS. It is already known that all the polar ice will melt and the sea level will rise by 20 or more feet, leaving many parts of the country under water, and killing most polar bears. It was in a movie.
Who ever said a consensus meant you stopped studying? Oh, strawman. Got it.
This is what was published... no?
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
Yes, your point?
Yes, and I'm sure I can depend on a "senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Ins ute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News" to give me unbiased, clear, and objective interpretations of environmental data.
What do you do for an encore?
Ask a creationist "scientist" to interpret the latest genetic studies?
Ask a holocaust denier to evaluate a collection of holocaust biographies?
Pardon me while I turn up the volume on my skepticism.
What about Roy Spencer?
Random, what's your beef?
The data presented clearly indicates that changes in warming isn't as much as modeled by the IPCC and other alarmists.
A bit from a press release concerning the paper.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...braswell-2011/The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.
Bad:
"This is a nail in the coffin of global warming alarmism".
Better:
"This is another incremental step aimed at explaining the unkown variances between what we think we understand and what we do".
OP sounds just like the 9-11 wankers when they discover some new "scientist" or "architect" willing to commit to controlled demolition.
No beef. It is hopefully a good study that advances our knowledge.
If warming turns out to be happening slower than it "should" be, then great, that makes me happy that things might not turn out as bad as some predictions have made it seem.
(edit)
What I do have a beef with is the rather blatant political agenda being spun on this, by someone with every reason to half-truth it into something that is a lie.
You know, the numbers do reflect closer to what I have been saying rather than what the IPCC has been saying...
Will you explain to all of us how the data provided does just that?
If You Wish To Make Up Facts From Scratch...
The claim that scientists predicted an imminent "ice age" in the 1970s is a common myth employed by conservative media outlets who invariably cite headlines in "news magazines" rather than scientific literature. A 2008 paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society actually reviewed the climate research published in the 70s and concluded that "global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus" and "emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011072...County+Fair%29
I thought this was actually new but its actually the same model Spencer has been using for quite some time. This is not news and has already bee taken apart. That being said, I'm looking forward to WC's post telling us why this is so good. I'll explain why its not but first I really want to see that WC post.
Just refer to my previous posts on GW. You'll have to wait till tomorrow for more detail from me. i have to leave soon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...PeI_story.html
APNewsBreak: Alaska researcher who do ented polar bears demise in Arctic is placed on leave
JUNEAU, Alaska — Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.
Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.
The federal agency where he works told him he’s being investigated for “integrity issues,” but a watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear.
The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on his behalf Thursday with the agency, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
Investigators have not yet told Monnett of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group’s executive director.
A BOEMRE spokeswoman, Melissa Schwartz, said there was an “ongoing internal investigation” but declined to get into specifics.
Whatever the outcome, the investigation comes at a time when climate change activists and those who are skeptical about global warming are battling over the credibility of scientists’ work.
Members of both sides, however, said that it was too early to make any pronouncements about the case, particularly since the agency has not yet released the details of the allegations against him.
Myron Ebell, of the Compe ive Enterprise Ins ute, said the case reinforces the group’s position that people should be more skeptical about the work of climate change scientists.
Even if every scientist is objective, “what we’re being asked to do is turn our economy around and spend trillions and trillions of dollars on the basis of” climate change claims, he said.
Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said she’s not alarmed by the handling of the case so far.
Grifo said the allegations made in the complaint filed by Ruch’s group are premature and said people should wait to see what, if anything, comes of the inspector general’s investigation.
Beyond the climate change debate, the investigation also focuses attention on an Obama administration policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.
The complaint seeks Monnett’s reinstatement and a public apology from the agency and inspector general, whose office is conducting the probe.
The group’s filing also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out quickly and fairly, as the Obama policy states.
BOEMRE, which oversees leasing and development of offshore drilling, was created last year in the reorganization of the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, which oversaw offshore drilling.
The MMS was abolished after the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The agency was accused of being too close to oil and gas industry interests. A congressional report last year found MMS Alaska was vulnerable to lawsuits and allegations of scientific misconduct.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
