Quote from: FORBES
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
By James Taylor | Forbes – Wed, Jul 27, 2011
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.
:nelson:
So the polar ice cap isn't really melting. :huh:
I don't get the nelson face?
Yeah me neither. If the findings are sound, isn't that unambiguously a good thing?
The article has a kind of strange tone. Sort of like a Holocaust Denier pointing out that some estimates put the number of Jews killed at only 5.7 million rather then more often quoted number of 6 million.
I'll have to look into this in six months or so. The article is written in a style that leads me to believe that it isn't credible (overuse of the word 'alarmist', for example), but once the data has been analyzed, we might see some interesting new thinking, and models, especially from scientists who don't have a religious stake in the climate issue.
Why did the author use the word alarmist, 13 times in just a few short paragraphs., might he be trying to tell us something ? :unsure:
That the editorial policy on Forbes Magazine's science desk is dominated by religious anti-climate change people.
Here's the paper :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdf
The chat on the web is that Spencer is a denier, but then it is alarmists who are saying that :D
Alabama science. :hmm:
I like how they stress that the article is peer-reviewed. I like my doctors to stress that they went to med school.
I guess it depends on who one's peers are :huh:
Others have already expressed my thoughts on the piece. :sleep:
In other NASA news I think they launched a probe toward Jupiter today. Suppose to get there in four years.
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2011, 06:00:09 PM
Others have already expressed my thoughts on the piece. :sleep:
By others, you mean Strix, right? :D
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 06:33:44 PM
In other NASA news I think they launched a probe toward Jupiter today. Suppose to get there in four years.
Traffic is just terrible lately.
It's weird how climate change deniers wound up in the same camp as Rapturists and other apocalypse enthusiasts. I guess anti-science unites a diverse group.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 06:33:44 PM
In other NASA news I think they launched a probe toward Jupiter today. Suppose to get there in four years.
Only 4 more years until New Horizons passes Pluto! :yeah:
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2011, 05:08:17 PM
That the editorial policy on Forbes Magazine's science desk is dominated by religious anti-climate change people.
Religious?
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2011, 09:41:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2011, 05:08:17 PM
That the editorial policy on Forbes Magazine's science desk is dominated by religious anti-climate change people.
Religious?
People who can't use reason.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 29, 2011, 08:42:31 PM
It's weird how climate change deniers wound up in the same camp as Rapturists and other apocalypse enthusiasts. I guess anti-science unites a diverse group.
Companies that promote climate deniers also tend to promote other anti-science initiatives since weakening the public grasp of science is ultimately beneficial to them. I pretty sure that human being affect the climate. Clear cutting the forests of Europe and other activities involving agriculture have likely changed the climate in
some way. Predicting exactly what is kind of difficult. Stopping it probably impossible. We do know that poor land use leads to desertification and this is happening on a large scale. That's probably not good.
I'm sorry, but an unpublished creationist says global warming is a hoax, by showing, without peer review, that possibly one factors might be different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29
Quote"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."
So, before I take him seriously I'm going to ask that he gets this research of his published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.
:pinch:
Honestly, the dude's rebuttal is almost fifteen years out of date; as was mentioned, "alarmist" models these days tend to rely on more-terrestrial, more-easily-quantifiable data such as polar ice temperatures and cap recession rates. It seriously seems like the last time I heard shrieking about the ozone layer was in the mid-90s. <_<
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2011, 04:46:51 PM
I'll have to look into this in six months or so. The article is written in a style that leads me to believe that it isn't credible (overuse of the word 'alarmist', for example), but once the data has been analyzed, we might see some interesting new thinking, and models, especially from scientists who don't have a religious stake in the climate issue.
You know, I agree with you. :mellow:
And if the findings are indeed sound, that's really good news.
Forbes magazine, the Penthouse Letters of Wall Street, defends statistics brought to you by NASA, the organization that brought you the Mar Climate Orbiter.
Alrighty then.
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2011, 04:46:51 PM
I'll have to look into this in six months or so. The article is written in a style that leads me to believe that it isn't credible (overuse of the word 'alarmist', for example), but once the data has been analyzed, we might see some interesting new thinking, and models, especially from scientists who don't have a religious stake in the climate issue.
:yes:
Quote from: Strix on July 30, 2011, 12:55:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2011, 04:46:51 PM
I'll have to look into this in six months or so. The article is written in a style that leads me to believe that it isn't credible (overuse of the word 'alarmist', for example), but once the data has been analyzed, we might see some interesting new thinking, and models, especially from scientists who don't have a religious stake in the climate issue.
:yes:
Well yeah, except that it won't happen. There is way too much money to be made in the doomsday version of global warming. Anything that might suggest that people are not required to switch to overpriced and grossly uneffective "alternate energy sources" (eg. trees burned as "biomass") ASAP, or that it is not that important to buy the various indulgence passes, will not be advertised, nor accepted.
Exactly how much money is there to be made in this "Doomsday version of Global Warming"? Governments are still going to give grants to climate scientists even with out climate change worries. They still want to be able to accurately predict the weather. It would seem that being paid to say there is not climate change is more lucrative, as the companies that wish to spread that message have deep pockets and a have great deal more to lose if governments alter regulations based on climate scientists work. There's probably more money in promoting the status quoe for the elites then being a Cassandra.
If Scientists really wanted to pull the wool over every one's eyes for profit, you'd think they come up with something less ambiguous and more immediately threatening. Like an empire of mole people coming to enslave us, or giant ants.
:lol:
Whatever.
One of the recent things which made me frown upon the whole climate change movement thing was this huge-ass biomass powerplant which was built by with a huge-ass government grant in southern Hungary. They keep receiving a government grant on their upkeep. Which is nice, except that they are using that money to mow down one of the last pristine, untouched mountain woodlands of the country. Because their "biomass" is timber.
And I read that this is not alien to the United Kingdom as well, so this must be going on all over the place.
I don't deny global warming, but going all luddite over it just so the politicans have an easier time chanelling money to private pockets is insane.
No matter which unreasonable lunatic side wins, we all lose. And it's not like there's any force on earth that can keep politicians from bilking the public.
Quote from: Tamas on July 30, 2011, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: Strix on July 30, 2011, 12:55:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2011, 04:46:51 PM
I'll have to look into this in six months or so. The article is written in a style that leads me to believe that it isn't credible (overuse of the word 'alarmist', for example), but once the data has been analyzed, we might see some interesting new thinking, and models, especially from scientists who don't have a religious stake in the climate issue.
:yes:
Well yeah, except that it won't happen. There is way too much money to be made in the doomsday version of global warming. Anything that might suggest that people are not required to switch to overpriced and grossly uneffective "alternate energy sources" (eg. trees burned as "biomass") ASAP, or that it is not that important to buy the various indulgence passes, will not be advertised, nor accepted.
Uhhh, the status quo of burning lots of oil and coal has a hell of a lot more money to be made than any effort to switch to alternative fuels. Indeed, the reason there is resistance to the change is that coal and oil are a LOT more profitable and efficient sources of energy.
The idea that there is a some kind of secret cabal motivated by big business interested in making money driving the global warming issue is...well, farcical. Is it opposite day in Hungary?
Quote from: Berkut on July 30, 2011, 09:50:17 PM
Quote from: Tamas on July 30, 2011, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: Strix on July 30, 2011, 12:55:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2011, 04:46:51 PM
I'll have to look into this in six months or so. The article is written in a style that leads me to believe that it isn't credible (overuse of the word 'alarmist', for example), but once the data has been analyzed, we might see some interesting new thinking, and models, especially from scientists who don't have a religious stake in the climate issue.
:yes:
Well yeah, except that it won't happen. There is way too much money to be made in the doomsday version of global warming. Anything that might suggest that people are not required to switch to overpriced and grossly uneffective "alternate energy sources" (eg. trees burned as "biomass") ASAP, or that it is not that important to buy the various indulgence passes, will not be advertised, nor accepted.
Uhhh, the status quo of burning lots of oil and coal has a hell of a lot more money to be made than any effort to switch to alternative fuels. Indeed, the reason there is resistance to the change is that coal and oil are a LOT more profitable and efficient sources of energy.
The idea that there is a some kind of secret cabal motivated by big business interested in making money driving the global warming issue is...well, farcical. Is it opposite day in Hungary?
Me am no Tamas, Magyar No. 1. Me am no live in best country in Europe!
Quote from: Ideologue on July 30, 2011, 10:42:56 PM
Me am no Tamas, Magyar No. 1. Me am no live in best country in Europe!
Lame. :thumbsdown:
People still do that?
Quote from: Ideologue on July 30, 2011, 11:26:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 11:19:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 30, 2011, 10:42:56 PM
Me am no Tamas, Magyar No. 1. Me am no live in best country in Europe!
Lame. :thumbsdown:
<_<
Dude it was so lame, if I got offended over anything, it was the lack of effort you put into insulting me.
Don't enrage him, Ide. He has car keys, and knows how to use them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 31, 2011, 05:09:45 AM
Don't enrage him, Ide. He has car keys, and knows how to use them.
:yeahright: