New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[Strix]

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.

[Josephus]

So the polar ice cap isn't really melting.

[Razgovory]

I don't get the nelson face?

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah me neither.  If the findings are sound, isn't that unambiguously a good thing?

[Razgovory]

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.

[Neil]

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.

[mongers]

Why did the author use the word alarmist, 13 times in just a few short paragraphs., might he be trying to tell us something ?

[Neil]

That the editorial policy on Forbes Magazine's science desk is dominated by religious anti-climate change people.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Here's the paper :

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdf

[Richard Hakluyt]

The chat on the web is that Spencer is a denier, but then it is alarmists who are saying that 

[The Brain]

Alabama science.

[The Brain]

I like how they stress that the article is peer-reviewed. I like my doctors to stress that they went to med school.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I guess it depends on who one's peers are 

[Martinus]

Others have already expressed my thoughts on the piece. 

[Razgovory]

In other NASA news I think they launched a probe toward Jupiter today.  Suppose to get there in four years.