Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
Jimme    8/5/2011 5:31:03 AM
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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Boy does this AGW boat keep sinking further and further, i can't wait till we start prosecuting these phoneys for the 30 years of lies.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
buzzard       8/17/2011 6:22:31 PM
Though I have to say, Hamilcar, the most galling thing about your current blather is that the site your proffer to make a point says that lowering greenhouse gasses spells our doom, not increasing them. Thus there is no rational reason for you arguing against my points other than to be the contrary individual that seems to be your raison d'etre.
 
If you think Snowball Earth is a possible threat in the near term, you would be pushing for coal plants on every corner. 
 
Now if your sole point was to prove that a tipping point can exist, and that it has happened. Sure it did, but even then it reversed itself. You seem fixated on arguing why. You don't have evidence, just idle speculation. It's also still completely off topic to this thread.
 
So how about you address the actual topic at hand- will greenhouse gasses save us or doom us? Are the AGW models valid or invalid? Is there really an objective scientific consensus on AGW or is it manufactured in the interest of scare tactics and further research grants? Even more to the point, is there any actual compelling evidence that AGW is occurring?
 
 None of these questions appear to be on your radar screen, and until they are, you are dismally off topic and wasting our time.
 
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize    Hamilcar21&Reactive   8/17/2011 6:34:56 PM
Yeah, your subject is much more interesting.
 
Hamilcar:
 
"but how the hell did it duplicate the aerobic metabolism AGAIN that the previous life had to develop to supply the mechanism for an original oxygen reducing atmosphere we had a BILLION years ago?"
 
Over a such long period of time it is quite possible that two species adopt similar mechanism completely independently. The first example that come to my mind is the huge variety of biped dinosaurs that have no common ancestor.
 
About the snowball earth, it is very unlikely that earth was completely covered by ice. even if it would have been it is sure that there was ocean under the ice at many place. We found bacteria in environment that we consider as extreme.
 
I am on the side of the one that think that life is probable and have great survivability. if there is energy and the proper chemical present then life become a probability that will increase over time.I would not be surprise to find life on many planets and moon in our own solar system. In fact, I would be surpise to not find any trace. But to find it we will have to wait the real space exploration era if it happen, I hope I will live long enough to see it.
 
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       8/17/2011 6:52:05 PM
Yeah, your subject is much more interesting.
 
Good, then feel free to start a thread rather than hijacking this one. 
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       8/17/2011 7:01:57 PM
"Again, you've offered nothing to prove the likelihood of AGW theories. You have offered nothing whatsoever on that topic. You have brought up the issues of ice ages."
 
Hamilcar doesn't need to so, you can find proper explaination all around internet, even the original data... It is surprising that you didn't find them yourself given the time you took to gather your 'proof`' that GW is a hoax...
 
By the way, You can dislike the ways that Hamilcar debate stuff... but his argument (snowball) was valid, you just didn't understand it.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       8/17/2011 7:40:22 PM


 

If you think Snowball Earth is a possible threat in the near term, you would be pushing for coal plants on every corner. 

 

Now if your sole point was to prove that a tipping point can exist, and that it has happened. Sure it did, but even then it reversed itself. You seem fixated on arguing why. You don't have evidence, just idle speculation. It's also still completely off topic to this thread.

 

So how about you address the actual topic at hand- will greenhouse gasses save us or doom us? Are the AGW models valid or invalid? Is there really an objective scientific consensus on AGW or is it manufactured in the interest of scare tactics and further research grants? Even more to the point, is there any actual compelling evidence that AGW is occurring?

 

 None of these questions appear to be on your radar screen, and until they are, you are dismally off topic and wasting our time.

 
Well in terms of tipping points I think permafrost presents the most obvious challenge, but also methane hydrates - the medieval warm period was still up to half a degree cooler than it is today and it's the lack of any other viable hypothesis that points to AGW just as much as anything else. The sun has been pretty quiet for the last decade and yet average temperatures continue to increase decade on decade - there will be peaks and troughs along the way but what I would ask AGW skeptics is given we know the albido hasn't increased, that solar intensity hasn't increased, but that we have a gas that we know has properties reliably consistent with warming and that we have released a few trillion tonnes of that gas into the atmosphere, enough to increase oceanic acidity by 30 percent - that there is a solid case that the one factor that correlates closely with that rise in temperature is in fact CO2. 
 
The medieval warm period has by no means been proven to have been global and even so it is still substantially cooler than gloabal mean temperatures since the 1900's and even more so since the 80's.
 
Then it comes to feedback effects, arctic permafrost melt is accelerating, methane hydrates destabilise at a only couple of degrees celcius above current levels - the tipping points exist in nature and I think what H was saying is that they are largely unpredctable and erratic - the world does not self regulate for the benefit of life and never has done - I don't buy into the doomsday scenarios of global oblivion but I do think the consequences a century from now could have serious implications if unchecked.
 
Now having said all of this - I'm quite keen on geoengineering and see it as inevitable, reducing the earth's albido by one percent if necessary does not to me seem like a massive ask - could probably be accomplished today let alone in 40 years, this is why I don't like the panic mongering of greenpeace etc because it has only been counterproductive, what we need is to try and separate the issue from a "we have to change now" attitude (because it doesn't work anyway) and let the science lead the way free from the political dogma - that is my big problem with the greens - they have caused the issue to become massively polarised by tying it to their own anti-industrial agendas, if you take away the "we should.." part of the argument however it becomes perfectly possible for those on both sides of the argument to talk about the actual issue itself without hostilities - just as we might debate whether there is life on mars.
 
R
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       8/17/2011 11:27:21 PM
Reactive, what was in the quote box, it don't appear to me.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       8/18/2011 8:31:23 AM
Hamilcar doesn't need to so, you can find proper explaination all around internet, even the original data... It is surprising that you didn't find them yourself given the time you took to gather your 'proof`' that GW is a hoax...
 
Oh, you mean the wealth of data that you didn't bother to offer either?  I'm sure you think it's very compelling.
 
By the way, You can dislike the ways that Hamilcar debate stuff... but his argument (snowball) was valid, you just didn't understand it.
 
 Bollocks. Are you trying to learn his techniques? Either present an argument and join a debate, or avoid the snarky links which don't make the case you claim they do. Not that you've provided anything whatsoever, which is a point in Hamilcar's favor. A link without any explanation of what the point is does not constitute an argument. If he's too lazy to explain himself, then it is not my onus to accept whatever interpretation he might wish to expect of me.
 
He's been banned around here several times for his attitude and debating manner.  It's not like I'm calling him on  anything new.
 
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       8/18/2011 8:45:50 AM
Well in terms of tipping points I think permafrost presents the most obvious challenge, but also methane hydrates - the medieval warm period was still up to half a degree cooler than it is today and it's the lack of any other viable hypothesis that points to AGW just as much as anything else. The sun has been pretty quiet for the last decade and yet average temperatures continue to increase decade on decade - there will be peaks and troughs along the way but what I would ask AGW skeptics is given we know the albido hasn't increased, that solar intensity hasn't increased, but that we have a gas that we know has properties reliably consistent with warming and that we have released a few trillion tonnes of that gas into the atmosphere, enough to increase oceanic acidity by 30 percent - that there is a solid case that the one factor that correlates closely with that rise in temperature is in fact CO2. 
 
 The very temperature data you are citing is questionable. Global temperatures have not risen for the past decade.
 
The medieval warm period has by no means been proven to have been global and even so it is still substantially cooler than gloabal mean temperatures since the 1900's and even more so since the 80's.
 
 It's funny that until AGW became a 'science' it was universally recognized that the Medieval warming period was warmer, but when the current models butted heads with it, somehow that temperature trend was revised to fit the theories. Pilmer discusses this in his book, and cites several sources about the Medieval warming period being both warmer than the present and global as well (AGW advocates use either your claim that it wasn't that warm, or that it was localized. Neither of which claims fits the historical record).
 
Then it comes to feedback effects, arctic permafrost melt is accelerating, methane hydrates destabilise at a only couple of degrees celcius above current levels - the tipping points exist in nature and I think what H was saying is that they are largely unpredctable and erratic - the world does not self regulate for the benefit of life and never has done - I don't buy into the doomsday scenarios of global oblivion but I do think the consequences a century from now could have serious implications if unchecked.
 
 The fact that you have to provide an "I think" when discussing the argument provided by Hamilcar says mounds about his debating technique. If he bothered to make the argument himself, it might actually be clear. I don't have any strange notion that the world regulates for the benefit of life. It's a planet, not a thinking being. However just like every other system in nature, it doesn't tend to like being pushed around. You need a very substantial shove to make things happen. The minimal effects of CO2 on the heat balance do not, in my opinion, manage to make such a threshold. As I  have said repeatedly, temperatures have varied for all of time in greater fluctuations than that provided by the doubling of ambient CO2 levels. As such, though even we've not reached that doubling, people are claiming that forcing is occurring when natural events would have prompted this forcing on their own due to climactic cycles.
 
Now having said all of this - I'm quite keen on geoengineering and see it as inevitable, reducing the earth's albido by one percent if necessary does not to me seem like a massive ask - could probably be accomplished today let alone in 40 years, this is why I don't like the panic mongering of greenpeace etc because it has only been counterproductive, what we need is to try and separate the issue from a "we have to change now" attitude (because it doesn't work anyway) and let the science lead the way free from the political dogma - that is my big problem with the greens - they have caused the issue to become massively polarised by tying it to their own anti-industrial agendas, if you take away the "we should.." part of the argument however it becomes perfectly possible for those on both sides of the argument to talk about the actual issue itself without hostilities - just as we might debate whether there is life on mars.
 
 I have no issues with the idea of researching the topic further. However, as you say, to some extent the issue has been hijacked by the greens to become a holy crusade of scare tactics. It's also become largely the province of scientis
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       8/18/2011 10:31:16 AM
 
Aug182011

Bureaucrats Use Environmentali...

In Atlas Shrugged, Colorado undergoes a terrific boom that could lift the whole country ? until statists crush it into poverty with their demented regulations. Once again the book is proving prophetic, as the federal government tightens a garrote around the state’s throat by listing three weeds as endangered or threatened:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the Pagosa skyrocket as endangered. The other two flowers, the Parachute beardtongue and the DeBeque phacelia, are listed as threatened. The latter two grow only in northwestern Colorado, which is also home to the 200-square-mile Roan Plateau atop massive reserves of natural gas, as well as oil in the form of oil shale.

Kathleen Sgamma of Western Energy Alliance raises a lonely voice of sanity against the cacophony of moonbattery:

“By 2020 we could produce as much oil and natural gas in the West as we currently import from Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Algeria and Nigeria combined,” she said, but “we’re adding more regulation and slowing the development of American energy, preventing us from reaching our full potential and creating jobs and economic development across the West.”

Sgamma also charges that listings of these flowers are based on bad science provided by an environmental group whose intent is to slow or stop energy development at all costs.

What did anyone expect? The tyrant atop the federal leviathan actually promised before he was elected to use environmental red tape to bankrupt the coal industry that provides us with most of our electricity. The lunatics in the envirobureaucracy have even pushed to list the burgeoning polar bear as “endangered” by mythical anthropogenic global warming, so as to suppress anything that produces carbon emissions, right down to lawn mowers.

Our rulers aren’t pro-nature. They are anti-us.

 
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas       8/18/2011 1:58:13 PM
>>
Any other vehicle should theoretically work. Hence the Medieval Warm period (which has been shown by various research to have been global) would easily have resulted in this tipping point. However it didn't.
<<
 
The Medieval Warm Period is why I believe the whole Chicken Little, "we're all gonna drown!" predictions to be baseless. Why wasn't Venice flooded for a century or more? Why weren't the Netherlands, or Denmark for that matter, washed away in the Medieval Warm Period? It was warmer then than it is today...  
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics