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
Reactive    Buzzard:   8/18/2011 6:48:28 PM
skepticalscience.com/Muller-Misinformation-1-confusing-Mikes-trick-with-hide-the-decline.html
 
Both sides play games with the evidence, please read this.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       8/18/2011 7:07:01 PM
Both sides play games with the evidence, please read this.
 
OK, read it. I didn't find it overly compelling. The initial critique is valid. You don't swap out data sources in the middle of a graph and claim it's the same graph. To claim that tree rings were valid in the past, but suddenly are not now is bunk.
 
There are also some very valid questions about the raw temperature data used by the AGW crowd based on how they have selected stations, edited out stations, and ignored other sources such as weather balloons. I'm sorry, but those guys have done enough fudging that if they said the sky was blue, I'd look out the window.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       8/18/2011 7:07:48 PM
The question is, why do you put your "faith" in that guy and not in the rest of those "scientist" ?
 
Climategate is plenty enough reason. 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       8/18/2011 11:25:08 PM


 

There are also some very valid questions about the raw temperature data used by the AGW crowd based on how they have selected stations, edited out stations, and ignored other sources such as weather balloons. I'm sorry, but those guys have done enough fudging that if they said the sky was blue, I'd look out the window.
Yes I agree with you to an extent on the first point - the tree data presents a problem in terms of historical accuracy, more of a problem IMV than the actual mean temperature data since 1960 - I think there's enough layered and overlapping data and it's not just pro AGW scientists compiling it - there does seem to be a genuine consensus with the causation being the crux of the disagreement.
And don't forget that there are vested interests on both sides, and the budgets for research are by no means one sided given the reprecussions for petrochem industries - time will tell..
 
R
 
Quote    Reply

Jimme    Wow i forgot about this post.   8/19/2011 3:30:54 AM
  Glad to see a great debate on hand. AGW is on its last legs though. More and more of the IPCC's claims are being disputed by real scientists that have gone on record many former members of the IPCC. here is a report of 1000 scientists that have gone on record and shed light to the whole debate.
 
 
h**p://traffic.libsyn.com/rbushway/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf
 
here is a sample :
 
INTRODUCTION:

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report...) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced... -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scie... (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers....

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal -- which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. ... shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declar... that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured"... and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspe... of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worth... and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted.

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       8/19/2011 9:13:12 AM
 
^^ The sun alone is not a good explanation for the current warming trend.
 
Look, before CFC's were demonstrated to degrade the ozone layer there were lots of scientists who told us that the global net CFC output was miniscule and irrelevant on a planetary scale. 
 
The above post references numerous great minds who are opposed to Anthropogenic warming, pasting a refutal with an equal or greater number of pro-AGW scientists isn't adequate or necessary. They (the above) have reached a different conclusion and that's not something I attribute to corruption or "oil money" but that this issue is divisive, important, and highly charged politically - not to mention the fact that as I've said before, the science is not yet settled.
 
I don't think AGW is on its last legs at all, I actually think the chains of evidence are mounting, I simply don't accept the argument that all the data is fudged, having looked extensively at "climategate" I think a lot of what came out was (as a few posts above) sensationalist claims of scientific fraud, thus words were taken out of context, and above all there remains very little firm evidence of wrongdoing (imho) that youtube video was disingenuous in the extreme and whether or not we agree the anomally in tree-ring data since 1960 gives us cause for concern with ancestoral models, what the video communicated to the anti AGW community was completely and inexcusably fallacious.
 
Again, most people's ACTUAL problem with CO2 warming is that the "planet is huge" and it is counterintuitive to suggest that we, as a layer of grime on the surface can dramatically alter the heat transfer mechanisms in the atmosphere - I believe otherwise, as I also said before, oceanic acidification is an equally massive (in scale) event that gets little attention because few understand what the implications of that are looking 100 years into the future - again, unlike AGW it is incredibly easy to demonstrate what those effects (at a minimum) will be because we can see die-off rates of up to 99% in certain keystone species at really very attainable levels away from pre-industrial oceanic PH.
 
What H is definitely right about is that there are a lot of other effects that come into play, a reduction in tropical forest cover, increasing particulate smog in equatorial regions etc - some of these are relatively easy to account for and some are much more difficult - what compounds this problem is that what is true of the equatorial regions is often reversed in the northern and southern polar regions - i.e. effects of particulate and tree cover on albido vary by lattitude, sometimes being positive and othertimes being negative warming events.
 
As I think I've said before, no one disagrees that CO2 on an atomic level produces a net warming effect due to it's IR absorbtion and radiative characteristics relative to Oxygen and Nitrogen - so ALL we can surely be arguing about is the DEGREE of that change, you can't assert there is zero warming effect for 3 trillion tonnes of CO2 so all we are talking about is the scope of that change, that's an important point here - some assert that there's not enough, others assert there's more than enough, what we DO know is that for some reason the warming trend continues and is particularly evident in northern lattitudes that contain the worst possible feedback effects - even AGW skeptics agree that methane presents a far greater warming threat than CO2 and most people are cognisant of the fact that there IS a warming trend, so the way I see it whether or not we agree that relates to human activity we need to have a plan in place to regulate our climate if it is at all possible.
 
That could be cloud seeding in tropical regions, it could be seeding phytoplankton blooms, it could be coating a few hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of arid equatorial regions in a reflective coating or even just pumping aerosols into the upper atmosphere (industrial emissions sulphur dioxide CERTAINLY produced a dimming effect - something that the skeptics rarely mention when they talk about how impossible it is for mankind to alter atmospheric heat absorption), we'd only ever need to get a net reduction of a percent or so to counteract the warming trend and that seems wholly possible to me.
 
So in summary, we have the ozone layer and global dimming as good examples of previous man-made effects on climate, we have a definite oceanic acidification effect that fits CO2 emissions beautifully - we have a massive lack of other mechanisms to explain the full extent of the warming we are witnessing and we have, unfortunately too many people wi
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar21    Margins.   8/19/2011 1:32:46 PM



In order to compliment the argument or to insult it coherently, you have to UNDESTAND it.

I am not arguing orders of magnitude. I am arguing EDGE EFFECTS and margin push.

http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/...

We are in the middle of a mass extinction effect. THAT is HARD SCIENCE. The best explanation we have for the die-offs is environmental; change of habitat. The biggest causitive agent we've been able to identity? Human beings. We reduce rain forests to farm land and we drain swamps. Tbose are FACTS. we, as a species, dry the local environment to suit our African savannah bias..That is margin push with a vengeance.

We've been at it for at least FIVE THOUSAND YEARS. 

Energy use....

100 billion 50 watt light-bulbs is equal to 5 trillion watts. Run that for a YEAR. You think that is trivial? There are Russian H-bomb designers that wish they could pump out that much work. (sarcasm) 

With that kind of energy an expedition to Mars is a cinch.

With that kind of energy we wouldn't be looking for Higg's Bosons, we would be MAKING them.

There is a LOT of heat over time vented. In the space of 100 years we've managed to pump out about 25-50 million years of biochemical stored energy (hydrocarbons) out into the environment.

The trouble is that you lack a comprehensive sense of true scale to see how all; of the effects i describe above change a CLOSED  system that has a very very limited re-radiation gate.limit.

Reactive at least gets it, though he and I may disagree on some major points as to ordered effects (with good reason, we don't begin to have enough data or understand all the variables), nut we do know that Humans do have a massive local effect at the cell level. We KNOW this. We can see the effect in our own lifetimes.     

That is why I now disregard you, You are an absolute denier, as crazy as those Gore clowns, who can't keep the relevant science straight. Systems tip into new equilibriums, and with climate change here that usually means COLDER. (entropy) With Earth this is inevitable as we have two major factors that IMMEDIATELY affect the Earth's prospects . The Earth (like the other planets' orbits in this star system) is gradually drifting out from the Sun as the Moon is drifting from us...   

We are screwed no matter what we do to the ;planet in a few hundred million years, so close we are to the outer limit of our Goldilocks zone as we edge nearer and nearer to that outer limit. We will freeze to death as a planet.

Snowball Earth, by the way TOLD us these astronomical FACTS as we hit that locked condition and then by a miracle were reprieved for a very brief time.     

So cogitate on THAT. The bands for life are NARROW and the margins TIGHT.

H. 

   



   

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       8/19/2011 10:04:52 PM

In order to compliment the argument or to insult it coherently, you have to UNDESTAND it.

I am not arguing orders of magnitude. I am arguing EDGE EFFECTS and margin push.

http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/...

We are in the middle of a mass extinction effect. THAT is HARD SCIENCE. The best explanation we have for the die-offs is environmental; change of habitat. The biggest causitive agent we've been able to identity? Human beings. We reduce rain forests to farm land and we drain swamps. Tbose are FACTS. we, as a species, dry the local environment to suit our African savannah bias..That is margin push with a vengeance.

We've been at it for at least FIVE THOUSAND YEARS. 

Energy use....

100 billion 50 watt light-bulbs is equal to 5 trillion watts. Run that for a YEAR. You think that is trivial? There are Russian H-bomb designers that wish they could pump out that much work. (sarcasm) 

With that kind of energy an expedition to Mars is a cinch.

With that kind of energy we wouldn't be looking for Higg's Bosons, we would be MAKING them.

There is a LOT of heat over time vented. In the space of 100 years we've managed to pump out about 25-50 million years of biochemical stored energy (hydrocarbons) out into the environment.

The trouble is that you lack a comprehensive sense of true scale to see how all; of the effects i describe above change a CLOSED  system that has a very very limited re-radiation gate.limit.

Reactive at least gets it, though he and I may disagree on some major points as to ordered effects (with good reason, we don't begin to have enough data or understand all the variables), nut we do know that Humans do have a massive local effect at the cell level. We KNOW this. We can see the effect in our own lifetimes.     

That is why I now disregard you, You are an absolute denier, as crazy as those Gore clowns, who can't keep the relevant science straight. Systems tip into new equilibriums, and with climate change here that usually means COLDER. (entropy) With Earth this is inevitable as we have two major factors that IMMEDIATELY affect the Earth's prospects . The Earth (like the other planets' orbits in this star system) is gradually drifting out from the Sun as the Moon is drifting from us...   

We are screwed no matter what we do to the ;planet in a few hundred million years, so close we are to the outer limit of our Goldilocks zone as we edge nearer and nearer to that outer limit. We will freeze to death as a planet.

Snowball Earth, by the way TOLD us these astronomical FACTS as we hit that locked condition and then by a miracle were reprieved for a very brief time.     

So cogitate on THAT. The bands for life are NARROW and the margins TIGHT.

H. 

 

I couldn't agree more ^^ whether it's chicken or egg wrt CO2 we are releasing a vast amount of energy in a space of time that has never been surpassed with the possible exception of bolide events - entropy being what it is we can expect the fluctuations from long term norms to become more intense and very likely counterintuitive - we have changed the earth's surface beyond recognition, largely at the expense of tree-cover - and most especially in the regions where that impact is  likely to be most pronounced - africa is slowly turning int o one giant desert, I suspect we will in our lifetimes see severe disruption to the indian monsoon season on which billions of lives directly and indirectly rely on . As you say the critical factor is that we have essentially released a substantial portion of geological energy-stores as heat and as CO 2 and that's before you factor for reduced photosynthesis.
 
Quite honestly we can, as you say, not compare ourselves to any other organism in the fossil record, but rather only to mass-extinction events - and we are, I think it's safe to say, beyond the point of no return in terms of most our ecosystems (whether they matter or not to people is a different matter) no one predicted dead zones in the ocean but there they are. I'm glad I'm alive at this time because I don't hold out much hope that those living in 200 years will have access to anything like the richness of wild flora and fauna that currently exists - they will undoubtably be the domain of micromanaged national parks - nature always finds a way through, and
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    An important point.   8/19/2011 10:26:17 PM
The other good thing about our future squid overlords is that they will also have a natural affinity for the decimal system...
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       8/19/2011 10:48:06 PM
lol!
too much tv mate
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics