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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Hamilcar21       8/5/2011 6:06:47 AM

ARTICLE....

Be careful as to the sources cited.

H.

 

 
Quote    Reply

Jimme       8/6/2011 2:27:17 PM
Oh yeah typical liberal hit piece. They focus on the authors use of the word alarmist rather then the actual information being provided as if 2 and 2 no longer equal 4 because of the authors views. Then they site 2 other "intellectual"  hit pieces that make fun of the scientist creationist believes and trash his models because they are not the same one the ipcc uses, even though IPCC models have yet to accurately predict ANYTHING! Still no one even touches the main part of the story, the actual DATA that has just been received this year collected over the last 10 years FROM NASA SATELLITES !!! paper was just printed over a week ago no way all the data could have properly been analyzed yet. Still the reaction from the global warming crowd must be swift to quell any dissent.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar21    Did you read the cites in the refutation?   8/6/2011 4:16:47 PM

You should.

H.


 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       8/16/2011 12:11:19 PM
The key point in understanding why AGW theory is bunk is very simple. Carbon dioxide is a lousy insulator. It simply does a crappy job of trapping heat and it gets to a saturation point very quickly (a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 values would make for a 1 F increase assuming no other damping effects of the atmosphere). Because of this fact all the models which predict global warming don't actually rely upon CO2 to do the warming. They assume that a certain attained level of CO2 will cause some heating and then water vapor will increase in atmospheric concentration, and then that water vapor which is an amazingly effective greenhouse gas will cause the real heating.
 
However this confounds common sense for a number of reasons:
A) Since he have substantial temperature variations from year to year and season to season, why is it that this tipping point has never been reached before?  Remember the tipping point is a simple function of temperature and is independent of CO2. CO2 is just the assumed vehicle to get us there. 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. Remember the theoretical maximum result of CO2 by itself is one whole degree Fahrenheit. Temperature swings from year to year normally occur which are larger than that.
 
B) Water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere do not result in so simple a result as mere greenhouse effects. Yes, you do of course get those. However you also get cloud formation, evaporation, precipitation, and a host of other complicated interactions which are very poorly understood with the current state of science (individual features are somewhat understood, the gross interactions are not). The AGW models ignore all interactions beyond the heat trapping effects of water vapor and hence model only a select part of the system. This, as anyone who's done modelling of real world systems knows, is bunk. They've cherry picked the focus and excluded factors which they can't model just to get the result they want. 
 
 C) Very few systems in nature do tipping points. Generally nature tends to respond to deviations with push back towards the steady state. Le Chatellier's Principle, a cornerstone of thermodynamics states (in the most general sense) Any change in status quo... prompts an opposing reaction in the responding system. None of the AGW models worry about this principle. They just blithely assume that natural systems will go snowballing along to oblivion without any regards to changes in the system which might slow such a process (clouds, tapping the ocean reservoir of cold water, energy sinks of evaporation, etc).
 
 All in all, it doesn't take a lot of thinking or research to poke holes in AGW theories. They are pretty much a matter of alarmist religion more than science.
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       8/16/2011 6:03:15 PM
* Mind you, of course, I use the word "denier" quite a bit when discussing this topic, but in this case the shoe fits.... When you deny overwhelming evidence, you’re a denier. Scientists trying to tell people what the science is telling them aren’t alarmists. They’re scientists. And as you can see from what other climate scientists are saying, what the Forbes article is based on apparently isn’t good science.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar21    It actually was.   8/16/2011 6:58:41 PM


 

However this confounds common sense for a number of reasons:

A) Since he have substantial temperature variations from year to year and season to season, why is it that this tipping point has never been reached before?  Remember the tipping point is a simple function of temperature and is independent of CO2. CO2 is just the assumed vehicle to get us there. 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. Remember the theoretical maximum result of CO2 by itself is one whole degree Fahrenheit. Temperature swings from year to year normally occur which are larger than that.

 

B) Water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere do not result in so simple a result as mere greenhouse effects. Yes, you do of course get those. However you also get cloud formation, evaporation, precipitation, and a host of other complicated interactions which are very poorly understood with the current state of science (individual features are somewhat understood, the gross interactions are not). The AGW models ignore all interactions beyond the heat trapping effects of water vapor and hence model only a select part of the system. This, as anyone who's done modelling of real world systems knows, is bunk. They've cherry picked the focus and excluded factors which they can't model just to get the result they want. 

 

 C) Very few systems in nature do tipping points. Generally nature tends to respond to deviations with push back towards the steady state. Le Chatellier's Principle, a cornerstone of thermodynamics states (in the most general sense) Any change in status quo...... prompts an opposing reaction in the responding system. None of the AGW models worry about this principle. They just blithely assume that natural systems will go snowballing along to oblivion without any regards to changes in the system which might slow such a process (clouds, tapping the ocean reservoir of cold water, energy sinks of evaporation, etc).

 

 All in all, it doesn't take a lot of thinking or research to poke holes in AGW theories. They are pretty much a matter of alarmist religion more than science.


About six hundred forty million years ago, give or take a few million years.

Snowball Earth ...

The BIG problem we have is how did life survive under two kilometers of ICE? The correct answer is that it DIDN'T.

We have seen life on Earth start at least TWICE.

H.




 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       8/17/2011 12:31:19 AM


Snowball Earth ......

The BIG problem we have is how did life survive under two kilometers of ICE? The correct answer is that it DIDN'T.

We have seen life on Earth start at least TWICE.

H.


You nailed it.
 
Earth is not static, every change in the atmosphere composition, sea stream etc will inevitably have a impact on temperature and viability of its ecosystem. Just think about the impact of pinatubo eruption had on the atmosphere, compare it to what we release (not just CO2) into the atmosphere. Now the obvious difference is that eruption ended and our emission didn't.
 
 
 
It is true that global warming is often explained with a alarming tone in the news. The thing is that no one lessen unless if there is a bit of sensationalism involved. Thats how we are. But that doesn't change the true.
 
I don't expect the eco movement to be strong enough to make the difference, liberalism (the true sense of the word) system of self regulation wont enter in action until we really start to feel the side effect. But that doesn't mean we are doom, we still can directly influence the ecosystem by injecting gas that have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, like sulfur dioxide for example. (hopefully something less damaging).
 
It is likely that we will seek even more control on our environment. trough moderation AND intervention.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       8/17/2011 2:33:47 AM


We have seen life on Earth start at least TWICE.



I seem to remember from my microbiology lectures all those years ago that cold is bacteriostatic, not bacteriocidal. That suggests to me that simple organisms could have survived under ice.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       8/17/2011 2:41:43 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how this incredibly complex scientific question has become a political one, with unqualtified people picking sides based on which side of the left/right fence they sit on whilst having no way to know WTF they are talking about. Humans are amazing.
 
Anyway, I don't know WTF I am talking about regarding the science of global warming either and am happy to admit it. There is one comment that I will make about the refutation article that Herald posted though. I get sick of the mantra "the vast majority of climate change scientists, who are the most qualified, believe in AGW so it must be true". Talk about a biased sample of people who have mostly chosent to do climate change science because they already believed in global warming, are surrounded by the same sort of people throughout their training, and who are likely to be subject to ridicule and poor employment prospects if they ever break the mould. Personally I'd rather hear from an informed meteorologist or other scientist who is sufficiently qualified to judge the evidence without the emotion, than I would from climate change scientists of any persuesion.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       8/17/2011 8:49:12 AM
So I don't see anything which refutes my points at all. I suppose that means I let them stand.
 
AGW is bunk, a massive fraud, and has the potential for wasting trillions of dollars. 
 
The release of the Climate Research Unit emails showed quite clearly how the AGW purveyors operate, and if that's science, so is Piltdown Man. 
 
AG has the point exactly right, consensus is not proof. Only facts and data are proof, and the climate modelers lack any shred of it. A model is not proof. A model can give whatever results you tune the model to produce. Anyone who has done modeling understands that (I used to be a modeller of solidification processes years ago). More to the point, the 'consensus' in question is among a group of people who all have a massive vested financial interest in the outcome. The AGW industry(mostly government funded) is huge in scope and massively eclipses any grant money handed out by energy companies. 
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics