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.
Lots of good stuff breaking today on the phony global warming front.
Like ”Polargate.”
AP reports:
Remember polar bear populations were increasing when Monnett wrote his drowning story.
And they continue to increase.
Monnett’s false story did lead to a particularly graphic falling polar bear ad, however.
NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In
Global Warming AlarmismAl Gore’s A$$There, I fixed it.
This data suggests that the phenomena labeled ‘global warming’ is not entirely anthropogenic in nature. That is the nature of scientific investigation–to use new evidence to verify or falsify hypotheses. Previously we had only computer generated models (to which the author refers as ‘alarmist computer generated models’) to predict the future effects of global warming. But these prediction methods can be grossly inaccurate–as exemplified by the Himalaya incident.
Scientific study is a discipline in a state of constant flux, in its search of truth. Government acts upon these scientific studies–for example, placing polar bears on the endangered species list after noting a 2008 decline in number, with the hope that local or at large efforts will increase their population. Similarly with global warming–does anyone deny that the dumping of mega-tons of hydro-carbons into the atmosphere is a good thing? Hopefully, with the help of science we can arrive at an accurate estimate as to how much global warming is man-made, an how best to achieve its minimization–of which everyone can agree. But simply minimizing global warming as product of ‘Goraclism’ is counterproductive.
Ummm, how is it global warming when the temperature of the earth hasn’t gone up in the last 10 years? This latest story shows that the alarmist models used by wannabe “social scientists” were as innacurate as claimed by opponents.
Cleaning up man-made mess is important.
Doing things cleaner as we continue to make things is important, too.
But the government is not a great steward of dirty land.
Some years ago I was able to buy a whole bunch of land in Colorado….cheap.
Why?
Because the government had owned it after realizing it was FILTHY from the olden times when silver rushers left tailings including cyanide all over it.
I had to clean it up.
The government had not cleaned it up enough to eat food out of it.
I had to skim off tons of topsoil.
I had to dispose of that.
I had to obtain clean, new topsoil.
To this day, when I fish or hunt there, I take samples of the flesh to a criminalistics lab for mass spectrometer testing for poisons and contaminants.
I put the food in a storage freezer.
Only after they come back clean will I serve that meat or fish.
My point is, government is not the good steward, private individuals are.
So confiscating our wealth and land does not result in as much restored land as would have happened had people been allowed to do the work themselves.
Even China is waking up to the fact that they cannot pollute and not suffer down the road.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): A typical liberal reply. The issue here is not that we are not concerned with the environment. Nearly everyone is. The difficulty is that the so called scientists who are alarming the population about AGW fail to use accepted scientific methods of exploration. They miraculously find the results that the giver of the grant hoped they would find. These so called scientists are making millions of dollars from tax payers by deliberately performing skewed studies or actually lying. Michael Mann is one of the worst. Jim Hanson is even more despicable. As a civil servant, he made over $180K. He received over $1 Million from environmental activists groups and investors who have an interest in alternative energy.
The Polar bear study was false from the start. So was the study that said the Spotted Owl could only live in old growth timber. Look at the second hand smoke study or the EPA radon study. Nearly all of the environmental studies initiated by activist groups are skewed towards achieving specific results. Nearly all of the respected environmental organizations have been taken over by activists. This includes the Serra Club and many once respect organizations. Where are the real scientists?
Earth to Liberal 1:
1) There is zero proof that global “warming” is even happening in any statistical fashion.
2) There is zero proof that human activities contribute measurably to climate fluctuations.
3) None, as in, not one, of the events predicted by the warm mongers has materialized, zero.
4) Carbon dioxide is not only not a pollutant. . . it is also not a “hydrocarbon”.
@Randy
Really? The Sierra Club was once respected?
…By who?
While it may be difficult to see the good work the Sierra Club did in the late 1800s and early 1900s based on their recent behavior, John Muir and others of his generation saw the need to preserve national forests and other natural resources for all of the people. These early efforts were important then. I can not respect the current efforts of the Sierra Club no matter what the initial intentions were back in 1892.
@Randy:
I can remember the Sierra Club fighting FOR a nuclear power plant in the 1960’s in CA.
So, the radicalization of that organizations was gradual and maybe stronger in one place over another place (chapters of the org).