” 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.Poor Al. Can't catch a break.
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.
A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy.
***
If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value?
***
If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic?
***
Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Friday, July 29, 2011
This Can’t Be Right…AGW is settled science!
New data shows more heat is being released form the atmosphere than computer models use according to this article in Forbes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Spencer is using a model. A very simple model.
But I thought models were worthless.
I'm sure the professional modelers will chime in soon...
I don't see a Spencer model reference in this particular article, it refers to evidence which is compared to model outputs... But it is just an article, so who knows.
Check the source: the article is from Forbes, and the author is a fellow at The Heartland Institute.
Forgive me if I take this one with a large grain of salt.
I would love to be able to put some faith in that and not wonder if this is objective and trustworthy but...
Looking at the study, we see it is specifically on the difficulties in obtaining accurate data by measurements of radiation due to variances in natural cloud cover.
This is the modus operandi of The Heartland Institute. They misinterpret studies and promote non-experts as experts.
---Said,
"Looking at the study, we see it is specifically on the difficulties in obtaining accurate data by measurements of radiation due to variances in natural cloud cover."
Apparently you looked no further than the introduction. The meat comes around page 5, where recalculations of HADCRUT data are performed and compared with model data. Figures are on Page 7. The report does exactly what the article says it does: it reports that observations by CERES satellites indicate much more energy loss than the models account for.
The author's association with Heartland is not a measure of the accuracy of the article in presenting the conclusions of the study; the author used obviously biasing terms such as "alarmist computer models" but did not misrepresent the conclusions of the study.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/
Interesting. The site, Bad Astronomy wastes half a post on the character of the magazine, the character of the scientist, with a nodding reference to authority, which it hands off to another site, live science.
Interrupting Bad Astronomy for a moment, at live science...
The authorities do have their backs up about the research. But they haven't proven him wrong, although they might. Said Gavin Smith:
"The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear."
Well, he apparently admits to the mismatch, anyway.
As predicted the modelers come on furiously: Live Science:
http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html
"Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the observed temperature changes. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment."
In other words they are incensed at the inclusion of a different model, although they haven't proven it deficient. The one specific in this article is the lack of statistical significance information concerning the results - which is not a refutation.
There has been no refutation, so far, to my knowledge, only pissed off scientists who abhor having their models questioned. Think of the funding they could lose.
The second half of the Bad Astronomy post shreds the character and credibility of Dr. Spencer, who is obviously hated for his skepticism and out-of-boundary viewpoints.
The hatred is palpable, and the refutation is only in the form of personal attacks on Dr. Spencer. That has a familiar ring.
Think of the funding they could lose.
It's about truth not "funding".
They'd make more money if they abandoned science and became a "skeptic".
When almost one hundred percent of the authorities in the relevant field agree then it is likely to be true.
You're tilting at windmills here.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
Yes, yes of course. One must never question the establishment, their funding or their motives, or their accuracies, or their data acquisition... unless they are funded by the wrong people and have the wrong attitudes and are skeptical outside the allowable "Official Skeptics" range of permissible skepticism. Then we should attack their character with every possible character assault available.
I'm sorry, I did forget the rules of The Official Skeptics. I do promise to toe the line, and keep within that which is allowable. But could I at least peek at their data before I slander them... no, no of course not, that would be out of alignment with the Official Skeptics commandments; sorry I asked.
Post a Comment