Skip to comments.New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
Posted on 07/28/2011 7:20:33 AM PDT by driftdiver
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Who needs facts when we have feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings?
I’m no scientist but this seems to settle the matter.
The science is settled. We have a CONsensus.................
Which completely vindicates stupid skeptics such as I who had the audacity to run the numbers and use my math/physics background to determine that the whole thing was a pile of bull-Obama.
The earth may heat, the earth may cool....who knows?
But whatever it chooses to do, it won’t be because of CO2.
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.
Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause [historically -etl]. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.
If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."
So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?
Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change
ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.
From The Washington Times, January 12, 2009
Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Group sees 'global governance' as solution
by Stephen Dinan
Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.
Here's a link to an image of a Google cache of the Socialist International's webpage that originally included Obama's "Climate Czar" Carol Browner.
VENEZUELA: Chavez calls for global offensive for socialism
August 31, 2005
"The environment is suffering damage that could be irreversible global warming, the greenhouse effect, the melting of the polar ice caps, the rising sea level, hurricanes with terrible social occurrences that will shake life on this planet."
"I believe this idea has a strong connection with reality. I don't think we have much time. Fidel Castro said in one of his speeches I read not so long ago, 'tomorrow could be too late, let's do now what we need to do'."
"I believe it is time that we take up with courage and clarity a political, social, collective and ideological offensive across the world a real offensive that permits us to move progressively, over the next years, the next decades, leaving behind the perverse, destructive, destroyer, capitalist model and go forward in constructing the socialist model to avoid barbarism and beyond that the annihilation of life on this planet."
--Hugo Chavez, at the 16th World Festival of Youth and Students, held in Caracas on August 8-15, 2005
Ah yes. Another reason to cut NASA’s budget. Politically inccorect science.
(Do I need a sarc tag? Probably.)
It’s a good morning when I begin by reading that the “scientist” who had started all that bunk about polar bears is being investigated for fraud and now this. Go NASA. The “One” made NASA start using part of its budget to study globull warming. Well, hows that working out?
Politically incorrect science.
Scientifically incorect science.
I've been saying this for years. CO2 increases lag behind the temperature changes. Just like a soda can on a hot day, the oceans are losing their fizz. This is literally 8th grade science.
NASA satellite crashes in ocean (March 2011)
In 2009 another satellite, which would have studied global warming, crashed into the ocean near Antarctica. Officials said Glory likely wound up landing in the same area.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that liberal scientists have been making up facts to fit their agenda.
They lag behind by an average of 800 years. Furthermore, temps didn't rise further following the release of CO2 from the naturally warming oceans.
The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red, CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation/ice-age periods, approximately 100,000 years apart. Look carefully at the historical relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does this data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually *followed* temperature increases, lagging behind by an average of 800 years! Furthermore, and importantly, the subsequent CO2 level increases (due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans) never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and company continue warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had ever led to any significant global warming when the levels were within 10-15 times of what they are today. -etl
Rush's guy, Roy Spencer. The official EIB climate scientist. (after Dixie Lee Ray died).
NASA better be careful or they might have funding cuts that end the shuttle program and massive lay-offs.
Al Gore = putting the CON in consensus.
Enough of this "Space stuff" let's build choo-choos and windmills and electric cars and solar panels and batteries.
The truth always comes out..
So more heat is escaping from the earth’s atmoshere than AlGore’s models predicted? I guess now we know why the other planets are all warming up, time to spend trillions on this new crisis!
Al gore’s response: “the nasa study shows heat escaping so it is clear we are creating heat on a globally unsustainable level, if we are accelerating the rate that heat is escaping, if the temperature doesn’t rise, we will have more extreme weather. floods, more snowfall, droughts, and extreme temperatures. in short, we are doomed, buy carbon credits and my hedge fund.”
The only gas that reflects IR energy really well is water vapor, not CO2. Heck, even argon is much better as a supposed greenhouse gas than CO2 and there’s more than twice the amount of it in the atmosphere than CO2.
And yet, I was in line to mail a package yesterday, commenting on how nice the weather had been that morning, and the woman ( a stranger) I was talking to got all conspiratorial and said, “Yes, something very strange is going on!” I swear, people now think NICE weather is a sign that the earth is in crisis!
it’s because the Earth’s core is like a million degrees or something. Algore said so.
It wasn’t possible to have “greenhouse gas” before greenhouses were invented, therefore greenhouses must be the problem.
Pay back is hell when screw with NASA’s flight program.
>Houston..... we've got a problem
“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.”
As a young scientist I attended a seminar given by someone modelling a biocatalyic reaction. After the talk a co-worker I didn’t really know asked me what I thought. I told him that modelling such reactions wasn’t worth a bucket of spit and that it would just be easier to actually DO the experiment. He got a strange look on his face and walked away. Found out later he modeled biological reactions.
In any case good scientists have a motto, “when real data disagrees with your model, you need a new model”.
No way! You mean this state we’ve been in for the last 10,000 years is a stable equilibrium? One in which the restorative forces increase faster than the perturbative forces when it is stressed? One that has survived volcanoes, sunspots, massive deforestation, and who knows what else? I call bullshit! The conservatives are obviously guilty, and therefore there must be something they are guilty of, something big. Climate change that is going to destroy all the climates in the solar system is the only thing big enough to fit that bill. Kill all conservatives! Global warming! Increase the debt ceiling!
Global Warming is so ‘00s. The politically correct term is “climate disruption.”
From the 11-year study period, it appears that they had adequate data to release this information last year. Someone held it back so it could be used as a "parting shot".
Wherever did you get the idea that Argon is a greenhouse gas? It isn’t — and neither is oxygen or nitrogen.
Yes, you are correct! There can be no natural equilibrium! Good post, and so true. You made me laugh.
“good scientists have a motto, when real data disagrees with your model, you need a new model”
Several years back I took a class in forest growth modeling. The instructor, a top modeler for the USFS, opened the class with the statement, “All models are wrong. Some are useful.” It’s the only thing I remember from the class....
Maybe this new study is NASA’s way of saying “thanks” to Obama for his cuts to their budget - the money train was gone so now they can tell the truth about the global warming bs?
Argon is used in double and triple pane windows because of how well it insulates against heat loss through windows. If CO2 is better why don’t window manufacturers use it? Look up the details on how well argon and CO2 transfer heat and compare them.
0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere is CO2. Argon is right about 1% which is over twice the amount.
If the Leftist didn’t have an agenda for destroying America and ridding the world of humanity and were honest with themselves and others you would have seen them on the warpath to reduce argon emissions in whatever is creating it.
The Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever is BS intended to create a new industry of 'Carbon Credit Exchange'. The people pushing Global Warming also have invested heavily in the 'Carbon Credit Exchange' industry. Al Gore was planning on being a billionaire.
This will be my argument with the next warming bozo I encounter.
But, but, but I thought the “science” was settled. Al Gore said so. Only ignorant, denilialist, flat-earther, spam-sucking trailer trash had doubts about the THEORY of anthropomorphic global warming.
While the statement, “Argon is right about 1% which is over twice the amount,” is correct. It IS over twice the amount...
It’s much more than twice the amount.
Technically, it’s almost 24x.
I think the money was a side benefit. Their true purpose for pushing globull warming is control. By controlling energy use you can control every aspect of peoples lives.
The so called scientists simply saw it as a great way to get grant money and go on taxpayer funded vacations.
We can only hope for a wide enough dissemination of truth to jeopardize Algore's future earnings. Maybe he'll even have to sell his $8.875M California digs.
Thanks for catching that!
July 26, 2011 · 10:52 am
Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earths Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.
The University of Alabama has issues a news release on it which reads
Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) Data from NASAs Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earths atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to believe.
The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.
In research published this week in the journal Remote Sensing http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsvilles Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.
The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show, Spencer said. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.
At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained, Spencer said.
This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.
Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.
Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earths changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.
There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that, Spencer said. The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.
For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earths Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASAs Terra satellite.
The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.