Free Markets, Free People


Climate alarmist theory dealt yet another factual blow

This is becoming almost laughable.  James Taylor, from the Heartland Institute and writing in Forbes brings us the story that new data from NASA has all but proven the alarmist climate model predictions are clearly and demonstrably wrong.

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 nitty-gritty:

"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.

Well it should indeed dramatically alter the debate, but there’s really no debate going on.  On the one side you have those who continue to pile scientific fact after scientific fact on the collapsing theory of AGW.  And on the other side you have those who stopped looking at the science after the last IPCC report and stubbornly cling to the anti-science belief in “consensus” while charging full-speed ahead trying to pass a regime of insane taxation.    The reason should be obvious by now – politics and big bucks.

Here’s what this new information means:

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.

So that means:

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.

Or, if the relevancy and accuracy of alarmist computer models hasn’t been called into question before, if it isn’t now, you’re just simply unwilling to consider new facts or science and should be treated accordingly.

Oh, and before I forget it, the “polar bears are drowning” guy is in a bit of hot water – no pun intended:

A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

Just a little FYI.  Meanwhile Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) thinks is pretty sure that all this opposition against the theory of AGW is just a result of “vested interests” in the oil and coal industries and it is imperative that the government start educating people about why this stuff is serious (and why they need to let government tax the crap out  of them as a result):

The top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday urged Energy Secretary Steven Chu to launch a national climate-change-education campaign.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), in a letter to Chu, said the public’s understanding of climate change is “diminishing” in part because there are “powerful vested interests in the oil and coal industries successfully fanning disbelief.”

“I ask you to investigate the disconnect that appears to be growing between the scientific and the public understanding of climate change,” Waxman said. “I hope you will then decide to lead a national effort to ensure the public is fully and accurately informed about the science of climate change and its implications for human health and welfare.”

Facts?  We don’t need no stinkin’ facts.   Not when billions in revenue for government are at stake.  And they wonder why no one trusts them.

[HT: looker]

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

29 Responses to Climate alarmist theory dealt yet another factual blow

  • “NASA’s ERBS satellite”
    That name alone should have prompted some hesitation.
    I have a certain friend who is very active on Facebook promoting global warming. Despite his own trips overseas for bike riding, he wants us all to seriously scale down our energy consumption. He is my current poster boy for GW, and I will be interested to see when he stops posting stuff about it.



    • Let us know if he doesn’t justify his trip by pointing out he didn’t DRIVE when he got to wherever he was going (and how wonderful that was of him!)

      Because you must remember, his recreation was an integral part of the operation of the world, and things would have gone badly wrong if he hadn’t made that trip.  The rest of us will watch 5 minutes less TV tonight and turn our thermostats up 2 degrees to help him with his cause of reducing OUR energy consumption and doing our part to save the planet.

       

    • I also have such a friend (We’ve made two such trips in the past decade), and to answer looker’s question, NO.  Fly into Lyon or Milan, rent a car, drive to a cool B&B, cycle for four days, pack up and drive to another cool B&B, rinse and repeat for two to three weeks. And locations for sight-seeing, shopping, and wine tasting in the evenings are usually 1-2 hours driving.  As with Rep Waxman, he blames the traditional energy industry for all that ails the world.  When I point out the Irony that he can enjoy such luxury (he has made the trip every two years) because his family were very successful Texas oilmen he basically shrugs his shoulders and mumbles that it is the other that have caused the problems.  Such is the nature of those that worship at the alter of AGW.

  • Al Gore, Henry Waxman and Lisa Jackson now are relegated to the same status of those in the “Flat Earth Society“.

  • And speaking of something that ALL pay for and only a few enjoy -
    AND is very very green….

    DC Bike sharing

    Nobel idea – how much did it cost? How much will it continue to cost and who’s paying for it?  Would it have been cheaper to buy these 15,000 members bikes of their own than: the bikes, the stations and hardware, the maintenance and support, the billing system, the advertising, etc…
    It’s fun, it’s environmentally friendly, and sorry folks, it’s a wasteful fad because there’s no way it’s economical.  The article proceeds to attempt to make virtue and comradeship in being inconvenienced, and I guess in our new socialist model, it’s probably something we may as well get used to.

    I understand the Russian got quite humorous being inconvenienced – a friend from Kiev used to tell me his favorite Russian joke – “Why is there always a line at Lenin’s tomb?  – Because it is the one thing in Russia we never run out of!”

    • They have van constantly driving around delivering and picking up bikes…LOL. Sounds like a bus.

  • Dimwitted and dangerous theories in history:

    — If you sail out too far into the ocean, you’ll fall off the edge of the earth!

    — The surest way to cure diseases is to drive out the evil spirits that cause them!

    — God chose your ruler, so you shouldn’t argue with anything he tells you to do!

    — Those people are inherently inferior to us, and so we should make them our slaves or kill them off!

    — Only when the people own everything collectively can society truly prosper!

    — Carbon dioxide from industry and automobiles is causing the earth to heat up, so we’ve got to stop generating it!

  • The “study” under discussion will NOT “dramatically alter” the global warming debate, because it was written by one of the most infamous crackpots in the Denier congregation. Google the name “Dr. Roy Spencer” and you’ll see why ACTUAL climate scientists pay no attention to this creationist weatherman.

    • When you use the word Denier, you let everyone know that you too are probably a crackpot.
       

      • IF they like the guilt by association name game with “Deniers”, I like to call them “AGW Truthers”.

    • Oooh, you usage of scare quotes really makes you point.

      Tell us Drew, what other reason there is that all the computer models employed by the IPCC have failed spectacularly?  Spenser offers a peer-reviewed study that explains it, and virtually every commenter here, well versed in the issues, know it, but you seemingly cling to that prayer rug at the alter of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
      Any faith that ignores reality for too long is destined to fail.

    • Ah, the old ad hominem fallacy, with the appeal to authority fallacy, and a little character assassination thrown in for extra BULLSHIT spice.
      Impressive…as liars go.

    • There are two different “Dr. Roy Spencer”-s. Dr. Roy Spencer Sr. and Dr. Roy Spencer Jr.
      They both have different views on AGW

  •  

    Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. …
    Documents provided by Ruch’s group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales,
    **of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm.**
    They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings.
    In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

    http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html
    So, the whole polar bear canard was based on a DUBIOUS observation of FOUR dead bears AFTER A STORM.
    What an affront to sound science.

  • Does Waxman know what he is on about? If one reads the periodicals of such vested interest bodies, such as the Society of Petroleum Engineers, for instance, there is a buttload of R&D being done on such vested interest ideas like carbon sequestration. I personally think that it’ll turn out to all be a sunk cost in a decade or so and tossed aside as irrelevant, but the idea that the industry is actively opposing any regulation is kind of quaint. These guys are going to make money off whatever they produce, even if the production drops by 90% and costs go up by 1000% and the sequester every last drop of carbon dioxide as Obama hopes.

    • BigOil, like Exxon, made less profit-per-gallon when gas was $4/gallon than when it was $2.50. THEIR costs go up, too.
      Clowns like ‘Bamer and Waxman, who’ve never held a productive job in their lives, can’t grasp that.

    • Did everybody here get their recent check form “Big Oil” ?
      I haven’t seen one in .. like forever

    • Profit margins for oil companies are much lower than in many other industries.  Politicians love to wave around their net profits, ignoring how those numbers translate into percentages.
      The only justification for looting oil company profits is class warfare.
      They do so much good for everyone, it’s incredible how envy and ignorance has driven people to hate those who are arguably most responsible for allowing us to live advanced, civilized lifestyles.

      • I recommend we loot Apple, they meet the talking points criteria – extremely cash rich wealthy, big corporation.  After Apple, we can hit GE, and then Google.

        • Or, instead of punishing Apple for their success, how about inspiring Steve Jobs to contrast his company’s fiscal approach to that of government?  I realize the chances of him seeing the light are slim.