PDA

View Full Version : Data blows big hole in global warming theory.



OUMallen
7/28/2011, 09:49 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html


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.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

C&CDean
7/28/2011, 09:50 AM
it's fake!!111!

Veritas
7/28/2011, 09:51 AM
Unfortunately the global warming issue has never been about data.

IndySooner
7/28/2011, 09:52 AM
Let's not let the facts get in the way!

Seriously, though, as a bleeding heart liberal (especially in this state!) even I have always had doubts that global warming wasn't just the climate in a warm cycle. Then the politicians run with it and make it a way to garner votes.

That said, there have been good things that have come from the discussion. There's nothing wrong with trying to clean up our air, water, etc. That's a good thing.

sooner_born_1960
7/28/2011, 09:53 AM
They shifted the term to "climate change" after they realized "global warming" wasn't catching on.

OUMallen
7/28/2011, 09:55 AM
Unfortunately the global warming issue has never been about data.

Maybe not, but I was always under the impression that the theory was somewhat sound, made sense, and hadn't been disproved.


This is a big deal. Data showing it to be, at least, much much less worse than previously thought and from an independent source.

Fraggle145
7/28/2011, 09:57 AM
They shifted the term to "climate change" after they realized "global warming" wasn't catching on.

Because science shouldnt take new data and has to get it right the first time. Because that's how science works. :rolleyes:

So this is interesting stuff Mallen. I'll have to look into it some more.

I do wish it wasnt written to make it seem like just because you think that the data is showing that climate change/global warming is happening you have to be a climate alarmist. Hurray for biased authors.

OhU1
7/28/2011, 10:00 AM
An article peppered with the words "alarmist" and spun by a writer who makes his living working for a conservative political organization.

I'll let the scientists sort, interpret, test, and verify the findings and read what they have to say on a scientific topic before I pay much heed to a biased source - especially a political or religious source.

lexsooner
7/28/2011, 10:06 AM
An article peppered with the words "alarmist" and spun by a writer who makes his living working for a conservative political organization.

I'll let the scientists sort, interpret, test, and verify the findings and read what they have to say on a scientific topic before I pay much heed to a biased source - especially a political or religious source.

You don't know what you are talking about. I am going to wait for a cool snap in the weather or a big snow storm this winter which will prove all this global warming is a buncha hooey created by Birkenstock wearing libtards with big fancy degrees who don't know nothing! I know more from my life experience than any Communist leaning Harvard egg head could ever learn in a laboratory studying a bunch of scientific nonsense! ;)

C&CDean
7/28/2011, 10:09 AM
You don't know what you are talking about. I am going to wait for a cool snap in the weather or a big snow storm this winter which will prove all this global warming is a buncha hooey created by Birkenstock wearing libtards with big fancy degrees who don't know nothing! I know more from my life experience than any Communist leaning Harvard egg head could ever learn in a laboratory studying a bunch of scientific nonsense! ;)

Well....yeah?

Fraggle145
7/28/2011, 10:23 AM
A link to the actual paper: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

I did look up the journal on web of science though and it doesnt have any citation reports for it. Meaning it is either a really new journal, or because of their publication policies they cant generate an accurate citation report, or the journal just doesnt get cited very much.

I dont know much about whether this is a great journal or not. So take that for what its worth.

TUSooner
7/28/2011, 10:27 AM
You don't know what you are talking about. I am going to wait for a cool snap in the weather or a big snow storm this winter which will prove all this global warming is a buncha hooey created by Birkenstock wearing libtards with big fancy degrees who don't know nothing! I know more from my life experience than any Communist leaning Harvard egg head could ever learn in a laboratory studying a bunch of scientific nonsense! ;)

I think "egg head" should probably be hyphenated (egg-head) or a single word (egghead). I'm not sure, though. That's all. Except I just want to sell my house in New Orleans before the Gulf gets to my neighborhood.

87sooner
7/28/2011, 10:32 AM
i predict the next metamorphosis will be towards "ocean warming"...

lexsooner
7/28/2011, 10:39 AM
I think "egg head" should probably be hyphenated (egg-head) or a single word (egghead). I'm not sure, though. That's all. Except I just want to sell my house in New Orleans before the Gulf gets to my neighborhood.

What is you, some sorta Birkenstock-wearing intellectual who got nothing to contribute to society except useless science and technology? The working man built this country and no scientists ever contributed nothing to society!

SoonerAtKU
7/28/2011, 10:40 AM
The Roy Spencer guy has about 60 articles indexed with us, with about 1000 citations going back to 96. He's got an h-index of 15, which is kind of a personal author's impact factor that we list, so he's no slouch, but there hasn't been a paper of his that really set the world on fire, unless this is the one.

C&CDean
7/28/2011, 10:41 AM
What is you, some sorta Birkenstock-wearing intellectual who got nothing to contribute to society except useless science and technology? The working man built this country and no scientists ever contributed nothing to society!

Well...yeah?

OUMallen
7/28/2011, 10:46 AM
An article peppered with the words "alarmist" and spun by a writer who makes his living working for a conservative political organization.

I'll let the scientists sort, interpret, test, and verify the findings and read what they have to say on a scientific topic before I pay much heed to a biased source - especially a political or religious source.

Dude, it's a news article. Read the journal article if you need to hit the unbiased stuff.

OhU1
7/28/2011, 10:50 AM
intellectual who got nothing to contribute to society except useless science and technology? The working man built this country and no scientists ever contributed nothing to society!

My favorite all time line from a video game; Half-Life 2:

Soldier grumbling: "I killed 12 dumb-*** scientists and not one of them fought back! This sucks!"

sappstuf
7/28/2011, 10:51 AM
Warmists have long known about "missing heat". That is, their models were telling them there was more heat than they could find. Instead of questioning their models, which in turn, would question the theory of AGW, they questioned the data.

Here is a great example:


Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a “Perspectives” article in this week’s issue of Science. Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) warn in the new study that satellite sensors, ocean floats, and other instruments are inadequate to track this “missing” heat, which may be building up in the deep oceans or elsewhere in the climate system.

“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. “The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”

This just appears to further confirm that the data is correct and it is the models that are in question.

Fraggle145
7/28/2011, 10:55 AM
The Roy Spencer guy has about 60 articles indexed with us, with about 1000 citations going back to 96. He's got an h-index of 15, which is kind of a personal author's impact factor that we list, so he's no slouch, but there hasn't been a paper of his that really set the world on fire, unless this is the one.

Just curious (not doubting you or anything) who is us? :confused:

SoonerAtKU
7/28/2011, 10:56 AM
I guess it won't hurt to say...Elsevier. Scopus, in this case.

Fraggle145
7/28/2011, 10:59 AM
Warmists have long known about "missing heat". That is, their models were telling them there was more heat than they could find. Instead of questioning their models, which in turn, would question the theory of AGW, they questioned the data.

Here is a great example:



This just appears to further confirm that the data is correct and it is the models that are in question.

Actually that is a terrible example. Just because you dont understand the statistics in the way they are talking about them doesnt mean they are questioning the data (at least questioning it with the negative conotation you are putting on it). The data is the data.

Secondarily, if you dont question your data then you are doing the entire scientific community a disservice. I question my data all the time. Did I take this data correctly? Does this make sense in perspective of the literature? Why/Why not? Did I calculate something incorrectly? Was I blinded in one eye the day I took that datapoint? etc...

Fraggle145
7/28/2011, 11:00 AM
I guess it won't hurt to say...Elsevier. Scopus, in this case.

Cool. Stop charging so much for your journals so that OU can get a subscription for the one I need!!! ;) :D

SoonerAtKU
7/28/2011, 11:05 AM
I do my best. Honestly, whenever we get price or policy complaints, we really do pass them along at our summits and other meetings. I'm no longer in that side of things, but last year I was the manager for the team that does all of the support and setup for the institutions that do subscribe to ScienceDirect, Scopus, and the other big guns for us. I always looked out for OU branches and made sure their inquiries were dealt with quickly and politely. Sometimes I even had to step in and do it myself if I was worried a Sooner wasn't getting what they needed.

=)

Veritas
7/28/2011, 11:13 AM
The earth will be fine. People are ****ed.
-George Carlin

sappstuf
7/28/2011, 11:21 AM
Actually that is a terrible example. Just because you dont understand the statistics in the way they are talking about them doesnt mean they are questioning the data (at least questioning it with the negative conotation you are putting on it). The data is the data.

Secondarily, if you dont question your data then you are doing the entire scientific community a disservice. I question my data all the time. Did I take this data correctly? Does this make sense in perspective of the literature? Why/Why not? Did I calculate something incorrectly? Was I blinded in one eye the day I took that datapoint? etc...

You are missing the point. They ONLY questioned the data.. They never questioned the output from their models even though it was not matching up with the observable data. The models were never questioned because they couldn't be. What was set in stone was, CO2 is the main contributor to global warming, positive feedback loops, ect.... That couldn't be changed if man was to be at fault which is the entire point of AGW.

So to explain the differences in the observable data versus the models, explainations were made, such as "missing heat", ect.

At what point is the theory falsifiable?

GrapevineSooner
7/28/2011, 11:34 AM
I just want somebody or something to move this damn high pressure ridge over the south central US that's responsible for all the sinking air, which prevents storms from forming over my neck of the woods.

And to remind mother nature that these ridges aren't supposed to settle over Texas until late July, instead of the early part of the summer.

Go Don Go!

:D

sappstuf
7/28/2011, 11:39 AM
I just want somebody or something to move this damn high pressure ridge over the south central US that's responsible for all the sinking air, which prevents storms from forming over my neck of the woods.

And to remind mother nature that these ridges aren't supposed to settle over Texas until late July, instead of the early part of the summer.

Go Don Go!

:D


http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee199/bdevita1/Amen-Brother.jpg

pphilfran
7/28/2011, 11:49 AM
:pop:

Fraggle145
7/28/2011, 12:11 PM
You are missing the point. They ONLY questioned the data.. They never questioned the output from their models even though it was not matching up with the observable data. The models were never questioned because they couldn't be. What was set in stone was, CO2 is the main contributor to global warming, positive feedback loops, ect.... That couldn't be changed if man was to be at fault which is the entire point of AGW.

So to explain the differences in the observable data versus the models, explainations were made, such as "missing heat", ect.

At what point is the theory falsifiable?

Except that it was matching up with observable data. :confused: Its getting warmer on average. Regardless remember, it only explained 50% of the variance.

Models are as good as the data you put into them. How do you know they didnt question the models? Adding CO2 into the models was the only way to get them to mimic the current rises in temps (or whatever). There are more than one model out there. Some predicted it would be faster some slower. Look at the IPCC report again. It wasnt just one model (at least if I am remembering correctly it wasnt - or they had at least 3 different scenarios).

"Missing heat" is basically saying this model doesnt predict everything and only explains 50% of the variance, but its the best we have right now.

To me this doesnt blow a hole in anything. It basically says, "Here is some of that missing heat you were looking for, go make a new model that is better." How well does that model explain what is happening?

sappstuf
7/28/2011, 12:22 PM
I don't even know if I trust the surface temperatures that are taken. There was a paper released a couple months ago looking at the quality of weather stations in the US. They rated over 1000 of 1200 stations around the US and ranked them 1-5, with 1 meeting the standards that had been set by NOAA and 5 being the worst.

Generally a 1 was no artificial heat sources within 100 meters, like buildings, roads, ect, on grass that was cut short and not in the shade. Things get worse until at 4 artificial heat sources were less than 10 meters from the station. 5 means they were actually in a parking lot or on a building.

Over 70% of the stations were either rated 4 or 5. Some common examples.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d102/sappstuf/temp5.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d102/sappstuf/temp4.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d102/sappstuf/temp3.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d102/sappstuf/temp1.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d102/sappstuf/temp.jpg

Here is a link to the paper is you like.

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/r-3671.pdf

newest member
7/28/2011, 12:24 PM
Personally, I hope it gets much hotter. I'm curious to know just how far my balls can droop.

1890MilesToNorman
7/28/2011, 12:26 PM
Can I borough a beer from you? and maybe a smoke too?

pphilfran
7/28/2011, 12:28 PM
I predict that temps will go up another degree or two no matter what we do...

sappstuf
7/28/2011, 12:33 PM
Except that it was matching up with observable data. :confused: Its getting warmer on average. Regardless remember, it only explained 50% of the variance.
Models are as good as the data you put into them. How do you know they didnt question the models? Adding CO2 into the models was the only way to get them to mimic the current rises in temps (or whatever). There are more than one model out there. Some predicted it would be faster some slower. Look at the IPCC report again. It wasnt just one model (at least if I am remembering correctly it wasnt - or they had at least 3 different scenarios).

"Missing heat" is basically saying this model doesnt predict everything and only explains 50% of the variance, but its the best we have right now.

To me this doesnt blow a hole in anything. It basically says, "Here is some of that missing heat you were looking for, go make a new model that is better." How well does that model explain what is happening?

No it wasn't. There was a paper released last month that confirmed there had been no global warming in the past decade. But we know that CO2 has continued to rise during that time. It blamed the lack of warming on China burning coal.... Where is that in the models??

10 years is nothing, but neither is the 50-60 that warmists use.

sappstuf
7/28/2011, 12:43 PM
I predict that temps will go up another degree or two no matter what we do...

The earth has been generally warming for thousands of years... Not much reason to think it won't be warmer 100 years from now.

pphilfran
7/28/2011, 12:47 PM
The earth has been generally warming for thousands of years... Not much reason to think it won't be warmer 100 years from now.

we are still under three of the last four 100,000 year temp peaks...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/c02tempcorrect.jpg

sappstuf
7/28/2011, 12:50 PM
we are still under three of the last four 100,000 year temp peaks...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/c02tempcorrect.jpg

Phil,

put that chart away!! You are going to blow people's minds by showing them that CO2 increases follow temperature increases and not the other way around!!

Chuck Bao
7/28/2011, 01:04 PM
I knew that yahoo (linked back to the Heartland Institute) article was bogus by how sloppily it was written. I would beat one of the junior analysts that I work with around the head and shoulders if they gave me a report that poorly written. And, they are all non-native English speakers.

If you are going to worry about something, America's loss of competitiveness in the international market seems to be a much more immediate and verifiable issue.

picasso
7/28/2011, 01:13 PM
An article peppered with the words "alarmist" and spun by a writer who makes his living working for a conservative political organization.

I'll let the scientists sort, interpret, test, and verify the findings and read what they have to say on a scientific topic before I pay much heed to a biased source - especially a political or religious source.

Yeah, the **** does NASA know anyway.

OhU1
7/28/2011, 01:20 PM
Yeah, the **** does NASA know anyway.

NASA? You think NASA or someone associated with NASA wrote the article?

Someone writing for NASA I would give more credence. This was written by someone belonging to the "Heartland Institute". There's just a little difference in scientific objectivity and expertise there. Just a little. :O

bigfatjerk
7/28/2011, 01:37 PM
Climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years or so and way more than most of that was without people getting in the way. We've only really been involved in heavy industry the last couple hundred years. We are way overestimating our power if we really believe that we are really causing catastrophic changes in weather over the last 200 years.

picasso
7/28/2011, 01:38 PM
NASA? You think NASA or someone associated with NASA wrote the article?

Someone writing for NASA I would give more credence. This was written by someone belonging to the "Heartland Institute". There's just a little difference in scientific objectivity and expertise there. Just a little. :O

So you're saying he manipulated the NASA data to support his agenda?

bigfatjerk
7/28/2011, 01:43 PM
we are still under three of the last four 100,000 year temp peaks...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/c02tempcorrect.jpg

You've shown this data before but what the f*** were humans doing to cause the global warming apx 130k, 240k, and 340k years ago? We were still some sort of apes in those periods. So I guess those periods should be blamed on damn dirty apes?

One more thing warming isn't really that bad a thing. I bet more people die from extreme cold than extreme warmth. It's definitely a lot easier to go outside when it's 100 degrees than when it's 20 degrees and windy.

pphilfran
7/28/2011, 01:45 PM
You've shown this data before but what the f*** were humans doing to cause the global warming apx 130k, 240k, and 340k years ago? We were still some sort of apes in those periods. So I guess those periods should be blamed on damn dirty apes?

One more thing warming isn't really that bad a thing. I bet more people die from extreme cold than extreme warmth. It's definitely a lot easier to go outside when it's 100 degrees than when it's 20 degrees and windy.

Hundreds of thousands of years ago we didn't have catalytic converters on our cooking fires...

soonercruiser
7/28/2011, 01:57 PM
we are still under three of the last four 100,000 year temp peaks...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/c02tempcorrect.jpg

Phil what are the numbers at the bottom of the chart?
Can't be years B.P.??? (Before Phil)
You been keepin' track that long???

So, the catapult WAS a new invention?
:rolleyes:

soonercruiser
7/28/2011, 02:02 PM
Al Gore is now predicting a New Ice Age, and is doing a movie.
He's just stuck a little on the opening scene...

http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Other/Gore's%20tongue.jpg

OhU1
7/28/2011, 02:28 PM
So you're saying he manipulated the NASA data to support his agenda?

No.

I'm saying that it's foolish to accept the interpretation of data involving a complex scientific subject from an editorial article by a biased political source.

Now, it may turn out the writer is correct. But I'll wait until actual scientists have evaluated what this data and other data and information relates to our understanding of what's really going on.

Fraggle145
7/28/2011, 03:26 PM
Al Gore is now predicting a New Ice Age, and is doing a movie.
He's just stuck a little on the opening scene...

http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Other/Gore's%20tongue.jpg

Why do you always have to come into global warming threads and post the Al Gore picture? We ****ing get it. You hate Al Gore.

Al Gore has nothing to do with what the actual science says.

picasso
7/28/2011, 03:52 PM
No.

I'm saying that it's foolish to accept the interpretation of data involving a complex scientific subject from an editorial article by a biased political source.

Now, it may turn out the writer is correct. But I'll wait until actual scientists have evaluated what this data and other data and information relates to our understanding of what's really going on.

OK, good enough.

pphilfran
7/28/2011, 04:30 PM
Phil what are the numbers at the bottom of the chart?
Can't be years B.P.??? (Before Phil)
You been keepin' track that long???

So, the catapult WAS a new invention?
:rolleyes:

It is ice core data...number at the bottom is years back from current....I got as close to 5k years before data points as possible...

soonercruiser
7/28/2011, 08:25 PM
Why do you always have to come into global warming threads and post the Al Gore picture? We ****ing get it. You hate Al Gore.

Al Gore has nothing to do with what the actual science says.

But, Al Gore has everything to with the hypocrisy, and the real reason for the whole argument....(follow the $$$!).

Besides, I am still just super tickled every time I see it!
Kinda like a...... "tingly feeling running up my leg"!
:D

soonercruiser
7/28/2011, 08:25 PM
It is ice core data...number at the bottom is years back from current....I got as close to 5k years before data points as possible...

Thanks Phil.
Kinda what I "assumed".

Al Gore
7/28/2011, 08:44 PM
it's fake!!111!

It's fake!!!!!

soonercruiser
7/28/2011, 09:26 PM
It's fake!!!!!

BTW - Fraggle is wrong....I do not hate you Al!
:D

SoonerStormchaser
7/29/2011, 05:07 AM
http://www.starwarsepics.com/gallery/data/513/medium/dataaaaaaa.jpg

diverdog
7/29/2011, 06:33 AM
No.

I'm saying that it's foolish to accept the interpretation of data involving a complex scientific subject from an editorial article by a biased political source.

Now, it may turn out the writer is correct. But I'll wait until actual scientists have evaluated what this data and other data and information relates to our understanding of what's really going on.

This!

The Heartland Institute is a hard right political body that among other things defends smoking and says second hand smoke is not bad for you. So I take their view on this data with a grain of salt especially when they get a lot of funding from Exxon Mobile.

I have no idea if global warming is man made or not. What I do know is that I have been coming up to Maine (where I am now) on vacations for over 30 years and it is way warmer up here than when we first started to show up. Delaware where I live suffers from droughts every year and it use to be a place that you could grow anything. Whatever the cause is of global warming we are going to deal with it.

lexsooner
7/29/2011, 07:49 AM
This!

The Heartland Institute is a hard right political body that among other things defends smoking and says second hand smoke is not bad for you. So I take their view on this data with a grain of salt especially when they get a lot of funding from Exxon Mobile.

I have no idea if global warming is man made or not. What I do know is that I have been coming up to Maine (where I am now) on vacations for over 30 years and it is way warmer up here than when we first started to show up. Delaware where I live suffers from droughts every year and it use to be a place that you could grow anything. Whatever the cause is of global warming we are going to deal with it.

But you have to wait for winter to come and a snow storm or really cold front to move through and the SO doubters will be posting "So Where Is Your Global Warming Now?" threads. Wait, smoking is not good for you?