New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Animavore · #1 by **Animavore** » Aug 12, 2011 3:49 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.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.

Shrunk · #2 by **Shrunk** » Aug 12, 2011 3:55 pm

And now, some truth, courtesy of Phil Plait:

No, new data does not “blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism."

Animavore · #3 by **Animavore** » Aug 12, 2011 4:01 pm

I just noticed that myself. I got this from Rationalia seeking opinions because I mistakingly thought it was from today. When I realised the date I figured it would already be probed by now and found that same article. Also this one.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -feedback/

theropod · #4 by **theropod** » Aug 12, 2011 4:06 pm

Shrunk wrote:And now, some truth, courtesy of Phil Plait:

No, new data does not “blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism."

RS

Animavore · #5 by **Animavore** » Aug 12, 2011 7:29 pm

Here's a "science-y" rebuttal for those who can appreciate it (sorry, I don't fully understand the equations) http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

Alan C · #6 by **Alan C** » Aug 13, 2011 7:26 am

Spencer is also an advocate for Incompetent Design? Curiouser and curiouser.

ginckgo · #7 by **ginckgo** » Aug 17, 2011 6:04 am

"New Fossil Data Blow Gaping Hole in Evolution Theory"

"New Medical Data Blow Gaping Hole in Vaccination"

"New Seismic Data Blow Gaping Hole in Plate Tectonic Theory"

"New Epidemiological Data Blow Gaping Hole in HIV/AIDS Theory"

"New Misinterpreted Data Blow Gaping Hole in Misunderstood Science"

Macdoc · #8 by **Macdoc** » Aug 17, 2011 6:20 am

Must be the new tin hat shield over the US that is not releasing the heat it's supposed to according to Spencer. ( who is a proponent of ID as well as AGW denier ).

Wild Summer Heat Wave Smashes Records

OurAmazingPlanet
updated 8/1/2011 9:18:08 AM ET
Print Font:
As the temperatures have risen across the United States this summer, weather records have fallen left and right.
The horrible July heat wave, lasting weeks in some cities, the entire month in others, has affected nearly 200 million people in the United States at some point.
Plenty of records were set for highest temperatures. For the month of July, 1,479 daily records have been broken for highest temperature, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).
Highs and lows
Newark, N.J., set an all-time high at 108 degrees Fahrenheit (42.2 degrees Celsius) on July 22, breaking the record of 105 F (40.6 C), set in 2001.
In Washington, D.C., Dulles International Airport recorded its highest July temperature of all time at 105 F (40.6 C), on July 22. On that same day, water in the nearby Potomac River was the hottest ever recorded at 96 F (35.4 C) (records go back only to 1988), reported the Capital Weather Gang blog.
Neither of those cities had it as bad as Morehead, Minn. On July 19, the heat index there — a measure of humidity and temperature that indicates how hot the weather feels — was 134 F (56.7 C), making it the hottest place on Earth for the day, said meteorologist Heidi Cullen, of Climate Central, in an interview on National Public Radio. (The National Weather Service later said this reading could be an anomaly due to the local weather station's location in a very wet field, and not representative of the entire town.)
Sweaty days were not the only thing remarkable about the July heat wave. The heat wave's calling card was the scant relief after sunset. For July, 3,290 records were broken for daily highest minimum temperature, according to the NCDC.

If the atmosphere was releasing so much heat so readily - why were all those highest minimum records busted?? :coffee:

Gavin got it correct at RC .....no value to the paper

Jehannum · #9 by **Jehannum** » Aug 17, 2011 9:00 am

I don't know whether global warming is true or not. The thing that makes me worry is the kind of people who are saying it's not.

johnbrandt · **#10** by **johnbrandt** » Aug 17, 2011 9:49 am

Careful now...I've found out the hard way that anything that looks like it might cast doubt on any aspect of global warming which is reported in any ordinary media source at all by anyone who doesn't have a list of letters after their name (even if they are directly quoting someone who does...) then you are in for a series of strong rebuttals and ridicule... :grin:

Zwaarddijk · **#11** by **Zwaarddijk** » Aug 17, 2011 9:53 am

I find the usage of "alarmist" in the quoted part rather un-sciencelike. Scientific papers aren't supposed to be poisoning the well.

EDIT: (hah, read http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... -alarmism/ just after posting this - turns out I'm not the only one thinking like this.) /EDIT

johnbrandt · **#12** by **johnbrandt** » Aug 17, 2011 9:58 am

Not to mention that if it comes from a reputable source, but doesn't wholeheartedly, 100%, completely support global warming in every way, it's of "no value"...

Animavore · **#13** by **Animavore** » Aug 17, 2011 10:07 am

johnbrandt wrote:Not to mention that if it comes from a reputable source, but doesn't wholeheartedly, 100%, completely support global warming in every way, it's of "no value"...

If you bothered to read the rebuttals you would see his model is seriously flawed as it didn't factor in oceans, el ninos or clouds. It is for these reasons, and not that he works for a big oil company and is on the pay roll of a right-wing think tank and supports ID, that his paper should be rejected. The latter is just a bonus.
Also when asked to defend his model against the rebuttals by his own supporters he declined saying he was"too busy". http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

trubble76 · **#14** by **trubble76** » Aug 17, 2011 10:09 am

johnbrandt wrote:Not to mention that if it comes from a reputable source, but doesn't wholeheartedly, 100%, completely support global warming in every way, it's of "no value"...

Yes, you and the creationist lot, and the petrochemical lot think that. The rest of us go with the science.

ginckgo · **#15** by **ginckgo** » Aug 18, 2011 2:10 am

johnbrandt wrote:Not to mention that if it comes from a reputable source, but doesn't wholeheartedly, 100%, completely support global warming in every way, it's of "no value"...

Poe?

Ihavenofingerprints · **#16** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Sep 04, 2011 9:02 am

The editor of this journal resigned a few days ago over this.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... tml?ref=hp

The editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing has resigned over the publication of a paper questioning the reliability of climate models. Wolfgang Wagner of Vienna University of Technology in concluded that reviewers of the paper, published 25 July in the open-access journal, failed "to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims," and the paper "should therefore not have been published.

Also...

Johnbrant wrote:Careful now...I've found out the hard way that anything that looks like it might cast doubt on any aspect of global warming which is reported in any ordinary media source at all by anyone who doesn't have a list of letters after their name (even if they are directly quoting someone who does...) then you are in for a series of strong rebuttals and ridicule...

Is this directed at me? Because it is a massive strawman if it is. I'm all for accurately reporting science, but when the science isn't reported correctly I am against it. Simple enough? Are you for inaccurate reporting? It appears so in the "scientists predicted an ice age" thread of yours.

Macdoc · **#17** by **Macdoc** » Sep 04, 2011 1:33 pm

Anything bottom of the barrel snippet that might reduce the threat to JBs coal train of death job is clasped near to his heart. Accurate reporting of science doesn't even enter into the thought process ......it's pure self interest and self delusion.

It's okay JB,, coal use isn't going to end quickly ....might be nice to acknowledge the world as it really is instead of wishful thinking or your and other deniers part.

It's getting warmer
We're responsible
:coffee:

we'll just stay mum on coal's death toll.....

johnbrandt · **#18** by **johnbrandt** » Sep 04, 2011 8:02 pm

Gee, don't people get touchy if you dare show any doubt what so ever in the religion of human-caused global warming... :ahrr:

Guess all these guys are idiots too...well...I mus say that they are very brave to put thier hands up given the conditions today in science, where an differing viewpoint on almost any subject (except this one) is welcomed...
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Damn heratics... :grin:

Sityl · **#19** by **Sityl** » Sep 04, 2011 9:52 pm

johnbrandt wrote:Gee, don't people get touchy if you dare show any doubt what so ever in the religion of human-caused global warming...

Guess all these guys are idiots too...well...I mus say that they are very brave to put thier hands up given the conditions today in science, where an differing viewpoint on almost any subject (except this one) is welcomed...
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Damn heratics...

Viewpoints should be based on evidence. The ones that obstinately ignore most if not all available evidence only to suckle at the teat of a preconceived narrative of how the world is are not only not legitimate viewpoints, but they can be extremely dangerous.

Dogmatic Pyrrhonist · **#20** by **Dogmatic Pyrrhonist** » Sep 05, 2011 10:29 am

trubble76 wrote:
johnbrandt wrote:Not to mention that if it comes from a reputable source, but doesn't wholeheartedly, 100%, completely support global warming in every way, it's of "no value"...

Yes, you and the creationist lot, and the petrochemical lot think that. The rest of us go with the science.

Yesh, I can't help but be reminded of those who were in denial over lead in petrol being dangerous, or smoking being harmful, or fucking anything science comes out with that might be slightly inconvenient to deal with. The tactics are pretty much always the same too. Jump up and down about popular opinion instead of looking at the evidence. :coffee: