global warming models proven "huge"-ly wrong

Post Reply New Topic

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.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Dr. Spencer also advocates for intelligent design.

The first post in this thread is wrong.

According to my Environmental Science professors global warming is very real. According to studies (ie. past ice cores from the Antarctic) show that global warming followed by global cooling trends have been a natural occurance throughout the world's history. Times of warmth have also shown an increase in carbon in the cores. Because carbon is being released at an incredibly fast rate today, faster than ever before, we are warming at a rate faster than ever before which can cause detrimental effects on the world's ecosystems. We were on our way into a warming period anyway, but it is happening much faster than ever before.

then why have we been cooling?

It's climate change, not just global warming. Summers get hotter and winters get colder. Right-wing nutjobs love using the second fact to "disprove" the warming part.

your point? were the sensors somehow wrong because of this? are you proposing a magical force that causes the results of studies from people with such beliefs to be wrong?

also, technically there must be a god.

things only exist because they interact with each other. if something does not interact either directly or indirectly with something else then it cannot be effected by it and therefore it simply would not effectively exist.

when things interact with each other they, through the characteristics they have, create the laws by which that interaction occurs.

ergo, everything must happen for a reason, even if that reason is not as deep and profound as one would like.

and ergo merely by existing a system of laws is established amongst those entities/things that exist.

since god is an omnipresent omnipotent being and decides the laws by which all things abide it must be correct that a totality of existence which establishes all laws by which all things exist as noted in the previous sentences is therefore omnipotent because it establishes all laws and because such a totality of existence must be omnipresent as it is a body of all that exists and because of the fact that all entities and things must exist in concert with each other as they have established the laws by which all things and entities exist and interact with each other by the mere fact that they exist which establishes a form of "being"-hood then god must exist and god is a formation of all that exists.

because all these things act in a manner which must necessarily be constructive according to perception the must be some form of intelligence by which the construction occurs. It may not necessarily be an sentient intelligence though. (i think i am going to have to read some books about what reality actually is to further this argument)


your concept of god may differ, but if we go there then we'll just be arguing semantics i think.

the year round temp would not be cooler if there was no cooling.

no one is arguing against climate change, just the means by which it is caused. it has been happening ever since the earth was formed. co2 levels have been far higher than they are now with temps the same as they are now. there have also been period warmer than the current one with lower co2 levels.

MAN MADE climate change is a hoax.

the climate is always changing and always has.

Sorry, but you're wasting your time trying to tell the bleeding heart chicken littles anything. They WANT to believe - its a CAUSE for them and they simply will swallow anything told to them by the mainstream media in the name of 'Science' to back up their conviction that nature is in peril from the nefarious activity of humanity.

They willfully ignore the fact that the planet's climate is in constant flux and changes from one extreme to the other regularly, as it has many times before, due to our elliptical orbit around our star that takes us from fairly close in, to quite far out ever so many thousands of years. This is why we have had, and will continue to have cyclical Ice Ages and Thaws. It has nothing to do with human technology and humans do not have the ability to affect it in any significant way, much less stop it. If and when Mother Terra decides the human parasites have overpopulated to an extent that warrants, she will deal with it in her own way and we will be unable to resist her.

You know and I know that 'climate change' is a political myth - a scare tactic for manipulating the gullible - but don't waste your time trying to tell them that. Their scientists have said it, they believe it and that settles it. They'll figure it out thirty years from now when the world has not become the hellish oven they were expecting.

No matter what happens to the climate...gee humans must have caused it

Really??? No. The earth is constantly changing, but the polititians behind the man made climate change concept have invested alot of money into green engineering and other things to "save" the earth. They realized that the climate is about to change, so they created the largest hoax on earth to get rich from it.

Now there are enviromental threats due to humans like mercury contamination in most bodies of water in the US and loss of animal habitat throughout the world. We should focus on these things, but humans effecting climate is total BS unless you are talking about cutting down a rain forest comepletely...that will cause the rain forest to become a desert rather quickly, but that is not global climate that is affected, but local.

The science is consistent with other satellite data that does not rely on computer predictions so his beliefs about the creation of the universe are irrelevant. Believing in God does not affect the interpretation of data about present day events and data that doesn't change, like physics and chemistry.

That is an irrelevant ad hominum. Has Spencer's work been peer reviewed?

If it holds up to peer review then it does not matter whether Dr. Spencer believes in unicorns or not.

ruveyn

So I read a good chunk of the actual study and the article and headline are tremendously misleading. I have a B.S. in Atmospheric Science and a background in remote sensing and can say with confidence that this new finding does not, in any way, debunk global warming (or climate change, which is more appropriate). It is, however, a very helpful breakthrough that will help scientists improve on their modeling capabilities.

The finding here is that current models for radiative feedback do not accurately predict radiative transfer, mostly due to inaccurate predictions of cloud formation. It does not dispute current, recorded data (by both station models and satellite measurements) that clearly display a sudden and sharp increase in temps. Here's a link for that data if anyone's interested: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

So basically, climatologists thought that an increase in temps would lead to more clouds. This new finding shows that that assumption is most likely wrong. So what does that mean? Well, it could lead to many different outcomes. Less clouds mean more insolation during the day which leads to greater heating and more instability which leads to an increase in severe weather events. On the flip side, more radiative escape during the night can help the earth cool more efficiently leading to a gradual cooling. Remember though, less clouds during daylight still lead to a further rise in temps so this reduces the overall cooling.

In any case, the direct CO2/warming relationship and the observed increase in CO2 is not disputed here. Could the doomsday predictions about global warming be wrong? Of course they could be, but I'd like to remind everyone that Al Gore is not a scientist and his movie was a dramatic film. The actual scientists doing the research are doing honest work, including the scientists behind this latest finding. The political spin occurs in the way these findings are shown to the public.

This article was poorly written by James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute - a libertarian American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. This is the same group who worked with Philip Morris to question the link between second hand smoke and health risks. They lobby hard in Washington against public health reforms. It's always a good idea to question your source.

But I absolutely agree with what jojobean said earlier about pollution being a much larger threat. It is. I'm not nearly as concerned about climate change, or even CO2, as I am about the myriad of carcinogens and other contaminants being dumped into our water, air, and land. If your house floods, it sucks, but you'll most likely survive. Cancer often has a much more permanent effect.

Back when I was in school we were taught that the earth was cooling, and we were headed towards an ice age. There even was a scientific consensus. But it doesn't mean they were right.

For most of humanity everyone agreed that the sun rotated around the earth. Anyone who disagreed was labeled as an idiot because any sane person could just look to the sky and see the sun rotating around the earth.

In the big scheme of things we know so little that I am skeptical about anyone who claims to "know for certain" anything.

I have stated more than once that modelling can fit -any- set of data, be it true or false. This discovery about radiation rates underlines the fact that our physical grasp of climate is far from complete. In short, the underlying science is deficient. If that is the case, one must wonder just what the models are worth.

One of these days we may be real climate science as opposed to climate models. But today is not that day.


ruveyn

That day will never come, unless of course time travel is possible. Nothing is certain until it is occurring or has occurred. I for one enjoy educated predictions. They help us to plan. But predictions will never be perfect. No scientist would ever make a claim otherwise. They can only be improved upon through scientific research and study which is always ongoing. Your quest for certainty on this matter will never be satisfied.

I think it is more wise and prudent to take a pragmatic approach here. The benefits of green energy and technology far outweigh cons, with respect to both the environment and cost. I think the focus on CO2 emissions is slightly misguided, but reducing overall pollution and dependance on oil is a very good thing.

We live in a landfill. We over consume and we're wasteful. When we throw something away, do we stop and think about where "away" is? How many soldiers and civilians have died over finite energy resources and is it really worth it? I don't think so. We can do a heck of a lot better, so why not try?