New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism.

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.

Here is a collection of the climategate emails - revealing just what activists they were and how they deliberately distorted the data to fit the message.

In this annotated edition of the Climategate emails, John Costella shows us how a very small cabal of climate scientists, based at the University of East Anglia and at Penn State University, were able to control the temperature record fed into the IPCC reports and which comprised the foundation on which the whole global warming structure was based.

The only data base which they could not influence was the satellite measured temperature data which John Christy and Roy Spencer, from the University of Alabama, had established from 1979 on. That this was a real conspiracy is beyond argument. The word “conspiracy” is used by the players themselves. In any conspiracy there is a tight inner core and then successive rings of collaborators, who accept the leadership of the central core.

news.yahoo.com...

www.lavoisier.com.au...




Meanwhile as the credibility of the GW scam further unravells - the policy makers that used it as a stalking horse for their real agendas are going ahead full steam.

Business facing a wave of green taxes Thousands of British businesses will be liable for significant fines and charges under a new government “green tax” scheme.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Every household is paying £500 more than they should in green taxes, researchers claim. Their figures show that environmental taxes hit £41billion last year as family finances came under great strain. They say ministers are using the levies as an excuse to take more money from the taxpayer. In a hard-hitting book called Let them eat carbon, Matthew Sinclair argues that environmental levies are excessive compared with the harms they are meant to address. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

How does this blow a hole in global warming. The average temperature is still rising and nobody is certain of the reasons why.

All this does is eliminate one theory.

It is important to note that global warming is seperate from climate change. They are two completely different things.

Originally posted by kro32
How does this blow a hole in global warming. The average temperature is still rising and nobody is certain of the reasons why.

All this does is eliminate one theory.

It is important to note that global warming is seperate from climate change. They are two completely different things.

edit on 20-8-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)

One theory? How about, the most important theory?

What you're missing or have chosen to ignore is the base argument from which the global warming/climate change dichotomy arose: Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW.

Man-caused global warming is the reason we have so much discussion over carbon , CO2 and human emission of greenhouse gases. If it turns out that these GHGs do not increase Earth's retention of solar radiation as much as has been claimed by AGW advocates, then a large part of their cries for CO2 remediation and reduction fly out the window; as well as $100,000,000,000 per year set to be re-distributed from industrialized countries to others, including AGW advocates' pockets and labs.

If the models fail, the agenda fails.

See this, too:
New Satellite Data Smashes Anthropogenic Global Warming Myth

jw

Global warming is a false tax, that allows selling of energy credits "globally" the temps average have been dropping. Should we be concerned, yes but because of pollution, toxins in the air. The global warming hoax does not address that, many ie AL GORE are getting very wealthy from his "World" Tax.

Originally posted by kro32
How does this blow a hole in global warming. The average temperature is still rising and nobody is certain of the reasons why.

All this does is eliminate one theory.

It is important to note that global warming is seperate from climate change. They are two completely different things.

edit on 20-8-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)

Seems like someone has been telling you porkies!

And it is important to note that since they coudn't make the GW scare stick - they simply changed the goal posts and called it Climate Change, so that whatever happens they could spin it as man made and therfore requiring expensive controls and regulation.

It is good news that the authors of the PNAS paper Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 – 2008 (Kaufmann et al. 2011) recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998.

Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade. The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.

They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.

The researchers seek to explain the temperature standstill between 1998 and 2008. They say that the global temperature has increased since then. This is misleading. There was an El Nino in 2010 (natural cyclic warming) but even that did not raise temperatures above 1998. In fact the standstill has continued to 2010 and 2011 appears to be on course to be a cooler year than any of the preceding ten years. Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data.

The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade.

www.thegwpf.org...

reply to post by kro32


One reason it is rising would be that they are measuring near cities, more pavement, more buildings, means more heat. That is some of the data they are using to skew in their favour. To think that we have the ability to heat up a gigantic planet is crazy. For all we know this might be one of Earth's cycles.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by kro32

 

One reason it is rising would be that they are measuring near cities, more pavement, more buildings, means more heat. That is some of the data they are using to skew in their favour. To think that we have the ability to heat up a gigantic planet is crazy. For all we know this might be one of Earth's cycles.

I never implied that humans were the reason only that the earth is heating up and I don't think you will find even a skeptical scientist that will argue that. It's simply a matter of taking the temperature and measuring it against past data.

As far for how the do take the temperature you are so far off base it's ridiculous. I've seen them collect the data at my University and it's a bit more scientific than what you think. I'm not stating anything other than the fact that global warming is real.

I don't believe it has a big impact on climate change myself but that's not a scientific theory at all just my guess.

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by kro32

 

I'm not stating anything other than the fact that global warming is real.

It is good news that the authors of the PNAS paper Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 – 2008 (Kaufmann et al. 2011) recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood



Well I stand corrected. You put up a quote by someone so I must be wrong. Yes temperatures are dropping.

Fantastic research there.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

Well I stand corrected. You put up a quote by someone so I must be wrong. Yes temperatures are dropping.

Fantastic research there.

It has been universaly accepted that global temperatures are NOT RISING for a loooong time!

Which is why they changed the goalposts away from Global WARMING to Climate Change!

And yet you apparently have no idea - even though I believe you are a student at uni.

You ought to seriously evaluate just who is feeding you the information that forms your opinions

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


I could throw up so much evidence for you but frankly it's pointless. I've done it before in other posts so if you want to see the EVIDENCE than I suggest you go read some global warming threads where i've done this. Other than that believe what you want I suppose, that's your right.

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by kro32

 

One reason it is rising would be that they are measuring near cities, more pavement, more buildings, means more heat. That is some of the data they are using to skew in their favour. To think that we have the ability to heat up a gigantic planet is crazy. For all we know this might be one of Earth's cycles.

I never implied that humans were the reason only that the earth is heating up and I don't think you will find even a skeptical scientist that will argue that. It's simply a matter of taking the temperature and measuring it against past data.

As far for how the do take the temperature you are so far off base it's ridiculous. I've seen them collect the data at my University and it's a bit more scientific than what you think. I'm not stating anything other than the fact that global warming is real.

I don't believe it has a big impact on climate change myself but that's not a scientific theory at all just my guess.

So they don't take the temperature in populated areas? Sorry I didn't know. I just assumed they would as it is easier for them to have equipment within driving distance, not flying distance. Please educate me in how they collect this data and how they take into account the urban heat island effect. Not trying to be a jerk, I just don't know.
But...please explain how I am so far off base it's ridiculous? don't they take the temperature?? That is pretty much what I said. I just didn't know HOW they took it. I believe global warming is real as well, however, I think it is just a natural cycle. Don't be a jerk. Be an educator.

Yes they did cherry pick the data!



Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

.................And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:

The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.

One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk... ta-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

This is clearly a conspiracy of vast proportions very smoothly executed and with hugely powefull interests behind it - that are still covering for it, even though the details of the fraud are plain for everyone to see!

.................. Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.

These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

For example, Canada's reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That's right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left "one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65." And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as "The Garden Spot of the Arctic" due to its unusually moderate summers. Not just Canadian data, but data sets everywhere were torqued so that cold data simply melted away, or so say these researchers. For instance, Hawaiian data (taken on hot airport tarmacs, of course) was used as stand-in data for cooler ocean waters 1200km away.

See, the climate model breaks the planet surface down into 8000 grids. But there are only 1500 weather stations. They fill the gaps using stations within 1200 km of the empty grid:

stevejanke.com...

Not surprising.

Funny how I defended myself from the kinds of people who claimed that those saying global warming was false and a lie were "nutjobs" (even Prince Charles himself used that term) and these "scientists" purposely ignored what even an everyday guy like me saw, that Earth goes through these periods of ice melting and temperatures soaring before then cooling down again.

It's a regular cycle and I hope this NASA report helps those of us who aren't foolish or gullible enough to buy into the global warming lie now.