New Satellite Data Smashes Anthropogenic Global Warming Myth

Forbes’ James Taylor reports on the new findings:

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 dioxidetrap 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.

Continue reading here.

Unsurprising to say the least given the massive amount of lies that were uncovered during the Climate Gate scandal.

Scientists can calculate the amount of heat CO2 directly traps from human emissions. This amount of heat is incredibly small. In order for human emissions to cause any real change in climate, alarmist scientists have to incorporate “feedback” mechanisms in their models that greatly amplify the known effects of human CO2 warming.

These “feedback” mechanisms are entirely hypothetical constructs which are incorporated into alarmist computer models. This study destroys all of the scientific basis for those hypothetical models. In effect, the study turns anthropogenic warming models into works of fiction.

Dr. Roy Spencer comments on his research:

The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

Since scientists are completely unable to make any distinction between feedback and forcing, any models that attempt to use feedback mechanisms to bolster claims of man made warming are nothing more than wild speculation. This means there necessarily can be no proof of man made warming.

Guess how much money politicians and their “green” corporate whores want to take from you based on wild speculation?

Nope, its more than that. Keep guessing.


Additionally

CBS News reports:

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.

WUWT reports:

Nibbling by herbivores can have a greater impact on the width of tree rings than climate, new research has found. The study, published this week in the British Ecological Society’s journal Functional Ecology, could help increase the accuracy of the tree ring record as a way of estimating past climatic conditions.

That last report completely discredits the Mann report which was involved in the Climate Gate scandal.

Climate Depot rep orts:

The Arctic has rebounded in recent years, the Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in past few summers, polar bears appear to be thriving, sea level is not showing acceleration and may be dropping, Mount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover, global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more...

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

It doesn't 'smash' anything, and has already been posted.

Originally posted by chocise
It doesn't 'smash' anything, and has already been posted.

I beg to differ.

All models that incorporate feedback mechanisms (which are all of them) are now totally worthless as scientific measures of man made warming.

If no distinction between forcing and feedback can be scientifically determined, then all models that incorporate them are nothing more than works of fiction. They are wild speculation based on propaganda rather than facts.

reply to post by mnemeth1


It wasnt even taken into context.. All NASA was saying was global warming maybe slower, they didnt say it wasnt an issue..

You should look into "James Tayler" also.

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

..... All NASA was saying was global warming maybe slower, they didnt say it wasnt an issue.

Indeed.

... but as per, folk will hear what they want to hear & disregard the rest.

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

It wasnt even taken into context.. All NASA was saying was global warming maybe slower, they didnt say it wasnt an issue..

You should look into "James Tayler" also.

LOL

Here's some context, straight from the horse's mouth.

Dr. Roy Spencer, author of the study, comments:

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show”...“There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
...
"At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained"
...
“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that”...“The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

Originally posted by chocise

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

..... All NASA was saying was global warming maybe slower, they didnt say it wasnt an issue.

Indeed.

... but as per, folk will hear what they want to hear & disregard the rest.

No, that is not what they are saying.

They are saying any model that uses forcing and feedback mechanisms is nothing more than wild speculation.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Er, that doesnt prove much for the point you are attempting to make.. You know the mistake you make? You try to look at climate change not as a scientist but as a lawyer, pecking words apart for you're own gain and ommiting the rest.

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Er, that doesnt prove much for the point you are attempting to make.. You know the mistake you make? You try to look at climate change not as a scientist but as a lawyer, pecking words apart for you're own gain and ommiting the rest.

edit on 28-7-2011 by ShogunAssassins because: (no reason given)

What am I omitting?

Are my quotes not valid because I didn't copy and paste the entire article?

Is that what you are suggesting?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Try looking into the full report, not a one sided column eh? You might learn a few things.

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Try looking into the full report, not a one sided column eh? You might learn a few things.

Please, enlighten me.

Quote from the report for me and show me where I am wrong.

reply to post by mnemeth1


You might also look at other things James Tayler has done

blogs.forbes.com...

Since you claim a blog news.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

It wasnt even taken into context.. All NASA was saying was global warming maybe slower, they didnt say it wasnt an issue..

You should look into "James Tayler" also.

LOL

Here's some context, ....

and here's some more:

Detailed Picture of Ice Loss Following the Collapse of Antarctic Ice Shelves

Melting Icebergs in Polar Oceans Causing Sea Level Rise Globally, New Assessment Findss

Accelerated Melting Of Continental Icepacks Is Major Reason For Rise In Sea Level Between 2003 And 2008

Lasers From Space Show Thinning Of Greenland And Antarctic Ice Sheets

First Direct Evidence That Human Activity Is Linked To Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse

Nothing to worry about thou', as it simply isn't happening... like the changes we're all witnessing in global climate trends.

It's right before your eyes yet you chose to live in denial.

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You might also look at other things James Tayler has done

blogs.forbes.com...

Since you claim a blog news.

I also quoted from the University of Alabama press release and there is a link to the study itself in the main article.

Of course, I'm sure you will discredit those too as being illegitimate sources.

Why am I sure of this? Because you are a propagandist.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Ah also, no need really,... The quotes you use will work

"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."

You understand the word "less" ?

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Ah also, no need really,... The quotes you use will work

"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."

You understand the word "less" ?

Now who is omitting pertinent information?

The quote doesn't just say "less" - it says "far less" - as in, 'next to nothing'.

reply to post by ShogunAssassins


www.scientificamerican.com...

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by ShogunAssassins

 

www.scientificamerican.com...

Totally unrelated to the forcing feedback issue that has been discredited by the OP study.

But thanks for trying.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Its the exact same as more c02 is more flora... Its a temporary slow down, not an end.

But again, nice attempt at picking apart words for some weird personal gain.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by ShogunAssassins

 

www.scientificamerican.com...

Totally unrelated to the forcing feedback issue that has been discredited by the OP study.

But thanks for trying.

climate.nasa.gov...