We can only hope for a wide enough dissemination of truth to jeopardize Algore's future earnings. Maybe he'll even have to sell his $8.875M California digs.
Posted on 07/28/2011 7:20:33 AM PDT by driftdiver
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Argon is used in double and triple pane windows because of how well it insulates against heat loss through windows. If CO2 is better why don’t window manufacturers use it? Look up the details on how well argon and CO2 transfer heat and compare them.
0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere is CO2. Argon is right about 1% which is over twice the amount.
If the Leftist didn’t have an agenda for destroying America and ridding the world of humanity and were honest with themselves and others you would have seen them on the warpath to reduce argon emissions in whatever is creating it.
The Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever is BS intended to create a new industry of 'Carbon Credit Exchange'. The people pushing Global Warming also have invested heavily in the 'Carbon Credit Exchange' industry. Al Gore was planning on being a billionaire.
This will be my argument with the next warming bozo I encounter.
But, but, but I thought the “science” was settled. Al Gore said so. Only ignorant, denilialist, flat-earther, spam-sucking trailer trash had doubts about the THEORY of anthropomorphic global warming.
While the statement, “Argon is right about 1% which is over twice the amount,” is correct. It IS over twice the amount...
It’s much more than twice the amount.
Technically, it’s almost 24x.
Argon .934%
CO2 .039%
That’s 23.948x
I think the money was a side benefit. Their true purpose for pushing globull warming is control. By controlling energy use you can control every aspect of peoples lives.
The so called scientists simply saw it as a great way to get grant money and go on taxpayer funded vacations.
We can only hope for a wide enough dissemination of truth to jeopardize Algore's future earnings. Maybe he'll even have to sell his $8.875M California digs.
Thanks for catching that!
July 26, 2011 · 10:52 am
Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.
The University of Alabama has issues a news release on it which reads
Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”
The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.
In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.
“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.
This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.
Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.
Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.
“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “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.”
For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.
The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.
http://vidcall.com/index.php/videos/show/2090/#chooseVidcallMailWin-coming-soon
Poor Australians got caught in Algore’s trap. :(
These people reverse that to needing new data (or to "correct" the data) to fit the model.
Stands science on its head.
50 or so years ago, in Azimov's Foundation Trilogy, future "research scientists" of the [decadent] Empire were portrayed as never going into lab, 'because previous scientists had already done the work; it would be wasteful to repeat their experiments. Our job is to read their reports, weigh which side has the most evidence, then draw our conclusions to make the decisions...".
Nobady would have believed him had he placed such statements in such a near future.
The key requirement for a GHG is that it absorbs infra-red (heat) radiation in the frequency region where a 'black-body' at earth-surface temperatures radiates. This blocks surface radiation and forces the IR heat radiation to 'outer-space' to occur from higher altitudes, where the atmosphere is colder, and the heat radiation is thus much weaker.
Clouds at night do the same thing, but clouds block the sun during the day whereas greenhouse gases do not. Argon, oxygen, and nitrogen do not absorb significantly in the IR region of interest (but ozone does, and is a GHG)
I’ve read a while back that the thermal conductivity for Ar is lower than CO2 which would make it a better insulator from a convection standpoint. Ar is only slightly more dense than CO2. If we want to go with the density of the gas reducing the amount of convection through a window I’m surprised the window manufacturers aren’t using Kr or Xe instead of Ar.
Please correct me if I am wrong what I have just said.
Thermal conductivity (i.e., long-range energy transfer from atom to atom) is not an issue, the primary transfer mechanism is motion of the atoms themselves via mass-flow currents, i.e., convection. This is why fiberglass insulation is so effective -- it impedes the gas current flow -- and why triple-pane glass is better than double.
Incidentally, that is also the real-greenhouse effect. The glass roof prevents the thermal convection flow upwards 'into the wild-blue yonder' which occurs outside the greenhouse -- it physically traps the warm air within say 9-10 ft of the ground.
Global warming scientist under investigation
Is It Over for Global Warming Alarmism?
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
New Study of NASA Data May Debunk Global Warming Predictions
Global Warming on Free Republic
CO2 does lag the warming, so as the ocean warms the CO2 rises over the next few centuries. But warming oceans (natural warming since the end of the Little Ice Age) only accounts for about 5-10 ppm of the rise in CO2. The rest of the current rise is manmade. To show just how far ahead we are, if we stopped producing CO2 today, the amounts in the atmosphere would immediately drop half way back to preindustrial levels within decades.
This news is probably going to hurt the employment rate in the short term.
Think of what will happen to the Marxist environmental-crisis alarmism industry?
These people may have to start looking for new jobs. MAYBE. Or perhaps these very productive individuals can be bought out by the media government conglomeration and entertainment industry where LIEberal fiction is best suited, I suppose.
No it is more or less the opposite. Here on earth the first 5 ppm of CO2 have a very large effect. Each subsequent 5 ppm adds an exponentially diminishing amount of warming. That's why increases here on earth are not a problem, not only does CO2 itself have less of an effect, the water cycle will accelerate and cause cooling.
Both CO2 and H2O absorb IR because of their asymmetric molecules. That's one reason why CO2 lasers produce infrared.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
