New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

Forbes/Yahoo ^ | July 27, 2011 | James Taylor

[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.

[driftdiver]

This guy is gonna have his scientist badge revoked by Al Gore if he keeps this up.

[Puppage]

Who needs facts when we have feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings?

[skeeter]

I’m no scientist but this seems to settle the matter.

[Red Badger]

The science is settled. We have a CONsensus.................

[Da Coyote]

Which completely vindicates stupid skeptics such as I who had the audacity to run the numbers and use my math/physics background to determine that the whole thing was a pile of bull-Obama.

The earth may heat, the earth may cool....who knows?

But whatever it chooses to do, it won’t be because of CO2.

[bolobaby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txPqV0lZaSE

:-D

[Matchett-PI]

bttt

[ETL]

"...supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause [historically -etl]. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
_______________________________________________________________

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) — Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

[ETL]

Obama and Browner are on the same page with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Their "solution" to the non-existent problem of "man-made global warming" is identical: SOCIALIST GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

From The Washington Times, January 12, 2009

Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Group sees 'global governance' as solution

by Stephen Dinan

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

lots more...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/
_______________________________________________

Here's a link to an image of a Google cache of the Socialist International's webpage that originally included Obama's "Climate Czar" Carol Browner.
http://24ahead.com/images/si-csws-cache-as-of-011009.jpg
_______________________________________________

From GreenLeft.org

VENEZUELA: Chavez calls for global offensive for socialism
August 31, 2005

excerpts...

"The environment is suffering damage that could be irreversible — global warming, the greenhouse effect, the melting of the polar ice caps, the rising sea level, hurricanes — with terrible social occurrences that will shake life on this planet."

"I believe this idea has a strong connection with reality. I don't think we have much time. Fidel Castro said in one of his speeches I read not so long ago, 'tomorrow could be too late, let's do now what we need to do'."

"I believe it is time that we take up with courage and clarity a political, social, collective and ideological offensive across the world — a real offensive that permits us to move progressively, over the next years, the next decades, leaving behind the perverse, destructive, destroyer, capitalist model and go forward in constructing the socialist model to avoid barbarism and beyond that the annihilation of life on this planet."

--Hugo Chavez, at the 16th World Festival of Youth and Students, held in Caracas on August 8-15, 2005

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/640/640p16.htm

[No Truce With Kings]

Ah yes. Another reason to cut NASA’s budget. Politically inccorect science.

(Do I need a sarc tag? Probably.)

[Maverick68]

b

[GonzoGOP]

But whatever it chooses to do, it won’t be because of CO2.

At least not at the atmospheric levels that they are talking about. Sure if you go to Venus where the atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 you are going to get some serious greenhouse effect. But Earth's CO2 level is 0.038%. Double it to 0.076% and it would still be below a rounding error on Venus.

[LibertarianLiz]

It’s a good morning when I begin by reading that the “scientist” who had started all that bunk about polar bears is being investigated for fraud and now this. Go NASA. The “One” made NASA start using part of its budget to study globull warming. Well, hows that working out?

[sasquatch]

Politically incorrect science.

Scientifically incorect science.

[Senator_Blutarski]

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause [historically -etl]. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

I've been saying this for years. CO2 increases lag behind the temperature changes. Just like a soda can on a hot day, the oceans are losing their fizz. This is literally 8th grade science.

[opentalk]

Rush talking about, the last two launches of NASA satellites to monitor global warming both crashed (conveniently, implied by Rush) into the ocean at the same spot, two years apart.

NASA satellite crashes in ocean (March 2011)

In 2009 another satellite, which would have studied global warming, crashed into the ocean near Antarctica. Officials said Glory likely wound up landing in the same area.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Truth in science (and other venues of society) progresses generally due to the cumulative contributions of honest and diligent scientists who do the non-glamorous reproducible work. Glamor seeking celebrity scientists like James Hansen are generally a distraction and ultimately don’t make very substantive contributions, despite the amount of grant money they get, the number of countries they visit for academic conferences and seminars, the number of times they are on TV, and the cost of the tax-deductible wine they drink at their meetings.

[NohSpinZone]

I'm shocked, shocked to find that liberal scientists have been making up facts to fit their agenda.

[ETL]

CO2 increases lag behind the temperature changes.

They lag behind by an average of 800 years. Furthermore, temps didn't rise further following the release of CO2 from the naturally warming oceans.

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red, CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation/ice-age periods, approximately 100,000 years apart. Look carefully at the historical relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does this data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually *followed* temperature increases, lagging behind by an average of 800 years! Furthermore, and importantly, the subsequent CO2 level increases (due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans) never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and company continue warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had ever led to any significant global warming when the levels were within 10-15 times of what they are today. -etl

[faucetman]

“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.”

Rush's guy, Roy Spencer. The official EIB climate scientist. (after Dixie Lee Ray died).