Forbes: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In 'Global Warming' Alarmism

[Sidewinder]

You mean the climate experts' sophisticated computer models are wrong? Impossible!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

By James Taylor | Forbes – Wed, Jul 27, 2011

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.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

[db44]

Forbes is not reporting this: Forbes is reporting on a report done separately from the publication. There is a difference. The Forbes author seems to be doing a guest feature, as his credentials are listed at the end of the story. This writer is affiliated with the Heartland Institute, which just happens to take a dim view of every Obama policy. A web search points to the institute being a Libertarian think tank, funded partially by Exxon Mobil.

To say this is Forbes reporting or supporting this claim would be like Rush reading a positive report about healthcare and saying he's reporting or supporting it.

[Richard Tafoya]

You're expecting Brad to understand nuance. Bad move. He subscribes to an imaginary world of absolutes where men are GI Joe figures and women cower in kitchens and if Rush doesn't say he believes it, Brad doesn't believe it.

[Java]

And here after all these years I thought cirrus clouds were formed as an atmospheric reaction started by jet contrails...