News Flash: NASA Climate Data Challenges Global Warming Alarms

NASA satellite data show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, according to a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

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,” Spencer and UAHuntsville'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 UAHuntsville 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 UAHuntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

http://www.uah.edu/news/newspages/campusnews.php?id=564

Comments

[KenPo]

Does this mean I don't have to trade in my Hummer?

[Lee]

 It seems the man made global warming theory is falling apart for the powers that be. Nice try with your attempt at damage control Daily Galaxy. 
  To put things into perspective of the hypocracy at hand I will list a few examples: First, On Google Earth the location known as Jaun de fuca  strait (body of water near southern Vancouver island that separates Canada and USA) show evidence of ancient river beds that stretch to the edge of the continental shelf signifying sea levels during the last ice age. 2:  Research shows that between about AD 950 -1250 people were farming on now ice covered Greenland; this ended with  the advent of the Maunder minimum  which was about AD 1645-1715 when sunspot activity is known to be at the lowest in recorded history.
With the information at hand and the now discredited IPCC hockey stick graph any rational thinking mind must conclude that the world's climate is always changing and there is no evidence to prove human activities are effecting it negetivly. Rather than worrying about MMGW I wish we put the same effort into worrying about how the ton's of unreported depleted Uranium that is being dropped on war ravaged nations is effecting our environment. 
The scare tactics being used to trick us into submitting to a carbon cap and trade system must be a aborted and our good will to save the planet put to practical use.

[Dave]

Should we now expect NASA to be totally cancelled for releasing this information?

[Riz]

Something to consider:

http://www.space.com/12469-climate-change-debunked-fast.html

[Dan Pangburn]

A simple equation based on the physical phenomena involved, with inputs of accepted measurements from government agencies, calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 (that’s 115 years and counting) with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). See the equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10, and 3/10/11).
The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down.
This trend is corroborated by the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising agt. From 2001 through May, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 22.3% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased. The 22.3% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period. The trend of the average of the five reporting agencies has declined steeply since the peak of the last El Nino in about March 2010.
As the atmospheric CO2 continues to rise in the 21st century while the agt does not, more people will realize that they have been deceived.

[Aquanerd]

Dr. Roy Spencer is a known Creationist. Enough said.

[morbo]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

[Karl Frank]

It's official. Daily Galaxy will now be deleted from my RSS feed.

[Lee]

North America was inundated with glaciers up until 10,000 years ago proving the climate was much cooler during that period than it is now. Since then our climate has fluctuated between warmer and cooler times depending on the phase of the solar cycle and the much longer  phases of energetic galactic discharges coming from the crab nebula and the galactic centre exposing our solar system to waves of radiation lasting tens, hundreds, and thousands of years, ie. The time between the height of the medieval climate optimum and the low of the medieval minimum plotted on a line graph represents one of these waves in hundreds of years. In retrospect, the Height of a warm non glaciated period and the bottom of a cold glaciated period also represents one one of these waves but in thousands of years. Every 64 million years there is a extinction event that is recorded in the fossil record and this is a process of our solar system oscillating in and out of the galactic plain as it travels through the galaxy.
 Since 1850 the world's  modern glaciers have been melting allowing green eco fools to entertain the idea that the industrial revolution caused a toxic carbon greenhouse effect but under these once ice covered landscapes scientists are finding  remnants of medieval  vegetation that thrived  roughly a thousand years ago during much warmer times than the present.  I ask, how does one ignore the true science on this subject unless you are ignorant or compromised by the cabal attempting to push the lie of man made global warming to allow for a cap and trade lock down of our planet. Check out the basement team on larouchepac

[urmaa]

another kick in the head for the global warmist cabal. similarly to this data, we're entering into a period of low (or no, even) sunspot/solar activity, so the chances are the temp may actually decrease. i agree with riz - soon - i'd say within a decade or two - it will become impossible to ignore the deception of co2 causing warming. a lot of people are going to be very angry! the frightening thing of course is how the mainstream media and the politicians continue to peddle these lies despite the obvious science. hopefully their deception will not be forgotten.

still - coming up to the last chance to take advantage of these government grants to get solar panels on your roof etc.! i mean - if they're deceiving us, we may as well rip them off too! that'll be fun - the big electricity companies having to pay YOU for electricity for the next 25 years despite never needing to in the first place! hah! i like that idea!

[KenPo]

Posted by: Aquanerd | July 29, 2011 at 03:12 PM

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

Damn, guess I'll have to trade in my Hummer after all. A person who's work is funded by ExxonMobile and on top of it all believes the earth is about 6000 years old cannot be be trusted to talk about anything scientific

[TudorV]

This study by Spencer has been debunked just two days after it was brought into the public spotlight by a Forbes editor from the Heartland Institute.

The data it contains are poorly-correlated, and rely on climate models that have been proven to be severely mistaken. The release of this work is just an attempt to sway public opinion away from the measures that need to be taken, and is nothing but a political maneuver.

[Pan]

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

[Karmakaze]

Funnily enough, Spencer has done it again. He has managed to get a climate paper published in a non-climate journal that has severe shortcomings and shouldn't even have been published.

See:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

[James]

For government scientists usually cautious about going out on a limb, a "special report" issued last week minced few words: Last April saw an unprecedented onslaught of extreme tornadoes, flooding, drought and wildfire, they concluded.

http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2011/07/what-is-extreme-weather-is-it-new.html

Extreme weather is our new normal, somewhat frightening!

[Harry]

Any (lame)excuse for deniers to come out spouting nonsense. Look at the source folks! They have no credibility.

[Js]

No credibility? As opposed to all of the credible people researching climate change? Gee, if I received a grant to study climate change, and then I concluded there was no such thing as man made global warming? That might put me out of a job. Three words. Conflict of Interest.

[Dave]

 The grants do flow like honey for man made global warming science doesn't it. Let us also put the likes of the mother of tax free foundations (the world wild life fund) in the garbage heap along with these fraudulent man made global warming scientists. They are already responsible for the death of millions of people around the world especially in Africa because of lack of development. Let's not let these beggars who are of the same lot do the same with there dream of cap and trade. I think the jolly old dream of exterminating 5 or 6 billion of us is falling apart for the English Oligarchy, Mr. Obama's puppet masters. 

[morbo]

whois climaterealists.com
Admin is: Gabriel Rychert
Google the name. Its obvious this guy is FUD.

[Italics Mine]

It's refreshing that real scientists can remain objective to new data that might not be in their best financial interests.

[Lee]

Can someone submitting to MMGW please explain the medevil warm period, little ice age, and the fact that storms on other planets are increasing in correlation to Earth's changing weather patterns. If it is good science to ignore cosmic and magnetic field flux in understanding climate then one could expect to survive if the Sun stopped shining. I notice the people submitting to MMGW can only resort to referring to websites that are neck deep in government grants promoting this drivel. Are you absolutely devoid of common sense, prone to just go along with politically correct norms, or do you get paid to post illogical statements? 

[SiliconJon]

Those suffering paradigm paralysis or groupthink need not check this site, all others may find it informative:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[Pauly]

CO2 is transparent to infared radiation at most temps. I was saying global warming was a lie in 1993. None of this will matter, plan on 50cent kwh electricity, thanks to wind and solar.

[Doug]

I've always followed the thought of Earth going through cycles.

If I was to follow the path that the climate change was man made it only goes to figure that it's a self righting change.

IF it is man made, we will eventually reach a tipping point where most of the people will be exterminated and thus most of the mechanical revolution would come to a grinding halt thus ending the event... only for the remaining people to start breading like rats and again reach a 7 billion or better population....

Wonder if any of you have ever read about the Black Plague and what it did to the world economics and the serf and feaudel system?

[Lee]

@SiliconJon
You are wrong in saying "none of this matters". The scam is falling apart and the future has abundant free energy in my mind.
I think the drive to put everyone on smart power meters is to eventually be able to control individual consumption as wind mills and solar panels are in adherently a lower mode of energy production and are unreliable. Power utilities will need to be able to have a mechanism to be able to turn down your power consumption to make up for non windy and cloudy days. I'm not sure how they intend to run factories and any kind of productive economy with this type of energy policy. Lol, look's like a dark age is coming, pun intended.

@Pauly
Your post reeks of pessimism and caters to a entropic universe. The second law of thermodynamics is flawed as it does not include a parameter for creative design and implementation to avoid the proposed heat death it speaks of. Take a more anti entropic view of things and use the misgivings of the past to put forward a better way for the future. Larouchepac.com