New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[UncleBuck]

but those are people who can just be ignored. folks like buck only believe the official truth handed down from their buddies in gubermint and similar organizations. bamm bamm and his horse-faced harridan of a wife say it's so, so it must be a fact. the liberal establishment declares that we the people are the problem, so it must be a fact. all those oh so compassionate and unbiased (i had a hard time choking down the laughter there) folks in institutions dedicated to the study of agw agree, so it must be fact. despite the vast tracts of unspoiled wilderness that we so often go to great pains to protect, the future of all life on earth is under threat from the one great unnatural evil in the world, man.

 

[UncleBuck]

And at the same time, TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientist in hundreds of countries producing even more studies debunking the alarmist scientists' studies over the same number of decades.

ummm, no.

And now, with new and incontrovertible data being produced, all your studies have been proven BOGUS.

science is incontrovertible when it agrees with you, completely falsified when it doesn't.

i see how this game is played

this is the last death rattle of the Eco-Loons latest religion.

 

[fdd2blk]

anyone win yet?

 

[UncleBuck]

since muyloco was so nice to point out that this paper was "peer-reviewed", i say we take a look at what some of his peers say

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

I received a few emails, tweets, and comments on the blog yesterday asking about an Op/Ed article in Forbes magazine that claims that new NASA data will "blow [a] gaping hole in global warming alarmism".


Except, as it turns out, not so much. The article is just so much hot air (see what I did there?) and climate scientists say the paper on which it’s based is fundamentally flawed and flat-out wrong.


It’s clear after reading just a few words that this article is hugely biased. The use of the word "alarmist" and its variants appeared no fewer than 14 times, 16 if you include the picture caption and the headline. The word "alarmist" is pretty clearly slanted against the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that the Earth is warming up, and that humans are the reason.


Still, what is the article actually saying?


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.
That seems pretty clear: if true, it means we may not be heating up as much as scientists predict.


Of course, there’s that pesky "if true" caveat. The Forbes article is based on a paper published in the journal Remote Sensing (PDF). The first author of this work is Roy Spencer — one of the extremely few climate scientists who denies human-caused climate change, so more on him in a moment — and his work has been shown to be thoroughly wrong by mainstream climate scientists.


Stephanie Pappas at LiveScience contacted several climate scientists about Spencer’s paper, and their conclusions were quite harsh. They say Spencer’s model is "unrealistic", "flawed", and "incorrect". As ThinkProgress points out, a geochemist has shown that Spencer’s models are irretrievably flawed, "don’t make any physical sense", and that Spencer has a track record in using such flawed analysis to draw any conclusion he wants.


And about the paper itself:
"I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.


That doesn’t sound like it blows a gaping hole in global warming theories to me. And this makes the breathless rhetoric used in the Forbes article appear to be far more about stirring up controversy rather than actually tackling the science of the issue.


I did some poking around on the web, and sure enough a lot of far-right blogs are diving on this red meat, simply repeating the claims of the Forbes article. I wonder how many of them actually read the paper or sought outside opinions?


And in this case, those outside opinions are very important. Why? Because of Dr. Spencer’s background: you may find this discussion of him interesting. He is an author for the über-conservative Heartland Institute (as is James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article), which receives substantial funding from — can you guess? — ExxonMobil. He is also affiliated with two other think tanks funded by ExxonMobil. Seriously, read that link to get quite a bit of background on Dr. Spencer.


I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem. But I think it’s relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism. Heck, even a conservative judge ruled it to be so in the now-famous Dover lawsuit. Anyone who dumps all of biological science in favor of provably wrong antiscience should raise alarm bells in your head, and their claims should be examined with an even more skeptical eye.


It’s too bad, really. I’m not a fan of ad hominems, but the recent attacks on the science of climate change, evolution, and the Big Bang by the far right — and on medicine by the far left — make it necessary to know more about the authors when reading articles. If you simply accept what they say without doing due diligence, you may be led down a road that leads well away from reality.

the study posted here came from a pseudo-scientist who believes in intelligent design lol and is in bed with oil companies shock.

 

[UncleBuck]

some more info about the author. apparently he also takes money from big tobacco and denies the harmful effects of smoking

he must be those "tens of thousands of scientists that deny global warming" muyloco was talking about (which don't actually exist)

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

Spencer and the Heartland Institute


Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.


The Heartland Institute has also received funding from Big Tobacco over the years and continues to make the claim that "anti-smoking advocates" are exaggerating the health threats of smoking.


Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute


Spencer is listed as an "Expert" with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.


Spencer and ICECAP


Spencer is listed as an "expert" by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP).


ICECAP is a global warming skeptic organization that believes we should be preparing ourselves for the next ice age.



ICECAP was initially registered by a representative of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Joseph D'Aleo. SPPI is a prominent global warming denier group backed by the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FoF). FoF has received over $1,272,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

he also published a book which he advertises prominently on his blog. he makes money catering to partisan hacks like muyloco.

 

[UncleBuck]

let's take a look at some of the author's fellow climate denier buddies!

Richard Lindzen and the Cato Institute

Lindzen has worked with the conservative think-tank, the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, "The Heat Is On," Ross Gelbspan notes that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.

Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."

Richard Lindzen, the Cooler Heads Coalition, and the Heartland Institute

Lindzen has been a speaker at climate change events sponsored by both the Cooler Heads Coalition and the Heartland Institute.

The Cooler Heads Coalition has a membership that includes the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the George C. Marshall Institute, the Fraser Institute, the Heartland Institute, the Independent Institute (TII), the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) and the Pacific Research Institute. Collectively, these organizations have received $5,659,400 in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Dr. Lindzen was a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change in 2008 and 2009. The sponsors of the conference have collectively received $5,802,000 in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998. Sponsors for the 2009 conference have received a grand total of over $47 million from energy companies and right-wing foundations.

Lindzen is also listed as a "global warming expert" on the Heartland Institute's website.

David Legates

March, 2009
Speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. The conference is described as “a platform for scientists and policy analysts from around the world who question the theory that global warming is a crisis.”

The conference's sponsors have received over $40 million from oil companies and right-wing foundations such as Koch Foundations and Scaife Foundations. One of the main purposes of the conference was to cast doubt on the findings of the most recent Assessment Report by the Independent Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

Patrick Michaels

Michaels and the Fossil Fuel Industry

According to a January 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists titled "Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: how Exxonmobil uses big tobacco to manufacture uncertainty on climate science," Michaels is connected to more than 11 think-tanks and associations that have received money from oil-giant ExxonMobil many of which have gone on to sow doubt about human-induced global warming:

The George C Marshall Institute: Listed as an "expert" and "Visiting Scientist" from 1996 to 2007.
The Cato Institute: Listed as an "expert" and "Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies."
The Heritage Foundation: Conducted lectures for the Foundation in 1992 and 2006.
The Heartland Institute: Regular speaker for International Conference on Climate Change.
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC): Listed as a "supporter."
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT): On their "Advisory Board."
The Greening Earth Society: Listed as a "Scientific Advisor."
The American Council on Science and Health: Science Advisor
The American Legislative Exchange Council: Report Author
Consumer Alert: Advisory Council Member
Tech Central Station: Science Roundtable Member
The Weidenbaum Center: Study Author
Michaels and the Cato Institute

Michaels is particularly active with the Cato Institute, where he holds the title of "Senior Fellow." The Cato Institute is a Washington DC-based think-tank that has received funding in the past from ExxonMobil, as well well-known energy industry-money backed charitable foundations like the Charles G Koch Foundation.

Gary Sharp

ICECAP

Sharp is listed as an "expert" by the International Climate and Environment Assessment Project (ICECAP).

The ICECAP website was registered by Joseph D'Aleo, a well-known climate change skeptic who is also listed as one of the personnel of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) ). SPPI is a global warming denial group backed by the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FoF) which has in turn received over $1,272,000 from the oil giant ExxonMobil since 1998.

ICECAP describes itself as an organization that beleives "natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are. . .important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather."

They also contend that we should "worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon."

In other words, ICECAP is preparing us for the next Ice Age.

The Heartland Institute

Sharp was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2010 International Conference on Climate Change. This was the latest installment in what has been a regular gathering of global warming skeptics aimed at spreading the message that global warming isn't happening.

DeSmogBlog found that sponsors for the 2009 conference has received over $47 million from oil companies and right-wing foundations. The Heartland Institute itself has received over $670,000 from the oil giant ExxonMobil.

Sharp's speech was on the topic of "Projecting Climate Changes and Ecological Responses - Coping with Changes."

 

[UncleBuck]

anyone see the theme yet?

climate change deniers are bought and paid for by big oil!

who would have guessed?

 

[mame]

Well that settles it, it seems.

 

[hazyintentions]

Well that settles it, it seems.

Still waiting for the ocean to come to my back door... I'll get back to you on that.

 

[UncleBuck]

Still waiting for the ocean to come to my back door... I'll get back to you on that.

you sound like someone waiting to watch a monkey evolve into a human.

[video=youtube;KB0TLgcNesU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB0TLgcNesU[/video]

 

[fdd2blk]

[video=youtube;kNYKxiRJ2LA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNYKxiRJ2LA[/video]

 

[RyanTheRhino]

NASA isn't relevant anymore, they are just a bunch of hot heads. Most only went to high school, none of them are "Climate" scientists. Everyone knows that government only wants what is best for all. They would never fabricate some global warming story so they could gain more power!

The previous Paragraph was dunked in a nice cold glass of Sarcasm.

I am pretty sure NASA would not even hire you as a janitor without a collage education.

 

[NoDrama]

I am pretty sure NASA would not even hire you as a janitor without a collage education.

You should read the whole post for a clue to what it all means.

 

[UncleBuck]

[video=youtube;kNYKxiRJ2LA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNYKxiRJ2LA[/video]

i was all buzzed on caffeine this morning.

now i'm building a duck coop, but it's hot and i need a water break.

perhaps there will be some blowback from my posts to entertain me once i am done.

 

[jeff f]

The only people that think this is a partisan debate rather than a scientific one are the rabidly dogmatic conservatives that disavow science when it is contrary to their ideological or religious beliefs.

no, the people who dont want their money stolen by some dipshit like algore also want to see the science.

the world is warming...err cooling...err...warming. whatever. either way, there isnt shit you can do about it!

but if you want to give your money to third world countries, and politicians who want to pack us onto "super trains" be my guest. i wont and will fight you every step of the way.

 

[jeff f]

Bullshit. The eco-loons are just as partisan. We aren't disavowing science, just the junk science that is being used to perpetuate this scam. For every study you bring forth to support MMGW, I can raise you ten. And the arguments against MMGW actually sound like they are based on common sense, whereas the alarmist arguments sound like the ravings of lunatics (that happen to go against decades of CO2/Temperature data). If you don't conveniently reverse data that has been published for ages, you have no argument that CO2 increases precede temperature increases. It never has and it never will.

you mean the likes of ted danson, sean penn, and cheryl crow are political hacks? oh, please, say it isnt so.

seem to recall ted danson saying we only had 10 years to stop it.....in the 80's.

cheryl crow thinks we should all only use one sheet of toilet paper to wipe our asses...and said so on national tv.

sean penn....well what can i say about a wife beater that hasnt already been said. he thinks fidel castro is jesus.

 

[jeff f]

Sorry no. You're the one that's full of shit. You cannot find actual scientific papers that counter the decades of climate research we have supporting the concurrent rise in co2 levels along with higher than expected temperatures based on historical data and current planetary position and solar output. Calling climate change science junk science makes it clear that you are agenda driven and not merely skeptical.
The fact that you use the argument about temperature preceding co2 increases means that you are parroting one the biggest arguments put forth by AGW deniers yet every legitimate climatologist has explained this ad nauseum. It is as disingenuous of an argument as it is when Kent Hovind claims that the Cambrian "explosion" proves that life didn't evolve but complexity came into existence suddenly. It's all based on being too simplistic, not understand the data in detail and misrepresenting what it says.

The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis [this really should say "theory" -- eric], which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.

But do not make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2 concentration. I know it is intellectually satisfying to identify a single cause for some observed phenomenon, but that unfortunately is not the way Nature works much of the time.

Nor is there any requirement that a single cause operate throughout the entire 5000 – year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends.

Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.

Think of heart disease – one might be tempted to argue that a given heart patient’s condition was caused solely by the fact that he ate french fries for lunch every day for 30 years. But in fact his 10-year period of no exercise because of a desk job, in the middle of this interval, may have been a decisive influence. Just because a sedentary lifestyle did not cause the beginning of the plaque buildup, nor the end of the buildup, would you rule out a contributing causal role for sedentary lifestyle?

There is a rich literature on this topic. If you are truly interested, I urge you to read up.

The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.

So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations. This hypothesis was proposed by James Croll in the 19th century, mathematically refined by Milankovitch in the 1940s, and continues to pass numerous critical tests even today.

The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.

The response time of methane and nitrous oxide to climate variations is measured in decades. So these feedbacks operate much faster.

The quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2′s warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC’s projections of future warming of 3±1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. So there is no inconsistency between Milankovitch and current global warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/​

so how do you know that the temperature rise isnt causing the co2 rise? oh yes, you dont.

 

[jeff f]

I was just wonder`in if your mother ever had any children that lived passed birth ?

if we`d hung rush limbaugh from the highest tree & greened up to the Max
then today found out we was wrong The world would have been a cleaner prettyer place today & Id be sorry yall had to listen to me throw a fit about nuthing
but if your wrong your children dont have a planet to live or a space program to leave it

yes, cuz even the idiots saying that you are raising the temperature of the earth are saying the world will end....dopey

 

[NoDrama]

i was all buzzed on caffeine this morning.

now i'm building a duck coop, but it's hot and i need a water break.

perhaps there will be some blowback from my posts to entertain me once i am done.

Who funds the AGW theory? Government or private business? Most scientists are on the take, lets be honest. Most are probably smart enough to know you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Higher learning institutions get the vast majority of their money from Government through subsidies and the fact that so many college students take out federal student loans since the terms are that you have to be able to fog a mirror to qualify. NASA is funded by Taxpayers, but ultimately is beholden to government politics. NASA isn't funded by big oil.

Is your duck coop actually for ducks? Are you going to grow the ducks and then eat them?

 

[ginjawarrior]

so how do you know that the temperature rise isnt causing the co2 rise? oh yes, you dont.

lol jeff you always make the politcs section so much more enjoyable

your saying temperature rise is causing CO2 to rise? as in when it gets hotter americans turn up their air conditioning??

seriously tho we know its us causing co2 to rise as we know that we're putting it there....