Global Warming-Why Does NASA Hate Science?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maverick74, Jul 29, 2011.

  1. Maverick74


    New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
    ForbesBy James Taylor | Forbes – Wed, Jul 27, 2011

    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.

    In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

    When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
  2. This is why Obama is getting rid of NASA and turning it into a muslim outreach program.
  3. Ricter


    Scientists have an agenda, unless they are NASA scientists of course.
  4. First, it was nothing close to being peer reviewed - it was published at"MDPI Open Access" - the youtube of journals.

    Second, here is the line by line complete debunking of the so called 'study'

    Second, this is where the 'research' is coming from.

    About the so called scientist

  5. Once again, Maverick squarely steps into it. In that "mavericky" way of his.
  6. Maverick74


    Huh? So now you don't take NASA as credible? OK cool, gotcha. Just believe what you want to believe. I like that approach. Carry on...
  7. Ricter


    Ouch, "that's gonna leave a mark."

    You know, the first crack was the use of "alarmist". Maybe it is alarmist, maybe it isn't, but if you want your argument to be more plausible than theirs don't use the word.
  8. Not on Maverick, apparently:
  9. Maverick74


    No, I'm not a religious environmental zealot like you are. I'm very agnostic on the issue. I'm not a denier or believer. I don't dismiss information simply because I don't like the messenger. But if that philosophy works for you in life, stick with it.

    As for you Ricter, I have higher standards for you.
  10. Ironic use of the term religious zealot. Is that why you referred to the "work" of this guy, as conveniently pointed out by epiktetos:
    Yeah, that must be it. How "very agnostic" of you.
    #10     Jul 29, 2011