New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold 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.

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 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

So how many on here now think they are smarter than NASA?

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.

And you're not the least bit concerned about how "honest" and "objective" the writer of an article is when he manages to insert variations of the word "alarmist" twice in once sentence?

James M. Taylor of The Heartland Institute uses the word "alarmist" 13 times in this article. I haven't had time to study it in depth, but that statistic alone tells me that he just might have an agenda against global warming.

It will be interesting to see what Science Chic has to say about this article.

AspenValley beat me to it!

Fiine. I found this initial story on it without this guy injecting the word 'Alarmist' into it. Now, no more deflecting!

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2 ... well-2011/

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.

I wonder if this the start of that Global Cooling that people are predicting?

Here is the actual study......

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

From what I read, it looks like this just says that we cannot accurately measure or predict the amount of energy being released from the atmosphere. It doesn't disprove global warming or blow a gaping hole in the theory, it just reports that more energy is being released into space than previously thought.

It is bizarre that people focus on the term alarmist when the term denier (which has much more negative connotation) is used repeated by the "alarmists" even in Nature articles. Get with the data instead of the illogical ad hominem attacks. Is the data correct or not? Is the interpretation correct or not?

Kate wrote: From what I read, it looks like this just says that we cannot accurately measure or predict the amount of energy being released from the atmosphere. It doesn't disprove global warming or blow a gaping hole in the theory, it just reports that more energy is being released into space than previously thought.

No, but it shows once again how little we truly understand about the dynamics of our planet and that computer models are quite often unreliable.

Ultimately, this is all about the massive profits that are available through the Carbon Trading markets - Biggest scam in history. Now China wants to get in on the billions....

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-to-roll-out-carbon-trading-scheme-trial-2011-07-18

I'm sure they won't have any of the corruption that Europe's Carbon market is experiencing