Recent NASA satellite data suggests that Co2 may not trap as much heat as models predict. 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. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/ On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance. W. Spencer, R. Braswell http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/n..._host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us
Creationists have no credibility about anything with me. I cannot ignore the fatal logic flaw that leads someone to disregard the overwhelming evidence of Darwinian evolution. Yes, it is ad hominem, no, I do not care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist) He has also signed on to this nonsense: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/ "We don't have to worry about our emissions because god is in control." How can anyone take this guy seriously?
Well, his findings were published in a peer reviewed journal. Do his religious views mean that the normal rules by which we judge science are invalid?
I freely admitted my dismissal of Dr. Spencer is ad hominem. So, how about some attacks on the science? http://www.realclimate.org/ Also, Dr, Spencer is apparently a conspiracy theorist. From his book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model Perhaps he came to that conclusion because his objectivity is clouded by his belief that god created this planet, its inhabitants, and will not let them ruin it. Reminds me of Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who openly professed that god had provided enough resources for man to last until the second coming, so there was no need to try to conserve anything.
They were published by a non-climate, open access journal. His peers in the climate world haven't been that impressed with his work. His model was inadequate and relied on unrealistic assumptions.
Yes, the link provided by Repoman (now that I've read it) and also the comment section of the same article bring up many good points regarding the questionable analysis used by Mr Spencer. He should have lead with that rather than the ad hom.
mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/apc/ I don't think this necessarily invalidates his work. I think the fact that he either couldn't or wouldn't publish to a climate journal is far more telling.
I read the conclusions briefly yesterday. He didn't mention that his interpretations are at odds with millions of years of paleoclimate data. That seemed pretty disingenuous to me.
This data and analysis could well explain why the term "global warming", was changed to climate change. The trapped CO2 heat, by leaving the earth faster than predicted by the assumptions of the models, does not jive with these assumptions. If it did the term would not have been downgraded. The author discusses the difficulty in modelling the heat gain and loss due to heat release delays in distance and time. This delay mechanism might explain the unusual number of odd climate events, here and there, as the heat vents abruptly in this irregular way. This should be seen as useful for modelling, since the real events may have a heat sink pattern nobody has seen quite yet.
I suggest you hit the scientific literature. Search abstracts for "climate change." You'll find the term has been used extensively in journals for a long time. Indeed, the IPCC was formed in 1988. What do you suppose the "CC" stands for?
Not really, it shows the depths creationists and deniers will sink to. We need to learn to recognise deception, and who perpetrates it.
And this entire discussion leads to the education of people just as you have pointed out in your final statement above. It's precisely underscores what I've said here dozens of different times in numerous threads: Find out all you can about WHO is making the claims - their background and their history. A prime example of that principle is what I kept hammering at about the guy Rossi and his claim of his supposed cold fusion device (the infamous "e-cat.") Just a small effort by anyone would show that he's already attempted to scam the U.S. government through his claim of having developed a vastly superior PV solar panel. Not only did the panels he built fail to deliver the high efficiency he promised, a large number of them barely produced any power at all !!! And his e-cat is destined to meet the same fate. So, yes, by all means - find out WHO you're dealing with before accepting anything they say!
If you read the paper, you will find that its content does not support the title of the thread (the OP) or the conclusions of the quoted material. Madanthony's batting average, on thread titles, is still perfect. In his defense, the error is apparently not his alone, but seems to have been suggested to him by one of those sources he has not yet learned to avoid after years of being embarrassed in public.
