This is how Slashdot breaks the news from Forbes article: “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism”. When it hits Slashdot, you know it has gone viral.
New NASA Data Casts Doubt On Global Warming Models
from the but-scientists-love-models dept.
bonch writes:
“Satellite data from NASA covering 2000 through 2011 cast doubt on current computer models predicting global warming, according to a new study. The data shows that much less heat is retained by carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere than is assumed in current models. ‘There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans,’ said Dr. Roy Spencer, a co-author of the study and research scientist at the University of Alabama.”
Note: the press release about the study is somewhat less over the top.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The problem with Spencer’s paper is that it uses observations and matches observations.
This is apparently not the way climate science is supposed to be done.
@- DirkH says:
July 29, 2011 at 4:25 am
“LWIR does not penetrate beyond a skin layer.”
So what do you think happens to that LWIR that penetrates the skin layer – allowing for the 1LoT ?
@- Richard S Courtney says:
July 29, 2011 at 4:47 am
“Clearly, Izen has not read the release or he/she/they has reading difficulties. The release says;”
I know what the press release says because I read it.
I also downloaded and read the ACTUAL paper, including the conclusions.
When you have read the same bits you might want to try again and tell me how the ‘shorter’ version I wrote is wrong.
@- richard verney says:
July 29, 2011 at 5:18 am
“The air does not heat the oceans. It has insufficient heat capacity in relation to the huge capacity of the ocean and evaporation and convection would in any event prevent the air from heating the ocean. You cannot heat a cup of coffee simply by placing hot air above it. …It is easy to visualise why the ocean controls the air temperature above it and it is not influenced by anything else since the ocean effectively has a limitless supply of heat with which to be able to heat the air above it 24/7 .”
The air does not heat the oceans, but its content does affect its rate of cooling. The energy content of the ocean is large, but not limitless, the transfer to the atmosphere is part of the equator to pole movement of thermal energy. Because of the absorption within the atmosphere it is kept at ocean surface temperatures, energy is re-radiated back to the land and the ocean surface so that the net loss of energy is lower.
Brian:
The subject of this thread is yet another valuable contribution to climate science from Roy Spencer.
But your comment at July 29, 2011 at 7:24 am says in total:
“It looks like Spencer has been shot down once again.
Maybe he should find a new line of work. Like weather forcasting. He shares their level of accuracy.”
Your comment is devoid of content and worth (except as an example of your typical comments).
Where has “Spencer been shot down”, and by whom, and how?
Perhaps you could consider the probability that your assertions only exist in your deluded mind.
Richard
Peer review is the most accurate form of science…….global warming
What kind of morons would pass some garbage like this through peer review……..anti-global warming
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.
=======================================================================
I didn’t realize this……
If it’s correct….whoever designed those models is the stupidest person on the face of this earth
Slashdot appears to be deleting posts that aren’t attacking the Taylor article and Spencer.
Since the issue of warming oceans from more CO2 has come up again please see here:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/setting-and-maintaining-of-earth%e2%80%99s-equilibrium-temperature/18931.html
“Extra energy in the air from whatever source other than solar shortwave cannot enter the oceans to affect the equilibrium temperature of the oceans so instead it affects the surface air pressure distribution which then shifts to prevent a divergence between sea surface and surface air temperatures”.
RE: Alexander Duranko: (July 29, 2011 at 6:57 am)
“There is no ‘back radiation’.”
Not quite true. Imagine that you are inside a red-hot spherical shell. The red light that you would see is ‘back radiation.’ In a similar manner, the CO2 or H2O molecules around you are always emitting as well as absorbing infra-red photons. Those emitted infra-red photons that happen to reach you without being re-absorbed also constitute ‘back radiation.’
John A says:
July 29, 2011 at 1:12 am
It’s true that Dr Spencer knows nothing about evolutionary biology, and should shut up about it. He gave a gift to climate alarmists everywhere when he spoke up about ID, which is creationism-in-disguise, and they won’t let anyone forget about it.
Please explain why someone living in a free country should shut up about anything if they feel they want to expound on a subject. Censorship is bad and self censorship is worse.
Isaac Newton was a creationist. Does this say anything about what he did?
I defended Dr. Spencer at Little Green Footballs (although he is a big boy and can defend himself) until I got kicked off. He is free to say and write what he wants on any subject. It is a “free” country. Truth spoke by anyone is still truth.
One of the men who came up with quarks is now a Anglican priest. Does that make him unqualified now to discuss physics?
By the way John please tell me where the energy came from for the big bang.
Richard S Courtney says:
July 29, 2011 at 7:58 am
Richard – I take inane comments by readers such as “Brian” as an indication that the publication by Spencer and Braswell is in fact very effective, and will be causing a lot of consternation amongst the climate elites…
Dale says:
July 28, 2011 at 11:24 pm
This seems as good a place as any to mention this recent paper:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8119&linkbox=true&position=4 (July 22nd)
Here is a working link to the paper.
http://principia-scientific.org/pso/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
The paper shows that the standard radiative model only appears to work for Earth, because of a simplification. Averaging of temperature. That when you apply the standard model to other planets, such as Venus, it does not work.
The underlying problem is that radiation is the fourth power of temperature, so that when you average temperature and then raise this to the fourth power, this over emphasizes radiation from cold places and under emphasizes radiation from warm regions, leading to a miscalculation in the energy budget.
Here is a simple example of the problem. Let D=Day, N=Night, ^4= fourth power, then (D + N) / 2 = average temperature.
Climate Science assumes that
((D + N)/2)^4 = (D^4 + N^4) / 2
And from this calculates that the temperature of the earth should be -18C. Since it is not, the difference must be due to GHG. Thus the climate fears over CO2.
However, except for the trivial cases where D+N = (0 or 2), this equality is false. For example, if D=3 and N=2, then you end up with 39.1 = 45.5, which is nonsense. By adding and subtracting, multiplying and dividing, you can turn 2+2 = 5 into any answer you want.
That when you separate the analysis into day and night, then the standard model breaks down, and the calculated temperature for the earth is not -18C and the standard model is wrong. The author then goes on to create a model that explains the radiative balance for the Earth and the role of GHG in determining temperature.
Richard,
With all due respect, this site is blog speculation.
So yes, In this case I appeal to the higher authority because they’re the ones with the qualifacations.
Anthony
Sorry you have already covered the Polar Bear story?
“Any engineer (I am one) will tell you that a system with positive feedback is unstable. If there were spositive feedback in the Earth’s climate, then it would have hit the rails billions of years ago.”
That is what I’ve always considered one of the simplest and most damning rebuttals to AGW alarmism: if these positive feedbacks are as bad as they make out, how come we’re here? If a tiny increase in CO2 would cause catastrophic temperature rises through positive feedback from water vapor, life should have been wiped out long ago.
Latitude says:
July 29, 2011 at 8:12 am
“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being
gained,” Spencer said.
=======================================================================
I didn’t realize this……
If it’s correct….whoever designed those models is the stupidest person on the face of this earth
Not if your agenda was to create the worst possible scenario for global warming and CO2. To use fear to drive up funding for your branch of science. In point of fact, this tactic has been very successful, with Climate Science grabbing the lion’s share of taxpayer’s science dollars. While funding for less pressing problems like cancer research dries up.
In point of fact, climate science has likely killed more people in the future that climate change ever will, simply by diverting the funding budget from medical and technology research into climate research.
Izen, you are demonstrating a severe deficit in oceanic science. The ocean is constantly evaporating at the surface tension layer. Whatever warming occurs through LW radiation is thus constantly being evaporated off. If any of it is kept and mixed in with layers underneath, it is only a minuscule amount that would be unmeasurable, even over long periods of time. Face it, there is no mathematically defensible physical method for your assumption of LW ocean heating (which I reiterate is only at the surface and is then evaporated off) being the deposit and storage of the heat from increased greenhouse gas sources.
It is far more likely that it is being radiated out to space. Strong radiative cooling is a known and mathematically defensible mechanism.
Brian, if you wish to make such statements about the “qualifacations” of higher authorities, I am willing to bet they wished you could spell that word correctly.
John A says:
July 29, 2011 at 1:12 am
It’s true that Dr Spencer knows nothing about evolutionary biology, and should shut up about it. He gave a gift to climate alarmists everywhere when he spoke up about ID, which is creationism-in-disguise, and they won’t let anyone forget about it.
Well, it’s a gift to alarmists when their movement relies so heavily on ad hominem, I suppose.
izen: Low clouds can retain heat from any surface below, at night, land or sea. They do not cause heating. If the clouds are already tehre in the daytime, the ocean or land is not heated so much. Net, they are cooling.
LWIR does not heat the oceans. CO2 can’t heat oceans because there is no mechanism for it. The original idea was it heats the air and the air was assumed somehow to heat the oceans.
If you warm the air, it heats the top millimeter of water which immediately evaporates more. The ocean does not get warmer. Oceans are heated by higher frequency radiation that IR.
Brian says:
July 29, 2011 at 9:03 am
So yes, In this case I appeal to the higher authority because they’re the ones with the qualifacations.
Qualifications do not make one any less fallible or any more truthful or any less free from bias. Why does Phil Jones hide his work and not want it independently checked for accuracy? Hansen is an astrophysicist. Schmidt is a mathematician. Both are out of their field in climate science. Does anyone truly believe that they are free from bias?
Hansen and Schmidt both work for NASA/GISS, Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Yet they ignore (or worse trash) the satellite record that Spencer is looking at, and are busy building and adjusting the GISS climate record and model that is based on – wait for it – surface temperatures taken from thermometers.
At the same time NASA has a 100 billion dollar ISS in orbit, has just trashed the only US manned launch vehicle, and now plans to de-orbit and trash this 100 billion dollar investment in 2020. In very large part all paid for by the US taxpayer. The message is clear, the only science the “higher authority” wants us to see is that science that comes from the “higher authority”, paid for by the US taxpayer. All other science needs to be trashed.
Brian says:
July 29, 2011 at 9:03 am
So yes, In this case I appeal to the higher authority because they’re the ones with the qualifacations.
=============================================================
Peer review in favor of global warming – the gold standard
Peer review not in favor of global warming – what moron let this through
Right, wrong, ambiguous, whatever. When the headlines contain “NASA Blows Hole on Global Warming”, “Huntsville, Alabama”, “Satellites and Remote sensing”, and it is now all over the internet, I’ll bet good, hard earned dollars that most lay people who see the headlines now believe this to be true without giving it a second thought.
If I was in the CAGW camp and my livelihood depended on perpetuating that POV, I would trampling my colleagues on my way to the bright red EXIT sign.
Game, Set, Match!
Best,
J.
Anandtech has an article from a former warmist on this topic.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22301
izen:
At July 29, 2011 at 7:49 am you say to me:
“I know what the press release says because I read it.
I also downloaded and read the ACTUAL paper, including the conclusions.
When you have read the same bits you might want to try again and tell me how the ‘shorter’ version I wrote is wrong.”
But before that, at July 29, 2011 at 5:50 am, I provided a link to the “ACTUAL” paper together with a direct quotation from it which directly refutes your spurious point.
Clearly, you have not read the paper or you have reading difficulties. Personally, I suspect both.
Richard
news just in: Oceania is no longer at war with Eurasia. The alarmist models that forecast alarmist warming have been blown out of the water. Those alarming alarmists and their alarm. Alarmists.