http://www.ibtimes.com/arti...e-satellite-date.htm
Global warming proponents can catch up on the sleep they lost worrying about the planet getting hotter with each passing day. A NASA study which analyzes satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011, published in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing, reports that Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than global warming proponents' computer models have predicted.


Enlarge
(Photo: Wikipedia)
"ManBearPig" an imaginary creature which parodies Global Warming, appeared in the sixth episode of the tenth season of Comedy Central's South Park. Picture shows Al Gore showing a drawing of ManBearPig to the South Park school.
Related Articles

‘Too Bright’ Meteor Streaks Over Atlanta Skies (NASA VIDEO and PHOTOS)

Space Station May Have to Be Vacated Due to Rocket Malfunction

‘Suitcase-Size' Nuclear Reactor Could Power Space Outposts: Scientists

Related Topics

NASA Global warming Climate Change
Get Tech Emails&Alerts


Stay connected with cutting edge technology news Sample

The data also supports prior studies which suggested that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap is far lesser than what has been claimed by the global warming doomsters.

The discrepancy between the model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming has given rise to heated debates for more than two decades.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Dr. Roy Spencer, study co-author and principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, said in a press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

Must Read

Angry Netflix Customers Turning to Wal-Mart's Vudu?

Michele Bachmann, the Florida Everglades, and the EPA

Sponsorship Link
How to make money from gold investment


Like us on Facebook

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. "At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained," Spencer said.

When applied to long-term climate change, the research suggests that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Numerous decisive factors, including clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and different time lags make it impossible to accurately identify which piece of Earth's changing climate is a feedback from man-made greenhouse gases.

"There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that," Spencer said. "The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations."

The research team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA's Terra satellite. The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

bullfeces!!
A bunch of Racist PseudoScientists.
Bullfeces!

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-30-2011).]

That NASA study can't be right. The science has already been settled.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 08-30-2011).]

cleaned it up for you.

Global warming proponents can catch up on the sleep they lost worrying about the planet getting hotter with each passing day. A NASA study which analyzes satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011, published in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing, reports that Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than global warming proponents' computer models have predicted.

The data also supports prior studies which suggested that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap is far lesser than what has been claimed by the global warming doomsters.

The discrepancy between the model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming has given rise to heated debates for more than two decades.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Dr. Roy Spencer, study co-author and principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, said in a press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. "At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained," Spencer said.

When applied to long-term climate change, the research suggests that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Numerous decisive factors, including clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and different time lags make it impossible to accurately identify which piece of Earth's changing climate is a feedback from man-made greenhouse gases.

"There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that," Spencer said. "The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations."

The research team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA's Terra satellite. The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

This can't be real science, the science has already been decided and says global warming is happening at an alarming rate...

That odd sound you hear is Al Gore, vapor-locking.

Thanks, this article was included:

"Suitcase-Size' Nuclear Reactor Could Power Space Outposts"

My son at Ohio State is working on research for the project.

Sent him the link.

[This message has been edited by mike-ohio (edited 08-30-2011).]

This was a good article too......

http://blogs.telegraph.co.u...limate-change-shock/

Excerpt:

quote The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

quote The research, published with little fanfare this week...

You mean this wasn't Headline News???
(not surprising really, as mainstream Media had "bought in" to GW years ago)

Meanwhile, Gore burps and every news organization covers it.

------------------
My World of Wheels Winners (Click on links below)

3.4L Supercharged 87 GT and Super Duty 4 Indy #163

how misleading is this?
so - NASA is in fact saying that heat is being trapped - just not as much as previously assumed. so, NASA is in fact saying the "greenhouse" effect is happening - just not as much as some had previously thought.

the glaciers ARE still melting. just as they were last year & the year before, & 10 years before. I have seen land, first hand, finally exposed from glacier retreat that no one from previous generations has. and - this has happened before - it is completely natural. there is nothing you or any other puny human can hope to do for or against the reality. global warming is a real thing. it happens. just as ice ages. in fact - ice ages follow the global warming. so - thats what you get to look forward to next. should you live to be 300......

it will be some ugly times ahead......but - not for us - we can party like its 1999

Climate scientists have identified a number of fundamental problems in Spencer and Braswell's 2011 study which wrongly concludes that the climate is not sensitive to human greenhouse gas emissions. One of the main problems with the paper is that it uses Roy Spencer's very simple climate model which we've previously looked at in .

This simple model does not have a realistic representation of the Earth's oceans, which are a key factor in the planet's climate, and it also doesn't model the Earth's water cycle. One key aspect in the Earth's temperature changes is the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which is a cycle of the Pacific Ocean. Spencer's model does not include ENSO, and he assumes that ENSO responds to changes in cloud cover, when in reality it's the other way around.

There are some other key problems in the paper. It doesn't provide enough information for other scientists to repeat the study. When two other climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo) tried to replicate its results as best they could with the information provided, they found quite different results (see the Advanced version of this rebuttal for further details). Spencer and Braswell's conclusions also only seems to work using the satellite data set they chose, but Trenberth and Fasullo found that using other data sets also changes their results.

http://www.skepticalscience...mate-sensitivity.htm
http://www.skepticalscience...-Climate-Change.html

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: how misleading is this? so - NASA is in fact saying that heat is being trapped - just not as much as previously assumed. so, NASA is in fact saying the "greenhouse" effect is happening - just not as much as some had previously thought. the glaciers ARE still melting. just as they were last year & the year before, & 10 years before. I have seen land, first hand, finally exposed from glacier retreat that no one from previous generations has. and - this has happened before - it is completely natural. there is nothing you or any other puny human can hope to do for or against the reality. global warming is a real thing. it happens. just as ice ages. in fact - ice ages follow the global warming. so - thats what you get to look forward to next. should you live to be 300...... it will be some ugly times ahead......but - not for us - we can party like its 1999

Can I party like it's 1980?
That was a good year.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Can I party like it's 1980? That was a good year.

it was. but no. you cant.

Don't get confused by the OP, it's NOT NASA claiming that "Global Warming Doomsters' Theories Wrong" it's a former NASA scientist and The Heartland Institute. NASA still has lots of great information about climate.

Like I've been saying, it only takes ONE scientist and ONE paper to undo an entire theory. You can line up all the scientists you want, you can have as many organizations and governments you want, all saying the same thing, but in the end it doesn't matter. Science is NOT done by vote, at least not *real* science.

I don't know if this paper will do it, but it seems to show that the major, underlying factor to possible catastrophic warming may be simply *wrong*.

pdf of the paper here
http://www.drroyspencer.com...er_Misdiagnos_11.pdf

One of the authors discusses the paper here
http://www.drroyspencer.com...ted-for-publication/

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-30-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Like I've been saying, it only takes ONE scientist and ONE paper to undo an entire theory. You can line up all the scientists you want, you can have as many organizations and governments you want, all saying the same thing, but in the end it doesn't matter. Science is NOT done by vote, at least not *real* science. I don't know if this paper will do it, but it seems to show that the major, underlying factor to possible catastrophic warming may be simply *wrong*. pdf of the paper here http://www.drroyspencer.com...er_Misdiagnos_11.pdf One of the authors discusses the paper here http://www.drroyspencer.com...ted-for-publication/

Very true but Roy Spencer has been rehashing the same information in this "new" paper over and over, it's been looked at and still the overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists are in agreement (I think it's 97%).

Anyways I'm sure we could go on and on , people can believe whatever they want.

quote Originally posted by newf: Very true but Roy Spencer has been rehashing the same information in this "new" paper over and over,

I expect that you have some kind of proof that this new paper is "rehash" of old info?

quote it's been looked at and still the overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists are in agreement (I think it's 97%).

There you go again, claiming science is done by vote. It could be 99.99999% All it would take is 0.00001% to be right, and the other 99.99999% would be WRONG, which is something that you evidently do not comprehend or refuse to accept.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: it was. but no. you cant.

81?

quote Originally posted by newf: Actually read it again, I didn't say anything WRONG.

Yes, you did. What does The Heartland Institute have to do with it?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: There you go again, claiming science is done by vote. It could be 99.99999% All it would take is 0.00001% to be right, and the other 99.99999% would be WRONG, which is something that you evidently do not comprehend or refuse to accept.

Yup COULD be indeed. Never said anything about a vote, simply have stated many many many times that in such matters as Climate Change I tend to agree with the overwhelming majority of experts in that field.

Sorry if that upsets you in some way, please feel free to think whatever it is you like.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-30-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Yup COULD be indeed. Never said anything about a vote, simple have stated many many many times that in such matters as Climate Change I tend to agree with the overwhelming majority of experts in that field. Sorry if that upsets you in some way, please feel free to think whatever it is you like.

Then you are ripe for being deceived. This "vast majority" has been overblown, and again, science isn't done by vote. You are basing your conclusion on bad reasoning. But if it somehow comforts you that the earth is doomed, well, enjoy that.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Then you are ripe for being deceived. This "vast majority" has been overblown, and again, science isn't done by vote. You are basing your conclusion on bad reasoning. But if it somehow comforts you that the earth is doomed, well, enjoy that.

I thought it was common knowledge that the earth is eventually doomed?

You can have whatever opinion you want, enjoy it.

quote Originally posted by newf: No you are deflecting again, you in no way mentioned the Heartland Institute in your original "WRONG" post. haha Nice try at recovery though. If you want me to answer me reference to the Heartland Institute I'd be glad to once you admit I said nothing WRONG about Roy Spencer.

I am clarifying things about Roy Spencer. I am asking you about your Heartland comment.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-30-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I am clarifying things about Roy Spencer. I am asking you about your Heartland comment.

Clarify away, What did I say "WRONG" about Roy Spencer??

quote Originally posted by newf: Clarify away, What did I say "WRONG" about Roy Spencer??

"Former NASA scientist". He still works on NASA satellite projects that gather climate data, and has since leaving NASA (working for them directly).

What does the Heartland institute have to do with the paper or any article listed in this thread?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: "Former NASA scientist". He still works on NASA satellite projects that gather climate data, and has since leaving NASA (working for them directly). What does the Heartland institute have to do with the paper or any article listed in this thread?

Feel free to check out his own webpage it's at the top under his own name, big white letters... http://www.drroyspencer.com/ "FORMER NASA SCIENTIST".

quote Originally posted by newf: Feel free to check out his own webpage it's at the top under his own name, big white letters... http://www.drroyspencer.com/ "FORMER NASA SCIENTIST".

Feel free to check out NASA's web site:

http://aqua.nasa.gov/about/team_spencer.php

Why don't you just admit that you said "former NASA scientist and the Heartland Institute" in order to dismiss his paper? (and yes, that's my OPINION of your post).

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-30-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Feel free to check out NASA's web site: http://aqua.nasa.gov/about/team_spencer.php Why don't you just admit that you said "former NASA scientist and the Heartland Institute" in order to dismiss his paper?

OK I checked it out

quote Dr. Spencer received his B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1980 and 1982. He then continued at the University of Wisconsin through 1984 in the Space Science and Engineering Center as a research scientist. He joined NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in 1984, where he later became Senior Scientist for Climate Studies. He resigned from NASA in 2001 and joined the Univeristy of Alabama in Huntsville as a Principal Research Scientist.

Thanks for the link

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-30-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Thanks for the link

You conveniently left out the rest of the information about him...which shows he has worked on NASA satellite projects since 1992:

Research Scientist. Dr. Spencer has served as Pricipal Investigator on the Global Precipitation Studies with Nimbus-7 and DMSP SSM/I, and the Advanced Microwave Precipitation Radiometer High Altitude Studies of Precipitation Systems. He has been a member of several science teams: the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Space Station Accommodations Analysis Study Team, Science Steering Group for TRMM, TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, NASA Headquarters Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee, and two National Research Council study panels.

Since 1992 Dr. Spencer has been the U.S. Team Leader for the Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) team and the follow-on AMSR-E team. In 1994 he became the AMSR-E Science Team leader.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Feel free to check out NASA's web site: http://aqua.nasa.gov/about/team_spencer.php Why don't you just admit that you said "former NASA scientist and the Heartland Institute" in order to dismiss his paper?

same reason you are using misleading information to dismiss Global Warming altogether. The opening post actually CONFIRMS Global Warming. You are trying to spin it to deny global warming. The opening post is about how the greenhouse effect is NOT as impactful as once thought. Which means that it is still impactful - just not as much as previously calculated. But, feel free to return your head to the sand after reading this. man made or not - it IS happening. I dont think it is manmade. but that doesnt change the fact that it IS happening. you are 100% allowed to Clinton up & deny deny deny.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Why don't you just admit that you said "former NASA scientist and the Heartland Institute" in order to dismiss his paper? (and yes, that's my OPINION of your post).

I just attempted to clarify that it is not a NASA study and NASA has lots of great information about Climate Change.

The study was done by a former NASA Scientist, a Heartland Institute member. An article about the study was first published by Forbes (which I'm sure you linked) by a fellow Heartland Instituter.

I didn't even mention Roy Spencers belief in creationism did I? Oh wait... I just did....

quote Originally posted by newf: I just attempted to clarify that it is not a NASA study and NASA has lots of great information about Climate Change.

That much is true, at least that his paper isn't a NASA study. But it must be pointed out that it is based on data from a NASA satellite. And NASA has information of *mixed* quality, but that's another subject.

quote The study was done by a former NASA Scientist, a Heartland Institute member. An article about the study was first published by Forbes (which I'm sure you linked) by a fellow Heartland Instituter.

None of which has ANYTHING to do with the fact that he has a published, peer-reviewed paper that has proof, perhaps significant, against the AGW theory.

quote I didn't even mention Roy Spencers belief in creationism did I? Oh wait... I just did....

Wow, speaking of deflection!

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You conveniently left out the rest of the information about him...which shows he has worked on NASA satellite projects since 1992: Research Scientist. Dr. Spencer has served as Pricipal Investigator on the Global Precipitation Studies with Nimbus-7 and DMSP SSM/I, and the Advanced Microwave Precipitation Radiometer High Altitude Studies of Precipitation Systems. He has been a member of several science teams: the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Space Station Accommodations Analysis Study Team, Science Steering Group for TRMM, TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, NASA Headquarters Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee, and two National Research Council study panels. Since 1992 Dr. Spencer has been the U.S. Team Leader for the Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) team and the follow-on AMSR-E team. In 1994 he became the AMSR-E Science Team leader.

Maybe you should get in contact with him to change his own website information if you are convinced it's wrong.

Not sure why you are getting so upset that he doesn't work for NASA anyways you don't believe anything they say when it pertains to evidence of Climate Change being man made.