Study Finds "Huge Discrepancy" Between Hard Data and Warming Models

[dime21]

A new study by former NASA climatologist find huge discrepancy between climate models and hard data. I'm surprised the Climategate criminals didn't try and suppress this somehow.

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Finds...ticle22301.htm

Alarmism and climate profiteering is dealt yet another serious blow

Many are still operating under the perception that current global warming models are "good enough" to make drastic economic decisions. That party line has been pushed, in part, by certain individuals like ex-U.S. Vice President and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who have stood to gain tremendously in personal finances by promoting alarmist and sensationalist rhetoric. Indeed, Mr. Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth painted a grim picture of a pending apocalypse and made Mr. Gore hundreds of millions in sales and speaking fees -- but its accuracy is hotly debated.

I. New Study Blasts a Hole in Current Models

In a new study, Roy Spencer, Ph.D -- a prestigious former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) climatologist who currently works at the University of Alabama -- has examined data between 2001 and 2011 gathered by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer sensor housed aboard NASA's Aqua satellite.

The study was published [PDF] in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing.

The data reveals yet another thorough analysis of atmospheric heat dissipation -- an important factor in heating or cooling. And like past studies, it found that the Earth's atmosphere shed heat at a much faster rate than what's predicted in widely used global warming models.

The hard facts show that both the predictions of the amount of heat shed during a a full warming scenario, and the amount of heat shed as warming begins were understated.

As the data shows the Earth's atmosphere to be trapping less heat; that means the outcomes of any sort of human-based warming caused by the emission of carbon greenhouse gases and other compounds is likely overstated. Thus the dire predictions of models used by the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and researchers are likely flawed.

States Professor Spencer in a press release from University of Alabama, "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

This is a critical conclusion as it shows that the secondary "indirect" trapping from atmospheric water may be far less than previously predicted.

II. Supporting Evidence Builds Stronger Case

The new study isn't necessarily cause to abandon climate models altogether. After all, understanding our planet's climate is the key to growing better crops and protecting people from natural disasters. That said, the models likely will need a major overhaul, one which some leading climate alarmists may regret.

Supporting evidence strengthens the case that such an overhaul is needed.

Researchers at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have been baffled by the fact that the widely used climate models were failing to properly predict atmospheric humidity and the rate of cirrus cloud formation -- phenomena driven by atmospheric heat.

Few public voiced such thoughts, likely for fear of persecution by their more sensationalist warming colleagues. Still, despite the politics, the data crept silently into several studies.

Additionally, sensors aboard NASA's ERBS satellite collected long-wave radiation (resulting from escaping atmospheric heat) between 1985 and 1999 than was predicted by computer models.

Between the relatively comprehensive volume satellite and atmospheric data, the picture appears clear -- the climate models are badly flawed.

III. Indirect v. Direct Warming

So what's the difference between direct and indirect warming? Well, direct warming is caused by substance like carbon dioxide, which trap a certain amount of heat when they're found in large quantities in the atmosphere.

While carbon dioxide has been vilified in the media, peer reviewed research states with relative certainty that it is actually a very weak greenhouse gas and a weak contributor to "direct" warming.

The fearful hypothesis, which alarmists have been pleased to promote, is that carbon's direct heating -- while small -- will somehow throw the environment out of whack, causing an increased abundance of atmospheric water. As water is a far better greenhouse gas at trapping heat, this could lead to a domino effect -- or so they say.

But the new study shows that the predictions of runaway indirect heating are likely badly flawed.

IV. The New Climate Picture

The new study doesn't dismiss that warming will occur if man keeps burning fossil fuels. Rather, it indicates that it will likely occur at a much gentler pace than previously predicted, and that the maximum temperature reached will likely be lower the predicted, as well.

This is significant as alarmists have tried to use the hypothesis of rapid runaway warming as a justification for sweeping economic changes. Under a gentler warming scenario, slowly rises in sea levels would not be that big a deal as mankind would have plenty of time to adjust to them. Plus the levels would not rise as fast as previously predicted.

Of course, this means some of the "good effects" of warming -- such as resource harvesting in an ice-free Arctic -- won't be realized either. Thus the more temperate, data-based climate picture has both advantages and disadvantages versus the more fantastic past models.

V. A Brave Scientist

Professor Spencer deserves to be commended for his thorough analysis and outstanding work. It takes a bold man to defy some of one's colleagues when they're clearly perpetrating a factual inaccuracy.

It's not hard to imagine how difficult it must have been for Professor Spencer to get his work funded and published in a field dominated by NASA, whose higher ranks are heavily dominated by pro-warming advocates like James Hansen. The Nov. 2009 "climategate" email scandal at the University of East Anglia seemingly confirmed what many suspected -- it's hard for scientists to voice alternate opinions given the dogmatic state of climate research.

And yet it's tremendously important to do so.

For the most part, everyday environmentalists who have bought into the rhetoric of wealthy entrepreneurs like Mr. Gore, or powerful research chiefs like James Hansen did not personally profit off of the alarmism and approached the climatology debate with the best of intentions.

Sadly, in doing so pressing real environmental crises like the destruction of the Earth's rainforests faded into the background. Further, the climate emphasis led, in some cases, to lesser cuts to toxic gases such as nitrogen and sulfur compounds produced in the burning of fossil fuels. Regulators allowed greater levels of these gases, so they could focus on forcing industry to adopt stricter carbon standards.

These toxic gases have contributed tremendously, according to thorough peer review, to problems like asthma. Thus the climate alarmism may have indirectly cost the public's money, the health of the environment, but the public's health, as well.

[NT1440]

Hilarious, now that you have some data that supports your viewpoint, suddenly you believe in the scientific method.

How very credible of you. :roll eyes:

Keep in mind this is one study. One.

[miloblithe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spe...28scientist%29

Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[22]

The declaration states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

He's also on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank, and is on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

[StruckANerve]

I am going to be keeping an eye on this one. It seems like legit research. And attacking his associations in his personal life is petty. Let the science stand on its own.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by dime21

A new study by former NASA climatologist find huge discrepancy between climate models and hard data. I'm surprised the Climategate criminals didn't try and suppress this somehow.

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Finds...ticle22301.htm

I'm glad that you see the necessity for much more research in this area. The purpose of these satellites is to understand the physics better.

[thejadedmonkey]

Meanwhile, I can count on one hand how many days it's been below 89 in my area in the past month, where 85 was considered hot, ten years ago.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by thejadedmonkey

Meanwhile, I can count on one hand how many days it's been below 89 in my area in the past month, where 85 was considered hot, ten years ago.

Yep- same here. I was talking to some of the guys on my hockey team about how they used to play hockey outside on ponds in the winter here. They said it's not been possible for over ten years now, because it never gets cold enough, long enough anymore. Wonder why that is?

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by thejadedmonkey

Meanwhile, I can count on one hand how many days it's been below 89 in my area in the past month, where 85 was considered hot, ten years ago.

Originally Posted by leekohler

Yep- same here. I was talking to some of the guys on my hockey team about how they used to play hockey outside on ponds in the winter here. They said it's not been possible for over ten years now, because it never gets cold enough, long enough anymore. Wonder why that is?

Small sample size. In the 16 years I've lived in Texas, this past winter was the most brutally cold we've ever had, by far (by our standards, of course). Six snow days resulting in school closings - I've never seen more than two before. Temperatures in the single digits when the 99.6% design condition is 17°.

Does that mean the Earth is getting colder? Of course not; this summer has been equally brutal for us, even for what we're used to.

[Gelfin]

Okay, first, the University of Alabama in Huntsville is not the University of Alabama. Completely different schools. Spencer does not work for UA. He works for UAH.

He's also a complete nut. He's been playing this same tune in various forms for years now, often using statistical trickery to cook data consistent with his pre-formed religiously-driven conclusion that humans do not affect the climate. It's actually a sign of how his position is eroding that the new finding says only that warming is happening more slowly than models indicate, not that it isn't happening.

Spencer is not doing science right. He's hardly doing it at all.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, the last paragraph -- or should I say hagiograph -- of the article the OP posted is hilarious. Can we get a picture of him staring off into the distance with an American flag waving behind him to go along with that?

[Mousse]

The data reveals yet another thorough analysis of atmospheric heat dissipation -- an important factor in heating or cooling. And like past studies, it found that the Earth's atmosphere shed heat at a much faster rate than what's predicted in widely used global warming models.

Oh no! Mother Earth is spewing out heat faster than scientist previously thought. It's the dawn of a new Ice Age. It's The Day After Tomorrow. I should work for Faux News. Have the gotten hold of the story yet? They better not steal my Ice Age angle.

[Lord Blackadder]

It is not even necessary to mention his conservative political connections. Just look at his work on climate change - it's sloppy and extremely suspect. Most of his work output is geared toward getting his controversial opinions out to the general public, rather than winning over the scientific community. He is a partisan shill.

Classic tactic nowadays...if your professional peers think you are a quack, write a popular book and try to fool the ignorant.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackadder

It is not even necessary to mention his conservative political connections.

50 years ago, conservatives were saying that we had to develop nuclear power because of global warming. Now they are saying that there is no global warming. I guess conservatives aren't what they used to be.

[Lord Blackadder]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

I guess conservatives aren't what they used to be.

Nothing is what it used to be; the validity of an approach should be measured in part by its ability to adapt to a changing world. Yesterday's progressives may be today's reactionaries.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by nmrrjw66

I am going to be keeping an eye on this one. It seems like legit research. And attacking his associations in his personal life is petty. Let the science stand on it's own.

Sure, I mean there's thousands of research projects that continue to find strong evidence for climate change, let's focus on one that presents some doubt.

Being a skeptic is fine, but I find it interesting to watch a single Forbes article—not known for its science coverage—wend its way through the conservative media-sphere based on a flawed scientific article.

Second, this isn't Spencer personal associations we're talking about, rather we're discussing associations that may motivate and polemicize his scientific work. I disagree with Discover on this, it's not an ad hominem to discuss his motivations. He is an avowed skeptic who works for Exxon.

[StruckANerve]

Originally Posted by hulugu

Sure, I mean there's thousands of research projects that continue to find strong evidence for climate change, let's focus on one that presents some doubt.

Being a skeptic is fine, but I find it interesting to watch a single Forbes article—not known for its science coverage—wend its way through the conservative media-sphere based on a flawed scientific article.

Second, this isn't Spencer personal associations we're talking about, rather we're discussing associations that may motivate and polemicize his scientific work. I disagree with Discover on this, it's not an ad hominem to discuss his motivations. He is an avowed skeptic who works for Exxon.

Don't get me wrong, I am fairly convinced of the negative impact humans are having on the climate and I do believe the planet is warming. I am not, however, completely opposed to the idea that the effect we are having might be exaggerated. After a bit of digging I did find that Dr. Spencer has repeatedly put forth papers with very flawed methods of calculation, so his reputation and motivation is very questionable. Let's just say I will await the scientific communities assessment of this new paper.

[iJohnHenry]

Cormorants have been sighted in flocks, just off Toronto harbour.

First time in many moons, Ke-mo sah-bee.

Just sayin'.

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by dime21

I'm surprised the Climategate criminals didn't try and suppress this somehow.

You are aware that it was determined that no wrong doing or manipulation of data occurred during the contrived "Clmategate" scandal?

In other words Climategate never actually happened....

[184550]

Originally Posted by nmrrjw66

I am going to be keeping an eye on this one. It seems like legit research. And attacking his associations in his personal life is petty. Let the science stand on its own.

Exactly. If the science is legitimate then his personal opinions/ beliefs are irrelevant.

The key word I saw was 'peer reviewed journal'. If there are issues I'm sure we'll hear about them.

[Lord Blackadder]

Originally Posted by NathanMuir

I'm sure we'll hear about them.

Only if you listen.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Yep- same here. I was talking to some of the guys on my hockey team about how they used to play hockey outside on ponds in the winter here. They said it's not been possible for over ten years now, because it never gets cold enough, long enough anymore. Wonder why that is?

Last time before the last year or two there was serious snow here was 1990.

[184550]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackadder

Only if you listen.

I'm sure someone will relish posting that development to this thread. I eagerly anticipate its arrival.

[Lord Blackadder]

Originally Posted by NathanMuir

I'm sure someone will relish posting that development to this thread. I eagerly anticipate its arrival.

At this point I'm not rejecting his paper out of hand, but people who desire to give his position undue weight are loudly trumpeting a single article in a journal. He is currently badly outnumbered, and if you give his single article in a peer reviewed journal a great deal of credence than surely you are willing to give a correspondingly greater credence to the large number of articles in peer reviewed journals (easily available though a cursory search of journals on the web, though Google, or in any universary library) that suggest evidence for anthropogenic climate change? Why is his single article more important than a large number of at least equally credible articles that you may disagree with?

If his work results in a major reversal of the scientific consensus, then he is vindicated. If not, we can legitimiately declare his position fringe science at best.

[184550]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackadder

At this point I'm not rejecting his paper out of hand, but people who desire to give his position undue weight are trumpeting a single article in a journal. He is currently badly outnumbered, and if you give his single article in a peer reviewed journal a great deal of credance than surely you are willing to give a correspondingly greater credance to the large number of articles in peer reviewed journals (easily available though a cursory search of journals on the web, though Google, or in any universary library) that suggest evidence for anthropogenic climate change? Why is his single article more important than a large number of at least equally credible articles that you may disagree with?

Of course.

I think you've mistakenly assumed I have an opinion on Global Warming. FWIW I'm not a science and math guy. I'd rather leave that stuff to the experts; who ever they may be.

[Daffodil]

For all of you who haven't already, I very strongly urge you to read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes. As a historian of science, she analyzes the whole climate debate from a historical point of view and demonstrates pretty convincingly how it's been settled by science for a good long time in favor - if you wish to call it that - of ongoing anthropogenic climate change.

She draws a very convincing parallel to the tobacco industry's decades of denial and deliberate deception in light of mounds of evidence to the contrary. It's an excellent summary of how ridiculous the whole climate "debate" is at this point, and how we desperately need to shift our focus to how to combat it. Heaven knows there'll be enough to argue about as far as implementing real policy, let alone this petty squabbling and putting your fingers in your ears pretending that the problem doesn't exist.

Although it's written in such a style that she sort of hits you over the head with the main arguments, it's still a fantastic, enlightening, very evidence-based read.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by NathanMuir

Exactly. If the science is legitimate then his personal opinions/ beliefs are irrelevant.

The key word I saw was 'peer reviewed journal'. If there are issues I'm sure we'll hear about them.

His personal opinions are influencing his science. As nmrrjw66 noted, his calculations are often flawed and that's really the problem with men like Spencer feign iconoclasm when they're really just bad scientists.

Not many scientists get glowing essays in Forbes magazine and the reason is entirely politics.