Jul 28 2011

NASA Data Destroys Global Warming Myth

Published by at 10:46 am under All General Discussions

As expected, the global warming debate is now over with data coming in from the last decade which completely destroys the ‘science’ of global warming predictions:

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.

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.

This is not a surprise to me, since the ‘math’ behind the alarmists’ BS has been poor and amateurish (no error budget, no real math or scientific conclusions). Moreover, the lack of predicted warming has been a major clue the alarmists screwed up. Also, the need to go to exaggerated and unscientific claims was a clue the alarmists theories were failing to be reflected in reality. Recently all the cries of doom were from models pretending to be reality, why the measurements where heading in a different direction.

The irony here is the alarmists demanded more sensors on orbit to prove their point. But what those satellite clearly found was the alarmists were dead wrong. There is no escaping the results here. The data proves the models wrong. The atmosphere has been emitting the energy and not trapping it as predicted. No surprise, since a minor gas like CO2 cannot overcome the effects of the major elements of the atmosphere, which in turn cannot overcome the major influences of the oceans, which in turn cannot overcome the energy emitted by the Sun. We are talking many orders of magnitude in each jump from a marginal gas, to atmosphere itself, to massive oceans, to a nuclear furnace thousands of times larger than our planet.

Common sense and a scientific background would have made this obvious. The rantings of a has-been VP are no match for the forces of nature.

If I were in the US House of Representative I would do two things. I would suspend the EPA from any CO2 regulations and delegate NASA to do the science EPA is incapable of doing. And for the alarmists?

Go home and try next time to get it right. BTW, this is probably also enough hard data to shutdown the IPCC as well.

Update: More at Hot Air by Ed Morrissey

18 responses so far

18 Responses to “NASA Data Destroys Global Warming Myth”

  1. Chuck says:

    Unfortunately common sense and facts get in the way of the real goal of the global warming – climate change – global climate disruption which is redistribution of wealth.

    The House of Representatives has few individuals who understand the issues.

    Another case of winning the battle but losing the war I fear.

  2. crosspatch says:

    The models don’t take into account Earth’s natural refrigeration system that uses water as the working fluid. They assume that all heat is radiated directly from the surface and this infrared radiation must pass through all of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In reality, water evaporating carries heat far above most of the greenhouse gases and releases the heat when it condenses at high altitude thereby bypassing the majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

    The tops of storms can go to 50,000 feet. At that altitude, the heat being released from condensation and freezing of water molecules is above 90% of the Earth’s atmosphere and 99% of the Earth’s greenhouse gases (the stratosphere is very dry and water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas).

    The models assume a static atmosphere where all sunlight reaches the ground, none is reflected by clouds, and all that sunlight is converted to heat and re-radiated as infrared back through the entire atmosphere. That simply isn’t the way our atmosphere works.

    If you look at this “rainbow” loop:


    Each color represents different amounts of heat released as IR as seen from the GOES satellite. The yellows and reds are absolutely huge amounts of heat being released by clouds at the top of storm cells.

    You can think of a storm cell as a huge refrigeration cell transporting absolutely stunning amounts of heat from ground level to altitudes tens of thousands of feet in the air. Storm tops can reach 50,000 feet where they bypass 90% of the Earth’s atmosphere and 99% of the Earth’s greenhouse gases.

  3. […] than alarmist computer models have predicted.You wonder what James Hansen’s gonna say now.H/T AJStrata who adds with wisdom:Common sense and a scientific background would have made this obvious. The […]

  4. WWS says:

    I can’t forget that NASA started all this nonsense through it’s wonderful employee James Hanson. NASA has got a long way to go before they ever get their credibility back on this issue.

  5. crosspatch says:

    The thing is, Hansen isn’t even a climatologist. He is an astrophysicist. His lab was originally tasked with modeling the atmospheres of the other planets … Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc.

    In the 1970’s he was waiving his arms that burning coal was going to run us into another ice age. In the 1980’s he was waiving his arms that burning coal was going to boil us alive.

    Hansen is a crackpot.

  6. crosspatch says:

    The bottom line is that Earth’s atmosphere is highly convective and contains a “working fluid” with a significant latent heat factor (water). The models don’t take that convection and the characteristics of that fluid into account because it is too chaotic to model.

  7. WWS says:

    I know Hansen’s a crackpot. What I want to know is – Why did NASA give him such a glorified pulpit to preach from for 20 years?

    One nut is understandable and even forgiveable, but a corrupt organization is not.

  8. crosspatch says:

    Hansen doesn’t actually work directly for NASA. He works for Columbia University. His lab has a contract Goddard Space Flight Center and he does, I think, carry a title from NASA but his paycheck comes, I believe, from Columbia.

    Now if you know anything at all about Columbia University and the Communist Party, things might start coming into clearer focus. He is basically a political agitator attempting to bend science in order to reach his goal of destroying the US economy by hobbling energy consumption.

  9. lurker9876 says:

    Thanks for the explanation, crosspatch. Now that makes sense! I don’t think NASA would do this sort of thing, right?

  10. crosspatch says:

    Here are a couple of links:



    You will not that most of America’s prominent socialists and communists (including Obama) have come through Columbia university.

  11. […] engage our attention in misdirection. “Look right this way, folks, (no, not there or there, there or there!) at three solid weeks of political theater, for free! We got yer comedy! Yer melodrama! […]

  12. WWS says:

    Well, NASA doesn’t seem to have anything else left to do these days, especially since the Muslim Outreach thing doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

    On a different topic, went to go see the final Harry Potter last night. Excellent cap to the series. The final battle at Hogwarts feels like what we’re going through in Washington these days.

  13. archtop says:

    “Hansen doesnt actually work directly for NASA. He works for Columbia University. His lab has a contract Goddard Space Flight Center and he does, I think, carry a title from NASA but his paycheck comes, I believe, from Columbia.”

    I don’t think so…he shows up in the federal employee data search engine here…

    And as you can see, he and his gang earn tidy six figure salaries from the Federal Government. If fact, if you search the records over several years, you’ll observe that their salaries went UP through 2009 while the economy tanked (and many of my engineering friends were being laid off in the private sector).

    GISS shares building space with Columbia University but is actually separate from them I believe.

    Now, having said all this, Hansen does show up as an adjunct professor for Columbia University, so maybe he actually has two jobs that collectively earn him a lot of money…

    In light of the current federal budget crisis, it would seem to me that cutting expensive research facilities such as GISS and merging the personnel with GSFC in Maryland would make a lot of sense.

  14. crosspatch says:

    Well, my understanding is probably wrong and based on anecdotal information. It does appear that several of the GISS employees hold dual titles from Columbia and from NASA. It also appears that there are actually more Columbia employees at the facility than there are NASA employees. NASA apparently pays a portion of the rent on the facility and Columbia pays the rest. Of the employees holding dual positions, it appears that the position from Columbia is title only, they are unpaid positions.

  15. Mike M. says:

    This isn’t over until the perps are convicted of fraud and sent to prison.

  16. archtop says:

    # crosspatchon 29 Jul 2011 at 2:59 pm

    Regardless of the affiliation, my argument has been that it is not cost effective for NASA to be renting space at Columbia University for what is nothing more than a research group that crunches satellite data and runs numerical models for various NASA programs. These functions could be done at much less cost elsewhere within NASA…

  17. crosspatch says:

    Well, I don’t think “cost effective” has any meaning in our government. For example, the budget of the Department of Agriculture is larger than the entire combined farm income of the United States. We are effectively spending $100 to earn $85.

    “Cost effective” is alien to government.

  18. WWS says:

    I hate to say this after so many years, but I see no more reason for NASA to exist. Fold it into the DOD at Vandenburg and be done with it. Everything left that’s worth doing can be consolidated somewhere else with less staff and a lot less management deadwood. Crunching satellite data and running models? That should be bid out to an independent contractor, who can be cut off immediately if they don’t perform. Honestly, the US would not be one bit worse off if *none* of those computer models were ever turned on again.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m very sad that Obama killed it. But there’s no point in denying that the agency is dead, especially not when the corpse is starting to stink.