New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

nasa_logo1By James M. Taylor

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.

Read the rest at Forbes.

26 Responses to New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

  1. Joe July 30, 2011 at 11:09 pm #

    Why this is not front page news is news to me.

    • Michael Hartline August 4, 2011 at 11:14 am #

      This is not front page news because Nasa has participated in the global warming scam. Mainly through one political activst named Hansen at Nasa. Hansen has been arrested 2 times for his leftist political activism and he should not be qualified to even work at Nasa. He is not a scientist, he is a political activist and Nasa should be embarrassed by 10 year tirade of complete and total fraud. Nasa has been discredited by letting scientific fraud be perpetrated on the world by Hansen. So why is this not front page news? Nasa wants to let everyone down easy and tell us that global warming is a fraud in dribs and drabs to try to save there reputation. This will not work on me. I used to trust Nasa science openly. I do not trust them at all anymore. They have discredited themselves with the propoganda of intentional false scientific results.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 7, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

        I could not agree with you more.

      • Rob N. Hood September 4, 2011 at 3:18 pm #

        Intentional? To what end may I ask? And please be detailed.

      • Rob N. Hood September 9, 2011 at 7:08 pm #

        Privatize NASA! Oh, wait, it already is….. nevermind…

  2. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 6, 2011 at 5:29 am #

    I wonder why there are no comments on this. This is a very important factor in AGW (or the lack thereof). The center pillar of the global warming argument is that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, trapping heat in the atmosphere. This study, which actually confirms Lindzen’s findings, is not just a nail in the coffin, or a shovelfull of dirt in the grave of AGW. It is a cremation furnace that burns the theory to a pile of ashes.

  3. Dave W August 8, 2011 at 9:18 pm #

    Thatcher used the dodgey science of one person in the 1980’s to push an agenda on nuclear energy, through parliament in england.
    Every scientist who had deemed co2 not to be a threat causing temperatures to rise in the official IPCC reports had there official statements edited by people who were on a payroll with an agenda.
    This theory is so ludicrous a person with a basic science education of high school level ,could prove it wrong. Take an empty box, put six warm bottles of beer in it and give them a burst of a co2 fire extinguisher. what do you get? Instant ice cold beer, it’s not rocket science. How many billions of tax payers money has to be wasted on this bogus campaign, co2 converts to o3 from the ocean and plant life to make ozone. which then falls to the tropisphere to create o2. Atmosphere is 95% water vapor (green house gas) and carbon is the base for nearly everything on earth in one form or another. Sun spot activity is more likely to be the cause of temperature increase not co2, it will save this planet if there are major solar flares. somebody is trying to create another business world wide to make a s**t load of money using it to create a worldwide tax by stealth and fear. Anybody wonder why nasa just had it’s budget cut. because a ten year war, will send any country broke.Traditionally when our planet goes through warm periods farming and agriculture prosper.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 10, 2011 at 10:04 pm #

      Dave, the process of evaporative cooling is not analogous to the greenhouse CO2 theory. I’m sorry, your heart seems to be in the right place, but what happens when CO2 is released from a pressurised container is actually pretty simple. There is this principle called the temperature-pressure relationship. When you increase the pressure of a contained substance you will increase it’s temperature, and visa-versa, when you increase it’s temperature you will increase it’s pressure. This is what happens when you release the CO2 from the fire extinguisher. The CO2 goes from a high pressure to a low pressure and the temperature of the CO2 will drop in accordance with the pressure change. This is the same thing that makes refrigerators work. The refrigerant is under pressure and forced through a metering device, usually a small orifice or a capillary tube, so when it enters the evaporator the tube widens and the pressure drops. The refrigerant will actually boil, (think back to science class with the room temperature water boiling in the bell jar with all the air pumped out of it.) or you could say that it evaporates rapidly. The evaporation process actually absorbs more heat than the pressure change alone, (which is why you don’t want to stand in front of a fan when you get out of the shower). So, the greenhouse theory is about CO2 absorbing heat that is produced from the sunlight warming the Earth, and alledgedly trapping it in the atmosphere. That is a completely different process.
      You are also wrong about CO2 converting to O3. O3 will react with carbon (C) to make CO2 and a free oxygen atom (O) but not the other way around. There is a such thing as a CO3 molecule, but that is getting into chemistry which is not my area of expertise.
      But I agree with everything else you said.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 10, 2011 at 10:13 pm #

        Wait.. Not everything. I kinda skipped your last few sentances. The war is not why we are broke. Obviously it doesn’t help, but the reason we are broke is because Washington can not stop spending money. Period

        • Jerk A Knot August 11, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

          For Sure Neil.

          The current stimulus expenditures out of DC in the last 2 two years far exceed war spending. We have nothing to show for it but a AA+ rating.

      • Dave W August 11, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

        I really apprieciate your clarification on the scientific points, I am very interested in the subject and what I had written was a probably not clarified properly. my point is that every time co2 has increased over history the temperature has gone down, not up. The problem we are having here in Australia is our Prime minister is hell bent on pushing a carbon tax through at $23 per tonne on our local industries which will send living costs through the roof and put a very large amount of people out of work. The country has approx 65% of the country opposed and the climate reports here have been prepared by Proffesor Ross Gernaut who is an economics proffesor not a climate scientist. Our real emmisions here are about .5% of a the world totals not really a big problem I recentley watched a film with Lord Monkton from the uk(the great climate change swindle) certainly makes you think. The co2 to 03 What i meant was plankton and plant life convert co2 to o2 and H2o evaporation forming high level clouds. I can,t remeber the full details of it how the o3 (ozone ) but i am sure it’s part of that process. sorry 25 years since i sat in a classroom. Also, SORRY! I know the war thing is probably a sore point and I am aware that alot of Wall street Companies got very,very wealthy while the average person got shafted over the GFC and the sad thing is some of those Men are still in positions of power.Once again thanks for the info, I just want the truth to come out too many liars in governments around the world.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 12, 2011 at 5:46 am #

          No worries mate! I am an HVAC repairman. I didn’t mean to sound like a blowhard, it’s just that the cooling process is my area of expertise. As far as the war goes, it’s not a sore point. It’s just that the Left uses the argument that the cost of the war is why we are broke, and they completly ignore other spending for entitlements and such. As for the war, I think we got Bin Laden so it’s time to disengage and bring the troops home.

          • Dave W August 12, 2011 at 6:12 am #

            couldn,t agree more , my cousin married a marine and he was in iraq thankfully he is not there . Thanks again.

  4. Joe August 8, 2011 at 10:25 pm #

    Neil, I agree. Where’s the media?

  5. Joe August 9, 2011 at 7:47 pm #

    Neil, according to old Al Gore today it is all B.S.? Must say, “Old Albert” is feeling some heat? Good!

  6. Rob N. Hood August 23, 2011 at 9:15 am #

    News Flash: the “media” is corporate and right wing (almost exclusively). It is YOUR media, much much more than it is mine. You need to question your own beliefs and assumptions before you can convince anyone, other than other right-wing lemmings, that you know anything special.

  7. Joe August 23, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    Thanks Albert, we needed your input. Still having a “Hissy fit?”

  8. Rob N. Hood August 25, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

    Are you? Having trouble with real feedback? Don’t worry about it. It’s the norm for the Right.

  9. Joe August 26, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    Facts hurt don’t they.

  10. Rob N. Hood August 28, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

    Apparently they do. You can’t accept anything that is not biased to fit your needs.

  11. Joe August 28, 2011 at 9:25 pm #

    A simple factual reply would suffice.

  12. Rob N. Hood August 29, 2011 at 9:25 am #

    It was a factual reply. You just proved my point AGAIN. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

  13. Joe August 29, 2011 at 10:14 pm #

    You can toy with others but don’t toy with me.

  14. Rob N. Hood August 30, 2011 at 5:28 pm #

    Oh, gosh… so sorry… please forgive me.

  15. joe August 31, 2011 at 12:26 am #

    You are a recalcitrant individual that never seems to wish to answer other than negative statements. Cat have your mouth, or others? I assume that you can speak for yourself or are you led by others? Which is it? Cat have your tongue?

  16. Rob N. Hood August 31, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    uuhhh… didn’t you just “answer” with a negative statement…like always??? Who’s calling who recalcitrant ?(points to you for using such a big word). I don’t really need to do much of anything and your hypocrisy and ignorance shines brightly, or dimly, as it were.

Leave a Reply

A project of Minnesota Majority