I have a large backlog of blog topics due to this ongoing debt ceiling issue. I’m going to try to ignore the debt for a little bit and catch up on some things that you may have missed recently, if you were, you know, out having a life or something.
First on deck, AGW suffers another severe blow this week. Two of them as a matter of fact.
Well, let’s just take a look. From the first, via Forbes.
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.
And that’s just the first paragraph of the article. It gets better.
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.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
Emphasis from the preceding paragraph is mine. I’ll get back to that in a moment.
And from the actual press release for the report:
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “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. 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.
This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.
But that’s not all that came out this week. The polar bears have been saved!
From the AP:
Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.
Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.
In case you haven’t been following the ups and downs of the AGW hysteria fiasco, let me sum up.
- The “hockey stick graph” isn’t “junk science”, it’s just junk.
- The “tree ring” data used to create it was washed to eliminate the data that disagreed from the conclusion
- The computer models used are incapable of generating valid results.
- Others have shown that using “white noise” as input data produces, wait for it, a hockey stick!
- The general premise behind the entire hockey stick idea would get you flunked out of any 100 level college statistics class. You can’t assume a correlation between two unrelated sets of data. You must define the relation first.
- The AGW leaders have acted as a cabal to keep research showing problems with their claims out of peer reviewed journals and the media.
- They have destroyed data to keep from turning it over to FOI requests.
- They have ignored urban heat islands where convenient.
- They have artificially changed the data to support their conclusions.
- And now we know the carbon dioxide models are wrong as well.
- And now it appears they lied about the polar bears.
The question is no longer whether the AGW alarmists and politicians are lying about their “science”. That has proven to be unequivocally true. The question now is why.
Hint: Like watermelons, they’re green on the outside, but red on the inside.