NASA is one of the world's leading scientific agencies, yet they have refused to use their own scientific data to correct their global warming computer models at NASA/GISS. Why?
The latest NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 demonstrates that the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than the alarmist computer models have predicted. The results were published in the peer-reviewed Remote Sensing journal. (More details here.)
James Taylor writes is Forbes Magazine: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism.
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.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
The real question is does scientific debate really matter? Using those unscientific NASA computer models, aided by a cooperative press, multiple government funded environmental organizations have convinced Californian's that global warming is real, a clear and present danger to their public health. A small minority have impressed their wacko science on the majority. See Rebane's Ruminations for more on the minority tipping point.
The latest Public Policy Institute of California study, Californians & the Environment found that most California's support the states climate change policy.
In a year that has seen both lingering economic distress and extreme weather across the nation, most Californians continue to support the state’s climate change policy. Most believe global warming is a serious threat to the state’s future economy, with 47 percent seeing it as a very serious threat and 28 percent saying it is somewhat serious.
The principle behind AB 32—the California law requiring the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—enjoys majority support (67% favor, 21% oppose, 11% don’t know). Most (57%) believe that the state government should make its own policies, separate from the federal government’s, to address global warming.
The effects of global warming have already begun in the view of 61 percent of adults. This is an increase of 7 points since last July (54%) but similar to previous years (61% in 2009, 64% in 2008, 66% in 2007, and 63% in 2006). Another 22 percent say the impact of global warming will occur sometime in the future: 4 percent say it will start within a few years, 7 percent say within their lifetime, and 11 percent say it will affect future generations. Twelve percent say it will never occur. Across parties, Democrats (69%) and independents (62%) are far more likely than Republicans (40%) to say the effects of global warming have already begun. The view that the effects of global warming have begun is up 10 points among Republicans, up 7 points among independents, and similar to last year among Democrats.
A small majority of environmentalist. using wacko science and dodgy computer models, have convinced Californian’s they should spend their tax dollars to drive business from the state, all to solve a CO2 global warming problem that does not exist. That folks is economic insanity.
According to Assemblyman Dan Logue at the ERC breakfast this morning this insanity will continue until the people of California stand up demand accountability from their elected leaders. But, we may be past the tipping point, and there maybe no other options than escaping from this environmental nuthatch or take over the asylum. It is time rebel or leave. Unfortunately those businesses that can leave are leaving, 174 have left since the first of the year, that is about one a day.
Exit Question: Do you think the PPIC numbers are accurate, do they reflect your views?
Update (07-29-11, 11:45) Here is some feedback from the warmer on the left, posted at Dr Spencer's blog here.
LiveScience.com posted an article yesterday where the usual IPCC suspects (Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andy Dessler) dissed our recent paper in in the journal Remote Sensing.
Given their comments, I doubt any of them could actually state what the major conclusion of our paper was.
For example, Andy Dessler told LiveScience:
“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”
Well, apparently Andy did not notice that those were OBSERVATIONS that disagreed with the IPCC climate models. And our model can quantitatively explain the disagreement.
Besides, is Andy implying the IPCC models he is so fond of DON’T have THEIR results tweaked to match the observations? Yeah, right.
Kevin Trenberth’s response to our paper, rather predictably, was:
“I cannot believe it got published”
Which when translated from IPCC-speak actually means, “Why didn’t I get the chance to deep-six Spencer’s paper, just like I’ve done with his other papers?”
Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. Oh, really? Then why have so many papers been published over the years trying to figure out how sensitive today’s climate system is? When scientists appeal to unfalsifiable theories of ancient events which we have virtually do data on, and ignore many years of detailed global satellite observations of today’s climate system, *I* think they are giving science a bad name.
Gavin, dude if you think that paleoclimate records are more accurate that 21st Century satellite data, then you should be willing to accept the ice core record that shows temperatures rose well ahead of CO2, and there were warmer and cooler periods in the earth climate history than we are experiencing today. Yes, I know if we accept Dr Spenser's data, you could lose your job adjusting the surface station temperatures to match your boss climate model. Isn't science wonderful, so full of surprises.