Oh, No, NASA Says Hot Air Escaping AGW Arguments!

I just ran across this item on Drudge, a Forbes report on some bad news for AGW hoaxsters. Here is the lede:

“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 link is at: http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html


Be Sociable, Share!
  • Moose

    Cue the Z-Man…………

  • suek

    Gee whiz…

    I guess that’s why Mars is supposedly heating up. We’re warming up the universe!


    Uh oh…Captain Quint just chummed the waters -cue the music. LOL

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Z has retreated so far to the back of the Leftist lines that he only responds to a few limited people here now. That’s progress!

  • Danny Lemieux

    The whole AGW ideological edifice is crumbling under sustained pounding from real science, these days:

    1. A recent breakthrough study from Scandinavia documented how cosmic rays affect climate by reacting with moisture droplets to form clouds. Clouds cool the earth’s surface by reflecting solar radiation. High levels fo cosmic radiation, therefore, cool earth. However, solar flare activity heats the earth by deflecting cosmic radiation, resulting in less cloud formation. This dynamic helps to explain why periods of global heating and cooling correlated so well with solar activity (and not very well at all with CO2 contents in the atmosphere). Just recently, this dynamic of cosmic-ray mediated cloud formation was supported by research undertaken at the EUropean nuclear particle research institute, CERN. CERN’s reaction, of course, was to try and suppress all commentary on these findings because they were anathema to global warming religion.

    Regarding the original Danish research:

    Re. CERN’s research and gag order:

    2. A lot of the original work claimed by the IPPC to support man-made global warming (AGW) was based on the analysis of tree ring data. This underlies the (in)famous Mann “hockey stick data”. Never mind that much of the research done was found to be bogus, relying upon very selective cherry-picking of siberian tree locations. Subsequent to that research, however, it was found that tree rings did not only reflect hot and cold conditions but also wet and dry conditions, which had not been factored into the original data and, when done so, generated completed different results than originally reported. Now, we have another factor that appears to be a major contributor to tree-ring data – i.e., the impact of grazing animal populations. 

    This cited study looked at the impact of grazing sheep on the quality of tree rings:

    It seems that  the “original” tree ring data omitted consideration of conditions of wetness plus the impact of locally grazing reindeer and other ungulate populations. Oh, well! Perhaps tree-ring analysis is not the way to go about making predictions with global implications after all. (h/t smalldeadanimals.com) 

    3) Then, on top of this (heartbreak), we get news that the man who originally predicted the global demise of polar bear populations due to disappearing ice, resulting in their listing on the EPA’s endangered species list (the EPA definitely needs to be closed down and rebuilt from scratch!), may have completely falsified his work. In any case, he has been removed from his post and is facing legal scrutiny:


    Polar bear populations, as we have discussed at this blog, are hardly endangered – in fact, populations are at record highs! Listing them as endangered does prevent Arctic exploration for oil, however.

    All this, of course, will have absolutely zero impact on the true believers.


  • JKB

    But, but, climaproctologists are the “experts”?  We must follow the experts.  They’ve go models, dang it.  Don’t be introducing those observations.  

    Now, those who’ve read these vile lies, wait right where you are the green police will be by as soon as their charging cycle is done to haul you off to reprogramming.   

  • Charles Martel

    “All this, of course, will have absolutely zero impact on the true believers.”

    Now you know what it’s like to be God, Danny. The question has always been, if God knows the future and how we will decide something, how can we have free will? Yet, here you (and we) know exactly how the true believers will respond—freely—to this unwelcome bit of news. Strong stuff, no?

  • http://furtheradventuresofindigored.blogspot.com/ Indigo Red

    Add to that the story from The Telegraph today that the scientist who brouht us the horrible news of polar bear drownings has been placed on administrative leave over suspicions that he forged his findings.

    Not a good day for the manbearpig fried earthers.   


    I found the source of the hot air release.
    “What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.”
    -Nancy Pelousy

  • Jose

    I saw 4 dead badgers along the highway yesterday.  We should put them on the endangered species list. 
    And I’ll need a government grant to study the problem.


    Jose, see if you can bum a few bucks from one of these stellar projects. Although, I am sure you’d have no problem getting the funding for a handful of dead anything.



    Jose, no problem getting a grant to study a handful of dead anything.


  • Charles Martel

    What’s happening to the AGW hoax reminds me a lot of what happened to the old Soviet Union. Once the lies and contradictions start getting exposed, the wheels come off fast.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    So long as the money flows, it won’t crash.


    Charles Monnett, a wildlife biologist, oversaw much of the scientific work for the government agency that has been examining drilling in the Arctic. He managed about $50m in research projects….
    Monnett and a colleague published an article in the science journal Polar Biology, writing: “Drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”
    The paper quickly heightened public concern for the polar bear. Al Gore, citing the paper, used polar bear footage in his film Inconvenient Truth. Campaigners focused on the bears to push George Bush to act on climate change, and in 2008, the government designated the animal a threatened species.
    It was the first animal to be classed as a victim of climate change.

    The barf (I mean brief) interview at the end of this linked article will ring familiar with all of you. Note: This post is before that certain someone enters this thread.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Sorry for the delay. Took a while to plow through the article. 
    “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.”
    First, NASA satellite data doesn’t “show”, rather Spencer & Braswell interpret the data. As they have a poor track record, we should be a bit cautious about their conclusions. 
    Remote Sensing is a rather odd journal to be publishing such a study.  Remote Sensing is better known for data publication, and not theoretical papers that purport to overthrow climatology. It makes you wonder whether the peer review was sufficient for the purpose. In any case, …
    The thing that appears most striking is the confusion with their use of the term “internal radiative forcing,” a contradiction in terms. A forcing is external, by definition. Internal effects are feedbacks, by definition. That made it much harder to understand what they were trying to say. Clouds are a feedback mechanism, not a forcing, except with regard to human-caused aerosols. 
    Furthermore, they compared the data to a simplified climate model that didn’t include ENSO, one of the strongest cyclical phenomena in the climate system.  When you compare the data to simulations that do include modeling of ENSO, the fit is reasonable based on the data.