New NASA Satellite Data Study Undermines Greenhouse Gas Effect

Thursday, August 4th 2011, 6:03 PM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Image Attachment

At a time when NASA satellite data confirms Earth’s atmosphere is NOT trapping heat from carbon dioxide, isn’t it time for climatologists to take a fresh look at their global warming hypothesis?

A growing number of independent scientists, applying the latest satellite data, are strident in their argument that there is no longer any credible scientific evidence to support the faltering greenhouse gas effect (GHE), the cornerstone of UN climate science.

Since its inception in 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has assumed that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would add to a ‘heat trapping’ effect in the atmosphere. They argued that, if left unchecked, the trapped heat would cause runaway global warming. However, this latest study of real-world data shows no such trapped heat, despite significant increases in atmospheric CO2. Now, more scientists are arguing for the abandonment of the faltering hypothesis altogether.

Author of the study, Dr. Roy Spencer, is a respected climatologist and principal researcher in the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Despite his findings he still insists that the greenhouse gas effect is real and must cause SOME warming. Well, where is it, Roy?

NASA Satellite Data Supports Slayers Group of GHE Critics

In ScienceDaily (July 29, 2011) Dr. Spencer concedes,

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

But Dr. Spencer’s findings are music to the ears of the ‘Slayers’ group of GHE critics who, in their 2010 book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ predicted satellite evidence would eventually help affirm the greenhouse gas effect is mere junk science.

Spencer, formerly of NASA, admits that the climate is even less sensitive to the increased levels of carbon dioxide than climate modelers have theorized. The new study, along with other recent evidence here and here, seriously weakens the cornerstone of global warming theory.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law Defeats Global Warming Theorists

The emergent ‘Slayers’ group, steadfast critics of the GHE hypothesis, say the climate models are premised on poorly constructed equations that wrongly use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (S-B Law), which is for solid surfaces, not gases.
As Joe Postma opines:

“In the case of gases, they have no solid surface. You may get the same spectral behavior in terms of the shape of the continuous emission from a surface and a gas at the same temperature, but, the gas might emit much less integrated flux because it simply doesn’t have the same number of emitting particles that a surface does.”

This is one of several flaws that, until the Sky Dragon book was published, most researchers had overlooked. Of course, scientists agree that generally gases do qualitatively follow the S-B Law but GHE advocates have gone too far and mistakenly fitted the S-B law unquestioningly into their equations.

Back Radiation In Atmosphere Does not Add Additional Heat

Spencer’s new study assessed data from before and after climate warming events between 2000 and 2011. As a result, Dr. Spencer conceded:

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show.”

Spencer’s finding accords with what the ‘Slayers’ had predicted. It also stands as a major blow for the GHE adherents who have long assumed that gases such as CO2 ‘back radiate’ the heat that enters our atmosphere from the sun. According to those GHE adherents, all that heat should have been ‘trapped’ in the atmosphere via back-radiation and shown up on the instruments and affirm that the direction of heat flow goes back towards our planet’s surface. But it didn’t. As they say on the Discovery Channel, ‘myth busted!’

In effect, even though those greenhouse gases in the cooler atmosphere re-radiate infrared energy in all directions, this radiation cannot be absorbed by the surface such as to add further heat to it.

As biophysicist Nasif Nahle explains:

“Atmospheric gases radiate in all directions, including towards the ground surface, but this radiation cannot be absorbed as heat by the surface because of several quantum processes that prevent it.”

Astrophysicist Postma and his colleagues say that the laws of thermodynamics strictly demand that heat flows only from hot to cold, adding:

“Warm cloudy nights are not caused by the radiation from the clouds. My analysis broke down the physics and math of how that could work, if it did, but showed the physics to be tautologous and inherently flawed and self-contradictory. The obvious qualitative reason for that is because the direction of heat flow is always only from hot to cold, and in the case of the GHE model itself, it doesn’t use the correct heating input in the first place.”

Postma’s latest paper, causing shock waves among the climate science community, exposes another damning flaw in the fast unraveling GHE: the models are programmed to treat Earth as if it has no night-time.
“Night-time obviously is where most of the cooling occurs, since there is no input heating,“ he observes.

Climate Clowns Cooked their Half-baked Equation

Moreover, Postma and the ‘Slayers’ ascertained that in order to mathematically compensate for not including the cooling of the night-time, climate modellers systematically botched their work by reducing the solar heating intensity by a factor of 4, thus reducing it to minus 18C.

At that point, the model cannot explain why it is ever warmer than -18C anywhere, and so it invents a greenhouse effect to raise the temperature. But the question remains: does -18C over 24 hours provide the same amount of ‘cooking’ that +30C does over 12 hours, or 90C over two hours? To give this a simpler context, GHE critic Alan Siddons says:

“When a recipe says bake for an hour at 200°C, a climatologist assumes that four hours at 50 degrees will produce the same result.”

Fellow ‘Slayer’ Joe Olson japes with a less reverent analogy: “reminds me of the old saying….’Let’s get nine women pregnant and have a baby in one month.’”

In essence, the fatal error was in not including night-time in the model in the first place. If climatologists had actually modeled night-time and day-time individually, then they would have found the physically real actual solar heating intensity that is +121C at maximum, and +30C on average.

“These are the real, actual values of the solar heating, and then you don’t need to use the mathematically and artificially low value of -18C,” says Postma.

Put simply, it’s the fudge factor in junk climate equations that is baffling climatologists in their quest to find all that ‘missing heat’ they’ve wrongly been predicting.

So perhaps Dr. Roy Spencer and his fellow ‘greenhouse gas effect’ aficionados should now reflect on this compelling new NASA data and concede the obvious: the models are wrong because the ‘theory’ is wrong. In fact, it’s not even a theory: it’s junk science.

Spencer tried to “prove” this failed hypothesis by using a false experiment in his blog post a year ago: ‘Yes Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.’ Comparing the atmosphere to a “cool blanket” that can warm your body ignores the obvious. But the Earth is NOT a heat producing, constant 98.6F body that is warmed by trapping these heat emissions.

As explained by Olson in ‘Rocket Scientist Need NOT Apply,’

“A 98.6F water filled inflatable doll will NOT warm regardless of the number of blankets applied. Additional ‘insulation’ will only slow cooling. For Earth, that thin microscopic carbon dust layer cannot add any ‘insulation’ factor.”

It is thus axiomatic in science that if you can ‘prove’ your hypothesis by FALSE experiment, then your hypothesis is FALSE.