New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

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.

"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.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

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.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. 

Yahoo News

U2′s Edge Loses Battle with Environmentalists

The Edge is an environmentalist and long time promoter of Greenpeace. He is also learning a hard lesson about the down side of stringent environmental regulations:

A plan by U2′s lead guitarist, the Edge, and his associates to build several mansions overlooking the Pacific Ocean was denied on Thursday by California officials, who said the project would be a visual blight on a pristine ridgeline.
The California Coastal Commission, which voted 8-4 to reject the controversial 156-acre project, also cited potential damage to native vegetation near the seaside enclave of Malibu.
The Edge, whose real name is David Evans, bought the ridge-top parcel of land for his proposed home in 2005 and has since been fighting to win approval for the development.
A spokeswoman for the Edge said the guitarist and his associates were weighing a potential lawsuit and other options to revive the project.

I hope they do file a lawsuit. It’s the Edge’s property; he ought to be able to build on it. Still I can’t help thinking this is a case of being hoist on your own petard.
Verum Serum

What Questions Should Christians Ask about Global Warming?

Jay Richards has a helpful lecture in which he sketches a Christian perspective on the environment.   He gave the talk in 2007 at University of California, Davis.
For the first twenty minutes or so he offers some general principles that all Christians should agree on. (He notes that these big-picture principles are distinct from prudential judgments and application of those principles to issues related to the environment.)
The four Christian truths he lays out are:

1. The doctrines of theism and creation (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 24:1).
2. Dominion (stewardship): we’re God’s crowning achievement, not a parasite on nature (Gen 1:26-27, 31; 2:15)
3. The Fall affects nature: the world is not Eden, and we can mess things up (Rom. 8:20, 22)
4. Redemption: Christ, the new Adam, foreshadows the kingdom to come, and the church is his body

The key question then becomes: How can we be responsible stewards and apply these principles?
He takes as a test case the question of global warming. To respond well, we first need to understand the basic claim and argument regarding climate change.
The basic claim is that climate change is catastrophic and caused by humans.
The basic argument goes like this: (1) For decades scientists have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gasses have led to a greenhouse effect. (2) The temperature has risen in the 20th century, while greenhouse gasses have proliferated due to human activity. (3) Therefore, greenhouse gasses must be the cause.
How should a Christian respond?
Dr. Richards is really helpful here, because he helps us to make some distinctions instead of asking one big vague question.
Here are the four big questions we should think through:
1. Is the Earth warming?
The general answer is Yes. On a global average, we’re in a slight warming trend that started around 1850 (with a decline around 1940 to the 1970s), +.08 degrees Celsius.
2. Are we causing the Earth to warm?
It’s uncontroversial that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have gone up. But, correlation isn’t causation; the theory advanced for catastrophic man-man global warming doesn’t explain past climate change; and it ignores possible other causes (like solar activity).
3. Is it a bad thing if the Earth is warming?
Even if the earth is warming and we are causing it, we still have to ask if global warming is bad. The problem is, no one knows the answer to the question of what the optimum global temperature average is. Warming trends will make things better in some places and worse in others. There are always trade-offs, costs and benefits. We should remember that CO2 is plant food; it doesn’t just sit in the atmosphere but affects the growth of plants.
4. Would the advised policies make any difference?
Even if the earth is warming it, we are causing it, and warming is bad, we still need to ask this question—which most don’t do.
For example, even if every country in the world ratified the Kyoto Protocol—mandating a 5% cut in emissions from 1990 levels—the result (assuming the truth of the model) would be a trivial 0.07C drop in temperature by the year 2050—that is, a statistically negligible drop from what the model says the temperate would be otherwise in 40 years. But how much would this cost? $10—50 trillion! Compare that to the cost of worldwide sanitation of water: $200 billion.
Even if you don’t agree with Dr. Richards’s answers, I do think he is asking the right questions and advances clear thinking by making good distinctions.  To watch video follow link
Justin Taylor

Environmentalism As Religion

Excellent Wall Street Journal article by Emory University economics professor Paul H. Rubin:

"Many observers have made the point that environmentalism is eerily close to a religious belief system. Consider some of the ways in which environmental behaviors echo religious behaviors and thus provide meaningful rituals for Greens:

• There is a holy day—Earth Day.

• There are food taboos. Instead of eating fish on Friday, or avoiding pork, Greens now eat organic foods and many are moving towards eating only locally grown foods.

• There is no prayer, but there are self-sacrificing rituals that are not particularly useful, such as recycling. Recycling paper to save trees, for example, makes no sense since the effect will be to reduce the number of trees planted in the long run.

• Belief systems are embraced with no logical basis. For example, environmentalists almost universally believe in the dangers of global warming but also reject the best solution to the problem, which is nuclear power. These two beliefs co-exist based on faith, not reason.

• There are no temples, but there are sacred structures. As I walk around the Emory campus, I am continually confronted with recycling bins, and instead of one trash can I am faced with several for different sorts of trash. Universities are centers of the environmental religion, and such structures are increasingly common. While people have worshipped many things, we may be the first to build shrines to garbage.

• Environmentalism is a proselytizing religion. Skeptics are not merely people unconvinced by the evidence: They are treated as evil sinners. I probably would not write this article if I did not have tenure."
Carpe Diem