Study Finds "Huge Discrepancy" Between Hard Data and Warming Models

by Jason Mick, DailyTech  [July 29, 2011 9:53 AM]


Alarmism and climate profiteering is dealt yet another serious blow
Many are still operating under the perception that current global warming models are "good enough" to make drastic economic decisions.  That party line has been pushed, in part, by certain individuals like ex-U.S. Vice President and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who have stood to gain tremendously in personal finances by promoting alarmist and sensationalist rhetoric.  Indeed, Mr. Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth painted a grim picture of a pending apocalypse and made Mr. Gore hundreds of millions in sales and speaking fees -- but its accuracy is hotly debated.

I. New Study Blasts a Hole in Current Models


In a new study, Roy Spencer, Ph.D -- a prestigious former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) climatologist who currently works at the University of Alabama -- has examined data between 2001 and 2011 gathered by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer sensor housed aboard NASA's Aqua satellite.

The study was published [PDF] in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing.


Hard data from NASA's Aqua satellite has shown that climate models have a "huge discrepancy" with reality, when it comes to the amount of heat escaping the atmosphere.  (Source: NASA)

The data reveals yet another thorough analysis of atmospheric heat dissipation -- an important factor in heating or cooling.  And like past studies, it found that the Earth's atmosphere shed heat at a much faster rate than what's predicted in widely used global warming models.

The hard facts show that both the predictions of the amount of heat shed during a a full warming scenario, and the amount of heat shed as warming begins were understated.

As the data shows the Earth's atmosphere to be trapping less heat; that means the outcomes of any sort of human-based warming caused by the emission of carbon greenhouse gases and other compounds is likely overstated.  Thus the dire predictions of models used by the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and researchers are likely flawed.

States Professor Spencer in a press release from University of Alabama, "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."

This is a critical conclusion as it shows that the secondary "indirect" trapping from atmospheric water may be far less than previously predicted.

II.  Supporting Evidence Builds Stronger Case


The new study isn't necessarily cause to abandon climate models altogether.  After all, understanding our planet's climate is the key to growing better crops and protecting people from natural disasters.  That said, the models likely will need a major overhaul, one which some leading climate alarmists may regret.
Supporting evidence strengthens the case that such an overhaul is needed.

Researchers at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have been baffled by the fact that the widely used climate models were failing to properly predict atmospheric humidity and the rate of cirrus cloud formation -- phenomena driven by atmospheric heat.

Few public voiced such thoughts, likely for fear of persecution by their more sensationalist warming colleagues.  Still, despite the politics, the data crept silently into several studies.

Additionally, sensors aboard NASA's ERBS satellite collected long-wave radiation (resulting from escaping atmospheric heat) between 1985 and 1999 than was predicted by computer models.
Between the relatively comprehensive volume satellite and atmospheric data, the picture appears clear -- the climate models are badly flawed.

III. Indirect v. Direct Warming


So what's the difference between direct and indirect warming?  Well, direct warming is caused by substance like carbon dioxide, which trap a certain amount of heat when they're found in large quantities in the atmosphere.

While carbon dioxide has been vilified in the media, peer reviewed research states with relative certainty that it is actually a very weak greenhouse gas and a weak contributor to "direct" warming.

The fearful hypothesis, which alarmists have been pleased to promote, is that carbon's direct heating -- while small -- will somehow throw the environment out of whack, causing an increased abundance of atmospheric water.  As water is a far better greenhouse gas at trapping heat, this could lead to a domino effect -- or so they say.

But the new study shows that the predictions of runaway indirect heating are likely badly flawed.

IV. The New Climate Picture


The new study doesn't dismiss that warming will occur if man keeps burning fossil fuels.  Rather, it indicates that it will likely occur at a much gentler pace than previously predicted, and that the maximum temperature reached will likely be lower the predicted, as well.

This is significant as alarmists have tried to use the hypothesis of rapid runaway warming as a justification for sweeping economic changes.  Under a gentler warming scenario, slowly rises in sea levels would not be that big a deal as mankind would have plenty of time to adjust to them.  Plus the levels would not rise as fast as previously predicted.

Of course, this means some of the "good effects" of warming -- such as resource harvesting in an ice-free Arctic -- won't be realized either.  Thus the more temperate, data-based climate picture has both advantages and disadvantages versus the more fantastic past models.

V. A Brave Scientist


Professor Spencer deserves to be commended for his thorough analysis and outstanding work.  It takes a bold man to defy some of one's colleagues when they're clearly perpetrating a factual inaccuracy.
It's not hard to imagine how difficult it must have been for Professor Spencer to get his work funded and published in a field dominated by NASA, whose higher ranks are heavily dominated by pro-warming advocates like James Hansen.  The Nov. 2009 "climategate" email scandal at the University of East Anglia seemingly confirmed what many suspected -- it's hard for scientists to voice alternate opinions given the dogmatic state of climate research.

And yet it's tremendously important to do so.

For the most part, everyday environmentalists who have bought into the rhetoric of wealthy entrepreneurs like Mr. Gore, or powerful research chiefs like James Hansen did not personally profit off of the alarmism and approached the climatology debate with the best of intentions.

Sadly, in doing so pressing real environmental crises like the destruction of the Earth's rainforests faded into the background.  Further, the climate emphasis led, in some cases, to lesser cuts to toxic gases such as nitrogen and sulfur compounds produced in the burning of fossil fuels.  Regulators allowed greater levels of these gases, so they could focus on forcing industry to adopt stricter carbon standards.

These toxic gases have contributed tremendously, according to thorough peer review, to problems like asthma.  Thus the climate alarmism may have indirectly cost the public's money, the health of the environment, but the public's health, as well.

Al Gore Lashes Out at Obama, Saying He "Failed" to Fight Warming

By Jason Mick, DailyTech [June 23, 2011 12:19 AM]

Al Gore, who made hundreds of millions of dollars off promoting his thoughts on "global warming", accused President Obama of having "failed" to act to stop warming.  (Source: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty images)
 
---
 
Wealthy investor-cum-advocate continues to be one of the global warming movement's noisiest voices
United States President Barack Obama must be feeling a bit like his predecessor, George W. Bush, when it comes to the topic of climate change. President Bush was criticized by Democrats as being too weak on climate change. At the same time, more extreme elements of his party criticized his efforts like CAFE revisions for supposedly being too heavy-handed. Likewise, President Obama has been criticized by Republicans for being to heavy-handed on climate change, but has been criticized by extreme members of his own party for being too weak.

Taking to the pulpit in a rambling 8-page online editorial in the magazine Rolling Stone, former Vice President and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore delivered perhaps the most stinging criticism yet against President Obama. Entitled "Climate of Denial", Gore speaks on behalf of the latter contingent -- extreme elements of the Democratic party -- in lashing out at the President saying he has "failed" to do his part to advert the climate crisis.

I. A Question of Credibility

It's a widely known fact that Al Gore makes over $100,000 for speaking appearances. In 2007 Fast Company estimated a speaking date with Mr. Gore would cost you a cool $175,000 USD.
In his global warming "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth, Mr. Gore claims to have given at least 1,000 speeches, meaning that he's likely earned in excess of $100M USD. And there's the profits from that documentary as well -- Mr. Gore likely earned a tidy cut of the film's almost $50M USD box office gross [source] and $31M USD in DVD sales [source].

That's not too shabby for a man who was once written off as too boring to become president.


Mr. Gore, who recently bought his fourth luxury mansion, uses carbon like there's no tomorrow. But he says he's actually "carbon neutral" thanks to carbon credits he buys from his own company.  (Source: coldwell banker previews via real estalker)
 
And then there's Mr. Gore's alternative energy climate firms such as Kleiner Perkins and Generation Investment Management LLP. According to reports, Mr. Gore is poised to become the "world's first carbon billionaire", thanks to these investments.

Mr. Gore defends these holdings, stating, "Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country? I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

He's also been forced to defend his palatial living quarters, which are far from carbon-neutral [source]. In 2007 his 20 room, 8 bathroom mansion used as much electricity in a month as the average American household did in a year. The Gore manor also devoured a very sizable amount of natural gas a year. In 2010 he bought a fourth mansion -- an even more extravagant abode [source].

And that's not to mention the companies private jets that he's used over the years to promote his "anti-warming" efforts [source]. (Mr. Gore contends that he's never owned a jet personally so this doesn't count.)
Faced with ever present criticism over his apparent green hypocrisy, Mr. Gore says he lives "carbon neutral" by purchasing a wealth of carbon credits to offset his lavish lifestyle. But reports indicate Mr. Gore is really just paying himself -- his credits allegedly come from Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. [source]

In legal cases justices are supposed to recuse themselves from matters where they have a vested interest. But Al Gore is no judge and he doesn't seem ready to recuse himself of this debate in which he has a massive vested interest in anytime soon.

Mr. Gore does have the honor of a Nobel Peace Prize, along with United Nations International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) embattled chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri, for what it's worth, though.


White House officials insist Mr. Gore's accusations are untrue and that the President hasn't "failed" to address climate change.  (Source: AP Photo)
 
II. Obama -- "Weak" on Climate?

Al Gore attacks Obama in a piece he writes for Rolling Stone he comments:

President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding.

Without presidential leadership that focuses intensely on making the public aware of the reality we face, nothing will change.

Mr. Gore contends it wouldn't damage the President politically to get "tougher" on climate, writing:

Many political advisers assume that a president has to deal with the world of politics as he finds it, and that it is unwise to risk political capital on an effort to actually lead the country toward a new understanding of the real threats and real opportunities we face. Concentrate on the politics of re-election, they say. Don't take chances.
All that might be completely understandable and make perfect sense in a world where the climate crisis wasn't "real." Those of us who support and admire President Obama understand how difficult the politics of this issue are in the context of the massive opposition to doing anything at all — or even to recognizing that there is a crisis. And assuming that the Republicans come to their senses and avoid nominating a clown, his re-election is likely to involve a hard-fought battle with high stakes for the country.
...
But in this case, the President has reality on his side. The scientific consensus is far stronger today than at any time in the past. Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act.

The attack sent the White House press department into a panic.  They rushed to point out the 960 metric tons yearly saved by the President's Recovery Act that set "aggressive new joint fuel economy and emissions standards for cars and trucks."

States White House official Clark Stevens in a written response, "The President has been clear since day one that climate change poses a threat domestically and globally, and under his leadership we have taken the most aggressive steps in our country’s history to tackle this challenge."

Mr. Gore dismisses anyone who questions that global warming is real, man-made, and "destroying the climate balance that is essential to the survival of our civilization" as a "polluter" or "idealogue".  It's a strategy that promises huge profits for Mr. Gore -- and one that he claims to firmly believe in from an altruistic perspective as well.

One thing's for sure -- this won't be the last time Mr. Gore will be spotted beating the drum of the global warming movement and noisily opening his mouth as a self-proclaimed expert on climate change.

A Climate of Skepticism

Last Friday our school’s head invited a speaker to address the student body on climate change and environmental activism. This well-intentioned young man presented a video that consisted of excerpts from Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth along with cute animations that highlighted the “excesses” of Western society (such as the aggregation of private property), followed by Utopian promises of a “green tomorrow.”

This young man was adamant… “The earth has a fever,” capitalism, free-markets, social injustice and meat are at the root of the problem but, working together, we can do something about it before it’s too late! I thought about his message and although I could challenge his positions on any number of different levels I am having the hardest time accepting his underlying premise… that human-caused global warming is leading to disastrous, but reversible, planetary consequences.

Why? Well, I am skeptical of global warming alarmism simply because even though global CO₂ levels have continued to slowly rise predicted global warming rates have not been observed. In fact, since 1998, we have experienced a global cooling trend. Take it back a little further and other data indicate no net warming for the past sixty-eight years.

The Atmosphere. If you take a look at the temperature record as measured by satellite and radiosonde (weather balloons) as opposed to just surface temperatures you will see that we have gone through nearly two decades without any warming of the upper troposphere. There are no climate models that predict an absence of warming for nearly twenty years.

The Oceans. Then we look at the oceans since water is a very efficient heat sink. The Argo Project is a huge global array of more than 3,000 free-drifting profiling buoys that measure the temperature and salinity of the upper 2,000m of the world's oceans. First deployed in 2003, Argo now gives us continuous monitoring of the upper ocean with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection. Result? No net warming of the oceans has been observed in the first six years of the program measurements.

The Polar Ice Caps. Another prediction was that the polar ice caps would melt as CO₂ levels rose to produce accelerated warming (you remember… that image of Al Gore’s hapless polar bear struggling to climb onto a melting ice flow). But again, satellite observations have shown no net change for more than thirty years.

In September of 2007 there was an observed anomaly. The Arctic ice cap lost nearly 25% of its normal pack. The global warming proponents said this was finally hard evidence of climate catastrophe to come. But just one year later 12% of that icepack had recovered and by September of 2009, one year later, there was another 12% increase so that the ice loss of 2007 in the northern polar regions has all but fully recovered.

An interesting thing about global climate change is that its effects should be global. So even though there was some ice loss in the Northern Hemisphere there was a corresponding increase in the Southern Hemisphere. Just three weeks after that Northern minimum of September 2007 there was an ice cover maximum recorded in the Southern Hemisphere. And last year, there was less of a summer ice-melt in the Antarctic than has been measured in thirty years of satellite observations.

Hurricane Seasons. We have been told by the IPCC, Al Gore, and others that we could expect to see an increase in hurricane activity… not just in the number of hurricanes but also in their intensity as global temperatures increased. Again, this has not been observed. In 2005 the Gulf Coast was hammered by hurricane Katrina. New Orleans, a city built largely below sea level, was flooded when the levees failed. We were told that storms like this would become more common. Four years later we have witnessed some of the quietest hurricane seasons in memory. OK, now without resorting to Google, can you even name another hurricane since Katrina?

Settled Science. When my biology or physics students do a lab they propose a hypothesis… an educated guess. When their observations fail to agree with their hypothesis my students are taught to keep an open mind and question if the hypothesis was flawed or maybe there was something wrong with the experiment or perhaps with their data collection methods. Could there have been other factors that were affecting their observations that were unaccounted for? What they are taught not to do is declare “this is settled science” and call their hypothesis a fact.

So is dangerous anthropogenic global warming “settled science?” Hardly. Is there room for skepticism? Absolutely! And yet climate change alarmists attack skeptics with an almost religious, unthinking fervor. They are referred to as “deniers” and demonized. In the old days the words “apostates or heretics” would have been appropriate for those who expressed doubts and challenged the established orthodoxy. They point to the “consensus of a thousand scientists” the way zealots point to the harmonious chanting of a priestly class. They say climate systems dynamics are too complicated and too difficult to explain to the average person much the way that we are told religious texts carry hidden meanings and that dogma must not be questioned by the faithful lest they risk the damnation of their immortal souls.

The late Carl Sagan once said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I don’t propose to raise the bar that high. I simply ask that the global warming proponents match their predictions to observations. In other words, if the local TV weatherman always predicts rain, every now and then it should rain! Until then, I will choose to remain a skeptic.

It Takes Green To Be Green

I just moved into a condominium with an active and very involved home owners association. The condominium complex is a little over four years old and since its inception it has been committed to the practice of “green and sustainable living,” a self-ennobling, if a bit vague, ethos.

Every year the HOA (home owners association) conducts a line-item budget review and this year I happened to notice an $11,000 payment for a “solar loan.” Three years ago, the community decided to promote the use of alternative energy sources and reduce its dependence on electrical energy provided by the local utility, Pacific Gas and Electric. So the HOA board approved the acquisition of a bank of solar panels that would provide electricity for the community common house as well as lighting for all the outdoor common areas like parking lots, car ports and walkways. There was also the hope that by producing a net surplus of electricity that the meter would begin to run backwards and yield a little bit of revenue.

Curious, I asked what the details of the solar investment were. A member of the finance committee said that the cost of the solar panels plus installation was a bit over $100,000 and this was after any applicable subsidies, tax credits or rebates. The current solar loan carries a 6% (variable) interest rate. Next, I asked when the anticipated breakeven* would be. The committee member said he wasn’t sure. That made me even more curious and so I poked around further. I asked what we were spending on electricity prior to the installation of the solar panels. Copies of the utility bills revealed an average monthly expenditure of $833.

OK… now for some back-of-a-napkin breakeven analysis. First the assumptions, a 6% annual increase in energy costs and a (steady but unrealistic) 6% interest rate for the remaining 10 years of the loan. There is no adjustment for inflation. Also, the opportunity costs of what else you could have done with that money are not factored into this brief analysis.

So what’s the “net net?” Well, it will take forty-six years before this condominium community sees breakeven. It’s unlikely that anyone living in this community today will ever see a savings on their already high HOA dues. Forty-six years even is far longer than the anticipated life of the solar panels themselves.

I mentioned this number to a couple of members of the association’s finance committee. One told me that no real cost-benefit analysis was done prior to the decision to move ahead with purchase and when he sent out an email to all indicating that the system would cost far more than we would ever save he was chided by some for being “negative” and not in keeping with the values of the community. Another finance committee member said it didn’t matter because “we wanted to invest in this emerging alternative energy technology.”

Solar has been around for a long time. It’s not a new technology. The reason it is still “emerging” is because unless it is heavily subsidized by government or unless the cost of conventional energy sources skyrocket (due to market forces or fiscal policy), there is no way that it makes any financial sense to install solar arrays, windmills or a host of other alternative energy sources.

What my community wanted to do was to make a statement, a statement of support for, and a commitment to “investment in sustainable green energy.” Unfortunately they unwittingly made another statement… that with “investments” like this only the wealthy can afford to be green.