4

U.N. Climate Models Flawed — Grossly Exaggerate Warming Effect

We have all heard, ad nauseam, about the so-called “greenhouse effect.” Even little children can tell you how the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat by increasing humidity and thickening the cloud layer.

Except that it doesn’t — at least to the degree that the U.N climate models have been programmed to “believe.”

Instead, as soon as the climate begins to warm, the Earth’s atmosphere begins releasing much of this energy into space.

How do we know this?

Two University of Alabama scientists, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. Danny Braswell, compared eleven years of data from the real world with U.N. climate model predictions — and found the models grossly flawed. The study, rather pointedly called On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance, appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, Remote Sensing, in late July. (Remote Sensing. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.)

As Dr. Spencer stated in a press release, “The [NASA Terra] 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 new study supports earlier National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA data showing that humidity and cloud cover did not increase the way that the flawed U.N. computer models predicted.

James M. Taylor, managing editor of the Environment & Climate News, also notes that “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.”

This may sound to some like an abstract question of scientific research. It is not. There are many, including the President’s science czar, who would like to make fundamental changes in our way of life — even dictating how many children we can have — in order to combat the threat of “man-made global warming.”

To such anti-people ideologues we may add the profiteers. The United Nations, joined by dozens of nonprofits, has literally raised billions of dollars by frightening both politicians and ordinary people with the specter of the planet overheating. It is safe to say that there are thousands of people who, one way or another, profit from climate alarmism.

In a sane world, the Spencer-Braswell study should sound the death knell for the theory that, by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we are making the planet unlivable.

Unfortunately, radical environmentalist and population control groups are largely immune to facts. For example, they continue to propagate the myth of overpopulation even as the populations of country after country age and die. Why should the myth of man-made global warming be any different?

Then, too, the Global Warming establishment has built up considerable forward momentum by this point. Movements with millions of adherents and billions of dollars in resources simply do not go quietly into their graves.

Still, while Global Warming alarmists like Al Gore continue to hyperventilate over the supposed danger of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — and call for increased funding for abortion and fertility reduction programs — the rest of us can breathe easier.

It’s becoming abundantly clear that the only thing “man-made” about Global Warming is the hoax itself.


Steve Mosher is the president of Population Research Institute.
Filed under:
  • http://www.casorosendi.com/ Carlos Caso-Rosendi

    A lot of hot air indeed! :)

  • Heidi

    I agree we should question science, and how unfortunate that the abortionists and population control groups have inextricably connected themselves to the global warming theory. I do think, however, it is premature (and naive) to say that the whole global warming thing is a hoax because one study questions it. The real environmental problem is that (north)Americans and Europeans in general overconsume, and don’t clean up after themselves. How I wish that Catholics and environmentalists could agree. I think we share a lot of the same values. (but disagree, of course, on some key ones, namely population control) Our family uses both labels. Anyone know of a Catholic environmental group?

  • http://www.casorosendi.com/ Carlos Caso-Rosendi

    Catholics invented environmentalism in the times of St. Benedict, and reinvented it with St. Francis of Assisi. The environmentalism of today is closer to Stalin, or Margaret Sanger.

    There is no doubt that climate changes, the atmosphere heats up and cools down periodically. During the Pliocene the average temperature of the earth was 3 degrees higher than today: there were no cars, no Chinese babies, no man-made sources of carbon dioxide. Antarctica looked pretty much like Vermont for most of the year. Polar bears had to walk on land and eat river salmon and coastal seafood.

    Blaming mankind activities for “global warming” is like blaming cows for bad leather boots. The only human component of “global warming” is that we suffer it. Besides we have been here before. Remember acid rain? Well, it turned out that it was not the Canadian smokestacks… it was the Canadian pines. There must have been some sort of mean capitalist pines I am sure! You don’t hear environmentalist talk about that anymore.

    Aborting every baby in the planet will not stop Antarctica from melting away one day. We live 18 minutes/light away from a very moody star we call the Sun. The last time I checked, good old Sol was the source of 99.9999999% of the energy warming this planet. Baby flatulence has nothing on that big star although my little nephew Alex (9 months old) is trying hard to make a difference. In time he will learn to blame the dog just like so many environmentalists blame him.

    Planet warming up? Look at that big yellow thing in the sky. Of course those living in Boston will have to take a plane somewhere to see it. Hopefully they will not be in the same plane with little Alex.

  • goral

    “A universe that has no room for God is not big enough for man”, G.K. Chesterton remarked.
    Those who doubt the Creator’s ability to manage His creation also doubt everything else and therefore already live in a state of endless fear.

    Sure we’re guilty of over-consumption and not cleaning our mess but how do you connect that to global warming?
    There is no legitimate science that can make that unreasonable stretch.

    Maybe you can’t blame the cow for a bad pair of cowboy boots but the environmentalists have already suggested that bovine flatulence is contributing to global warming. The residual effect of that b.s. suggestion was to extend into the carnivorous camp and with one swipe link the consumers of steaks to the carbon polluters.
    Steaks and grills do go together.

    Seriously, imagine for a moment the kind of polluted mind and hallow soul that actually contemplates such an absurdity.