Data from NASA's Aqua satellite

[pmn1]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/american_media_ignores_inconve.html

 

March 24, 2008

American media ignores inconvenient science on global warming

Jerome J. Schmitt
Americans apparently have to look to Australia for truthful accounts of climate research conducted by our own space agency.   Christopher Pearson' March 22 article in THE AUSTRALIAN concerns an interview of "Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs."  When asked about "Global Warming", Marohasy stated:

"...actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.

"The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it."

Here's what she has to say about NASA's new climate research satellite:

"The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback." (Ellipses in original)

Further, she says:

"The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

Isn't it odd that this "shocking" news hasn't been reported yet in the American Press? 

Following his transcript of the interview, Pearson goes on to anticipate the impending exposure of the climate change hoax:

"A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience."

Ya think?

Hat Tip: Lucianne.com

 

 

 

What are others saying about the data from Aqua? 

 

 

 

 

 

[oscar1]

This is very interesting. However, the argument itself between the two camps, healthy though I find it, could ultimately lead to a 'winner takes all' scenario that doesn't suit me either way! 

I'd rather hear from some group (a group that doesn't eco-tax me) how I can shake off having to pay the Arabs, the Russians, greedy oil barons, etc. for my energy (the one third part of it I still need from them)!

 

[Alpha_Tauri]

Just some information on the Institute of Public Affairs:

The Institute of Public Affairs is a right-wing, corporate funded think tank based in Melbourne. It has close links to the Liberal Party, with it's Executive Director John Roskam having run for Liberal preselection for a number of elections. Its key policy positions include advocacy for privatisation, deregulation, reduction in the power of unions and denial of most significant environmental problems, including climate change.

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs#Funding 

Ahem, let me give you a gentle hint:

 

 

Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one (Albert Einstein)

[pmn1]

Replying to:

Just some information on the Institute of Public Affairs: The Institute of Public Affairs is a right-wing, corporate funded think tank based in Melbourne. It has close links to the Liberal Party, with it's Executive Director John Roskam having run for Liberal preselection for a number of elections. Its key policy positions include advocacy for privatisation, deregulation, reduction in the power of unions and denial of most significant environmental problems, including climate change. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs#FundingAhem, let me give you a gentle hint:   
Posted by Alpha_Tauri

But what are NASA and others saying about the data?

[oscar1]

Replying to:

But what are NASA and others saying about the data?
Posted by pmn1

That, of course, is a good question!

[Tericati]

Replying to:

That, of course, is a good question!
Posted by oscar1

NASA may not be saying much, but if the UV levels have been rising (the sun's total radiance has been going up for at least the last 50 years), they will do two things. Increase rate of melting of  glaciers etc, up the CO2, etc, but in the process change the planetary albedo. Less sea ice and Antarctic/Greenlandic/Icelandic/?Siberian ice translates into more UV absorption on black rocks, exposed soils or exposed seas. This reduces the UV reflectance, adds to the Infrared reflectance, but at what wavelengths? If it is not at the wavelengths that are absorbed by water vapour, the atmosphere will actually cool. I cant remember where I saw it but there is evidence that Ice Age onsets are sometimes preceded by a planetary increase in temperature. Also the spectre of dust and sulphuric acid clouds from volcanoes; such particles absorb incoming and outgoing radiation, and can cause energy loss by scattering  if their particle size is correct. I think we got enuf imponderables not to need to get too dedicated to conspiracy theories about right wing think tanks. Facts will overcome any kind of nonsense if you just get them right.

[Alpha_Tauri]

Why would you dignify cherry picking and carefully worded prevarication with a response?

If Prevarication was an Olympic Event, The Institute of Public Affairs and the Fraser Institute in the US would have many gold medals by now.

Sure - you can take advantage of natural short term weather cycles if you want to show that the Global Temperatures are dropping. How many times do I have to repeat that?

Repeat after me - La....Nina

Come on guys - Is this only obvious to me? It's not even subtle.

Tericati, you should Google the Stefan-Botzmann Law and read up on the properties of UV and IR radiation, particularly with respect to heat transmission properties..

Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one (Albert Einstein)