NASA satellite data show climate models are wrong – again

According to the University of Alabama:

Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

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

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

These data are examined in a new paper:

Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

Read the full paper here.

See also:

Your Carbon Footprint doesn’t Matter

NASA Lowers Estimate of Carbon Dioxide Warming Effect

How Mother Nature Fools Climate Scientists

Astronomers predict a major drop in solar activity, that means a cold spell

A Basic Error in Climate Models

10 comments

  1. Of course the models are wrong: that’s why they are models. No scientist would ever tell you that his or her model is exact. The point is to keep refining the model as we learn more about how things work. The models we have today are far superior to the ones we had 30 years ago because of refinements like the one mentioned here.

    A refinement like this does not change the fact that warming is occurring, and it does not change the prediction that warming will continue to accelerate as we release large amounts of gasses like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It only changes the prediction of the rate of warming.

    So please do expect further refinements and changes in the climate models. If you don’t see changes, then scientists aren’t doing their jobs.

    1. I would ordinarily agree to let the models run. Trouble is they drive government policy and if the models are wrong, then the policy is wrong. Computer models are subject to Garbage in – garbage out. And, there is still no physical evidence supporting the contention that carbon dioxide emissions have a significant effect on global temperature. That is the crux of the matter, the models say carbon dioxide is significant, but there is no evidence to support that contention. Therefore, it appears the models are wrong and we should not base policy on erroneous models.

  2. @traci klein
    The model is wrong?
    How can we prove if it’s wrong or not exact.
    Have you seen the model?
    Has the model been tested by other scientists?
    Are these the same models that were used to write the UNIPCC annual reports?

    If you have a copy of this model and the proof of it’s verification, please…
    Show me !

    You suggest we need to refine the model, because it doesn’t change the prediction of a warming planet.

    That is where the problem lies.

    You assume the model will work, because you believe it..

    Its a faith thing for you and those like you.

    Spencer and others suggest that the models don’t account for gases escaping the atmosphere, which would reduce the amount of warming.
    Other scientists are now proving that increases in cloud formations in the lower troposphere, are a result of increased cosmic particles. Their conclusions suggest that this allows for lower surface temperatures.
    This anomaly isn’t part of a function in this model you suggest just needs a little tweaking and they will get the warming right……. right?
    Yet the science suggests that these two new discovers have a direct connection to cooling the planet, not warming it.
    But that wont effect the models, because you have faith in a model that hasn’t been made to the public, or verified by other scientists.
    That’s a lot of faith and very little science if you ask me.

    1. @climate4all,

      I can prove the model is wrong.  Very simple…

      We were supposed to have runaway climate warming by now, with the seas rising 2′, droughts, famine, and frogs falling from the sky…

      But the earth hasn’t warmed since 1988, and there is very little warming trend at all since the late 90s.

      Do you need more proof than this that the models are wrong?

  3. Of course the models are not correct.  It doesn’t help when East Anglia and the IPCC and Michael Mann do their best to hide their data and their research…

    The big problem is this:  the UN wants us to re-direct hundreds of billions of dollars, cause a huge shift in the global economy, and cause massive hardship to people through less money for social programs…

    …. ALL BASED ON A MODEL …

    ’tis the definition of madness…

  4. I find is fascinating that some of the same people who would cringe at the words in the Bible being considered the literal truth turn right around and suspend their skepticism and accept a  prediction of global warming calamity caused by humans on the words of “scientists” using a computer model.  Seems like there have always been folks running round predicting “The End is Coming” and we have to do thisor that to get right with God. Only know they are waving the product of computers at us instyead of quotes from Revelations.

    Climate is changing as it always has and always will. We are far from being able to track all the causes and effects and say with any confidence if we reduce our carbon emission by x that y will result.

  5. The problem we are having today is not climate change, because the climate has always been changing.  The problem is the harshness of the climate that we are experiencing.  Droughts, floods, snow storms, heat waves and sand storms.  

    The attribution to CO2 driven climate change is totally wrong.  The science being argued by CO2 driven climate change advocates cannot pass basic thermodynamics and heat transfer mechanisms.  CO2 is heavier than air.  It will sink back to the ground at the first opportunity of cooling down.  CO2 has only half the heat absorption capacity of water vapor.  CO2 is insignificant at its present 350 ppm in the atmosphere.

    The problem we are having today, that is the harshness of the climate is due to the increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere that has followed with DEFORESTATION.  Deforestation is now global.

    In the 1800’s when the developed world started using steam engines to power trains and steam boats, the basic fuel to drive the engines was wood.  From the day the steam engine was invented wood consumption for fuel began to increase dramatically to the point that by 1870, tree population in the USA and Europe was brought to only 20% of ancient forests.  And then the use of  wood fired steam engines expanded to industrial factories and power plants.  Of course, it was not solely the furnaces for the steam engines that caused the decimation of the forests, but also the agriculture that followed where the train tracks went.  Then another industrializing country Japan, followed suit in the consumption of wood.  As Europe, the USA and Japan continued to develop, another demand for wood was created:  lumber and plywood for housing.  The demand was so big that forests in these countries could not support the requirement.  Importation of wood from Southeast Asia, Africa and Russia (then Soviet Union) began.  Deforestation started to be global even as wood fuel was gradually replaced by coal starting in 1870.  Wood for lumber, plywood and furniture even increased dramatically as domestic wood consumption in Asian countries also went up for for finished wood products exports, for domestic housing and firewood for bakeries.  Bakeries continued to be wood fired even up to the 80’s; electric ovens for bakers started only in the 80’s.  So as global population increased geometrically, consumption of wood by bakeries also went up geometrically.  Mangrove species are good for firewood.  Harvesting of mangrove for firewood specially for bakeries also went up.  And as the demand for firewood reduced with the advent of electric ovens, housing boom continued to surge all over the world as population went up to 6 billion people.  The thing with firewood consumption is that it is not selective.  Any wood that burns is harvested.

    Wood continues to be harvested.  The decimation of the worlds forests have gone up to 80% and even 90% in many places.  Some places even became deserts.

    Having destroyed the forests of the world, what is the effect of this on our climate?

    1.  The forests appetite for CO2 is unstoppable.  And when CO2 levels go down, the forests will tap the bacteria that consumes methane and converts these into CO2 for its own requirement.  Since CO2 is heavier than air, it will concentrate at the ground level, and the forests takes advantage of this.  Corollary to this unstoppable appetite for CO2, it is also the unstoppable producer of OXYGEN a cooler element than CO2.  In other words, the forests takes out the hot CO2 and replaces this with cool oxygen.  Imagine the cooling effect if we can double the size of the remaining forests.  Or ideally bring back the forests that existed prior to the invention of the steam engine?!!

    2.  The forests are the most effective water keeper.  It is a natural preserver and keeper of water on the ground.  Its leaves are effective moisture collector.  And the dead leaves on the ground shield ground water from solar radiation.  The problem of fresh drinking water supplies that the world is beginning to experience has a direct correlation with the loss of the forests.  The trees also slow down the hydrologic cycle by cushioning water precipitates as these drop from the skies toward the ground.  The leaves cushion the fall and cause water to slowly move towards the waterways and allow time for water to seep into the ground and aquifers.  Water vapor has twice the heat holding capacity of CO2, and it is lighter than the air, and it goes up into the atmosphere to form clouds that keep and store the heat from the sun.   When there are more moisture in the atmosphere resulting from increased evaporation rates and loss of water in areas not covered by forests, atmospheric heat retention in the atmosphere will accordingly and proportionately increase.  And when there is more moisture in the atmosphere, when these are gathered by typhoons and hurricanes, and snowstorms, the accompanying precipitation will be heavy.  Flooding and thick snowfalls will follow; the storms will become super.

    3.  The trees softens and cushions the wind movements and at the same time filtering the wind of pollutants.  Dust stick to the leaves.  The leaves bring down dust to the ground to decay and be processed by bacteria and other microorganisms.  The worlds pollution problem can be helped by having vast areas of forests.

    4.  Trees cool down the fresh water feed by rivers and wetlands into the seas and oceans.  Trees that cover the river banks and creeks will shield these waters from solar radiation and will be delivered to the seas and oceans at much lower temperatures.  Since fresh water is lighter than salt water it will cover the oceans with a thin film of cool fresh water that will slow down the rate of evaporation.  The slowed rate of evaporation will keep the oceans cooler and the atmosphere with less moisture to hold and accordingly with less molecular heat retention.  Both the oceans and the atmosphere will be cooled down.

    5.  Mangrove or coastal forests also keep coastal waters cooler than those waters in coasts without mangrove.  As waves come in to the shores bringing warm waters there will be exchanges with the cooler coastal waters covered by mangrove.

    There is more.  But that is sufficient to point out that the forests is the Earth’s air conditioner.  Without the forests, we do not have the natural air conditioner to cushion and soften the winds and cool the Earth’s atmosphere.

    CO2 will come to nothing of a concern if we can double the population of the world’s standing trees.  Europe and the USA should not be content with keeping its present forests. It should expand the forest areas aggressively and increase the densities of the forests that have sparse standings.  Many agricultural lands have become unproductive.  The governments of the world should use these lands to grow trees.  Every tree farmer should be paid for CO2, water vapor and pollutants sequestration benefits if they keep the trees growing instead of harvesting.

    1. I don’t know if I should even attempt to reply.

      What are the misconceptions you present.
      1. Exaggerated floods and droughts from increased Co2.
      2. Deforestation and the lack of Co2 sequestering  accelerates the process.
      3.If we just plant trees, everything will be o.k.

      In a recent study, parts of the Amazon that had been nearly destroyed, due to man and drought, actually survived due to increases in C02. It was found that the more older trees, thought to suffer the greatest from increases in Co2, actually grew faster and restored themselves to previous levels.

      Lake Mead will receive over50-60 feet of fresh water after decades of drought. Hydrologists suggest that this new addition of water alone will supply current demands  for years.

      The current drought throughout the Midwest is suspected to be an exaggerated drought, due to CAGW. Though eyewitness accounts of those that lived during the 30’s make that hardly unlikely. 

      The fallacy that temperatures rise, following rising Co2 levels is complete and utter crap. 
      And that one fallacy has spawned every conceivable threat that can be thought up to ‘scare’ everyone into compliance.

      Go ahead and plant your trees and feel you are doing yourself and the rest of us a favor, but if you really want to do humanity a favor, do so without all the global warming fear mongering.

  6. UN will never fund a study which proves that the UN isn´t actually that useful. They will fund those who support the impression that the UN needs more money and more power. Same with government and related institutes.

    This has nothing to do with science. Would you fund anyone who will prove that you don´t need as much power and money?

  7. Global warming was invented to give the power structure an assessment of how stupid people have become.
    Fortunately, most people didn’t fall for this hoax, which is actually a bit surprising.  . . Oh there’s’ still a few college binge drinkers and morons, (the type that get their news from Comedy Central), that are still trying to hold on to this lie, but mostly it’s become a bad joke – like Bermuda Triangle . .  Killer Bees . . Global Cooling . . Crop Circles . . Killer Asteroids . . Y2K . . Acid Rain . . Global Warming . . SARS . . Anthrax . .  Food Shortage . . 
    Killer Flu . . . 2012 . . . Conficker ————- the list goes on.

Comments are closed.