New NASA Data Casts Doubt On Global Warming Models

bonch writes "Satellite data from NASA covering 2000 through 2011 cast doubt on current computer models predicting global warming, according to a new study. The data shows that much less heat is retained by carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere than is assumed in current models. 'There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans,' said Dr. Roy Spencer, a co-author of the study and research scientist at the University of Alabama." Note: the press release about the study is somewhat less over the top.

Comments

Climatologists have always published error bars

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Is there anything whatever here to indicate that CO2 sensitivity is outside the (wide) range that climate scientists have been working with?

Oh, and research the Heartland Institute before deciding whether their interpretation of the paper is the most reliable one. It's also interesting to read about Roy Spencer.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

This is NOT an argument against Global Warming. Global Warming is happening, which most intelligent people agree on.

This data is stating (something a lot of people also agree on) that Carbon Dioxide is not the only problem. It is a big part of the problem, sure, but not the only thing causing Global Warming.

Carbon Dioxide is being demonized as the primary source by people like:
  * Al Gore (as he is making billions after investing in anti-CO2 technologies), and
  * Politicians (as it is easy to quantify, and therefore tax CO2 producers)

Before 'An Inconvenient Truth' came out people considered many pollutants to be causing Global Warming, but now people (sheople) think that if they reduce their 'Carbon Footprint' (thanks for that phrase Al Gore) then they've done their part, while they are still living their daily lives causing damage to the planet in a myriad of other ways.

Re:Beware the source

[ScentCone]

Cool! So, just like the Tea Party is wrong, and the trillion of new debt spent on "stimulus" was actually very effective, and that the key to economic growth actually is to hugely increase deficit spending and to raise the rate at which we tax the economy, then this guy will also be wrong, and NASA's data will show the exact opposite of what he says it does. Because that's just how it must be.