Alarmist Media and Scientists Loud Global Warming Propaganda

Editor’s Note: The following AP report is an example of how the alarmists are always ready to take advantage of the slightest sign of trouble to make a storm in a glass of water. They also cite the usual suspect lying organizations who want to end civilization as we know it, such as the IPCC and NASA, whose models are intrinsically defective.

AP | JULY 3, 2012

If you want a glimpse of some of the worst of global warming, scientists suggest taking a look at U.S. weather in recent weeks.

Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho.

These are the kinds of extremes climate scientists have predicted will come with climate change, although it’s far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June.

Scientifically linking individual weather events to climate change takes intensive study, complicated mathematics, computer models and lots of time. Sometimes it isn’t caused by global warming. Weather is always variable; freak things happen.

And this weather has been local. Europe, Asia and Africa aren’t having similar disasters now, although they’ve had their own extreme events in recent years.

But since at least 1988, climate scientists have warned that climate change would bring, in general, increased heat waves, more droughts, more sudden downpours, more widespread wildfires and worsening storms. In the United States, those extremes are happening here and now.

So far this year, more than 2.1 million acres have burned in wildfires, more than 113 million people in the U.S. were in areas under extreme heat advisories last Friday, two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought, and earlier in June, deluges flooded Minnesota and Florida.

“This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level,” said Jonathan Overpeck, professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona. “The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire. This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about.”

Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in fire-charred Colorado, said these are the very record-breaking conditions he has said would happen, but many people wouldn’t listen. So it’s I told-you-so time, he said.

As recently as March, a special report an extreme events and disasters by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned of “unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.” Its lead author, Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution and Stanford University, said Monday, “It’s really dramatic how many of the patterns that we’ve talked about as the expression of the extremes are hitting the U.S. right now.”

“What we’re seeing really is a window into what global warming really looks like,” said Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer. “It looks like heat. It looks like fires. It looks like this kind of environmental disasters.”

Oppenheimer said that on Thursday. That was before the East Coast was hit with triple-digit temperatures and before a derecho – an unusually strong, long-lived and large straight-line wind storm – blew through Chicago to Washington. The storm and its aftermath killed more than 20 people and left millions without electricity. Experts say it had energy readings five times that of normal thunderstorms.

Fueled by the record high heat, this was one of the most powerful of this type of storm in the region in recent history, said research meteorologist Harold Brooks of the National Severe Storm Laboratory in Norman, Okla. Scientists expect “non-tornadic wind events” like this one and other thunderstorms to increase with climate change because of the heat and instability, he said.

Such patterns haven’t happened only in the past week or two. The spring and winter in the U.S. were the warmest on record and among the least snowy, setting the stage for the weather extremes to come, scientists say.

Since Jan. 1, the United States has set more than 40,000 hot temperature records, but fewer than 6,000 cold temperature records, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Through most of last century, the U.S. used to set cold and hot records evenly, but in the first decade of this century America set two hot records for every cold one, said Jerry Meehl, a climate extreme expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This year the ratio is about 7 hot to 1 cold. Some computer models say that ratio will hit 20-to-1 by midcentury, Meehl said.

“In the future you would expect larger, longer more intense heat waves and we’ve seen that in the last few summers,” NOAA Climate Monitoring chief Derek Arndt said.

The 100-degree heat, drought, early snowpack melt and beetles waking from hibernation early to strip trees all combined to set the stage for the current unusual spread of wildfires in the West, said University of Montana ecosystems professor Steven Running, an expert on wildfires.

While at least 15 climate scientists told The Associated Press that this long hot U.S. summer is consistent with what is to be expected in global warming, history is full of such extremes, said John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He’s a global warming skeptic who says, “The guilty party in my view is Mother Nature.”

But the vast majority of mainstream climate scientists, such as Meehl, disagree: “This is what global warming is like, and we’ll see more of this as we go into the future.”

Planet’s Temperature Controls CO2 Emissions, not Humans

Human emissions do not control the climate or the planet’s CO2 levels.

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
August 5, 2011

In recent days, it was revealed that NASA’s satellite data for the years of 2000 through 2011 showed Earth’s atmosphere had allowed more heat to be released into space than previously presented by climate change alarmists. The latest study was published in the peer-reviewed Remote Sensing Science Journal. Although United Nations sponsored studies and those of other climate change alarmist organizations warned us about how global warming would dramatically increased in the coming years, the study published on Remote Sensing proves otherwise, which should at least make some room for the alarmists to review their numbers.

Given the fact more heat was released into space than previously thought, the planet’s atmospheric CO2 concentrations seem to be a less important factor when it comes to planetary temperature increases. Atmospheric CO2 traps less heat than alarmists said it does. One of the co-authors of the study, Dr. Roy Spencer, from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and says that what is called real world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict previous assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. “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.”

Along with the study cited above, comes a new study from Professor Murry Salby who is the Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. Professor Salby observed C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world for the past two years. The results of his observations conclude that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. Man-made emissions do not control climate and neither do they control CO2 levels. Professor Salby related his findings in a speech called: “Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources” Listen to Professor Salby’s conference here.

As it has been proven previously, the oceans and large green areas of the planet emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than all human activity. Industrialization emits about 5 gigatons of CO2 per year, while the oceans emit 90 gigatons and plant life on land emit some 6o gigatons.

“It is often asserted that we can measure the human contribution of CO2 to the air by looking at the ratio of C12 to C13. The theory is that plants absorb more C12 than C13 (by about 2%, not a big signature), so we can look at the air and know which came from plants and which came from volcanos and which came from fossil fuels, via us. Plants are ‘deficient’ in C13, and so, then, ought to be our fossil fuel derived CO2. The implication is that since coal and oil were from plants, that “plant signature” means “human via fossil fuels”. But it just isn’t that simple. We are 5.5 and plants are putting 121.6 into the air each year (not counting ocean plants). There is a lot of carbon slopping back and forth between sinks and sources. Exactly how closely do we know the rate of soil evolution of CO2, for example?”

While satellite measurements tell us the planet let out more heat than it was believed by climate change alarmists, they also help us localize “hotspots” for CO2 emissions. The ‘novelty’ with satellite observations is that large cities in heavily industrialized countries are not part of those “hotspots”. The main sources of CO2 emissions are places with large areas covered by vegetation like the Amazon, tropical areas, southeast Asia, and tropical Africa.

As data shows, more CO2 concentrations are  found when the planet experiences warming due to phenomena such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Conversely, less concentration of CO2 is recorded when the planet experiences more volcanic activity because the large clouds of ash that the volcanoes emit help to keep the planet cooler. So, during warmer years, the levels of CO2 were smaller, while in colder years the concentrations were larger. Temperature controls CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not human emissions.

The failure of the climate models usually taken as proof to argue that the planet is experiencing global warming or that human activity is responsible for climate change is the fact those climate models are prepared to assume that human CO2 emissions, that result from industrialization are responsible for the warming and the changes in climate. As it has been abundantly proven, climate changes occur through centuries or millenia, not decades or years.

Professor Salby believes that temperature variations explain the different CO2 concentrations.

The NASA Terra satellite data support other NOAA and NASA data that indicated that atmospheric humidity and cloud formation do not increase in the way climate alarmists say they do. “Both 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.”

As a third caveat to the global warming and climate change debate, an article dated July 19, 2011 from The Register, reveals how the chief of the world’s leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva prohibited scientists to talk about the results of recent experiments that prove how solar energy particles determine cloud formation in our planet. The CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment uses CERN’s proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.

CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer managed to tone down the fact that solar activity is the main driver of climate in the solar system, saying that “cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”Heuer added that if the results were published, they would be turned into tools for political debate.

The CLOUD experiment are based on previous experiments by physicist Henrik Svensmark. “He demonstrated that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. Tiny changes in the earth’s cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees. The amount of Ultra Fine Condensation Nuclei (UFCN) material depends on the quantity of the background drizzle of rays, which varies depending on the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field.”

Veteran science editor Nigel Calder says that CERN’s policy to remain politically correct when it comes to the global warming or climate change debate is not surprising. He adds that it is a common occurrence for organizations like CERN not to want to discuss the results of experiments or observations that do not support their theories. “It’s OK to enter ‘the highly political arena of the climate change debate’ provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.”

These three examples of how more recent solid science proves that the alarmist-driven global warming movement has been lied to does not even consider the infamous Climategate emails that showed the corruption of a section of the scientific community. Is there any need for further evidence to disprove the fake global warming alarmism? There is certainly a stronger need to keep on studying climate and how it changes without proposing insane global weather modification practices such as employing nuclear weapons to reverse climate change, the spraying of toxic chemicals to block the sun from driving life on the planet, propose population reduction as a way to curb CO2 emissions, de-industrialize the planet to keep it for the animals as they are equaled to humans, adopt genetically modified organisms to feed the world because it has a smaller CO2 footprint and a host of other demented practices now being proposed by failed politicians, governments and international organizations.


NASA Satellite Data Proves Global Warming Alarmists Wrong

by James Taylor
Forbes
July 28, 2011

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. 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.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.