The majority of the scientific community along with several respected media outlets have managed to discredit recently publicized conclusions by a NASA scientist that global warming theory is a hoax.
Dr. Roy Spencer, climate change scientist and a team leader for NASA’s Aqua satellite, recently publicized his findings, which indicate that the earth is releasing more heat into space than it is retaining.
His conclusions prompted headlines such as, “Global Warming a Hoax? NASA Reveals Earth Releasing Heat into Space,” which ran in the San Fransisco International Business Times. Forbes Magazine ran the Op/Ed headline, “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism.”
The study’s results would point to a fundamental flaw in the UN model for global warming and lend public credence to the idea that climate change theory is overly “alarmist.”
Spencer reportedly studied a decade’s worth of data collected from NASA’s Terra satellite. He claims that new satellite findings indicate a higher efficiency of releasing heat from the atmosphere than previously thought.
Spencer explained, “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.”
Published in the journal Remote Sensing, his hypothesis further “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.”
Spencer’s cross-examination of data allowed him to conclude that carbon dioxide emissions account for only a small portion of atmospheric warming.
Fortunately for environmental advocates, Spencer has been discredited by his peers in the scientific community. According to an article in Discover Magazine, “they say Spencer’s model is ‘unrealistic’, ‘flawed’, and ‘incorrect’…A geochemist has shown that Spencer’s models are irretrievably flawed, ‘don’t make any physical sense,’ and that Spencer has a track record in using such flawed analysis to draw any conclusion he wants.”
Reportedly, Spencer did not account for statistical fluctuations or other variables while collecting data for his study. Dr. Andrew Tessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, maintained: “He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct.”
According to a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Kevin Trenberth, “the paper has been published in a journal called Remote Sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.”
Stephanie Pappas, senior writer for LiveScience, distinguishes Spencer’s radical and “politically motivated” opinions from the mainstream scientific community and points to his past promotion of climate change skepticism.
Although largely discredited, the notions of conspiracy surrounding global warming clearly still manage to garner media and public attention. Moreover, this could prove to be a particularly significant threat to green enthusiasts, given the current conservative political tide that is seeking to deregulate domestic industry at the expense of the environment. For more on this, see appropriations bill HR 2584.
Photo credit: maine.gov/dep/air/emissions/ghg-equiv.htm