Oops! That Heat DOES radiate into Outer Space!

Well, it seems more computer models need to be flushed down the toilet.  According to this item from Forbes via Yahoo News……..

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 dioxidetrap 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.

Gee, I wonder what people like Rajendra Pachauri, James Hansen, et al,  have to say about this? They’ll probably either hide out or come up with newer and better BS to baffle us all with. Contrary to warmer BS those CO2 molecules evidently do not radiate heat back to Earth in some magic focused one-way back to Earth beam.

Back to the thermodynamics law that heat flows to cold. Read the whole article at the source below.

Source: Forbes via Yahoo News

 

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, NASA, Radiation

3 responses to “Oops! That Heat DOES radiate into Outer Space!

  1. Ralph

    As everyone can see from the above message, AGW is a dead religion, but some warmest just can’t seem to let go.

  2. Anonymous

    Take a look at the actual scientific article rather than relying on the outrageous interpretation of the article from Forbes magazine. Forbes is a business-oriented publication, and the Forbes article was written as a political opinion piece — not a reliable source of scientific news.

    • Like Al Gore’s interpretations aren’t a gigantic crock of BS? Let’s use your own words about Al and his buddies. “outrageous interpretation” “not a reliable source of scientific news.”