It's gone away somewhere, that's for sure.
New research from satellite man Dr Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and maintainer of the UAH temperature record, sheds some light on climate science's "missing heat" mystery.
Climate models have predicted more warming than the instruments have measured – leading to various explanations. One paper claims the heat is real
, but it's deep in the oceans, and there's no mystery. NASA's James Hansen – in a private paper released earlier this year – disagrees. Hansen says (PDF/1.5MB
) the heat isn't in the oceans at all, but simply hasn't manifested itself in the form of global warming, because of man-made and natural aerosols. The models "mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols," says the Yoda of Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming.
Earlier this month, a team led by an economist pronounced that aerosol emissions from Chinese coal stations were "consistent with
" Yoda's theory.
Spencer's work, published (pdf
) in the journal Remote Sensing, concludes that more energy is radiated back to space than previously thought, and it is released earlier, too. Spencer looked at warming events (he used Hadley's temperature record and the CERES energy sensor data from NASA's Terra satellites) and compared the empirical evidence against six climate models.
The paper, On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance, by Spencer and William Braswell, essentially says the climate is too chaotic to say with certainty what is going on. According to the paper: "[A]tmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," says the sceptical scientist (he calls himself a "climate optimist").
"There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
Times series of monthly global average anomalies in (a) surface temperatures from HadCRUT3, and (b) radiative fluxes from Terra CERES SSF Edition 2.5, for the period March 2000 through June 2010. All time series have a 1-2-1 smoother applied to reduce sampling noise.
Evidence of internal radiative forcing in satellite data (2000-2010) and in IPCC Models; X axis: months
Spencer concludes that "while temperature variations during 2000-2010 had a strong radiative forcing component, they were also influenced by more non-radiative forcing than is exhibited by the coupled climate models." He suggests ENSO was influenced by radiative forcing, at least partially.
Warmists poured scorn on the veteran sceptic. "Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record," Gavin Schmidt told
Live Science. ®
Climate change far less serious than 'alarmists' predict says NASA scientist
by Tamara Cohen - Daily Mail
Climate change is far less serious than ‘alarmists’ predict, an eminent NASA scientist has said.
Dr Roy Spencer, who works on the space agency’s temperature-monitoring satellites, claimed they showed ‘a huge discrepancy’ between the real levels of heating and forecasts by the United Nations and other groups.
After looking at the levels of radiation in the atmosphere over the past ten years, he believes the Earth releases a lot more heat into space than previously thought.
This means carbon dioxide emissions do not trap as much heat or force temperatures up as much as global warming bodies fear.
Dr Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, said his satellite readings between 2000 and 2011 show far smaller temperature rises than six climate models which are used by international governments and corporations to predict changes to our climate in the future.
He said: ‘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.’
However critics say his research is over too short a period to draw conclusions and ignores other factors.
Dr Spencer is the first scientist to examine the data from Nasa satellites in relation to climate change.
Click above link to read FULL report from Tamara Cohen