Three new research papers debunk earlier research that showed the planet was not warming up, according to ABC Online. The news report states:
In 1990, study of data collected by the University of Alabama satellite found that the atmosphere's low-level troposphere was not warming in line with computer modelling predictions.
The study been used ever since by global warming sceptics.
But now a correct reading of the data has revealed unequivocally that the planet's atmospheric and surface temperatures are on the rise.
The Californian firm that did the new reading, Remote Sensing Systems, has found the University of Alabama satellite was collecting faulty data.
Dr David Jones, from the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, says one satellite used to collect the data was not properly calibrated.
And I never realized that the global warming believers ever accepted the earlier satellite readings that now appear to have been incorrect.
I just found this post that I made at John Quiggin's blog on 22nd April. The information was sent to me some time ago by Bill Kininmonth in response to a question from me:
Greenhouse gases in the troposphere cause the troposphere to cool. The upward emission to space and the downward emission to the earth's surface exceed the sum of direct absorption of solar radiation and absorption of upward emissions from the earth's surface. Whether it is 280 ppmv (pre-industrial) or 380 ppmv (now) the direct effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the troposphere.
The 'radiative forcing' hypothesis of IPCC suggests that as the concentration of CO2 increases the upward emission to space decreases slightly and hence energy is retained in the earth's climate system, leading to 'global warming'.
We cannot measure the net radiation at the top of the atmosphere to better than of order 5 W/m2 (greater than the 'radiative forcing' for a doubling of CO2) so the hypothesis cannot be verified directly.
Satellite measurements (Wielicki et. al. 2002, Evidence of large decadal variability in the tropical mean radiative energy budget. Science Vol 295, pg841) suggest that, at least over the tropics, longwave emission to space increased over the period 1985-1999, contrary to what would be expected from anthropogenic greenhouse radiative forcing.
I'm new to this, and the scientists may not like this particular statistic. The most important factor in all this GW debate is this: no one is going DO anything about it. Let me say it again, in case any didn't hear: no one is going DO anything about it. Politics, commerce and human nature mitigate against ANY meaninful greenhouse gas emission measures being taken by the human race. Can the met scientists factor this one certainty into their models and tell us what will happen -because whatever is goign to happen will.
There seems to be so much confusion between governments saying things and the naive belief among some scientists that anybody will DO anything. They won't. CO2 emissions WILL go up (a lot), end of story. The sensible thing now is to plan for what may happen as a result of this truth. The lobbying and treaties are merely a political exercise: scientists should deal in realities.