As reported previously for The New American, the United Nations is demanding $76 trillion from the first world over the next 40 years to encourage the development of “green” technologies in the third world. The defense of such a reckless agenda has rested on the unwarranted claim that the globe was hovering on the precipice of environmental devastation. “Green” ideology has become the bulwark of older agendas: The nations of the West must end their own prosperity, because that is only “fair” — and it necessary to save the world from Capitalist greed.
But the facts continue to prove themselves stubborn opponents for the Green ideologues to overcome. The proponents of the theory of manmade climate change have relied on supposedly sophisticated computer models to demonstrate that activities related to industry and the day-to-day realities of human life in the developed world were threatening the planet with flooding, uncontrollable heat waves, and the end of life as we know it.
But the actual data is stubbornly refusing to conform to the computer models.
The latest problem posed by pesky facts can be found in the global cooling that is taking place over the world’s oceans. Eleven years worth of NASA satellite collected between 2000 and 2011 actually shows that the atmosphere is releasing heat into space far more quickly than radical environmentalists imagined could be possible. According to an article (“New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism”) by James Taylor for Forbes, the models are proving to be woefully inadequate when it comes to predicting real-world weather:
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.
It appears that the discrepancy rests — as the article indicates — in the multiple assumptions underpinning the computer models which are just wrong. The earth’s environment is far more effective at shedding excess heat that allowed for in the “doom and gloom” scenarios generated by the United Nations. In fact, the abstract of peer-reviewed findings presented by the Spencer and William Braswell indicates how far astray the models actually are:
The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. ... While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric 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.
What is known for a certainty at this point is that the existing models are wrong — because they failed to accurately predict the data which have now been observed — and they are alarmist — because when globalist bureaucrats use faulty models as their justification for confiscating trillions of dollars from those who have earned them, and giving them to those who did not. The UN scheme endeavors to fundamentally alter the global economy and risks worsening the global recession by pointlessly plundering the economies of the West.
As Spencer and Braswell observe, there is a fundamental — and thus far “unsolved” — problem at the heart of the existing climate models. Asking millions of people to endure a further, and unbearable, yoke of taxation in service of a falsified model is utterly unjustifiable.