New research suggesting that cloud cover, not carbon dioxide, causing global warming is getting buzz in climate sceptic circles. But the scientists dismissed as unrealistic and politically motivated research. Life Inc.: no new car this year, I am ruined erratic MOM: new trial “a risk, I am ready to take” schools dispute pits ‘haves’ against “poor” Teen buried in the sand: “I thought I was going to die” where are people of colour in national parks? Company gives $ 1 million to the pro-Romney group, which dissolves FAA cost millions more that it would save
“This is not worthy of interest,”Daniel Murphy, National Oceanic and researcher in Cloud Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), wrote in an e-mail to LiveScience.”"
The study, published July 26 in the online open-access journal in remote sensing, has the attention of the public when an author for the Heartland Institute, a think tank libertarian that promotes scepticism of climate change, wrote for Forbes magazine study has refuted the concerns of warming global change “alarmists.” However, mainstream scientists say that the argument put forward in the document is neither new nor correct. Author of the book, University of Alabama, Huntsville Roy Spencer researcher, is a controversial of skeptical climate climate change research community.
“It took a wrong model, it changed to match observations, but the conclusions that you get that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, Professor of science of the atmosphere at the Texas A & M University, said the new study of Spencer.
Cloud chaos
Spencer research is based on the role of clouds in climate change. Traditional climate researchers agree that climate change occurs when carbon dioxide traps heat from the Sun in the atmosphere, much in the same manner as a windshield traps solar heat in a car on a sunny afternoon. As the planet warms, a side effect is more water vapour in the atmosphere. This water vapour, knows that most of us like the clouds, traps more heat, creating a viscous loop. [Earth in balance: 7 crucial Tipping Points]
Spencer sees differently. He thinks that the whole cycle starts with the clouds. In other words, random increases in cloud cover cause warming. Changes in clouds are caused by “chaos in the climate system”, Spencer told LiveScience.
In the new document, Spencer considered satellite data of 2000 to 2010 for compare the cloud cover and surface temperatures. With the help of a simple model, it linked the two, find, he said, warming of cloud drive. Comparisons of its data with six intergovernmental group of experts on the evolution of the climate models showed, he said, that the models are too sensitive (i.e. certain variables, such as the global warming, increase the slightest change of other factors), and that carbon dioxide is not likely to cause a lot of warming at all. [Image: curious cloud]
Disagreements
However, no climate scientist contacted by LiveScience does agreed.
The study found a lag between changes in months cover of clouds and the temperature in the models against the real world for 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist NASA Goddard. “That this discrepancy is due to – processing of data, errors in the data or the real problems in the models – is not completely clear.”
Other researchers have pointed out Spencer paper defects, including a model of “unrealistic” place clouds that the driver of the warming of the planet and a lack of information on the statistical significance of the temperatures observed by satellites. Statistical significance is the likelihood that actual results, as opposed to fluctuations of chance without any link to other variables in the experiment.
“I cannot believe he has published,” said Kevin Trenberth, senior researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Several researchers expressed frustration that the study was drew the attention of the media.
“If you want to make a story and then write a pointing to the ridicule of people jumping on each press release, as if the well-established science gets rejected for a penny,” said Schmidt. “Climate sensitivity is not limited by the last two decades of satellite data imperfect, but rather the paleoclimatic record.”
Spencer agreed that its work could not disprove the existence of climate change caused by man. But he rejected the ancient climate research, calling it “grey science.”
Policy and science
The science of the work of Spencer proved inextricable political debate surrounding global warming. The paper was largely unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger said that the “extremely important”.
Dessler, climatologist A & M said that he doubted that the research would change the political debate on climate change.
“It makes the sceptics feel good, it irritates the traditional climate science community, but by this point, the debate on climate policy has nothing to do with science,” said Dessler. “It’s essentially a debate on the role of the Government,” surrounding the issues of freedom against the regulation.
Spencer himself is to forward the policy surrounding his work. In July, he wrote on his blog that his job “saved our economy from the ravages of economic control environmental extremism” and said that it considered its role of protecting “the interests of the taxpayer.” When asked why his work is not to accept dominant, quoted Spencer as a motivation for climate change researchers find problems related to the environment.
You can follow LiveScience senior editor Stephanie Pappas on Twitter@sipappas. Follow LiveScience to the latest science and discoveries on Twitter @ livescience and on Facebook.
? 2011 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.