Gavin Schmidt of NASA and RealClimate recently Tweeted a very interesting graphic, a graphic related to Sea Level. What is most interesting is that Gavin Schmidt is using Satellite Data for Sea Levels post-1993. Why that is so interesting is that NASA GISS has shunned using NASA Satellite Temperature data and instead relies upon the highly “adjusted” ground measurements.
Comparing the two data sets it becomes obvious why Gavin uses the manipulated ground measurements. Satellite data doesn’t show the warming Climate Alarmists want, and they clearly implicate the oceans, not CO2. The following graphic of NASA Satellite Temperature data clearly shows temperatures tied to oceans oscillations, not CO2. According to NASA UAH Satellites, temperatures are below the level of 1988, and in line with 1983. There is no linear trend similar to CO2. What explanation could Gavin possibly have for using Satellite data when it supports the Alarmist’s case, and not use it when it doesn’t? Congress should ask that question.
NASA and the US Air Force rely upon a program called MODTRAN to model the atmosphere. MODTRAN calculations demonstrate that CO2 has no measurable impact on the lower atmosphere when H2O is present and CO2 ranges are within the possible. Note how changing CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm resulted in 0.00 W/M^2 change. 417.306 before and 417.306 after. The first CO2 signature in identified up about 3km when H2O starts to precipitate out of the atmosphere. All NASA GISS ground and sea measurements are located in the layer of the atmosphere that is not influenced by CO2. So why then would Gavin blame CO2 for the warming of a layer of the atmosphere immune to CO2’s influence? Satellite data targets the layer of the atmosphere most impacted by CO2, yet Gavin ignores them.
Lastly, there is absolutely nothing regarding the physics of the CO2 molecule that would support a dog-leg followed by a linear increase followed by another dog-leg and then followed by another linear increase. The physics of CO2 simply don’t support dog-legs or linear trends. The physics of the CO2 molecule support a log decay, not a linear trend, and certainly not an acceleration. CO2 back radiation also won’t warm water. The data provided by the climate alarmists to implicate CO2 actually do just the opposite when you look at the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule and Greenhouse Gas Effect.
Facts are real scientists don’t shop around for data sets to manufacture confirmation of a theory. Gavin Schmidt uses Satellite data for Sea Level measurements because they support the Climate Alarmists, and shuns the Satellite Temperature data because they refute the Climate Alarmists. That isn’t sound science, that is outright fraud. Picking and choosing data sets is an intentional act and his selections expose his intentions. He is counting on no one watching him and connecting the dots. He must think that if it worked with the Hockeystick, it will work with sea levels.
BTW, I hope to be proven wrong on this. Congress should ask Gavin about the above observations. Maybe there is a logical reason to pick and choose data sets…but I doubt it. I’m simply too familiar with working with computer models and datasets and I know that if I did what Gavin and Michael Mann did I would be doing so to commit deceit and fraud. I would love to hear Gavin’s explanation as to why NASA doesn’t rely on state of the art Satellite data and instead rely on the archaic and corrupted ground measurements, and then flip-flops when it comes to sea level measurements.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment