Article by an American meteorologist who said that current climate models correctly account for the effect of clouds on the increase in temperature caused a heated debate in the scientific community — "climate skeptics" dubbed it "a gaping hole punched data NASA alarmist global warming theory," while their opponents indicate the weakness of arguments scientist.
Roy Spencer (Roy Spencer) from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and his colleagues took a NASA satellite observations, "Terra", the temperature data in 2000-2010 Climate Research Center (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and the six climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Comparing real satellite data with the simulation results, the researchers found that the models significantly overestimate the amount of heat accumulated in the atmosphere. The research is published in the journal Remote Sensing.
"Satellite observations show that in fact, during, and after the local peak temperature in space takes much more energy than the models suggest. There is a significant discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that are particularly large for the Oceans", — said Spencer, whose words are press Service of the University.
Skeptics believe that the role of human activity in climate change is negligible, were quick to announce that the new findings argue against the "alleged scientific consensus." In particular, the head of climate trends Heartland Institute, one of the most prominent organizations of skeptics, James Taylor (James Taylor) published in his blog on the website of Forbes magazine a note titled "New NASA data punched a gaping hole in the alarmist global warming theory."
"When objective NASA satellite data, which are contained in an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a" significant difference "between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, the media and politicians would do well to pay attention to it. How they would react to this fact, show us how really honest sowers of panic global warming "- says Taylor.
Chief Researcher, Climate Central portal Phil Duffy (Phil Duffy) stresses that in fact the conclusions of the Spencer is not as dogmatic as writes in his article Taylor. In particular, Duffy calls the abstract scientist "is hardly so very radical claims."
"We conclude that an understanding of feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere remains a challenge, mainly because of the fact that it is impossible to separate the drivers and feedback effects in satellite observations of the heat balance of the atmosphere," — concludes Spencer fragment article referenced by Duffy .
As noted in its report Climate Central, even though no one doubts the scientific reputation of Spencer, his belief that changes in cloud cover are the cause rather than a consequence of climate change, at odds with the common understanding of the processes in the atmosphere.
"The whole argument in this and other articles Spencer is very weak. They take some data, then take a simple model with a few free parameters and customize it so that it corresponded to the output. Hence, they conclude that the model is correct — but if it is not , its compliance with these observations do not mean anything, "- said climatologist A & M University in Texas, Andrew Dessler (Andrew Dessler), quoted by the portal.
Dessler added that if the model of Spencer was indeed true, the cloud would cause climatic cycles of El Niño, whereas "any expert who has studied El Niño, when you tell him something to laugh in your face."
Certainly, the study of a variety of climatic phenomena and anomalies to consider a lot of factors. And would be useful at the beginning of training to learn the price of services collocation. Why? The answer is simple. Obespespecheniya for uninterrupted access to various materials simply need powerful server! Indeed, over the task to work people in different places.