Aqua satellite data suggests there are reasons why we should be skeptical to the extent to which carbon dioxide drives warming, that CO2-driven increases in water vapor actually cool the earth, not magnify warming, and with equal interest the latest data from Argos float buoy data in the ocean could suggest the ocean is cooling since 2003 when they became operational.
In a report posted on Australia’s ABC National on March 17th entitled “Climate Change,” Jennifer Marohasy of the Australian Environment Foundation comments on data from the NASA Aqua satellite:
“The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite…and the first time this data has been able to be collected is 2002 so we’ve got a little bit of data now, it’s actually showing just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re actually getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”
On March 24th in the National Post, author Lorne Gunter posted a story entitled “Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong,” where he reports on an NPR interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings:
“When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors. So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys’ findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters’ hypotheses, must be wrong.”
These quotes from a post on ECOWORLD, which neglects to mention that Marohasy's comments were taken somewhat out of context. Marohasy also said:
"It (global warming) has stopped for the last ten years, but that's a very short timeframe. If you look over the last 100 years, it's mostly been warming over the last 100 years but there was some cooling from 1940 through to 1975 and now there appears to be some cooling since 1998. But if you look at the longer timeframe, say, since the last glacial maximum, well, that's going back, say, 16,000 years, then there actually has been significant warming, and sea levels of course have risen over 100 metres over this period. So the last eight to ten-year dip may just be a dip, and there may be continued warming into the future, or it could be the end of this interglacial warm period and we could go into another ice age. We don't know what the future holds."
Willis also said:
In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.
These statements haven't changed my opinion that global warming is probably a true phenomena, but they do cause me to take pause in my thinking and I thought that I should share these comments with you.