You're watching...
Tom questions Dr. Roy Spencer about recent NASA data that suggest global warming may not be as serious an issue as once predicted.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
The global warming enormous like vice president Al former vice president Al Gore have been -- for years of manmade.
Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide -- cause in the earth to heat up.
-- -- a recent study of data collected from NASA satellite shows just the opposite He is not.
Being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere but is being released out into space -- this new data finally put an end of the global warming hysteria.
And why haven't -- been hearing front page news about this.
Joining -- is the author of that study climatologist doctor Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama -- NTELOS.
What what how.
This new this new study -- the new information that you're getting from these satellites that are going around measuring the heat coming off of the -- Hey Tom good to be with you you have these these NASA satellites we have that have been flying for about ten years now.
Measure how much son -- is being absorbed by the earth.
And they also measure how much infrared energy is given off by the earth to space and it's the balance between those two that determines whether temperatures go up or down.
Now all the climate models that predict a lot of global warming for the future they suggest that as we add CO2 to the atmosphere.
And we get a little bit warming from that extra CO2 that clouds will change in such a way to amplify the warming and what we've shown with the ten years -- satellite data.
Is that instead when we have a warm year.
Clouds change in such a way to actually cool the earth so it doesn't mean there's no such thing as man made global warming it might be.
Just that it's it's been overblown and that what we've got in the future is going to be much less serious than what a lot of people like Al Gore had been predicting.
Was all right SO not a society is forgive me but I do as a layman kind of thing in this data sounds like you've got these satellites that have been out there for ten years -- sniffing and measuring and doing all the scientific data collecting.
In what you're saying is is that it refutes the arguments or the projections that have been made about.
Global warming in -- in our world.
Well Thomas of the trouble is as we do we can't use words like refute and we certainly don't prove anything and science I mean this is science not truth.
Two scientists can look at exactly the same data and come to totally opposite conclusions about what causing what is causing what in the climate system to occur.
So what we have is an explanation that's consistent with the climate system.
Being relatively insensitive to us adding CO2 -- atmosphere -- no other scientists look at it may think they see evidence.
That the climate system is very sensitive.
But we put a lot of work -- to this and we show it in detail why we think they're wrong.
Are -- that ten years so in -- in the world try to figure out global warming.
Is always considered to be so short I know that's the only amount of time these satellites have been up they are doing this but.
Won't it take.
A hundred years or something like that to really figure this out or do you have an -- -- -- -- you know what the future will project.
OK that's a good question because a lot of our critics say that you really can't tell anything with ten years of satellite data.
Which could be true it could be that the ten years of satellite data are telling us something about the climate system that doesn't apply.
To let's say the next hundred years of global warming due to mankind.
The trouble with that argument though is that.
They use the the people that use climate models to predict a lot of warming.
They use the same data to test their climate models so what a minimum we show.
That the climate models basically can't be tested.
There's no way to know whether the amount of global warming -- predicting is in any way realistic at all that's at a very minimum of what we're -- Alright so to so that the debate usually is about is this man made or is it natural warming of the earth but what your.
Suggesting is that the earth is getting rid of what ever causes it.
Natural or man made is getting the gases are not -- in the heat.
They get the heat is getting out of our earth and going out into space.
Yeah well it's actually that the gases for instance the CO2 you know that supposed to be causing all of the swarming.
The CO2 I do believe is trapping some small additional amount of heat it just is that direct trapping effect is very small.
The big debate in this field.
Is how clouds will change will clouds change in such a way.
To reject the heat which I believe reject you know heat so that it doesn't warm up as much.
Or will clouds change in such a -- -- that warning will be amplified and that's what the United Nations believes.
And the difference between those two how clouds react to warming.
Can be the difference between Al -- Armageddon and global warming just being lost in the noise of natural climate variability.
Right well it's fascinating to watch in.
Look forward to hearing more about -- about all these new tools that you have to measure.
A global warming doctor Roy Spencer from the universe of Alabama thank you so much doctor.
Thank you Tom.
