| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Oh no!!! NASA just blew a hole in the "Global warming" argument; Whatever will Algore and his puppets do now?.... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 28 2011, 06:14 AM (898 Views) | |
| Larry | Jul 28 2011, 06:14 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans." In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted. The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Jul 28 2011, 06:26 AM Post #2 |
|
Cheers
|
That's good news! Lets hope it holds |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Jul 28 2011, 06:36 AM Post #3 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Well, no not actually... That's not what the cited paper says.
You can read the entire paper here. It is beyond dispute that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for maintaining the earth at a temperature higher than it would otherwise be. It is also beyond dispute that the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has been increased by human consumption of carbon bearing fossil fuels. The question at issue is whether there are countervailing secondary effects that can ameliorate the first-order effect of the increase in carbon dioxide to increase heat retention and what are the magnitudes of such effects. The author of the news report seriously misstates the results of the study. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Jul 28 2011, 06:52 AM Post #4 |
|
Cheers
|
Oh well. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 28 2011, 06:58 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Carbon dioxide is plant food. As for whether or not the author of the article misstates things, other than the comment that it remains an "unsolved problem", I see nothing in your quote that would contradict what he reported - and even that one comment doesn't necessarily mean his take on the report is incorrect. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Jul 28 2011, 07:00 AM Post #6 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Go read the paper and then tell me where it says what the reporter claims it does. As far as carbon dioxide being plant food, so is water, but too much or too little of either one will kill them. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jul 28 2011, 09:21 AM Post #7 |
|
Finally
|
True. So is water vapor, in fact, water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. CO2 is a trace gas in the earth's atmosphere, about 0.038 percent.
Can you cite a reference for that?
True again. However, given that human production of CO2 accounts for about half of the naturally occurring CO2, it's hard for me to accept that changing one sixth of one percent (and that assumes eliminating ALL human CO2 production) will have an effect on the climate. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Jul 28 2011, 09:41 AM Post #8 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Here's a pretty straightforward explanation of the greenhouse effect and the contribution to warming it makes: The Greenhouse Effect Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 28 2011, 11:52 AM Post #9 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Great quote, but what again are the global warming alarmists basing their speculation on? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Jul 28 2011, 12:35 PM Post #10 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
In a nutshell, atmospheric feedback effects could conceivably moderate or aggravate to some degree the tendency of increased levels of greenhouse gases to raise the temperature in the earth's atmosphere. Some feedback effects certainly exist, such as increased water vapor observed in the air with rising air temperature on a global basis. This has both positive effects with water vapor being a potent greenhouse gas and negative effects when the water vapor forms clouds that reflect part of the incoming solar radiation. This can be distinguished as a feedback effect due to the response time being on the order of days with relative humidity rapidly stabilizing in response to temperature. The fundamental point of the paper is that it has not proved possible to differentiate the effects of feedbacks from the first order forcing effects on the basis of the satelite temperature and radiation measurements. Teasing out the direction and magnitude of these feedbacks is the holy grail of climate science as it would refine the climate models significantly. When you see ranges like 1 to 3 deg. C quoted for potential warming, you can appreciate how important refining the models is. Nonetheless, it's, in my opinion, sheer folly to willy-nilly modify the atmosphere with substantial amounts of greenhouse gases without a really good idea of where we're going to end up. The very long duration of life on this planet testifies to some apparently robust feedback mechanisms that tend to stabilize conditions. However, the point at which they stabilize might not be conducive to life as we know it. The recent ice ages are one example. The overall higher temperatures of the Cretaceous period, even though the sun was dimmer then, are another example. The truly frightening example that comes to mind is Venus where a tipping point was reached at some time in its evolution as a planet and the stable point reached is now around the melting point of lead. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jul 28 2011, 01:35 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Was it equally hard to accept that changing 1 ten millionth of a percent of the atmospheric contents obliterated about 33% of the ozone layer? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 28 2011, 01:42 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
You mean that ozone layer that healed itself? |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jul 28 2011, 02:04 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
No no I meant that other ozone layer, you know the one made of moon dust. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jul 28 2011, 02:07 PM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Oh ... for a second I thought you're referring to the one made of pegasus unicorn farts. |
![]() |
|
| somebody else's sock | Jul 28 2011, 02:11 PM Post #15 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Everything you wanted to know about ozone, from NASA: http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history.html |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jul 28 2011, 02:18 PM Post #16 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Good thing we didn't listen to those ozone hole alarmists eh? They were just making a fuss to get funding/only had models/it was a conspiracy to expand the government/*insert nutter statement here*. Down with science!! |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Jul 28 2011, 03:11 PM Post #17 |
|
Cheers
|
Dawkins calls that 'the Argument from Personal Incredulity'. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jul 28 2011, 03:20 PM Post #18 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Global warming was just made up and agreed with, but a virgin really had a baby.
|
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 28 2011, 06:50 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
The guy said he was God incarnate, and then proved it by rising from the dead. If he says his momma was a virgin, then she was a virgin.... As for man made global warming, it is a political agenda that hitched a ride on the study of an observation of nature which soon became a religion. Scientists quickly discovered that if they went with it, they could get lots and lots of funding, and if they disagreed with it they would get nothing except ridiculed. That's why "respected scientists" started faking data, defending flawed data, and just plain lying..... like the one who showed us how the poor polar bears were going to be wiped out because of thin ice... but who now has been suspended for making it all up. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 29 2011, 08:37 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
It would almost be amusing if it weren't so sad... The "The Sky is Falling" crowd, any time someone questions their religion, says "It's settled science!" "There's a scientific concensus!" When anyone points to anything that disagrees with their view, they tell us "But if it isn't peer reviewed, it isn't science!" until of course, you show them something that IS peer reviewed that disagrees with them, and then they tell you that being peer reviewed is meaningless. Let a scientist say anything against their religion, and they bury their heads in the sand like an ostrich, pulling it out just long enough to mock and ridicule anyone who dared question their religion. This isn't the first report to expose the fact that their models, and their data, are corrupt. No matter which "side" one chooses to be on, the fact remains that this peer reviewed article points out that the models that were used to argue the claim that man is responsible for whatever might be happening regarding climate are corrupt, flawed, and the data gathered from these corrupt models is corrupt as a result. This isn't the first article to show that the models used to "prove" MMGW are flawed, the results corrupt. But no matter how much scientific evidence is given to show that the models and the data used to defend MMGW are wrong, the "the Sky is Falling" crowd continue to want to completely alter how we live, and scream to high heaven about some "scientific consensus" that is falling apart at the seams even while they continue to tell us about this claimed "consensus". For people who claim to be so well informed on the subject, they sure do go a long way out of their way to ignore the science that proves their assumptions to be wrong. They argue that the "science is settled, there is a scientific consensus" and that's the end of it. I have argued all along that it is a religion not a science, and told that I'm just not smart enough to understand the science behind it. Well, the "consensus" is falling apart, and more and more the "science" is being shown by scientists to be wrong. That means that to continue arguing that man made global warming is a fact has to be done on a basis of pure faith. Scientists are proving the MMGW models are wrong. If you continue to argue the models are not wrong, then you are basing your claims on faith, not science, and in doing so prove that it is, and has been all along, a religion. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jul 29 2011, 10:10 AM Post #21 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The objection here is not that the NASA paper wasn't peer reviewed or whether the NASA paper was meaningless ... the objection here is that you and the author of the Yahoo! news article you linked to do not seem to understand the NASA paper and make claims that are not consistent with what the NASA paper actually says. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 29 2011, 10:12 AM Post #22 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
The NASA paper states that the models that were used to support the claim of "man made global warming" are flawed and the data collected by these models are wrong. What part of that do you not understand? |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Jul 29 2011, 10:16 AM Post #23 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I'm not interested in arguing with you, Larry. Your mind is much more set in its beliefs than mine is. I'm simply relating the facts that I see for those with open minds to draw their own conclusions. I've said repeatedly that the science behind global warming is still being developed, but the potential consequences of what we do and do not know are too big to ignore. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 29 2011, 10:21 AM Post #24 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I'll put the same question to you then, Al - the NASA paper says the models are flawed, and the data collected using those models are flawed. Why should anyone continue to attempt to drastically alter the way people live, and why should we continue to allow this to be used to redistribute wealth when it has been proven that the models are wrong? |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Jul 29 2011, 11:00 AM Post #25 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Because the most likely consequences of not doing something are too dire. Those consequences may come sooner or later depending on how the models are flawed. Nobody claims that the models are perfect but most climate scientist would acknowledge that they're as nearly right as present knowledge allows. That's why they keep trying to improve them. But the consensus is that increased CO2 will lead to increased temperatures, it's not just possible to determine with perfect accuracy how much how soon. If you're sitting on a ticking bomb and you don't know whether it's going off in 1 minute or 10, isn't it prudent to climb off it as soon as you can? Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









4:51 PM Jul 10