Originally posted by newf: Proof please. Not just some accusation by a denier. You did actually look at where NASA publishes their data and methods, correct?
AS for the book, go back and read what I said.
newf, I've posted on this before. I'm not going to spend a half hour digging up the evidence that you just ignore.
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.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
Yup. Not merely inconvenient, but it severely undermines one of the main principles of the warming theory. If the heat retention is low, the entire global warming scenario is crap. Period.
Yup. Not merely inconvenient, but it severely undermines one of the main principles of the warming theory. If the heat retention is low, the entire global warming scenario is crap. Period.
When reading the article I kept wondering why they kept referring to "Alarmists" then I realized it's by the Heartland Institute and Roy Spencer. I do give you credit though, they are actually claiming this study is peer reviewed.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-28-2011).]
The report from NASA is gratifying for those of us who figured this out long ago, but, the NASA scientists have known this for quite a while. They finally saw the handwriting on the wall and went ahead and published.
Of course the earth radiates heat out into space. Daaaahhhhh..........
And that is the reason that CO2 is not an insulatory blanket. It is a gas making up a very small percentage of the atmosphere at best. Air cannot hold heat. We know this and it is finally good that some scientists agree with the obvious.
In the meanwhile, we are still in a cooling trend. We have 3 sunspots today. They are big ones, but there are 3 still.
Low sun output means we are in a cooling cycle. This just confirms what we know to be true.
The report from NASA is gratifying for those of us who figured this out long ago, but, the NASA scientists have known this for quite a while. They finally saw the handwriting on the wall and went ahead and published.
Of course the earth radiates heat out into space. Daaaahhhhh..........
And that is the reason that CO2 is not an insulatory blanket. It is a gas making up a very small percentage of the atmosphere at best. Air cannot hold heat. We know this and it is finally good that some scientists agree with the obvious.
In the meanwhile, we are still in a cooling trend. We have 3 sunspots today. They are big ones, but there are 3 still.
Low sun output means we are in a cooling cycle. This just confirms what we know to be true.
When reading the article I kept wondering why they kept referring to "Alarmists" then I realized it's by the Heartland Institute and Roy Spencer. I do give you credit though, they are actually claiming this study is peer reviewed.
I posted both the article (which explains the paper and its significance) AND a link to the paper. It is published and peer reviewed, which you would have realized if you didn't rush to the conclusion that you could dismiss it because the article was from the Heartland Institute.
I posted both the article (which explains the paper and its significance) AND a link to the paper. It is published and peer reviewed, which you would have realized if you didn't rush to the conclusion that you could dismiss it because the article was from the Heartland Institute.
Huh? Can you not read were I said I give you credit? Do you ever read past the first sentence?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-28-2011).]
Oh yeah I keep forgetting we are in a cooling trend.
What report are you talking about that NASA published???
P.S. Confusing..... I notice your link uses information provided by NASA and NOAA, the groups you are always accusing of lying.
Newf you really are all that naive? NASA has been openly criticized for publishing false information on Climate Change. They had to find a time to correct the situation without acknowledging their guilt. Now they can conveniently blame factors that are "new information". Yes, this is the real deal. But, you can become a "denier" too
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Newf you really are all that naive? NASA has been openly criticized for publishing false information on Climate Change. They had to find a time to correct the situation without acknowledging their guilt. Now they can conveniently blame factors that are "new information". Yes, this is the real deal. But, you can become a "denier" too
Arn
I thought it was just "mistake" info - not intentionaly false - just a mistake and, NASA did just come out and say that the atmosphere is trapping ALOT less heat than any previous models predicted
Newf you really are all that naive? NASA has been openly criticized for publishing false information on Climate Change. They had to find a time to correct the situation without acknowledging their guilt. Now they can conveniently blame factors that are "new information". Yes, this is the real deal. But, you can become a "denier" too
Arn
Well if you could just point out which is the information that is accurate from NASA/NOAA and which is not then we could know what to believe then. How is it you decide?
...he was starting to make me reevaluate the high esteem I've felt for Canadians.
Aw shucks, that just makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.
And by the way, I happen to like Newf. However, I think you guys are all nuts arguing about the same topic for 41 pages. I mean geez, I'm as stubborn as they come, but even I would've said the hell with it a long time ago.
Aw shucks, that just makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.
And by the way, I happen to like Newf. However, I think you guys are all nuts arguing about the same topic for 41 pages. I mean geez, I'm as stubborn as they come, but even I would've said the hell with it a long time ago.
Well, I am following this subject. When I find some new information, I post it. Then newf shows up, and trolls up the place, and that's usually good for another half page or so until I get tired of his bullshit.
Well, I am following this subject. When I find some new information, I post it. Then newf shows up, and trolls up the place, and that's usually good for another half page or so until I get tired of his bullshit.
Oh right.. I forgot you expect everyone to agree with your "expert" opinion.....Get a blog. Oh... and learn what a troll is.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-30-2011).]
Aw shucks, that just makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.
And by the way, I happen to like Newf. However, I think you guys are all nuts arguing about the same topic for 41 pages. I mean geez, I'm as stubborn as they come, but even I would've said the hell with it a long time ago.
I haven't been along for the full ride in this thread, I'm amazed at how some can get so upset when another challenges or opposes their opinion, like I keep saying they should just start a blog if they don't want to hear any other points of view.
I guess were all supposed to just believe a couple of internet experts and their opinions (Can never remember what arguement they are currently going with 1. The earth is warming but it's nothing to do with man 2. It isn't warming 3. It's cooling...etc.) Nah... I'd rather believe the real experts.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-30-2011).]
Of course you only consider those who agree with you to be "real experts."
Not at all. If the main scientific bodies and majority of experts/scientists say that they've been wrong or that they've discovered new data that shows different I'd have to trust that as well. I've always said it's only my opinion that what they are saying is true, I'm no climatologist or scientist but IMPO things are changing and man has a major impact on his environment so to believe that man has been dumping crap into the atmoshpere/environment with no big effect is hard for me to accept. Now how much and to what finite amount of impact this is causing is difficult to say but that's what research and science is striving to prove/disprove.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-30-2011).]
Not at all. If the main scientific bodies and majority of experts/scientists say that they've been wrong or that they've discovered new data that shows different I'd have to trust that as well. I've always said it's only my opinion that what they are saying is true, I'm no climatologist or scientist but IMPO things are changing and man has a major impact on his environment so to believe that man has been dumping crap into the atmoshpere with no effect is hard for me to accept. Now how much and to what finite amount of impact this is causing is difficult to say but that's what research and science is striving to prove/disprove.
So, NASA admits they're wrong and you argue about it. Discount the report.
So it is your opinion that man has a major impact on his environment. (ergo the weather/climate?)
That is the core of the argument. The facts are that man's production of CO2 has virtually no effect on the climate.
The facts are that the sun is the major contributor to the climate.
And that isn't my opinion, that is scientific fact, and still is after 41 pages.
Originally posted by newf: IMPO things are changing and man has a major impact on his environment so to believe that man has been dumping crap into the atmoshpere/environment with no big affect is hard for me to accept.
And that is why you immediately and without reservation believe "experts" who agree with your opinion and disagree and discount any "experts" who disagree with your opinion. Anyone who's followed even a few of your posts can see that. Your arguments are circular and in the face of scientific evidence that doesn't support your opinion, you immediately say it's not credible evidence or from a credible source.
This thread has become little more than anyone saying anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist (or isn't as severe as we're led to believe) and you reply "yes it is." The cycle of "no it isn't" - "yes it is" continues for pages.
So, NASA admits they're wrong and you argue about it. Discount the report.
So it is your opinion that man has a major impact on his environment. (ergo the weather/climate?)
That is the core of the argument. The facts are that man's production of CO2 has virtually no effect on the climate.
The facts are that the sun is the major contributor to the climate.
And that isn't my opinion, that is scientific fact, and still is after 41 pages.
And the majority of scientists agree.
Arn
NASA admits that they're wrong? Please show me that data. I've seen them openly admit they have made errors or have updated knowledge but what exactly are you referring to?
The rest of your post is your usual opinion. Well I do agree the sun has a major impact on the climate, no arguement there.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-30-2011).]
And that is why you immediately and without reservation believe "experts" who agree with your opinion and disagree and discount any "experts" who disagree with your opinion. Anyone who's followed even a few of your posts can see that. Your arguments are circular and in the face of scientific evidence that doesn't support your opinion, you immediately say it's not credible evidence or from a credible source.
This thread has become little more than anyone saying anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist (or isn't as severe as we're led to believe) and you reply "yes it is." The cycle of "no it isn't" - "yes it is" continues for pages.
Repeat ad nauseum.
Immediatly without reservation? You assuming to know me again professor? I'm sorry but as I've been saying all along THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS AND CLIMATE EXPERTS ARE IN AGREEMENT. I'll trust their knowledge over the internet experts and "feelings" people have on here about Climate Change. I am not a scientist nor an expert in Climate Change so when someone here claims that they are and shows proof from some article linked, yeah I am going to look at it for content, context and reliablity but again it's just my opinion. When these people are noted skeptics and often backed by Oil companies I tend not to see them as reliable, that's not to say they all are or may not have some valid points but again and again I will go with the majority of scientific organizations and climate experts and others can go with whatever they believe. Don't like it, Don't read any of it or get a blog and only allow those with like opinions on it. Remember it's a public forum all opinions welcome as far as I know.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-30-2011).]
Originally posted by newf: THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS AND CLIMATE EXPERTS ARE IN AGREEMENT
As long as this is the most important thing to you, then we really don't have much to discuss. Science is not done by vote or by majority of any kind. You can get every scientist on the planet to agree on something, and it only takes ONE scientist, with a viable theory or paper that is contrary, and all those other scientists would be WRONG. It's not about numbers, and that's what you simply don't get.
Smart ass remarks? I must have hit the nail on the head. I don't assume anything. I read your posts. Who you are away from the forum may be completely different from who you present yourself as here, but your behavior, comments, and posting style allow anyone to get a good grasp of who you are (online) without having to make assumptions.
As long as this is the most important thing to you, then we really don't have much to discuss. Science is not done by vote or by majority of any kind. You can get every scientist on the planet to agree on something, and it only takes ONE scientist, with a viable theory or paper that is contrary, and all those other scientists would be WRONG. It's not about numbers, and that's what you simply don't get.
No what you simply don't get is I keep saying that my opinion is that the scientists are correct while you keep saying YOU know better and that they are not. Sure they COULD be wrong there have been instances in the past where the science had it wrong but my opinion is that they are right, if you could only accept that and the fact that YOU PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW then there really wouldn't be an issue.
I suspect your opinion or mine won't be proven (well proven to the point that many deniers will accept) anytime soon so you can go on believing whatever it is you like but don't get upset when others don't blindly follow you, I honestly don't care what it is you or anyone else on here thinks about Climate Change but this strange attititude some people have that "YOU know and everyone else who thinks otherwise is wrong" is baffling.
Smart ass remarks? I must have hit the nail on the head. I don't assume anything. I read your posts. Who you are away from the forum may be completely different from who you present yourself as here, but your behavior, comments, and posting style allow anyone to get a good grasp of who you are (online) without having to make assumptions.
I can't help your interpretation of my "behavior, comments, and posting style" I've explained myself many times as to why I comment on various topics. It is a public forum, correct?
Yawn...Keep trying though. Maybe you can change your avatar in another attempt to bait me like you did recently.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-30-2011).]
No what you simply don't get is I keep saying that my opinion is that the scientists are correct while you keep saying YOU know better and that they are not. Sure they COULD be wrong there have been instances in the past where the science had it wrong but my opinion is that they are right, if you could only accept that and the fact that YOU PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW then there really wouldn't be an issue.
I suspect your opinion or mine won't be proven (well proven to the point that many deniers will accept) anytime soon so you can go on believing whatever it is you like but don't get upset when others don't blindly follow you, I honestly don't care what it is you or anyone else on here thinks about Climate Change but this strange attititude some people have that "YOU know and everyone else who thinks otherwise is wrong" is baffling.
Where you have it wrong is saying that I claim "I know". I've read plenty from both sides, and I've come to my own conclusion based on what I've read. I don't trust the people who are pushing global warming. There has been too much questionable crap put out for me to trust them. It isn't a matter of me "knowing better".
Where you have it wrong is saying that I claim "I know". I've read plenty from both sides, and I've come to my own conclusion based on what I've read. I don't trust the people who are pushing global warming. There has been too much questionable crap put out for me to trust them. It isn't a matter of me "knowing better".
Cool so you admit that you just have an opinion about this topic like everyone else.
As for the second part, like I said believe whatever you want.
Finally you have admitted you are not an expert and merely have an opinion about Climate Change like most others.
Now how about taking a stance on if your opinion is that the planet has warmed, cooled or remained the same. Then answer what your opinion is on to what is causing any change.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-31-2011).]
Finally you have admitted you are not an expert and merely have an opinion about Climate Change like most others.
You're playing stupid games. You are trying to create a narrative where I claimed to be an expert. Then, you try to paint it like I've "admitted" something, or that you "got me". Knock it off, newf.
quote
Now how about taking a stance on if your opinion is that the planet has warmed, cooled or remained the same. Then answer what your opinion is on to what is causing any change.
Anything I'd post on this would be from scientists, which I've already done, and which you've just ignored.
The only mistake I've made is trying to have a decent conversation with you while you just keep playing the same stupid games.
Not just some accusation by a denier. You did actually look at where NASA publishes their data and methods, correct?
