NASA & Global Warming

shadowcast

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... LT6l_xh7l_

I just don't know about this article. It seems shady.

polaris_x

that is because it is ...

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

although he has some credentials - he is funded by the american petroleum institute ... also, the article is published by the heartland institute which is another lobbyist/think tank group that fights against smoking regulations and the such ...

i love how they are using peer-reviewed everywhere to try and lend some credibility ... in any case - he is arguing that there amount of heat trapped is less than climate models ... even if slightly true - it doesn't do a thing about contradicting that global warming exists and it's caused by man ...

arthurdent

polaris_x wrote:

that is because it is ...

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

although he has some credentials - he is funded by the american petroleum institute ... also, the article is published by the heartland institute which is another lobbyist/think tank group that fights against smoking regulations and the such ...

i love how they are using peer-reviewed everywhere to try and lend some credibility ... in any case - he is arguing that there amount of heat trapped is less than climate models ... even if slightly true - it doesn't do a thing about contradicting that global warming exists and it's caused by man ...

also, look at the credentials of the article's author. Member of The Heartland Institute, which also hosts

Out of the Storm News
The Parent Trigger
Tea Party Toolbox
ClimateWiki
Somewhat Reasonable
Climate Conferences
Emerging Issues Forum

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

that is because it is ...

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

although he has some credentials - he is funded by the american petroleum institute ... also, the article is published by the heartland institute which is another lobbyist/think tank group that fights against smoking regulations and the such ...

i love how they are using peer-reviewed everywhere to try and lend some credibility ... in any case - he is arguing that there amount of heat trapped is less than climate models ... even if slightly true - it doesn't do a thing about contradicting that global warming exists and it's caused by man ...

The paper is based on NASA data so keep spinning

The information goes against what the global warming propagandists have been claiming for the last decade


"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.

polaris_x

did you just use the word spinning? ... good grief ...

here is nasa's position on global warming ... feel free to read it ...

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

i'm gonna guess you won't because you haven't bothered to read anything anyone has asked you to read including some of your "own" posts ...

or you can continue to copy and paste someone else's opinion on here like you typically do ...

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

did you just use the word spinning? ... good grief ...

here is nasa's position on global warming ... feel free to read it ...

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

i'm gonna guess you won't because you haven't bothered to read anything anyone has asked you to read including some of your "own" posts ...

or you can continue to copy and paste someone else's opinion on here like you typically do ...

??? my own posts???
Who's opinion and where do I copy it from?
All you have to say is... Look at the science...

polaris_x

seriously ... read the link i sent ... it has a rebuttal on this guy's so called study ...

these guys are PAID to cast doubt on global warming ... they are PAID by the oil industry to post these articles without any validity whatsoever ...

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

seriously ... read the link i sent ... it has a rebuttal on this guy's so called study ...

these guys are PAID to cast doubt on global warming ... they are PAID by the oil industry to post these articles without any validity whatsoever ...

Have you actually read the article?
I am not sure how you can disagree with his study as it is based off of NASA's data.
If you have a problem, then I guess you are discrediting NASA's data, and if you are doing that why did you just present NASA's data in your previous post?

polaris_x

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

did you just use the word spinning? ... good grief ...

here is nasa's position on global warming ... feel free to read it ...

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

i'm gonna guess you won't because you haven't bothered to read anything anyone has asked you to read including some of your "own" posts ...

or you can continue to copy and paste someone else's opinion on here like you typically do ...

??? my own posts???
Who's opinion and where do I copy it from?
All you have to say is... Look at the science...

in the previous global warming thread ... you copied some guy's post from another forum word for word and posted it without a link ... pawning it off on your own ... i called you out and you never went back to that thread ...

if you want a reminder ... http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p3742151

polaris_x

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

seriously ... read the link i sent ... it has a rebuttal on this guy's so called study ...

these guys are PAID to cast doubt on global warming ... they are PAID by the oil industry to post these articles without any validity whatsoever ...

Have you actually read the article?
I am not sure how you can disagree with his study as it is based off of NASA's data.
If you have a problem, then I guess you are discrediting NASA's data, and if you are doing that why did you just present NASA's data in your previous post?

yeah ... i read the article ... did you read it? ... did you read the link i sent? ...

the guy tweaked the model to produce the results he wanted ... and it was posted in a remote sensing journal ... it's been less than 2 weeks and the climate scientists are basically laughing at it ... it's a joke of a study ...

again - these guys are PAID to spread lies and myths ... why do you continue to read and believe stuff from people that have no credibility!??

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

did you just use the word spinning? ... good grief ...

here is nasa's position on global warming ... feel free to read it ...

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

i'm gonna guess you won't because you haven't bothered to read anything anyone has asked you to read including some of your "own" posts ...

or you can continue to copy and paste someone else's opinion on here like you typically do ...

??? my own posts???
Who's opinion and where do I copy it from?
All you have to say is... Look at the science...

in the previous global warming thread ... you copied some guy's post from another forum word for word and posted it without a link ... pawning it off on your own ... i called you out and you never went back to that thread ...

if you want a reminder ... http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p3742151

I was posting Link and graphs.
I am not sure how I am pawning links and graphs.
I also didn't see your post until now, as I didn't go back in the thread.

Parachute

NASA and Global Warming:

2 THINGS THAT DON'T EXIST.


(RIP Space Program...)

arthurdent

polaris_x wrote:

why do you continue to read and believe stuff from people that have no credibility!??

you can't fix stupid

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

seriously ... read the link i sent ... it has a rebuttal on this guy's so called study ...

these guys are PAID to cast doubt on global warming ... they are PAID by the oil industry to post these articles without any validity whatsoever ...

Have you actually read the article?
I am not sure how you can disagree with his study as it is based off of NASA's data.
If you have a problem, then I guess you are discrediting NASA's data, and if you are doing that why did you just present NASA's data in your previous post?

yeah ... i read the article ... did you read it? ... did you read the link i sent? ...

the guy tweaked the model to produce the results he wanted ... and it was posted in a remote sensing journal ... it's been less than 2 weeks and the climate scientists are basically laughing at it ... it's a joke of a study ...

again - these guys are PAID to spread lies and myths ... why do you continue to read and believe stuff from people that have no credibility!??

I understand they are paid, but using that argument, how you can be in favor of the IPCC models/research?
I guess the same way you do.
Just like that hockey stick graph?

arthurdent

Parachute wrote:

(RIP Space Program...)

yep. and you can blame the GOP for that one, as well.

polaris_x

Blockhead wrote:

I was posting Link and graphs.
I am not sure how I am pawning links and graphs.
I also didn't see your post until now, as I didn't go back in the thread.

dude ... you posted this ...

Has the IPCC has not determined the impact of solar activity? which is the heat source of the warming.
If so, how is it tested/compared to previoius time periods?
The AR4 does not explain why atmospheric CO2 increase lags temperature increase, when in fact, the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is based on GHG (mainly CO2) as being the catalyst of the warming.
Also the AR4 speaks in terms of "likely" and "very likely" which are not facts/scientific.

it was a copy and paste from some other guy on another forum ...

Jason P

I would not trust this guys opinion for the mere fact he uses labels such as "alarmists" to describe those how oppose his view. Using derogatory labels concedes that you are not willing to debate a topic seriously.

(kinda like using "teabagger" on AMT)

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

I was posting Link and graphs.
I am not sure how I am pawning links and graphs.
I also didn't see your post until now, as I didn't go back in the thread.

dude ... you posted this ...

Has the IPCC has not determined the impact of solar activity? which is the heat source of the warming.
If so, how is it tested/compared to previoius time periods?
The AR4 does not explain why atmospheric CO2 increase lags temperature increase, when in fact, the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is based on GHG (mainly CO2) as being the catalyst of the warming.
Also the AR4 speaks in terms of "likely" and "very likely" which are not facts/scientific.

it was a copy and paste from some other guy on another forum ...

Woah! You are correct, sorry about that. Thanks for calling me out.
I post on a lot of other sites. I didn't mran for that to happen.
Again, sorry.

polaris_x

Blockhead wrote:

Woah! You are correct, sorry about that. Thanks for calling me out.
I post on a lot of other sites. I didn't mran for that to happen.
Again, sorry.

it wouldn't have been so bad except for the fact you also said this just before ...

You are by far the wort debater on this subject (that why I hate these threads) You never answer anybodys questions, all you say is SCIENCE, and then walk away. How about address my questions concerning testing the ocean temperatures and how you can come to any conclusion? How about addres my post on data showing that Temperature drive CO2, not the other way around. Its that same science. TESTING is science. I noticed you did not answer the question concerning instrumentation, How is that not a SCIENCE question? Get your head out of your ass, take your blinders off, and actually debate and answer the questions people post on here.
Saying the word SCIENCE does not educate anybody here.

Parachute

arthurdent wrote:

Parachute wrote:

(RIP Space Program...)

yep. and you can blame the GOP for that one, as well.

Not sure how somebody gets to that conclusion, but I'm sure whoever taught you that has their methods.

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Woah! You are correct, sorry about that. Thanks for calling me out.
I post on a lot of other sites. I didn't mran for that to happen.
Again, sorry.

it wouldn't have been so bad except for the fact you also said this just before ...

You are by far the wort debater on this subject (that why I hate these threads) You never answer anybodys questions, all you say is SCIENCE, and then walk away. How about address my questions concerning testing the ocean temperatures and how you can come to any conclusion? How about addres my post on data showing that Temperature drive CO2, not the other way around. Its that same science. TESTING is science. I noticed you did not answer the question concerning instrumentation, How is that not a SCIENCE question? Get your head out of your ass, take your blinders off, and actually debate and answer the questions people post on here.
Saying the word SCIENCE does not educate anybody here.

Must have been a bad day for me...

arthurdent

Parachute wrote:

Not sure how somebody gets to that conclusion, but I'm sure whoever taught you that has their methods.

GOP is indirectly responsible for the deaths of 14 astronauts. Challenger was launched on the day it was only because of pressure from the Reagan White House to get McCauliffe up in the air. GOP congressional cuts in the '90s forced NASA to use cheaper outside contractors for labor on future missions, including Columbia.

The shuttle's inherently flawed design was only cooked up due to a deal between NASA and the Department of Defense. It was the only way Nixon would allow funding for the program.

Parachute

133-2. Pretty good record considering it's the most dangerous job in the world.

I think we get our news from different sources- let's leave it at that.

Jason P

arthurdent wrote:

Parachute wrote:

Not sure how somebody gets to that conclusion, but I'm sure whoever taught you that has their methods.

GOP is indirectly responsible for the deaths of 14 astronauts. Challenger was launched on the day it was only because of pressure from the Reagan White House to get McCauliffe up in the air. GOP congressional cuts in the '90s forced NASA to use cheaper outside contractors for labor on future missions, including Columbia.

The shuttle's inherently flawed design was only cooked up due to a deal between NASA and the Department of Defense. It was the only way Nixon would allow funding for the program.

My opinion is that the lack of planning ahead for the future is what killed the shuttle program. Anyway, I think that space probes, space scopes, and robotic landers are by far a more economical and efficient method for exploring the heavens.

FYI - The Juno spacecraft was launched this weekend and is beginning its five year journey to Jupiter. It is the first ever solar powered probe, which is kind of neat.

http://www.space.com/12553-nasa-juno-spacecraft-jupiter-rocket-launch.html

It will be interesting to see how private businesses, motivated by both the pursuit of science and profit will fill in the gaps.