New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[mindphuk]

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

I made sure to highlight the "peer reviewed" since that has been such a litmus test to all the liberal lemmings on whether or not any information is recognized in this ridiculous debate. That's right kiddies, all your computer model predictions are full of shit, just like we have been saying. You put garbage data in and lo' and behold, you get garbage data out.
As I've stated so many times before, the two words that come to mind...Spotted Owl.

Passing peer-review is just the first step. It is now up to other scientists to refute or confirm the data and conclusions the authors presented. One article does not overturn decades of science.

BTW, did you read the study? They don't say that AGW isn't occurring, only that future predictions are inaccurate, but this is what science does, re-evaluate and make corrections to the model as new data comes in.

FYI, I'm not liberal. The only people that think this is a partisan debate rather than a scientific one are the rabidly dogmatic conservatives that disavow science when it is contrary to their ideological or religious beliefs.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Yeah, I forgot to mention the impending condescension. How did I forget the #1 debate tool of the liberal mind.

And sorry pal, none of your previous studies include this data. It's brand new and it debunks EVERY one of the studies you could produce. I guess denial and condescension is all you got? I picture you with your hands over your ears, eyes closed repeating "La La La La La" so you don't have to deal with this catastrophic (to your position anyways) data. Or are you actually saying that Nasa is a Conservative coven and is trying to tear down the MMGW position? Really?

Or is it more likely that they have simply provided the data with complete impartiality, and it just happens to debunk all your climate models. And considering all your climate models are laughable to begin with, why wouldn't it show it for the garbage science it is.

You seem to think that just because YOU swallow that load of spunk, it somehow becomes incontestable. Just like every other argument you make, you THINK you are in the majority, because of the MSM, so therefore your position holds the higher ground. It doesn't.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

The only people that think this is a partisan debate rather than a scientific one are the rabidly dogmatic conservatives that disavow science when it is contrary to their ideological or religious beliefs.

Bullshit. The eco-loons are just as partisan. We aren't disavowing science, just the junk science that is being used to perpetuate this scam. For every study you bring forth to support MMGW, I can raise you ten. And the arguments against MMGW actually sound like they are based on common sense, whereas the alarmist arguments sound like the ravings of lunatics (that happen to go against decades of CO2/Temperature data). If you don't conveniently reverse data that has been published for ages, you have no argument that CO2 increases precede temperature increases. It never has and it never will.

 

[sync0s]

Wasn't there some release in the wikileaks that showed governments were doctoring some of the data that supported global warming?

 

[mindphuk]

Bullshit. The eco-loons are just as partisan. We aren't disavowing science, just the junk science that is being used to perpetuate this scam. For every study you bring forth to support MMGW, I can raise you ten. And the arguments against MMGW actually sound like they are based on common sense, whereas the alarmist arguments sound like the ravings of lunatics (that happen to go against decades of CO2/Temperature data). If you don't conveniently reverse data that has been published for ages, you have no argument that CO2 increases precede temperature increases. It never has and it never will.

Sorry no. You're the one that's full of shit. You cannot find actual scientific papers that counter the decades of climate research we have supporting the concurrent rise in co2 levels along with higher than expected temperatures based on historical data and current planetary position and solar output. Calling climate change science junk science makes it clear that you are agenda driven and not merely skeptical.
The fact that you use the argument about temperature preceding co2 increases means that you are parroting one the biggest arguments put forth by AGW deniers yet every legitimate climatologist has explained this ad nauseum. It is as disingenuous of an argument as it is when Kent Hovind claims that the Cambrian "explosion" proves that life didn't evolve but complexity came into existence suddenly. It's all based on being too simplistic, not understand the data in detail and misrepresenting what it says.

The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis [this really should say "theory" -- eric], which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.

But do not make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2 concentration. I know it is intellectually satisfying to identify a single cause for some observed phenomenon, but that unfortunately is not the way Nature works much of the time.

Nor is there any requirement that a single cause operate throughout the entire 5000 – year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends.

Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.

Think of heart disease – one might be tempted to argue that a given heart patient’s condition was caused solely by the fact that he ate french fries for lunch every day for 30 years. But in fact his 10-year period of no exercise because of a desk job, in the middle of this interval, may have been a decisive influence. Just because a sedentary lifestyle did not cause the beginning of the plaque buildup, nor the end of the buildup, would you rule out a contributing causal role for sedentary lifestyle?

There is a rich literature on this topic. If you are truly interested, I urge you to read up.

The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.

So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations. This hypothesis was proposed by James Croll in the 19th century, mathematically refined by Milankovitch in the 1940s, and continues to pass numerous critical tests even today.

The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.

The response time of methane and nitrous oxide to climate variations is measured in decades. So these feedbacks operate much faster.

The quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2′s warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC’s projections of future warming of 3±1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. So there is no inconsistency between Milankovitch and current global warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/​

 

[mindphuk]

Bullshit. The eco-loons are just as partisan. We aren't disavowing science, just the junk science that is being used to perpetuate this scam. For every study you bring forth to support MMGW, I can raise you ten. And the arguments against MMGW actually sound like they are based on common sense, whereas the alarmist arguments sound like the ravings of lunatics (that happen to go against decades of CO2/Temperature data). If you don't conveniently reverse data that has been published for ages, you have no argument that CO2 increases precede temperature increases. It never has and it never will.

BTW, I will grant you that there are quite a few eco-loons out there and they certainly are partisan and many of them don't understand the science either. However, I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the majority of actual climate scientists that actually know and understand the issue and the 'controversy'

 

[Sinsay]

I was just wonder`in if your mother ever had any children that lived passed birth ?

if we`d hung rush limbaugh from the highest tree & greened up to the Max
then today found out we was wrong The world would have been a cleaner prettyer place today & Id be sorry yall had to listen to me throw a fit about nuthing
but if your wrong your children dont have a planet to live or a space program to leave it

 

[redivider]

Yeah, I forgot to mention the impending condescension. How did I forget the #1 debate tool of the liberal mind.

And sorry pal, none of your previous studies include this data. It's brand new and it debunks EVERY one of the studies you could produce. I guess denial and condescension is all you got? I picture you with your hands over your ears, eyes closed repeating "La La La La La" so you don't have to deal with this catastrophic (to your position anyways) data. Or are you actually saying that Nasa is a Conservative coven and is trying to tear down the MMGW position? Really?

Or is it more likely that they have simply provided the data with complete impartiality, and it just happens to debunk all your climate models. And considering all your climate models are laughable to begin with, why wouldn't it show it for the garbage science it is.

You seem to think that just because YOU swallow that load of spunk, it somehow becomes incontestable. Just like every other argument you make, you THINK you are in the majority, because of the MSM, so therefore your position holds the higher ground. It doesn't.

i studied statistics

i UNDERSTAND how you can manipulate data sets... i also know how you can achieve desirable results by using arbitrary values here and there....

no bs.

tobacco companies for years found cigarettes NOT to increase the chances of early death in frequent smokers. and it was all based on 'peer-reviewed' studies.... lol....

 

[Dislexicmidget2021]

Al Gore will have a thing or two to say about all this!whoooooosh hes off to fight global warming with his red cape and lack of super powers.

 

[undertheice]

The only people that think this is a partisan debate rather than a scientific one are the rabidly dogmatic conservatives that disavow science when it is contrary to their ideological or religious beliefs.

anyone with more than two braincells to rub together can see the massive political impact of the agw scam. it has been used as the impetus for wealth redistribution schemes on a global scale and to hinder the progress of industrialized nations. it has been used to further the cause of centralized governance and the concept of "the new world order". it is another tool in the arsenal of fear-mongering and hysteria, used to convince a gullible population that their elite governing powers have some right to abuse the general populace for the good of society and the planet.

science is a wonderful tool, but our experts and specialists are just as prone to manipulation as anyone else. just as the religious philosophies of man have been used for power and control, so has the near religious mania of our blind belief in scientific findings been used to promote various agendas. time and again we have witnessed the climate change community, people with a vested interest in having these theories declared fact, ignore any findings that may show man's impact on this earth is not so disastrous as they would have us believe. governments flood these climate change promoters with funding, specifically to provide fodder for the ongoing indoctrination of the masses that man is inherently destructive and needs the guiding hand of the state to minimize the damage he does. the fallback position, when faced with any setback, is that man is not a part of nature and that his impact must always be negative.

 

[fdd2blk]

you guys are hilarious.

 

[UncleBuck]

anyone with more than two braincells to rub together can see the massive political impact of the agw scam. it has been used as the impetus for wealth redistribution schemes on a global scale and to hinder the progress of industrialized nations. it has been used to further the cause of centralized governance and the concept of "the new world order". it is another tool in the arsenal of fear-mongering and hysteria, used to convince a gullible population that their elite governing powers have some right to abuse the general populace for the good of society and the planet.

science is a wonderful tool, but our experts and specialists are just as prone to manipulation as anyone else. just as the religious philosophies of man have been used for power and control, so has the near religious mania of our blind belief in scientific findings been used to promote various agendas. time and again we have witnessed the climate change community, people with a vested interest in having these theories declared fact, ignore any findings that may show man's impact on this earth is not so disastrous as they would have us believe. governments flood these climate change promoters with funding, specifically to provide fodder for the ongoing indoctrination of the masses that man is inherently destructive and needs the guiding hand of the state to minimize the damage he does. the fallback position, when faced with any setback, is that man is not a part of nature and that his impact must always be negative.

^^^says nothing about science, claims vast conspiracy theory instead

 

[undertheice]

says nothing about science, claims vast conspiracy theory instead

no conspiracy theory, merely the natural tendency of governments to use whatever is at their disposal to increase their power over their constituents and of men to do what is in their own best interests. to turn a blind eye to that tendency seems to be a favorite pastime of statists the world 'round. declaring that anyone who understands that tendency is some sort of conspiracy nut is also common among the sheep. it's about having a basic comprehension of what spurs men on. modern liberalism is dependent on the lack of that simple understanding.

 

[undertheice]

Al Gore will have a thing or two to say about all this!whoooooosh hes off to fight global warming with his red cape and lack of super powers.

he does have an incredible super power, the power of astounding dullness.

 

[UncleBuck]

no conspiracy theory, merely the natural tendency of governments to use whatever is at their disposal to increase their power over their constituents and of men to do what is in their own best interests. to turn a blind eye to that tendency seems to be a favorite pastime of statists the world 'round. declaring that anyone who understands that tendency is some sort of conspiracy nut is also common among the sheep. it's about having a basic comprehension of what spurs men on. modern liberalism is dependent on the lack of that simple understanding.

no conspiracy, just thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries producing tens of thousands of studies over many decades in an elaborate and nefarious scheme that has only recently been debunked without scientific refutation in the least by a long-winded old man.

 

[UncleBuck]

he does have an incredible super power, the power of astounding dullness.

 

[NoDrama]

The climate is changing, no doubt, no argument. Has jack to do with man though. No matter how hard scientists work they cannot come up with a way to reverse it, because it cannot be reversed, mother nature cannot be controlled.

 

[londonfog]

well if man can make changes to weather by cloud seeding...what else can he do incidental by pollution, tree cutting, etc...

 

[MuyLocoNC]

no conspiracy, just thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries producing tens of thousands of studies over many decades in an elaborate and nefarious scheme that has only recently been debunked without scientific refutation in the least by a long-winded old man.

And at the same time, TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientist in hundreds of countries producing even more studies debunking the alarmist scientists' studies over the same number of decades. And now, with new and incontrovertible data being produced, all your studies have been proven BOGUS. If the models were fed junk parameters, then the findings are JUNK. Deal with it, this is the last death rattle of the Eco-Loons latest religion.

 

[undertheice]

And at the same time, TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientist in hundreds of countries producing even more studies debunking the alarmist scientists' studies over the same number of decades.

but those are people who can just be ignored. folks like buck only believe the official truth handed down from their buddies in gubermint and similar organizations. bamm bamm and his horse-faced harridan of a wife say it's so, so it must be a fact. the liberal establishment declares that we the people are the problem, so it must be a fact. all those oh so compassionate and unbiased (i had a hard time choking down the laughter there) folks in institutions dedicated to the study of agw agree, so it must be fact. despite the vast tracts of unspoiled wilderness that we so often go to great pains to protect, the future of all life on earth is under threat from the one great unnatural evil in the world, man.