Can Obama read?

[layoutshooter]

King Putz the 1st, most Dumb-O-Crats and several ReBumLiCans has been preaching "global warming" for years. They followed the lead of a bum by the name of ALGORE.

It seems that there just MAY be a bit of a problem with the idea of "global warming". At least NASA seems to think so.

I would love to see how this NASA information goes along with "G" time and long term planetary temps.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole 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.

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.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.


New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

 

[Turtle]

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

It won't, tho. Human-induced climate change and global warming is like a religion to most, and whatever data which contradicts the religion is wrong, and should be dismissed as irrelevant, regardless of how irrefutable the data might be. Like the article stated, the satellite data contradicts multiple assumptions fed into the computer models. It should be noted that these computer models can be, and are being fed mostly assumptions, and if the models don't agree with the OMG! Agenda, then different data gets fed into the models to generate results which fit the desired outcome.

 

[layoutshooter]

It won't, tho. Human-induced climate change and global warming is like a religion to most, and whatever data which contradicts the religion is wrong, and should be dismissed as irrelevant, regardless of how irrefutable the data might be. Like the article stated, the satellite data contradicts multiple assumptions fed into the computer models. It should be noted that these computer models can be, and are being fed mostly assumptions, and if the models don't agree with the OMG! Agenda, then different data gets fed into the models to generate results which fit the desired outcome.

Correct and they are using this faked data to destroy our economy. The REAL plan of the "environmentalists" like ALGORE, Obama, the UN and down the line.

 

[clcooper]

It won't, tho. Human-induced climate change and global warming is like a religion to most, and whatever data which contradicts the religion is wrong, and should be dismissed as irrelevant, regardless of how irrefutable the data might be. Like the article stated, the satellite data contradicts multiple assumptions fed into the computer models. It should be noted that these computer models can be, and are being fed mostly assumptions, and if the models don't agree with the OMG! Agenda, then different data gets fed into the models to generate results which fit the desired outcome.

what does this mean ???

and if the models don't agree with the OMG! Agenda, then different data gets fed into the models to generate results which fit the desired outcome

does it mean that they will do stuff so it will fit their desired outcome they what . so will we be getting told the truth ??? or will we get told what they want us to be told

 

[greg334]

It's NASA's revenge for not funding other space programs.

 

[Turtle]

what does this mean ???

"and if the models don't agree with the OMG! Agenda, then different data gets fed into the models to generate results which fit the desired outcome"

does it mean that they will do stuff so it will fit their desired outcome they what . so will we be getting told the truth ??? or will we get told what they want us to be told

Yes. No. Yes.

 

[clcooper]

Yes. No. Yes.

so maybe the FEMA camp may be true

 

[Turtle]

so maybe the FEMA camp may be true

Soooooo, as in therefor... ergo... thus?!? Just because one person lies doesn't mean all people lie. Using your logic, because the Global Warming nutobs lie about the causes of Global Warming, sooooo that means therefore ergo thus you are lying about the possibility of the existence of FEMA camps. Just because the government says they don't exists is not evidence that they do. In fact, all of the allegations of the infamous FEMA camps has been factually refuted, debunked and exposed as pure fantasy borne of delusional paranoia.

Two people in the government couldn't keep a white stain on a blue dress a secret, yet you think thousands of people are able to keep FEMA death camps an enigma. Shyeah, right.

The Global Warming alarmists by and large have jobs which depend on continued funding to research Global Warming, and the more people they can scare into believing it will be a human-caused catastrophe, the more money they get. They have a significant self-interesting in the junk science they may or may nor actually believe.

 

[Dakota]

We had global warming here in Fort Wayne last week, it was 102
We also beat the record for over 90 degree days in July

 

[purgoose10]

O'bama, Al Gore and the rest of them need Global Warming as an excuse for fried brain or another words mush.





my sister site

www.trucking4green.com

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Soooooo, as in therefor... ergo... thus?!? Just because one person lies doesn't mean all people lie. Using your logic, because the Global Warming nutobs lie about the causes of Global Warming, sooooo that means therefore ergo thus you are lying about the possibility of the existence of FEMA camps. Just because the government says they don't exists is not evidence that they do. In fact, all of the allegations of the infamous FEMA camps has been factually refuted, debunked and exposed as pure fantasy borne of delusional paranoia.

Two people in the government couldn't keep a white stain on a blue dress a secret, yet you think thousands of people are able to keep FEMA death camps an enigma. Shyeah, right.

The Global Warming alarmists by and large have jobs which depend on continued funding to research Global Warming, and the more people they can scare into believing it will be a human-caused catastrophe, the more money they get. They have a significant self-interesting in the junk science they may or may nor actually believe.

Oh like carriers that perpetuate the lie that ALL NLM is cheap...

because it serves the purpose

 

[copdsux]

Does this add anything to the debate?

The deal is this - by definition it was a projected surplus. What it meant was "IF the current policies stay in place, and the economy stays basically the same, this will be the surplus in 10 years."

But what happened was Bush took office, tanked the economy, changed every working policy, and now contributes to the total flip-flop form a huge billions of dollars surplus to a billons of dollars projected DEFICIT.

That's your spin.

Don't try to argue that it was not projected becuase it was. But the projection was, if the same administrative policies are kept in place, we'll have this much extra money in x years. Bush came in and undid all of that, and created a policy where we will LOSE this much extra money in x years.

Now go get em!

 

[LDB]

Bush was/is a fiscal moderately liberal and he did do a mediocre job earning a C-. Obama on the other hand is the ultimate ultra liberal earning an F only because there is no grade lower than failure. This is virtually all on Obama with some on the PRO's controlling the final two years of Bush and a little bit on him. Obama's handlers knew the several trillion dollars being thrown away would do nothing, even if our Clueless in Chief had no idea. This is another area where that 80/20 rule applies fairly well. At least 80% on Obama and the bulk of the 20% on the PRO's and Bush.

 

[Turtle]

Does this add anything to the debate?

Considering this thread is about Global Warming and the data that supports or refutes it, no, it doesn't.

 

[Turtle]

Bush was/is a fiscal moderately liberal and he did do a mediocre job earning a C-. Obama on the other hand is the ultimate ultra liberal earning an F only because there is no grade lower than failure. This is virtually all on Obama with some on the PRO's controlling the final two years of Bush and a little bit on him. Obama's handlers knew the several trillion dollars being thrown away would do nothing, even if our Clueless in Chief had no idea. This is another area where that 80/20 rule applies fairly well. At least 80% on Obama and the bulk of the 20% on the PRO's and Bush.

I think the 80/20 rule applies to a couple of responses in this thread, too.