New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: I really could care less whether or not you care for the tone of my posts. I do back up my posts with documented facts, and also check the background on any articles that I use, rather than just reposting articles that I have not even read. That some here find my viewpoints objectionable, too bad. At least I can back up posts, unlike most here.

Sorry to go off topic, but you brought up how you back your posts with documented facts...

Something the Dog Said wrote: So the CBO just released the economic analysis of the Boehner plan, and it reduces the deficit at best by $1 billion per year. So much for the $1 trillion cut in spending.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... t-year.php

And after you posted it, it was pointed out you were wrong about the "$1 billion per year". No problem, we all make mistakes. But then you posted it again.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So while the Republican plan would reduce the deficit by less than $1 billion per year, the Democrats plan would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. Looks like the Democrats are the only party serious about reducing the deficit.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18558502

And you still never corrected yourself.

http://285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12881

I stand behind my earlier posts (since you introduced it into this thread):

" And its impact on the deficit is even less -- a paltry $1 billion."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... t-year.php

So as PITG and I have both pointed out now, you are flat out lying with your posts, and we have proved it and you still repeat it and 'stand by it'. You are delusional at best. It explains most of your posts.

I don't see how these comments are helpful in this discussion. I also find it amazing that you guys understand everything you read in these scientific studies. I certainly don't have the knowledge to understand all of it.

For that reason, I have to rely on scientists to explain the results to me. It makes it very difficult to know whose interpretation of the data is correct.

2wlady wrote: I don't see how these comments are helpful in this discussion. I also find it amazing that you guys understand everything you read in these scientific studies. I certainly don't have the knowledge to understand all of it.

For that reason, I have to rely on scientists to explain the results to me. It makes it very difficult to know whose interpretation of the data is correct.

There is no such thing as a correct interpretation, only good or bad interpretations and everything in between. Interpretations are an analysis of an incomplete data set. If yo had all the data, then you would know and there would be no need to make an interpretation or educated guess. So it comes down to figuring out whose interpretation is good or better than another. Don't feel bad. Even the experts disagree on the quality of an interpretation. This is why the debates thrive.

You'll never convince the Flat Earth Society... Until the ocean is lapping at their porch...

Data points! If global warming isn't here, why was August so freaking hot with so many records in Colorado falling?

I still don't know if it is man-made or not or curable but it sure looks like it is getting hotter at least locally, even at 10,000 feet.

I can hardly wait until the first snowfall when all of the Flat Earthers say, "See!! It's snowing! Where's your 'Global Warming' now?!"

As predictable as the changing of the seasons...

LadyJazzer wrote: I can hardly wait until the first snowfall when all of the Flat Earthers say, "See!! It's snowing! Where's your 'Global Warming' now?!"

As predictable as the changing of the seasons...

I know what you mean....it's funny to hear it's HOT in the middle of summer from the Salem Climate Witch Hunters. Funny how many of the records that were broken this year ....were before the Industrial Age. I guess those dinosaur farts finally caught up to us.

Kate wrote: From what I read, it looks like this just says that we cannot accurately measure or predict the amount of energy being released from the atmosphere. It doesn't disprove global warming or blow a gaping hole in the theory, it just reports that more energy is being released into space than previously thought.

According to basics even taught in high school the way science works, we follow the scientific method. When one aspect of a hypothesis is wrong it is either modified to include the new data comfortably or thrown out. Look at the IPCC reports on AGW and you will see that these kinds of studies are either downplayed or not mentioned at all. So yes, if the data does not agree with their models, the models are wrong and by extension so is the theory upon which they are based. It really is quite simple. What the AGW crowd does instead is try to invalidate data or the methodology, rather than looking to modify their hypothesis. Let's face it. The physics of their model is wrong.

An excerpt from another study I posted about previously here: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=13732&start=20 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=13732&start=20<!-- l -->

“In the past two decades or so, this discussion has focused on the role of water vapor as a positive feedback for the radiative forcing supposedly caused by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. A key assumption in this argument is that the relative humidity in the atmosphere will remain constant as the atmosphere heats or cools [1, 2]. In the case of atmospheric heating, this means that the specific humidity (g water vapor/kg air) or mixing ratio (g water vapor/kg dry air) will increase as the surface/atmosphere warms. This is based on the Clausius- Clapeyron equation which defines the increase in water evaporation as surface temperature increases. This is one of the algorithms that is included in all Global Climate Models (GCM) currently in use.

Unfortunately the actual observational data contradict this core rational of AGW. While specific humidity levels in the lower troposphere do increase with increasing surface temperature, the specific humidity levels in the mid to upper troposphere have shown a decreasing trend over the past few decades even though surface temperatures (and tropospheric temperatures) are thought to be increasing”

William C. Gilbert June 12, 2011. The Thermodynamic Relationship Between Surface Temperature And Water Vapor Concentration, The Troposphere Atmospheric Physics, Basic Science

It is one of many new studies coming out that challenge AGW theory and each on it's own merit suffices to scuttle AGW as it stands now.