New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

[luckytxn 2,264]

In line with the paper, it doesn't address actual CO2 levels or the actual gradual heat sink effect- although it will be trumpeted incorrectly that its exactly what is being addressed. The measurements only provide for an apparently unknown or under appreciated physical mechanism for heat dissipation to outer space.

Actually the report was all about how much was being trapped and how much was escaping. The alarmist computer projections showed a certain amount escaping and the reality was way more than the projections said should happen.

[luckytxn 2,264]

This is what we need to see what happens.

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.

[Zero Sum 305]

Actually the report was all about how much was being trapped and how much was escaping. The alarmist computer projections showed a certain amount escaping and the reality was way more than the projections said should happen.

The 'alarmist' (no bias in its interpretation, indeed, huh?) models show variation. Look at the figures again.

[Zero Sum 305]

This is what we need to see what happens.

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.

The real world facts are themselves modeled, if you caught the mathematical expression used to graph those median measurements...

I think you are overblowing the bias against the variable data obtained by (unsurprisingly), different models that test the effects of different ratios. Therefore, you can't conclude that which you are concluding... and the authors state so very clearly themselves.

The current modeling data is established on the data ranges fed to them; not on the integrity of the scientists entering the data.

[luckytxn 2,264]

(A smoking gun, totally). A Real Blow indeed.

Seems like a safe and rational simplification of the central problem reviewed.

The time varying radiance is diurnal. Problem is acknowledged.

In itself another modeling method.

What follows is actual observational data. Take heed of figure 3a. If anything it shows something really important about the lag of time for that heat dissipation to outer space that if anything, may be strengthening the case of most climate scientists in what they claim is evidence for a very real effect that has pronounced itself over the last decade.

Nevertheless, they clearly state (again, a real hard blow again):

One possible mechanism they bring up:

So indeed... a real downer for all those tax-funded scientists such as the very ones you think are disproving GW with tax-funding they're not supposed to be receiving since its a well known conspiracy that the GW scientists are a mafia that prevent any dissenting science from taking place on Government dime.

Actually like a true pseudo scientist you are cherry picking non relevant data and hoping no one reads the rest or wants to do their own tests for proof. One can't get past that the projections on the models said that there was a certain amount of heat that was going to be trapped and freaking everyone out to do something now and right away. The reality and actuall scientific data showed that the projections were way off. Not that long ago many and some in here were touting NASA's computer models saying how we have to truct them because it was NASA. Well NASA I will pat on the back because they used the tools that we paid for and did the actual measurements. Their computer models were wrong. many said that we can't rely on computer models as they were only as good as the info entered and not only that there are many other things that can happen or even info we do not understand that has to be entered to make it more reliable.

No Hansen made a play to get more funding so fed the computer models the info to get his desired result so he can get more funding and prestige for him. If I remember he even wouldn't allow outside scientists to see or have his computer models raw data as he said this was propriety software that NASA came up with. He was very secretive and non forthcoming. Unfortunately the agency that he was beholden to has the means to test the models and they were found to be wrong.

Where is Hansen now?

[luckytxn 2,264]

The real world facts are themselves modeled, if you caught the mathematical expression used to graph those median measurements...

I think you are overblowing the bias against the variable data obtained by (unsurprisingly), different models that test the effects of different ratios. Therefore, you can't conclude that which you are concluding... and the authors state so very clearly themselves.

The current modeling data is established on the data ranges fed to them; not on the integrity of the scientists entering the data.

The integrity of the scientists can be questioned when it is they are feeding the data to make the models work. There is no explaining away that the models said one thing and the real testing showed different. When this much fraud happens then the integrity of sciences are questioned. It was only a matter of time that the house of cards would fall.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Still waiting....

As we are now.

Get the click on the link to work yet?

[Zero Sum 305]

Actually like a true pseudo scientist you are cherry picking non relevant data and hoping no one reads the rest or wants to do their own tests for proof. One can't get past that the projections on the models said that there was a certain amount of heat that was going to be trapped and freaking everyone out to do something now and right away. The reality and actuall scientific data showed that the projections were way off. Not that long ago many and some in here were touting NASA's computer models saying how we have to truct them because it was NASA. Well NASA I will pat on the back because they used the tools that we paid for and did the actual measurements. Their computer models were wrong. many said that we can't rely on computer models as they were only as good as the info entered and not only that there are many other things that can happen or even info we do not understand that has to be entered to make it more reliable.

No Hansen made a play to get more funding so fed the computer models the info to get his desired result so he can get more funding and prestige for him. If I remember he even wouldn't allow outside scientists to see or have his computer models raw data as he said this was propriety software that NASA came up with. He was very secretive and non forthcoming. Unfortunately the agency that he was beholden to has the means to test the models and they were found to be wrong.

Where is Hansen now?

I am a trained chemist. You might want to read the actual paper. The things you say I cherry pick are the major points of the paper... they say so themselves.

Its only an 11 page paper... really not all that much data to go over, and you can claim all you want the other models are wrong, and that the preliminary model presented here is right, and you still may not fully comprehend what it is they are trying to say in their short report.

Look at the data itself. Far off, in science terms, means that the trendlines would be pretty much on opposing orders of magnitude- if you see them again they do not do any of the sort. Just trying to help out. So yes, I am pleading with you to actually read the entire paper as I did.

[Zero Sum 305]

The integrity of the scientists can be questioned when it is they are feeding the data to make the models work. There is no explaining away that the models said one thing and the real testing showed different. When this much fraud happens then the integrity of sciences are questioned. It was only a matter of time that the house of cards would fall.

Notice who is doing the questioning. In science, and again, I tell you this as someone actually trained as one- scientific conduct is quite clearly vetted and dealt with when not up to ethical standards. There simply is no humanly possible way to trick literally thousands of scientists into following a falsely-held notion of scientific findings for too long. The data is one aspect and the easiest to attack given the methodologies employed (computer programs based on mathematical algorithms). What the attackers of Global Warming consistently flub and ignore in its near totality is the scientific principles that create the bases for these computer models to begin with. This is where they fail in realizing that even scientists such as Hansen, et al, are simply not even close to disproving the man-made aspect of climate change. If anything, they may be on to reporting on a potentially unobserved natural mechanism that allows the planet to dissipate more of the heat to outer space as the growing temperature means continue to increase.

Hardly a case to jump in your seat (as much as you may want to) that its a death blow to GW. Its like Dewey celebrating a victory over Truman.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I am a trained chemist.

Do they make you fetch, rollover, and play dead?

[luckytxn 2,264]

I am a trained chemist. You might want to read the actual paper. The things you say I cherry pick are the major points of the paper... they say so themselves.

Its only an 11 page paper... really not all that much data to go over, and you can claim all you want the other models are wrong, and that the preliminary model presented here is right, and you still may not fully comprehend what it is they are trying to say in their short report.

Look at the data itself. Far off, in science terms, means that the trendlines would be pretty much on opposing orders of magnitude- if you see them again they do not do any of the sort. Just trying to help out. So yes, I am pleading with you to actually read the entire paper as I did.

So you say that the conclusions are wrong and NASA's observations and data were wrong?

What discipline of Chemistry?

Do they make you fetch, rollover, and play dead?

LOL. Too funny.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Notice who is doing the questioning. In science, and again, I tell you this as someone actually trained as one- scientific conduct is quite clearly vetted and dealt with when not up to ethical standards. There simply is no humanly possible way to trick literally thousands of scientists into following a falsely-held notion of scientific findings for too long. The data is one aspect and the easiest to attack given the methodologies employed (computer programs based on mathematical algorithms). What the attackers of Global Warming consistently flub and ignore in its near totality is the scientific principles that create the bases for these computer models to begin with. This is where they fail in realizing that even scientists such as Hansen, et al, are simply not even close to disproving the man-made aspect of climate change. If anything, they may be on to reporting on a potentially unobserved natural mechanism that allows the planet to dissipate more of the heat to outer space as the growing temperature means continue to increase.

Hardly a case to jump in your seat (as much as you may want to) that its a death blow to GW. Its like Dewey celebrating a victory over Truman.

They haven't tricked most scientists. Majority of scientists have come out against GW as it stands now. It is still a theory to them but one that is worth looking at and that makes it a theory at the best.

[Zero Sum 305]

Do they make you fetch, rollover, and play dead?

Sometimes it felt like that.

+1

So you say that the conclusions are wrong and NASA's observations and data were wrong?

What discipline of Chemistry?

LOL. Too funny.

Biochem/Orgo.

I do not believe their conclusions are necessarily wrong. They don't even really conflict with GW data. You have to be mindful of who to believe when reading bunk politicos trying to pull a fast one on their readership.

[Zero Sum 305]

They haven't tricked most scientists. Majority of scientists have come out against GW as it stands now. It is still a theory to them but one that is worth looking at and that makes it a theory at the best.

You must mean that list/petition of thousands of scientists that that guy in Oregon put out? Yeah, that petition, unethically put out in the format of a well-known journal, was shown to actually be quite bogus.

Otherwise, I am hard pressed to find a reputable publication that states in black and white, that the majority of climate scientists have 'come out' against GW as it stands in any form.

As for looking into it... what do you think it is that they are doing by experimenting, modeling, and interpreting?

[Zero Sum 305]

Sadly, I can't be stuck at work again into the wee hours of the night. Until next time.