Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nasa caught faking numbers for Global warming again!


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#46 tight lines

tight lines

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 585 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:19 PM

What Im curious about is the reasoning behind not adding this same .3mm per year to last centuries numbers? Is the ice that is melting this century (enough to add 7 inches to real sea levels) heavier than the ice that melted last century (enough to real raise sea levels by 7 inches)

#47 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,615 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:23 PM

What Im curious about is the reasoning behind not adding this same .3mm per year to last centuries numbers? Is the ice that is melting this century (enough to add 7 inches to real sea levels) heavier than the ice that melted last century (enough to real raise sea levels by 7 inches)


But... but... but... they're just "maintaining a standard..." :rolleyes:

#48 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:11 PM

I didn't have really high expectations when I opened this thread. But...

A link to a biggubmen blog? FFS

"NASA faking numbers".. yet it doesn't actually cite any NASA sources.

http://sealevel.colo...signals-removed

http://sealevel.colo...ignals-retained

I would spend more time picking this apart but just look at what this dude is crying about. People will just read certain parts like "HOAX", "CULT", "AL GORE" and not a single fug will be given when it comes to reading actual research and explanations. Oh well man.

#49 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,490 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:28 PM

The Colorado research team is NASA funded. Good job linking graphical representation of fudged numbers.

There is no definitive proof that global warming is caused by, or even sped up by human influence. There is evidence that every major extinction level event on this planet in history has coincided with a massive heating and subsequent cooling of the earth. Someone should have told those dinosaurs to quit driving around in their SUV's so much.

#50 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:43 PM

or perhaps the 90% of climatologists that believe in global warming are doing their jobs while the 10% that don't are the ones that are bought and paid for?


Wow, you are a sheep!

How dare you criticize my conforming non-conforming beliefs!

#51 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:52 PM

what exactly does being funded by NASA mean?

#52 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:53 PM

Is that like being funded by the oil industry and the koch family?

#53 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,490 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:53 PM

That they are an independent research contractor for NASA.

#54 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,490 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:57 PM

We do not fully understand all elements of climate change, particularly the forces from space. (more likely they understand them fine, they just don't want us to know). There are many elements to the climate that most people don't even understand, and it's jut because of a lack of basic problem solving ability or meteorological knowledge, or a combination of both. For instance the cloud effect.

The earth has a thermostat--it's called cloud cover. Dense cloud cover has a very high albedo (reflective) effect. Put your thinking cap on, now. Cloud cover is the result of what? Go ahead, shout it out! You can do it, Tiger! Evaporation. What causes evaporation to occur and what hastens evaporation? Heat and higher heat, respectively.

A slightly different, but worthwhile, perspective because it does relate to the bigger pic. Why does rain fall, from moisture-laden clouds, mostly on the leeward side of a mountain? Again, shout it out! You go, Tiger. The orthographic lift from the moist air passing over the mountain pushes the moist air high enough, where it is cooler, that the moisture in the clouds condenses and falls out as rain.

Phoenix is a heat sink. Plenty of high-density, heat-retentive infrastructure. As Phoenix gets bigger, the thermal produced by that tends to push storms that would usually inundate Phoenix, to the outskirts of the city. Although those storms often sidetrack Phoenix, when they take their usual path and cross the Arizona Divide, those in the mountains, again because of orthographic effect, tend to receive far heavier rain than what occurred in Phoenix.

Ask yourself why it's almost always greener on the leeward side of a mountain, give it some thought, and you will likely understand the pathology necessary to understand why you're being played.

If you were capable of analytical thinking, it would occur to you that, in the end, higher overall earth temps probably actually end up in more rain falling and a greener planet from the additional rain and CO2. I.E. the earth will correct itself without a bunch of commie propagandists setting themselves up for solvers of problems over which they really have no control in the first place.

#55 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:34 PM

Hopefully you're right about clouds miraculously reversing the effects of global warming. The rest of us though would actually like some hard evidence though.

Damn commie bastards and their field work data amirite?

#56 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,490 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:39 PM

Hopefully you're right about clouds miraculously reversing the effects of global warming. The rest of us though would actually like some hard evidence though.

Damn commie bastards and their field work data amirite?


I don't expect clouds to reverse the effect of global warming. My point was that global warming is cyclical. It's happened time and time again throughout this earths history, for many reasons known and unknown. I am one of those that buys into it being tied into the sun and solar radiation cycles, not human induced propaganda material.

#57 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:42 PM

well we've already had that discussion here before with one of the other resident contrarians

there's a whole lot more BS on that side of the debate if you've been paying attention :thumbsup:

#58 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,490 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:46 PM

I'm glad he's so confident in his work....ohh wait he's not.

For the problem of long-term climate change,
what we really want to determine is the cloud
feedback in response to long-term climate change.
Unfortunately, it may be decades before a direct
measurement is possible. In the meantime, observing shorter-term climate variations and comparing
those observations to climate models may be the
best we can do. This is what I have done in this
paper. My analysis suggests that the short-term
cloud feedback is likely positive and that climate
models as a group are doing a reasonable job of
simulating this feedback, providing some indication that models successfully simulate the
response of clouds to climate variations. However,
owing to the apparent time-scale dependence of
the cloud feedback and the uncertainty in the observed short-term cloud feedback, we cannot use
this analysis to reduce the present range of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.0 to 4.5 K.



#59 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,490 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:48 PM

He basically said that his data was inconclusive to change common scientific theory one way or another. However at the beginning of the article he acknowledges that cloud feedback is one of the largest and least understood factors in climate change.

#60 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,490 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:52 PM

Short-term climate variation is the very definition of small sample size.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.