New NASA Study Shows CO2 causes Cooling

jem · Jun 12, 2013

more mis direction and deflection from the left.
how about a simple link to some science showing man made co2 causes warming....

note..

even if we are really living in a hologram as some physicists are now speculating...

within the life we know we have to be able to separate out fact from opinion.

consistent cause and effect results - can be close enough to objective reality for me.

observation with the correct filters can also sometimes get you close enough to reality.

One of the reason the leftist bullshit does so poorly among traders is that successful trading typically forces someone to become good at separating out bullshit from signal.

we become quite good and understanding what may be a real pattern caused by market participants and just random b.s.

we learn that most of the stuff said by gurus and commentators and wall street bankers is baloney.

good traders need discipline and great filters.

leftists need misdirection, deflection, lies, bullshit and power.

Quote from Ricter:

Perhaps you think science has some objective reality, like a god, but it doesn't. Science is what scientists do. And scientists, therefore science, are saying that Man is warming the planet.

I'd bet that if the scientific consensus was the opposite (ignoring the melting ice), you'd be in full agreement. Why? Because of your monomania re taxes.

pspr · Jun 12, 2013

Quote from Ricter:

Perhaps you think science has some objective reality, like a god, but it doesn't. Science is what scientists do.

Science is the discovery of the truth. Nothing less.

That makes people like you un-scientific morons. You fucking asshole.

futurecurrents · Jun 12, 2013

I wonder what jerm would consider scientific proof that CO2 is causing global warming. Because there is plenty of it, but he ignores it.

So what would constitute proof for you jerm? Give me a for instance.

pspr · Jun 12, 2013

Quote from futurecurrents:

I wonder what jerm would consider scientific proof that CO2 is causing global warming. Because there is plenty of it, but he ignores it.

So what would constitute proof for you jerm? Give me a for instance.

There is no science that shows CO2 is a net greenhouse gas. But, even if it had that quality at 4 parts per 10,000 which would take a miracle, it would be overwhelmed by the effects of water vapor on the climate.

Hence:

<b><font size=4 color=red>âThe influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.â</b>
~ Richard Lindzen, MIT Atmospheric Physicist</font>

futurecurrents · Jun 12, 2013

Quote from pspr:

There is no science that shows CO2 is a net greenhouse gas.

You could not be more wrong.

And you are a fucking lying, stupid, ideologically deranged piece of shit.

pspr · Jun 12, 2013

Quote from futurecurrents:

You could not be more wrong.

And you are a fucking lying, stupid, ideologically deranged piece of shit.

LOL. You saying its wrong doesn't make it so, idiot.

You are just a foul mouthed loser who knows nothing about science.

Go install a window air conditioner or something. That's all a moron like you can do with your life.

So, fuck off you ignorant asshole.

jem · Jun 12, 2013

If I were trying to show that CO2 had insulating or thermostatic properties in the atmosphere and I wanted to back that up with a study, some data and a summary from a scientist.

I might link to a study such as ... see my quote below from the front page of this thread...
a study in which we confirm or learn that CO2 can an does bounce a lot of energy back into space... blocking it from warming up the earth. This study shows that it can block up to 95% of the energy in certain circumstances.

Therefore in a similar manner I might show man made CO2 working to insulate the warmth in.

Then I would add up the work co2 does shielding us from heat... subtract out the work co2 deflecting the warmth back down and come up with a net number for whether adding more man made co2 causes more warming.

I am not saying its possible to get that number... but if I were a scientist that is what I would be doing.

The problem for you agw nutters is that anyone who goes through that exercise comes to the working conclusion that man made co2's contribution to potential warming must be insignificant.... partly because water vapor is the greenhouse gas which does the vast majority of the warming. (recent science shows.)

Quote from jem:

Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,â explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABERâs principal investigator. âWhen the upper atmosphere (or âthermosphereâ) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.â
Thatâs what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earthâs magnetic field. (On the âRichter Scale of Solar Flares,â X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Quote from futurecurrents:

I wonder what jerm would consider scientific proof that CO2 is causing global warming. Because there is plenty of it, but he ignores it.

So what would constitute proof for you jerm? Give me a for instance.

futurecurrents · Jun 12, 2013

Quote from pspr:

LOL. You saying its wrong doesn't make it so, idiot.

You are just a foul mouthed loser who knows nothing about science.

Go install a window air conditioner or something. That's all a moron like you can do with your life.

So, fuck off you ignorant asshole.

No but the world's science community saying it's wrong does.

And it's really funny that you should criticize me for being an amoral foul mouth when you were the first to go tell me to fuck my brother and other such disgusting things. I guess you like giving but don't like getting. How you can consider yourself a Christian is beyond me.

futurecurrents · Jun 12, 2013

Quote from jem:

If I were trying to show that CO2 had insulating or thermostatic properties in the atmosphere and I wanted to back that up with a study, some data and a summary from a scientist.

I might link to a study such as this...
a study in which we confirm or learn that CO2 can an does bounce a lot of energy back into space... blocking it from warming up the earth. This study shows that it can block up to 95% of the energy in certain circumstances.

Therefore in a similar manner I might show man made CO2 working to insulate the warmth in.

Then I would add up the work co2 does shielding us from heat... subtract out the work co2 deflecting the warmth back down and come up with a net number for whether adding more man made co2 causes more warming.

I am not saying its possible to get that number... but if I were a scientist that is what I would be doing.

The problem for you agw nutters is that anyone who goes through that exercise comes to the working conclusion that man made co2's contribution to potential warming must be insignificant.... partly because water vapor is the greenhouse gas which does the vast majority of the warming. (recent science shows.)

OK then, here you go. Feel free to ignore this also. I'm sure you will.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

murray t turtle · Jun 12, 2013

Quote from jem:

how could NASA had not known this. Something so obvious some of us guessed that would be the case.

==================
Well maybe they saw some 1970's news stories;
scary cooling trend

Let see , old global warming scam,new cooling trend.

Perhaps one of the better solutions, is like the founder of the weather channel said- sue algore for fraud.