NEW NASA DATA ON GLOBAL WARMING -- OOPS!

Anybody who's lived in the northeast for any length of time knows that global warming is a myth.

Try again.

The author, James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, interpreting the report is not a scientist, but a lawyer paid by a corporatist supported Chicago think tank which operates as a lobbying effort to deny anthropogenic global warming. 

Next.

And make sure to go to Forbes and read the childish comments by the author himself. 

http://blogs.forbes.com/jamest...al-warming-alarmism/

Poor Ditzy, shoots from the hip and usually, hits foot!

No, James Taylor wrote the Forbes article based upon a peer reviewed article in the professional journal "Remote Sensing." 

That article was co-aut****d by 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 and William D. Braswell, a meterorlogist.

The article may be read at: 

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

I looked at the journal article and didnt see any of the claims made by Taylor spelled out in layman's terms, as would be required for a lawyer.   Taylor is just a shill.

And Spencer lost my respect when you became a follower of the intelligent design fad. 

The duck continues on his path to a rubber room.

Ditzy,

The article in Remote Sensing, while techical, can be understood by anyone who finished a high school physics course.  Its a peer reviewed article in a professional scientific journal.

As to Taylor's article, which is written for the layman, please spell out what you refer to as childish comments!

Simple analysis of your comments -- obfuscation and attempted character assassination instead of cogent comments. 

Read the comments by Taylor in response to his article. 

I accept your challenge and so here is a excerpt for you to explain.

Finally, since much of the temperature variability during 2000–2010 was due to ENSO [9], we
conclude that ENSO-related temperature variations are partly radiatively forced. We hypothesize that
changes in the coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation during the El Niño and La Niña phases of ENSO
cause differing changes in cloud cover, which then modulate the radiative balance of the climate
system. As seen in Figure 3(b) for the ocean-only data, the signature of radiative forcing is stronger
over the oceans than in the global average, suggesting a primarily oceanic origin.
What this might (or might not) imply regarding the ultimate causes of the El Niño and La Niña
phenomena is not relevant to our central point, though: that the presence of time varying radiative
forcing in satellite radiative flux measurements corrupts the diagnosis of radiative feedback.

 

Easy, the temperature changes measured during 2000 to 2010 were caused by the El Nino southern oscillation (ENSO).  The actual changes in heat radiated away from the earth is much higher that predicted in the NASA models.

The oceans are sweeping heat out to sea where little cloud cover exists due to ENSO, thus heat dissipates back into space quicker than predicted. 

Got that -- actual heat loss is greater, much greater than predicted. 

However, ditzy, your post is from the article by Dr. Spencer in Remote Sensing, not the Forbes article by Taylor.

Once more, show the childish comments made by him in the Taylor article. Why did you post from the more technical article, when claiming to post from the other.

Ditto:

Someone who goes by the moniker of "Dittohead" ought to be applauding the article, not trying to refute it.  Which you don't.

There are no scientific journals that would dumb themselves down enough to have to be understood by the typical lawyer.  If that were to happen, science would become as unintelligible as the tax code. 

To adequately explain the article at a lawyer's level would require some one trained to write at the eighth grade level and a talented cartoonist.

OTH, the gobbleg00k produced by lawyers and the bureacrats, in general, are the bane of existence for many.

Go to Forbes site.  Find the article by Taylor and read the comments by the author at the end of his op-ed. 

So, the radiative heat loss may be greater than previously thought, possibly due to varying cloud cover induced by El Nino  and La Nina, which still leaves unexplained the rising temps here on the Earth.  Maybe CO2 is the real culprit.

REad the comments, saw nothing tha refutes the article. Obfuscation, once again!  You still haven't stated why you substituted articles. 

You r a ignorant terd.

I said his comments were childish. Refute that.  Taylor is no more a climate scientist than I am.  He is a paid shill.

Your calim that:

The article in Remote Sensing, while techical, can be understood by anyone who finished a high school physics course.  Its a peer reviewed article in a professional scientific journal.

is of course untrue.

As anyone who regularly follows this forum knows, Ditzy, when backed into a corner goes for the Simian defense -- monkey throwing his solid waste products.

He won't state what the childish comments are!  True Taylor answered sarcasm with sarcasm! So what!  I again asked why he misrepresented an article.  He answers with a scatological term -- quite the adult, aren't we!

Finally, he states the technical article can't be understood by someone with a basic knowledge of physics!  It can.  True, I majored in physics many years ago, but even with my high school course, I could understand the basics of the article.

Well, I'll be dodging more nasty things down range from Ditzy, shortly!