NASA bolsters Global Cooling:

[Roudy]

NASA Scientist Reverses Sunspot Prediction, Bolstering Global Cooling Theory
Friday, 17 June 2011 09:25 Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Today, Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, believes his earlier prediction was wrong. Rather than hitting a peak of 160 sunspots, and possibly 185, as he predicted in 2006, he now believes that the Sun’s activity will decline dramatically. The current prediction, to less than half that of 2006, “would make this the smallest sunspot cycle in over 100 years,” he now states.

All this comes amid a flurry of other reports, including from scientists at the U.S. National Solar Observatory (NSO) and U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, indicating that global cooling, and perhaps even a new Little Ice Age, is on its way.

“We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now, but we see no sign of it,” states Frank Hill of the U.S. National Solar Observatory, who recently co-authored another paper in the field. “This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.”

The upshot is chilling: “If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades,” Hill states. “That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

The notion of another Little Ice Age, as happened in the last half of the 1600s, is no longer dismissed. Asks the National Solar Observatory: “An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.”

 

[Roudy]

Whistleblower Outs NASA for Hiding Data of Global Cooling

WRITTEN BY JOHN O’SULLIVAN | 20 JUNE 2011

As Earth enters deepest solar minimum in centuries NASA caught hiding sunspot data to prop up dying global warming cult. Inconvenient new ice age imminent.

A solar scientist insider who wishes to remain anonymous gives us the scoop that government officials are falsifying solar data to suit a political agenda. Below is his damning indictment of how deeply entrenched and desperate is the climate fraud. We see how observational data is being deliberately faked to hide the decline in sunspot activity; an event which independent scientists say could trigger a new ice age if it is prolonged.

Continued Rate of Cooling to Cause New Ice Age

Our nameless expert explains that since the 1990′s and into the 21st century magnetic fields have dropped by about 50 gauss per year. No one denies that in itself, this is not a remarkable drop if it were to be soon reversed. However, if such a trend continues for a decade or more then the fears of solar scientists that we are entering a new Ice Age will be realized with potentially devastating consequences for life of Earth

 

[Old Rocks]

Low solar activity during 2010, a moderate El Nino for the first half, and a strong La Nina for the last half, yet 2010 tied 1998 and 2005 for the warmest year on record.

If we go into a Maunder Minimum, it might be enough to offset some of the warming, but not all of it. Not at the rate that we are adding GHGs to the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

Whistleblower Outs NASA for Hiding Data of Global Cooling

WRITTEN BY JOHN O’SULLIVAN | 20 JUNE 2011

As Earth enters deepest solar minimum in centuries NASA caught hiding sunspot data to prop up dying global warming cult. Inconvenient new ice age imminent.

A solar scientist insider who wishes to remain anonymous gives us the scoop that government officials are falsifying solar data to suit a political agenda. Below is his damning indictment of how deeply entrenched and desperate is the climate fraud. We see how observational data is being deliberately faked to hide the decline in sunspot activity; an event which independent scientists say could trigger a new ice age if it is prolonged.

Continued Rate of Cooling to Cause New Ice Age

Our nameless expert explains that since the 1990′s and into the 21st century magnetic fields have dropped by about 50 gauss per year. No one denies that in itself, this is not a remarkable drop if it were to be soon reversed. However, if such a trend continues for a decade or more then the fears of solar scientists that we are entering a new Ice Age will be realized with potentially devastating consequences for life of Earth

Nameless experts have zero credibility.

 

[The Infidel]

Whistleblower Outs NASA for Hiding Data of Global Cooling

WRITTEN BY JOHN O’SULLIVAN | 20 JUNE 2011

As Earth enters deepest solar minimum in centuries NASA caught hiding sunspot data to prop up dying global warming cult. Inconvenient new ice age imminent.

A solar scientist insider who wishes to remain anonymous gives us the scoop that government officials are falsifying solar data to suit a political agenda. Below is his damning indictment of how deeply entrenched and desperate is the climate fraud. We see how observational data is being deliberately faked to hide the decline in sunspot activity; an event which independent scientists say could trigger a new ice age if it is prolonged.

Continued Rate of Cooling to Cause New Ice Age

Our nameless expert explains that since the 1990′s and into the 21st century magnetic fields have dropped by about 50 gauss per year. No one denies that in itself, this is not a remarkable drop if it were to be soon reversed. However, if such a trend continues for a decade or more then the fears of solar scientists that we are entering a new Ice Age will be realized with potentially devastating consequences for life of Earth

Nameless experts have zero credibility.

and frankly you have zero credibility as well

 

[saveliberty]

Low solar activity during 2010, a moderate El Nino for the first half, and a strong La Nina for the last half, yet 2010 tied 1998 and 2005 for the warmest year on record.

If we go into a Maunder Minimum, it might be enough to offset some of the warming, but not all of it. Not at the rate that we are adding GHGs to the atmosphere.

Manipulated, unpublished, poor sites and flat out lies with data. We aren't paying for this any more.

 

[Roudy]

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
7/27/2011

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.


Study co-author 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, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.



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.

 

[skookerasbil]

More Oooooops for the k00ks.

But I'll say this.......the global cooling people are as k00ky as the global warming ones. Computer models dealing with natures uncertainties = gay. As Roudy astutely points out.........huge descrepancies!! Its like saying, "Hey, Im certain about tonights Lotto #'s!!!". There are computer models on that shit too.

When they can tell me where a tornado is going EXACTLY and where a hurricane is going EXACTLY, then people will pay attention. Didnt anybody else ever learn that getting it close only matters in horsehoes and hand granades?

 

[Roudy]

More Oooooops for the k00ks.

But I'll say this.......the global cooling people are as k00ky as the global warming ones. Computer models dealing with natures uncertainties = gay. As Roudy astutely points out.........huge descrepancies!! Its like saying, "Hey, Im certain about tonights Lotto #'s!!!". There are computer models on that shit too.

When they can tell me where a tornado is going EXACTLY and where a hurricane is going EXACTLY, then people will pay attention. Didnt anybody else ever learn that getting it close only matters in horsehoes and hand granades?

I totally agree, which is why at a time where don't even know if we're warming or cooling, we shouldn't be making man the culprit in the causation of either.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[saveliberty]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Welcome to the "its not a closed system" reality OR.

 

[Big Fitz]

NASA back-peddles good enough to be an NFL Cornerback.

Of course, it's man's fault the sun is cooling, right?

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course that site is only from the largest group of physicist in the world. And we all know that an obese junkie on the radio, or an undegreed ex-TV weatherman knows far more than all those Phd physicists.

 

[Roudy]

Of course that site is only from the largest group of physicist in the world. And we all know that an obese junkie on the radio, or an undegreed ex-TV weatherman knows far more than all those Phd physicists.

I don't think you're being fair. One article was from Forbes, and another was from the Global Warming Policy Foundation for example:

Who we are the GWPF

THE GWPF: HISTORY AND MISSION

The Global Warming Policy Foundation was launched by Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser on 23 November 2009 in the House of Lords - in the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is unique. We are an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.

 

[westwall]

Low solar activity during 2010, a moderate El Nino for the first half, and a strong La Nina for the last half, yet 2010 tied 1998 and 2005 for the warmest year on record.

If we go into a Maunder Minimum, it might be enough to offset some of the warming, but not all of it. Not at the rate that we are adding GHGs to the atmosphere.

What warming? Every non Hansen controlled temp series shows global temp levelling off or falling very slightly over the last 12 years. The only reason records are being broken is through Hansen falsifying data. You know, we know it and he knows it.

 

[IanC]

there are a lot of divisions at NASA, and even at GISS. it is common for the results from one place to disagree with somewhere else. Hansen knows how to get publicity and funding though, so you know who's work we get exposed to.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course that site is only from the largest group of physicist in the world. And we all know that an obese junkie on the radio, or an undegreed ex-TV weatherman knows far more than all those Phd physicists.

I don't think you're being fair. One article was from Forbes, and another was from the Global Warming Policy Foundation for example:

Who we are the GWPF

THE GWPF: HISTORY AND MISSION

The Global Warming Policy Foundation was launched by Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser on 23 November 2009 in the House of Lords - in the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is unique. We are an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.

Lindzen also testified before Congress that smoking is harmless. He was and continues to be well paid for his testimony on tobacco and global warming. When they publish this shit, they most certainly are not neutral, they are the toadies of the big energy corps.

http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/montford-royal_society.pdf

Foreword by Richard Lindzen
Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology
of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein
the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the
pretence of science to a position of political authority.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just another front supported by the energy corps to lie about what is really happening.

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

Funding not transparent; just 1.6% comes from memberships

The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8]

In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]

900 papers" claim; subsequent analysis shows Exxon ties, Energy and Environment papers
.........................................................................................................................
In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[18] The blog Carbon Brief analyzed them, and found that -
9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil
"prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and
the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.[19]

 

[Two Thumbs]

so we are going into an ice age?

again?

Like in the 70's. I recall the 70's, it was fucking cold with snow up past my nuts.

It's going to hit 80 today.

personally I'm all for global warming. but there's nothing we can do about the sun

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb ass. Until this year, the Total Solar Irradiance has been decreasing. That should lead to a cooling, as in the Maunder Minimum.

And the majority of scientists in the '70's stated that warming would be a problem, not cooling.


What 1970s science said about global cooling

Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling

Source: Skeptical Science (What 1970s science said about global cooling)