NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...

[bripat9643]

try to focus for just a minute-------everyone agrees that the climate is changing and has always been changing------------there is no consensus that man has ever had anything to do with it.

What's your idea of consensus? Let me guess. It's conservatives agreeing, right?

not at all, consensus is a majority opinion.

Which means it isn't science. You don't determine the facts of reality by majority vote.

 

[Dubya]

CO2 = .039% of the earth's atmosphere. It was .039 % in 2012 and .039% in 50,000 BC.

Man is not changing the earth's climate by exhaling and burning fossil fuels.

Al Gore LIED to you. The AGW idiots are LYING to you. Try to engage your brains on this topic.

The amount of CO2 was not the same in the past and who knows what kind of shitty asshole you pulled that from. The amount of CO2 has shown a constant rise and seasonal trend since it was first measured. All the ice cores agree the amount of CO2 was 0.028% before the industrial age.

You keep saying that dumbshit about CO2 not increasing, so where did you ever get such an idea? You're the first idiot I've ever heard try to make that point and I've heard some good idiots in my day.

 

[Mustang]

CO2 = .039% of the earth's atmosphere. It was .039 % in 2012 and .039% in 50,000 BC.

Man is not changing the earth's climate by exhaling and burning fossil fuels.

Al Gore LIED to you. The AGW idiots are LYING to you. Try to engage your brains on this topic.

52,000 years ago? How about 50 years ago?

 

[Dubya]

CO2 = .039% of the earth's atmosphere. It was .039 % in 2012 and .039% in 50,000 BC.

Man is not changing the earth's climate by exhaling and burning fossil fuels.

Al Gore LIED to you. The AGW idiots are LYING to you. Try to engage your brains on this topic.

52,000 years ago? How about 50 years ago?

We have CO2 measurements from 50 years ago (the Keeling Curve starts in '58) and there is plenty of ice core data that measured CO2 at 50,000 BC in this link. Just remember the dates are calculated before present and present is 1950.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Data Sets

 

[Mustang]

CO2 = .039% of the earth's atmosphere. It was .039 % in 2012 and .039% in 50,000 BC.

Man is not changing the earth's climate by exhaling and burning fossil fuels.

Al Gore LIED to you. The AGW idiots are LYING to you. Try to engage your brains on this topic.

52,000 years ago? How about 50 years ago?

We have CO2 measurements from 50 years ago (the Keeling Curve starts in '58) and there is plenty of ice core data that measured CO2 at 50,000 BC in this link. Just remember the dates are calculated before present and present is 1950.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Data Sets

I'm well acquainted with the data. I've read four books on global warming (James Hansen's being far and away the best of the lot). In fact, I emailed Hansen after reading his book and actually received a response from him. I know he's working on a follow up. I just hope he takes advantage of an editor next time in order to make the book a little more reader friendly since he's primarily a scientist and not an author.

 

[Dubya]

52,000 years ago? How about 50 years ago?

We have CO2 measurements from 50 years ago (the Keeling Curve starts in '58) and there is plenty of ice core data that measured CO2 at 50,000 BC in this link. Just remember the dates are calculated before present and present is 1950.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Data Sets

I'm well acquainted with the data. I've read four books on global warming (James Hansen's being far and away the best of the lot). In fact, I emailed Hansen after reading his book and actually received a response from him. I know he's working on a follow up. I just hope he takes advantage of an editor next time in order to make the book a little more reader friendly since he's primarily a scientist and not an author.

Redfish is the first idiot I've found who claims CO2 levels haven't changed. In 50,000 BC, CO2 was about half our present level. There are plenty of ice cores from all over the world to back that up. The accuracy of the CO2 measurements for the last 4 ice ages is very good.

It makes me wonder why people like Redfish even try to talk about science, because they don't know anything about it. Doesn't he have the sense to know those ancient atmospheres have been captured in ice and it isn't hard to measure the gases in an atmospheric sample?

 

[Mustang]

We have CO2 measurements from 50 years ago (the Keeling Curve starts in '58) and there is plenty of ice core data that measured CO2 at 50,000 BC in this link. Just remember the dates are calculated before present and present is 1950.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Data Sets

I'm well acquainted with the data. I've read four books on global warming (James Hansen's being far and away the best of the lot). In fact, I emailed Hansen after reading his book and actually received a response from him. I know he's working on a follow up. I just hope he takes advantage of an editor next time in order to make the book a little more reader friendly since he's primarily a scientist and not an author.

Redfish is the first idiot I've found who claims CO2 levels haven't changed. In 50,000 BC, CO2 was about half our present level. There are plenty of ice cores from all over the world to back that up. The accuracy of the CO2 measurements for the last 4 ice ages is very good.

It makes me wonder why people like Redfish even try to talk about science, because they don't know anything about it. Doesn't he have the sense to know those ancient atmospheres have been captured in ice and it isn't hard to measure the gases in an atmospheric sample?

They (those damn scientists) can even determine previous climates by sediment cores which contain fossilized remains.

They go to school for many years for a good reason.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ice core data does not lie.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

50 years out of what, 4,500,000,000?

yeah... let's have us a panic.

 

[Dubya]

50 years out of what, 4,500,000,000?

yeah... let's have us a panic.

Just how much of that 4.5 billion years had life on the planet? You couldn't live on Earth as it was when life started.

This idea that once something has changed that it can't be changed is right-wing stupidity. That means nothing can be changed, right?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Do you think the United States was Saudi Arabia, and everywhere else just happened to reflect much cooler temperatures? Then you are the idiot with much more to prove. However if you feel better "cherry picking" off YOUR selective data using a much smaller timeline segment to obscure the research towards your cause, by all means. However, if you can't provide any data from a much broader timeline (prior to 1970) to prove your point, scientific temperature data which conflicts with mine, your information and bickering is meaningless.

Sorry you can't provide any information to counter the o-zone / Antarctica findings, but then again I don't believe in all this hype, that man plays a much bigger fault role in all our temperature problems than the simply looking to the cycles of the sun.


BTW, the data I provided parallels the increases in temperature after yours FOLLOWING 1970, thank you very much.

NOAA uses NCDC data which is the most reliable in the world. The continental US is 2% of the world's surface and isn't representative of the whole world. Notice the data on the charts is similar but different.

Glad we agree about NCDC. So with respect to your data, you should read the following report again.

NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder


Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels in an essay at The GWPF wrote:

“The last ten years of the BEST data indeed show no statistically significant warming trend, no matter how you slice and dice them”. He adds: “Both records are in reasonable agreement about the length of time without a significant warming trend. In the CRU record it is 15.0 years. In the University of Alabama MSU it is 13.9, and in the Remote Sensing Systems version of the MSU it is 15.6 years. “

So according the the National Climatic Data Center, it seems clear that for at least the last 10 years, there has been a cooling trend in the Annual mean temperature of the contiguous United States.

GLOBAL COOLING?

Just found (Dec 09) CIA cooling report: "The western world's leadlng climatologists have confirmed reports of a detrimental global climatic change [cooling]. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new cllmatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the Earth's climate is returning to that of the neo·boreal era (1600-1850) - an era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the western world." (1974)

Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and remind us that the sun is projected to cool and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. Both papers state that these factors are underappreciated by IPCC. The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun's face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding the Dalton Minimum of 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma).

The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation.


Ice creates chaos in China (Winter 2010)

Heavy snow and unusually cold weather have swept across most parts of China this winter, causing travel chaos on roads and on the sea, with forecasters predicting worse to come. Huludao is facing the worst sea ice IN THREE DECADES and the sea froze a month earlier than usual.

"The sea ice is about 60 nautical miles (110 km) off the coast of Liaodong Bay," Liu Yu, the station's chief forecaster reported.

Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way

From the US Senate Committee On Environmental and Public Works

Excerpt: All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down. […] Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average." China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past. The ice is back. Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

[…]Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats." He is not alone.

Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

01 January 2013 ( Kurdish Globe )
As Snow Storms Grip Kurdistan, Snow Falls of As Much As 1.5 Meters Wreak Havoc on the Region

Snow - a Rare Source of Many Problems

The recent snow storms, caused by the impact of climate systems from the Mediterranean, covered the majority of Kurdistan with a white gown and with a thickness varying from a few centimetres to over 1.5 meters.

Furthermore, the impacts in some areas caused humanitarian and financial losses. In Duhok, six road clearing teams started work to open highways and streets covered with unexpected levels of snow, reaching 1.3 meters in the province and more than 0.3 meters in the city enter.

Abd Yousif, Director General of the Duhok Education Directorate, highlighted that the snow wave has caused traffic issues and disconnected some villages, towns and districts, and prevented students and teachers from reaching their schools.

"As a result [of the heavy snow] some 70 schools have failed to conduct midterm exams that have been pushed back to next week," said Yousif. "If this continues, we may have to postpone them further."

Snow ... in Mexico? Rare Winter Dusting Shuts Down Ciudad Juarez
Feb 3, 2011 – 10:02 AM

It was just a dusting, really, but in Ciudad Juarez, that was too much.

The same storm that plowed through wide swaths of the United States swiped Mexico's northern border cities Wednesday night, covering the region in a thin layer of snow and bringing record-breaking temperatures that wreaked havoc in an area usually untouched by winter's misery.

Posted 2/10/2005 5:34 PM
Massive snowfall wreaks havoc in Iran
TEHRAN (AFP) — — Thousands of travelers were stranded in northern Iran Thursday after record snowfall cut off scores of roads and highways, state media reported, urging local emergency services and citizens to mobilize.
State television said the between 7,000 and 8,000 motorists were stuck in heavy snow on the highway between the city of Qazvin, situated around 95 miles west of Tehran, and the Caspian Sea city of Rasht.

Official radio also said Rasht had been completely cut off and parts of the city were without running water, gas and electricity, having received over five feet of snow.

Record Snow Sweeps Japan
2012-01-17 22:55 EST

Heavy snow on Japan's northern island of Hokkaido.

An unusually powerful storm hit the city of Iwamizawa on Monday, leaving behind mounds of snow nearly two metres deep. Scientists say they can't confirm exactly how much snow fell because their measuring instruments were damaged in the blizzard.

But the island's meteorological agency said this is the most snow Iwamizawa has been hit with since records began in 1946.

The overwhelming evidence doesn't point the way towards a "man made" Global Warming trend.

 

[Dubya]

That's called mindless bullshit posted by a fool!

 

[Saigon]

SHAKLES -

From your own source, the NCDC:

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late–19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

You might be well served to forget the politics, and just look at the science and what scientists have to say. Trawling the evidence looking for examples of cold snaps might be entertaining, but it doesn't get you any closer to understanding what is happening to the climate.

 

[auditor0007]

I guess you forgot about natural cycles. It's funny how the skeptics/deniers will hammer the proponents with the fact that there are natural cycles, but when faced with a consequence, ignore the implications! Of course, natural cycles may blunt the rise in temps from time to time, but if CO2 keeps going up, so will retained IR radiation, making another upturn in temps inevitable and that much more severe, when the natural cycles reverse themselves. You need to study the science of the theory and not just parrot propaganda from biased sources.

Natural cycles? Llike how the earth has been warming up since the last ice age naturally? Meaning all this phoney outrage over 'global warming' is hysteria over something that has already happened many times in earth's history, and none of it due to man.

Herein lies the definition of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

Please don't confuse the natural cycles of geologic time measured in millions (or at least several hundred thousand) years with the incredibly short time frame of the last 200 or so years since industrialization, when humans have been digging carbon out of the ground at an increasing rate and pumping it into the atmosphere, thereby bypassing (and essentially interfering with) the natural carbon cycle. And keep in mind that we're doing this even as we are engaging in deforestation (a natural carbon sink) and while our population is booming, which only accelerates the process.

The biggest problem we face is the fact that this planet has too many damn people. The more people, the more natural resources needed and used, and the greater the impact of using them. There will be a natural correction to this at some point. It may well happen sooner than we would like, as we see more and more concerns about superbugs that do not respond to regular antibiotics. It really isn't that far fetched to imagine some superbug wiping out 90% of the human population at some point.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Natural cycles? Llike how the earth has been warming up since the last ice age naturally? Meaning all this phoney outrage over 'global warming' is hysteria over something that has already happened many times in earth's history, and none of it due to man.

Herein lies the definition of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

Please don't confuse the natural cycles of geologic time measured in millions (or at least several hundred thousand) years with the incredibly short time frame of the last 200 or so years since industrialization, when humans have been digging carbon out of the ground at an increasing rate and pumping it into the atmosphere, thereby bypassing (and essentially interfering with) the natural carbon cycle. And keep in mind that we're doing this even as we are engaging in deforestation (a natural carbon sink) and while our population is booming, which only accelerates the process.

The biggest problem we face is the fact that this planet has too many damn people. The more people, the more natural resources needed and used, and the greater the impact of using them. There will be a natural correction to this at some point. It may well happen sooner than we would like, as we see more and more concerns about superbugs that do not respond to regular antibiotics. It really isn't that far fetched to imagine some superbug wiping out 90% of the human population at some point.

Imagine that superbug being created in a lab at the behest of the global elites.

Welcome to Orwell's World, where the incomprehensible becomes mundane...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

SHAKLES -

From your own source, the NCDC:

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late–19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

You might be well served to forget the politics, and just look at the science and what scientists have to say. Trawling the evidence looking for examples of cold snaps might be entertaining, but it doesn't get you any closer to understanding what is happening to the climate.

First of all, the fact that there was a BIG spike in temperature in 1934, doesn't prove your case of Global Warming through man made CO2 levels as this "major factor" behind the earth's temperature changes. I have believed in the science behind the changing effects of the sun, with it's direct relationship upon the changes on the earth, for well over 20 years (long before this Global Warming trend came into discussion by the left through big efforts of "politics"). I have shown through various statements, scientist who questioned their colleagues with not providing the complete truth or suppressing it (in exchange for the "political mainstream"), as well as global evidence that support a return towards cooling temperatures, that support ONCE AGAIN the earths relationship with the changing effects of the sun.


I have shown proof:

1) ...... with Antarctica, which GREW in size (never shrinking) with the formation of ice despite statements that also reported the growing of the o-zone hole to the size of North America.

2) There was a temperature spike in 1934
.... which was recorded to be higher than what was ALSO found during the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s ..... Indicating a changes in the sun being the major factor behind these temperature changes. History ALSO shows that the amount of contributing pollutants from a heavy a growth of industry, refineries,Apollo missions, commercial jets and jet fighter technology, wasn't around during that time to justify the higher record temperatures.

3) There is also the INCREASED global recordings of record freezing temperatures and snow, proof of a return towards a cooling trend cycle that matches the changing effects found with the sun, NOT warmer winters as a Global Warming becoming the bigger factor in temperatures would show.

Then, in case you missed it there is the statement below, which puts CO2 in it's proper position with respect to the sun, in increasing earth's temperatures.

Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun's face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding the Dalton Minimum of 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma).

The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation.


Do your best to dig deeper in an effort to disprove the facts above, as the statements given supporting the sun's changing conditions is a lot stronger than your evidence in effecting the earths temperatures. I'm not gullible to follow every little trend that goes by, you have to explain away with facts each and every statement I have already provided above. Simply one sentence or one little graph is not enough to prove your case against it.

 

[Saigon]

Shacles -

I don't understand why you are presenting points no one disputes, and others which are patently nonsense.

1. We've known for some years that Western Antarctica is losing ice, while Eastern Antarctica is gaining ice. We also know, by and large, why this is and what processes are involved. (I can link research if you like).

2. I'm afraid that simply is not true at all. There have always been spikes and troughs, but every one of the ten hottest years ever recorded occur in the past 20 years. Check with a reliable source. 1934 was the 49th hottest year on record. I just checked.

3

. The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming.

Again, that is simply nonsense, and no reliable data source could claim this. On the contrary, Australia just recorded its hottest day ever, New Zealand is crippled with droughts, and Southern Hemisphere glaciers are shrinking faster than had previously been thought possible.

The sun does influence climate, without question, but most scientists abandoned it as the major cause of climate change for good reason.

Here is an article which explains why:

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

 

[GuyPinestra]

And still no solutions offered for this GLOBAL situation.

Right, wrong or indifferent, what do you propose we DO about it? Can you force other countries to lower their emissions? Should we hamstring our own economy without any promise of cooperation from China and India?

 

[ima]

I think if the US army steps up its war mongering, they could easily wipe out half the world's population and restore the planet's natural balance.

 

[Old Rocks]

And still no solutions offered for this GLOBAL situation.

Right, wrong or indifferent, what do you propose we DO about it? Can you force other countries to lower their emissions? Should we hamstring our own economy without any promise of cooperation from China and India?

Since there is about a 30 to 50 year lag in the effects of the present level of GHGs, all we can do about it at present is prepare for the inevitable consequences. Consequences that are with us right now.