NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

Money!
make You all pay for making it to warm.
your carbon tax...

a reply to: Phage

Phage,

There has been very few times in history when the scientific community was 99% in agreement on anything that is wasn't later proven wrong.

There was a point where 99% of the scientific community didn't believe plate tectonics was happening, however 1 lady Marie Tharp eventually proved them all wrong.

My point is scientists should be working to prove it wrong. The fact that so many are not trying to prove it wrong makes me believe they are all on the 12 billion climate change cash train. I believe eventually one scientist will, and the new climate model he/she discovers will revolutionize how we see climate in the future.

a reply to: Stuship

My point is scientists should be working to prove it wrong.

In order to "prove it wrong" a mechanism other than rising CO2 levels would have to be identified as the culprit. In the past, changes in solar irradiance are known to have had great effect on climate. We are not seeing any such changes. In the past, changes in orbital/axial cycles are known to have an effect on climate by affecting levels of solar insolation. We are not in phases of these cycles which would account for the rising in temperatures that are being observed. In the past there have been changes in ocean circulation patterns which have led to climate change. We are not seeing such changes.

Scientists are looking at other less obvious possibilities as well, things like changes in cosmic ray flux which could theoretically affect cloud formation and thus changes in albedo. These things are not panning out as strong contenders. CO2 is the prime suspect. The science says it is the prime suspect. The models show that it is the prime suspect.

Could there be something completely unknown going on? Possibly, but CO2 fits the bill pretty damned well so until some other explanation comes along, one that fits the evidence, CO2 is what we have to go on. But sure, it would be great to "prove it wrong." If someone could do so they would be a very big dog. Climate scientists have been trying to "prove it wrong". They have been looking for alternative explanations. No luck so far. CO2 has been the prime suspect for 40 years or so and so far nothing else has replaced it.

The fact that so many are not trying to prove it wrong makes me believe they are all on the 12 billion climate change cash train.

I'm not sure where you're getting that figure. The proposed US budget for climate change research is $2.6 billion. That's 0.07% of the total budget and when considering the number of scientists, technicians, and institutions that are involved, it's a pretty small investment and no one is getting wealthy on it.

If that number you quote is for global expenditures, it becomes even less significant.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
a reply to: Phage

Phage, can you explain why it is that you are so vehemently against the very idea that these people are not above fudging numbers to push an agenda?

Is it because you can't abide the thought that you bought into a lie?

i love how people that havent seen the data, that have no advanced degree in anything, can say that 97% of climate scientists are lying.

but lets say youre right, it is a hoax. guess what? it will come out, and it will be brought out by a scientist, and the rest of the scientists will follow suit. know why? cause science is about discovering the truth, whether you like that truth or not.

further more, lets say youre right, yet we start acting like global warming is a real thing. we get off fossil fuels, man would that be bad. we would have cleaner air, and i hate clean air. water from streams we could drink again, how horrible.

far as i can tell, acting like global warming is real and cleaning up our act has a net positive. maybe not for me or my kids, but their kids for sure.

I have always found it strange that our Supreme Court never vote 100% one way or another on their findings. These are extremely smart people with similar educations/experiences, who all read/study the same information and come to completely different conclusions.

I find science somewhat the same way that 100 scientist can have very wide range of conclusions all looking at the same material. It seems that there are other motivators involved a lot of the time in all if this than just the basic truth.

I have read the article on "the telegraph" and the author did NOT present exactly where the data was modified or how it was modified. I Also checked on Steven Goddard's blog and all it shows is an image of Dorothy and Toto, and some article regarding "supposed" manipulation of data. So far I haven't seen one shred of Direct evidence showing what the telegraph and Mr. Goddard claim.

It all comes down to money, countries especially Britain don't want to pay for reducing Carbon emissions, it's all for the love of money.

There is another reason why, I think, countries like Britain and Japan are opposed so adamantly to G-warming. Consider the following, suppose the rest of continental Europe, Africa, Middle East, Asia, and the Americas reduced their dependency on Fossil Fuels especially petroleum. There is enough solar energy falling on the earth to meet ALL the energy needs of the entire world. Now both U.K. and Japan are island nations, I don't believe they have too much in the way of indigenous natural energy resources, so that means that IF the rest of the world uses electricity as it's main energy transport, they would either have to build underwater power lines from Continental Europe or Mainland China or use the remaining oil reserves.

If they build powerlines to the mainlands then they would lose the ability to control their sources of energy, they can own the solar panel arrays in the middle east or elsewhere, but the electrical transmission lines would have to cross through "heavy-weight" nation in the Europe and Asia, meaning the balance of power would change dramatically. There are other ways of transmitting electrical energy, but powerlines are the least expensive and most reliable.

If they choose to use the remaining oil reserves, they would keep their economic independence, since they can own oil facilities in the ocean and send ships to bring the oil to the mainland. This may be very expensive since they would be one of the few nations that would still use oil and they would have to pay for the entire infrastructure by themselves. Currently the entire world uses petroleum as it's main transportation fuel so we help to pay for the infrastructure.

This may be a reason why the U.K. and Japan are so adamantly opposed to Anthropogenic Climate Change, they may not want to lose their economic independence and hence they may not want the rest of world to stop using petroleum.

originally posted by: Stuship
a reply to: Phage

Phage,

There has been very few times in history when the scientific community was 99% in agreement on anything that is wasn't later proven wrong.

This is complete BS.

When, since Newton's time, has conservation of momentum turned out to be wrong?

There is no field of human endeavor than physical science and mathematics which has proven to be MORE PREDICTIVELY CORRECT in history of human civilization.

There was a point where 99% of the scientific community didn't believe plate tectonics was happening, however 1 lady Marie Tharp eventually proved them all wrong.

And this shows exactly why science did something right. People made a hypothesis early---but it was not backed at all by sensible physical mechanism or data. As a result, rightly so, the hypothesis was not strongly accepted. Later, when additional data came in and new theoretical understanding came about, the hypothesis was rapidly accepted.

And guess what, there were plenty of other early hypotheses unjustified by data, and they're still wrong!

My point is scientists should be working to prove it wrong. The fact that so many are not trying to prove it wrong makes me believe they are all on the 12 billion climate change cash train. I believe eventually one scientist will, and the new climate model he/she discovers will revolutionize how we see climate in the future.

This is entirely emotional thinking. You don't apply it to anything other than climate change because you don't like the personal and political consequences of the scientific facts as presently understood.

I don't like those consequences either, but I'm a reality acceptor.

Why aren't all the semiconductor scientists working to prove that the laws of semiconductors are wrong? They must be on the 12 trillion dollar microchip cash train, right?

At every stage it is worth listening to the scientists, especially since we have eludicated all the applicable fundamental laws of physical properties applicable to Earth-based energy scales.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I have always found it strange that our Supreme Court never vote 100% one way or another on their findings. These are extremely smart people with similar educations/experiences, who all read/study the same information and come to completely different conclusions.

I find science somewhat the same way that 100 scientist can have very wide range of conclusions all looking at the same material.

It depends on what the issue is. What's the consensus on conservation of momentum and lepton number? Hmm?

Do you know better than particle physicists the strength of the various conservation laws in various circumstances?

It seems that there are other motivators involved a lot of the time in all if this than just the basic truth.

And which side has more motivators? Really? Can we quantify that, just a wee bit? Where are the billionaire climate scientists?

This debate sounds as if in 1955 there was a denialist industry proclaiming that there's no possible way for radioactivity to be hazardous to the health, and that those scientists who thought so were Marxist sympathizers out to destroy the American way. There wasn't anything like this in the nuclear industry because they were based on science.

Then again, there was such a thing with tobacco. (One of the important parts of tobacco toxicity is radioactivity no less). Who was right and who was wrong?

originally posted by: deloprator20000
I have read the article on "the telegraph" and the author did NOT present exactly where the data was modified or how it was modified.

That is correct, in fact he did not present it at all, it was a ridiculous blog, maybe he is paid to do that in a perverse way or any which way, who knows?
To be sure the, ' University of East Anglia', did do a bit of massage at least in the verbals, but who knows, could have been more? however they were really catched, and tried the strong arm stuff, all verbally of course. There is other stuff to consider, why The USA is a bit cooler in the mean, and in all the period of this fiasco than the global temps, and why? Yup, there is a plausible for that, dateline story I'm not sure, but around 1999, maybe NASA and in fact that story intends that the USA should be cooler because of global warming..er, as part of the model. You can go on with this material for ever, but for this thread, I'm not sure that the rubber stamp is in order.

a reply to: Phage

Warming oceans, melting siberian permafrost all increase atmospheric CO2. If you want look at the real data (Vostok ice core records etc) it is cut and dry that increases in atmospheric CO2 lags temperature change, so increased CO2 does not produce temperature change, its a by-product of temperature change.

It was previous thought that sunspots were cooler than surface of the sun and increased sunspot activity didn't increase solar irradiance. They now know that the internal umbra of sunspots are far hotter than the surface of the sun and increased sunspot activity does increase solar irradiance at various frequencies.

So if increases in suns output increases CO2 and CO2 is greenhouse gas why hasn't the earth gone into a runaway warming event in past. Some school of thought believe that increased CO2 levels actually reflect more solar irradiance so its mother earths protection from increased solar irradiance not the bad guy that science wants you to believe. But when we have higher levels of CO2 and Sunspot activity switches off ( which it has been doing) earth could go into a cooling event very quickly (less than 10 years).

So don't worry about global warming, RUG UP.

"A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere. NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). "

It amazes me . Every one screams co2 co2 is destroying the world .

Co2 is part of many biological processes. Worried about co2 quit clear cutting rain forests. Plant trees encourage vegetation growth. I am not talking about Gores carbon scam.

How old is the earth 4.5 billion years old. We have Semi firm data for the last 200 years . Really all data points before accurate instruments and accurate record keeping is postulated not verified and measured.We are basing every thing in a 200y/4.5by part with educated guesses of the exact temperatures the co2 concentrations from glaciers is more solid . We postulate the Ice ages occur erratically threw out history. The last one ended 12000 years ago a full cycle is end of 1 to end of next. We haven't gone threw a full cycle yet 200/12000 and next hasnt started yet. lets estimate 50000 is a cycle 200/50000 or 1/250 of the data for a full cycle. If I tried to build a bridge or a road with 1 /250th of the data it would NEVER get approved. Yet 1/250 of the data is good enough for climate pseudoscience.

Now my college is over several decades old. I was taught the earth goes threw cycles from tropical rain forest to half frozen many times over . A pendulum must finish it left swing before it starts its right hand swing.


The professors were all up set we are causing an ice age early. I sat in class as they spoon fed me that line. And I took it all in got all worked up over it. Now spoon feeding a new line.

Now its warming not cooling we have a politicians selling it and selling a carbon credit idea the government is on board investors are on board . Remember he invented the internet. While selling this carbon swap co2 foot print they are flying in personal lear jets driving co2 puking beasts their carbon foot print the size of a small city. If it real PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH.

Yes government does pay for alot of research, but I get very very skeptical when politicians all on one side of the aisle , government and scientists get together.

Ahh the smell of bovine bio waste in the morning

Remember though, that climate scientists take into account the cycles that the earth goes through and the solar cycles and all of that. They even remembered that we have had ice ages before! They are that smart.

Also remember that if you research the "global cooling" crowd of the seventies, it was only a small handful of scientists, it was only one of a few competing theories on global climate and it never had any kind of main stream scientific consensus.

Also if we do "follow the money" it doesn't all lead to grants and government funded studies...oh, I know some if does, but huge chuck of that research money is being spent by big fossil fuel companies and conservative think tanks and the like to debunk man made global warming for some reason.

hmmmm

a reply to: glend

so increased CO2 does not produce temperature change,

That is a non-sequitur. Just because rising CO2 levels followed rising temperatures in the past, it does not mean that rising CO2 levels do not cause rising temperatures. The physics of radiative forcing shows that they do.

They now know that the internal umbra of sunspots are far hotter than the surface of the sun and increased sunspot activity does increase solar irradiance at various frequencies.

No. Sunspots are cooler than the rest of the photosphere, that's why they appear dark. But it is true that the increased solar activity associated with increased sunspot numbers does cause an increase in total solar irradiance. This is nothing new. The thing is, there hasn't been a significant change in total solar irradiance.

So if increases in suns output increases CO2 and CO2 is greenhouse gas why hasn't the earth gone into a runaway warming event in past.

Are you saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Seriously? You think that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation? In any case, to answer your question, it's because CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) levels have never been sufficient to result in "runaway" warming.

Some school of thought believe that increased CO2 levels actually reflect more solar irradiance so its mother earths protection from increased solar irradiance not the bad guy that science wants you to believe.

Not any that have anything to do with science.

But when we have higher levels of CO2 and Sunspot activity switches off ( which it has been doing) earth could go into a cooling event very quickly (less than 10 years).

Maybe. If my uncle was a woman he would be my aunt. So what? But sunspot activity has not been "switching off." It's been a low cycle, yes.
www.swpc.noaa.gov...

"A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere.

You didn't provide your source but that study is talking about what happens at the very outer regions of Earth's atmosphere (aka, space). It also is talking about what happens when CMEs (not solar electromagnetic radiation) encounters those outer regions. It has absolutely nothing to do with warming (anthropogenic or otherwise). It also says that those outer regions heat up, so much so that they expand:

During the heating impulse, the thermosphere puffed up like a marshmallow held over a campfire, temporarily increasing the drag on low-orbiting satellites. This is both good and bad. On the one hand, extra drag helps clear space junk out of Earth orbit. On the other hand, it decreases the lifetime of useful satellites by bringing them closer to the day of re-entry.

science.nasa.gov...

a reply to: defcon5 I was in global warming camp long before banks realized they could make billions in carbon trading derivatives so I am fully aware of both sides of argument but when I started re-examining my stance I realized I was wrong. Back then I refused to look alternative theories until I smelled a rat (climategate etc). I wondered why data is being doctored if global warming was real. Then realized that global warming was not caused by CO2 at all.

Ice thickness and volume is being tracked.

"The ESA announced in a statement on Monday that measurements from Cryosat, the ESA’s polar monitoring platform, showed that Arctic sea ice average thickness grew about 20 percent, or around 30 cm, from 2012 to 2013. Data suggested there was almost 9,000 cubic kilometers (1,400 cubic miles) of ice at the end of the 2013 melt season. Around the same time last year, there was 6,000 cubic kilometers (1,400 cubic miles) of ice, for a net increase of nearly 3,000 cubic kilometers (1,400 cubic miles) compared with 2012"

Source...www.ibtimes.com...

Rising CO2 levels against increasing arctic ice thickness can only result in one conclusion, that increased CO2 levels has NOTHING to do with the previous melting of arctic ice shelf (no correlation). But this is why Global Warming camp has changed their name to Climate Change, they want it both ways.

a reply to: glend
You left out this part

"Although the recovery of Arctic sea ice is certainly welcome news, it has to be considered against the backdrop of changes that have occurred over the last few decades," Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study, told The BBC. Shepherd added in a press release: "It's estimated that there were around 20,000 cu km of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today's minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years.”

www.ibtimes.com...

Is the increase because things are cooling down? Nope. Just a matter of weather, not climate.

According to the ESA, roughly 90 percent of the growth is due to the increase of multiyear ice -- the ice that survives more than one summer without melting. In previous summers, some of the ice migrated to Alaska and Siberia, where it melted. But in 2013, because of a change in wind patterns, the ice that would have normally taken a hike stayed put.

a reply to: Phage

Good for you for checking my sources. Means that you are prepared to at least examine peoples alternative views.

a reply to: glend
Thank you.
Another way of looking at it is called critical thinking. I always try to examine "views."
Trouble is, if all it is, is a "view" there isn't a lot to be said for it.

I do not think the science behind climate change is settled and people who attempt to pacify critics or delegitimatize debate only hurt the process. CO2 is a leading contender for global warming yet there have been attempts by some in the scientific community and proponents of this argument to censor dissension and, apparently, skew data. Heavy hitters have also profited immensely from pushing the global warming narrative. Politics has fused with, and perverted, science. Book burning and number fudging to fit agendas. They rather science be determined by petitions and popularity instead of given proper discourse. That and only that is the reason I don't buy the 'global warming being undeniably caused by humans and we need to jam X, Y, Z, down your throat' plan. But just because there's a few scumbags on one side of an argument doesn't mean it should be tossed out either. I do take steps to reduce my carbon footprint and recycle. These are just good habits people should adopt for the Earth and future gens regardless.

a reply to: Phage

I have been watching sunspot cycles very closely, when NASA was predicting increased solar activity, reverse occurred. Now the sunspot cycle is lowest for the last century and could actually disappear all together.
www.space.com...

If Sun enters another Maunder Minimum which causes a little ice age then most of us will die. So I hope you are right about Global Warming and I am wrong.
phys.org...

a reply to: glend

I have been watching sunspot cycles very closely, when NASA was predicting increased solar activity, reverse occurred.

Very early predictions were for a stong cycle. The prediction made in 2009 has been shown to be quite accurate.
www.swpc.noaa.gov...

Now the sunspot cycle is lowest for the last century and could actually disappear all together.

Maybe. But predicting more than one cycle in advance, before the minimum, has not proven very successful to date.

If Sun enters another Maunder Minimum which causes a little ice age then most of us will die.

As I pointed out previously, the "little ice age" began before the Maunder Minimum. There was more to the little ice age than solar activity.

So I hope you are right about Global Warming and I am wrong.

I don't. My daughter and her kids are not going to have a pleasant time of it. But what I hope doesn't count for much.