What's Really Warming the World?

a reply to: jrod

It's as if you conveniently ignore my second post, in which I point out that even NASA itself states that evidences are against AGW.

originally posted by: Greven

If you notice the only visible line in that is above the number, it looks like NASA barely adjusts temperatures at all these days but allegedly used to?

Yes. Current temperature records are left approximately untampered, but records of past temperatures (which no civilian can verify) are cooled down to give the impression that it was much cooler back then than it is now.

Link

a reply to: swanne

That is not what your graph shows. You are essentially creating your own 'truth' here.

Do you have any valid sources to back up your claims?

So far you have ignored such a request. The link you just posted is to an opinion piece and NOT backed by reality.

originally posted by: jrod
That is not what your graph shows. You are essentially creating your own 'truth' here.

Fascinating how you cannot even read a graph for what is says. It seems the AGW church is a very blinding ideology.



Temperature adjustments means exactly that: temperature adjustments. Current temps are relatively left "unadjusted" (near to zero), whereas past temps are adjusted down (down to minus 0.10). This is what the graph reads, whether you like it or not.

a reply to: swanne
Since you refer to good science as a church, I can conclude you are just better to troll and derail this thread.
I'm done responding to your bogus claims.

a reply to: jrod

My claim is supported by NASA herself. You are basically calling NASA a troll.

I am done here too.

The Sun Heats up the ocean and decades later temperature increases. Then ocean releases green house gases. www.youtube.com...

a reply to: swanne

Fascinating that you present a graph with no sources to the data used, and expect an intelligent person to accept it as fact.

Just because someone went on excel and put NASA in the title, does not magically make it valid.

originally posted by: nerbot

originally posted by: Flesh699
The Chemtrail BS hides the real issue...hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic fuel burning over our heads days and night.

I don't think the burning fuel was the issue in that case and I think you have things the wrong way round. It was the lack of vapour in the air that usually reflects the solar radiation, hense the slight rise in temp without all those flights to protect the earth.

Artificial Weather Revealed by Post 9-11 Flight Groundings

Three Days Without Contrails The post-9/11 grounding of all commercial aircraft resulted in the sudden disappearance of condensation trails (contrails) from jet aircraft across the entire United States. According to the Nature study, the potential of contrails "...from jet aircraft to affect regional-scale surface temperatures has been debated for years...," but it was not until the three-day grounding period that doubts concerning the existence of the phenomenon could be put to rest.
The Phenomenon: A 1.8 Degree Celsius Increase In Temperature in North America The study found "...an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures) for the period 11-14 September 2001."

That might be true, but I find burning highly cancerous and toxic fuel over the planet by thousands of gallons ridiculous. That's equivalent to me drinking gasoline and totally confident I won't get sick.

originally posted by: Flesh699
That might be true, but I find burning highly cancerous and toxic fuel over the planet by thousands of gallons ridiculous. That's equivalent to me drinking gasoline and totally confident I won't get sick.

That is a rediculous analogy.

I imagine you've flown before and never considered the inplications YOU support while doing so.

I am not going to enter into a scientific argument here. However, I would like someone to explain to me (emotion aside) the reasoning behind the big swing at NASA. They stated the world was cooling in the 1970's and warming now. Everyone has charts showing the pros and cons of climate change.

In the early 1970's, NASA and NOAA was concerned about global cooling and the catastrophe that would bring. They said that crops would fail and eventually not be able to be grown at all. Look and Time Magazines ran article after article about this pending disaster. They wrote about "nuclear winter" brought on by above ground atomic testing and factories polluting the atmosphere.

I am old enough to remember all the iterations of climate change...cooling, warming and then just climate change. This is followed by a politician's attempt to establish the "Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange" where you buy dispensation to use carbon fuels from him. Then the leaked e-mails from a University of Pennsylvania professor on how to doctor climate data...What gives?

a reply to: St Udio

just look at the number of lava flowing, ash producing volcanos that are currently active--- in just the above ground locals...
there are likely 50 times that number which are erupting under the

Where are you seeing reports of 50 times that erupting under the sea? This is not supported by any papers published by scientists studying climate change.

what we have going on is a active volcano era going on which is causing the way above average temperatures to happen, the wind cycles change which effect both local and regional climate models....

Again, this wrong. Active volcanoes emit sulfate aerosols which have a cooling effect because they block sunlight. The C02 is still nothing compared to the anthropogenic 30 billion tonnes of c02 emitted each year according to the EIA. Fossil fuel emissions are 100x that of the maximum volcanic c02 fluxes.

originally posted by: buddah6
I am not going to enter into a scientific argument here. However, I would like someone to explain to me (emotion aside) the reasoning behind the big swing at NASA. They stated the world was cooling in the 1970's and warming now.

There weren't any global comprehensive measurements in 1970's, and there wasn't any consensus on the presence of global cooling.

What there was:

a) increasing understanding of Milankovitch cycles, and in that cycle, the astronomical forcing on Earth peaked in about 8000 BC and is starting to cool.

b) sort of cooling in some Northern industrialized areas, which we now know was from air pollution which is now abating.

c) understanding there was a balance between cooling driving and warming driving but the quantitative details were not sufficiently clear in the experimental and observational record.

journals.ametsoc.org...

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then.

a reply to: mbkennel
Thank you for a voice of reason. It still amazes me how intellectually dishonest some are in these discussions.