NASA | Six Decades of a Warming Earth Shown in 15 Second Video

Alien Abduct
So the nearly 100% of all scientits that have looked into this and concluded that global warming is in fact occurring are wrong? I think I'll side with them thank you.

I don't think it's anywhere near 100% and scientists talking about global warming admit their models have been a complete failure in predicting what has happened over the last 15 years, which is, a lack of global warming.

Alien Abduct
but that was proven wrong so I encourage you to overturn the fact that global warming is occurring go ahead and prove that wrong .

The scientific community's own data says it stopped (or "paused" as they call it) a in 1998, 15 years ago. Now they are trying to come up with hypotheses to explain this because they didn't predict it:

‘Stadium Waves’ Could Explain Lull In Global Warming

One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998...

climate regimes — multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling — evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular — the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent.

So they are talking about multi-decade intervals of warming and cooling. They are not the only ones. Here's a scientist who says the warming cycle is over and we are entering a cooling cycle:

OUT, Global Warming – IN, Global Cooling

CONCLUSIONS

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.

Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. He has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change.

I don't know about that, as he could be right or wrong about the cooling cycle, but even the people saying global warming is a real effect admit the data shows it stopped in 1998.

rockn82
Well, first off my intention is neither to support or deny "global warming".

I think that's a good position, if you mean right now. Obviously some global warming took place between 1971 and 1998. We need to look at facts and data and let them tell us what's going on, and we have to realize some cycles last 50-60 years or longer, which scientists have begun to realize and are talking about now.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Nice post, thanks for the info.

Surely there are more than the four seasons we are aware of down here on our little ball of earth.

reply to post by Nucleardoom


Easy to show a trend if you go back and lower the temps before 1960 as many have claimed has been done or better yet just fake the temps in places like Iceland.. Another climate gate?
stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

Trausti Jónsson senior meteorologist Icelandic Meteorological Office

The altering of Icelandic data by NASA was particularly troubling, because the cooling from 1940 to 1980 was a well known and difficult historical period in Iceland. NASA erased Iceland’s history, without even the courtesy to contact Iceland’s experts.

Additionally, we know that there was tremendous warming in the Arctic prior to the 1940s, which Hansen has erased from the historical record in Iceland, Greenland and elsewhere.

Similarly NASA temperature records for Antarctica have also been altered. In 2005, NASA showed most of Antarctic on a long term cooling trend, but in 2007 they changed it to a long term warming trend – despite the fact that 2007 was the year of record sea ice in Antarctica.

Models that do not predict observed reality neither past, present, or the future, which was 2013 when the B.S. started..... shoddy baseless science for a preconceived outcome, caught fixing data points and rigging simple graphs... There is no agenda, promise you can keep most of your weather; no one will lose their weather just pay us.

Climate change is starting to look like many of the CGI UFO vids on youtube... Great picture but alas no substance except that which was created in some fakers mind... Who are you gonna believe? IMO anyone caught fixing data as blatantly as has been claimed should be investigated and if found to have corrupted the data should lose their job at least and be shamed for the lier they are.. No do overs, no King's X, just get out the door and do not show your face around here again... Insert a younger Clint Eastwood holding a double barrel shotgun delivering the message...

Arbitrageur

rockn82
Well, first off my intention is neither to support or deny "global warming".

I think that's a good position, if you mean right now. Obviously some global warming took place between 1971 and 1998. We need to look at facts and data and let them tell us what's going on, and we have to realize some cycles last 50-60 years or longer, which scientists have begun to realize and are talking about now.

     Well to me there are just such a vast amount of factors going into the temperature of our planet that it's ridiculous to think that we have a handle on what is truly taking place. I will list some of the things that top my list:
_______________________________________________________
     The Sun's energy output
     Continental drift affecting ocean conveyors
     Volcanic activity
     Global wildfires
     Past and current mean temperatures
     The validity of collected data (climate-gate emails)
     Ice core samples (how deep is 1 year? 10K years?)
     Mountains falling and rising
     Heat retention by urban areas
     Deforestation
     Water Depletion

     There is more that could be added to the list but those are the main ones off the top of my head. I'd rather not go through each one and why it may have an impact on our climate so I will give an example relating to the mountains.
     As mountains form they are pushed up some are continuing to grow and some are being eroded and thus "falling". Mountains can block air currents and can trap moisture from reaching certain regions. As mountains continue to grow they may be blocking or redirecting more air as a result and on the inverse as they "fall" they may allow air to reach locations which it previously did not. Now I understand that we are talking centimeters per year but this still has an effect and can not be completely discounted.
     You wondered about my position on things right now. Well, as of right now I can say things "seem" warmer then when I was young but that is certainly a relative perception. The last two years have been quite cool and as we both pointed out in previous posts there has been no change in mean temps in the last 15 years. Heck, in the 70's they were predicting that we were heading for an ice age. As times change so do ideas. That is why I prefer to take an objective approach for things that people portray as a fact, especially when there is money involved. Not that I'm a skeptic at heart but I have heard so many "facts" that are just complete fallacies. We need way more data, raw and unmolested and that is the hard part.
     Also, I will certainly agree with you point about cycles. There are cycles that we don't even know about yet. However, just look at the ones we do know about: extinction cycles, warming cycles, ice ages, snowball Earth periods, volcanic cycles, water convection cycles, weather/air cycles, Sun cycles, unicycles and more.

Well, thank goodness for Global Warming.....Just imagine the problems if Atlanta ever had snow, but that's impossible, its way down the bottom of North America near tropical Florida.

au.news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by TrueBrit

Thanks for your reply ...Sure there are negative effects to to anything ,even life itself ...Sure there are accidents that are terrible ...Sure we have technology that can look and work in cool ways ...We have gotten to this point by using fossil fuels .I don't even like that name because I don't think oil comes from dead lizards .If you look at the development of our race it has a very sharp curve up from the industrial revolution that gave us our knowledge we have today to make and invent the technologies you are suggesting .We humans have not decreased but have increased in numbers and our ability to maintain our standards of living ..

Could we do better ? you bet we could ,but it will take fossil fuels to do it .You cant make big wind turbines with out it ...I cant see us as a society electing any politician who is not beholden to the Banks and the Corporations ...We may have the right to vote them in and out of power but when they get there they have to tow the line ..At this time in our history I believe that it's the Banks and the Corporations that want to implement their crazy policies all based around that co2 molecule . Look at the IPCC and all of these Pal reviewed scientific studies and then take a look behind the curtain an the Emails that came through Climate Gate ...Somethings up with all of that ..When they have to lie cheat and steal they are surely not stealing from the politicians and the lawyers that are going to make laws to tax us more .Us the tax payers and not the parasites that are only feeding at the public trough .

Peace

rockn82 reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

I think you slightly missed my point. There are some things that we know as "fact" which will be proven wrong when we garner a further understanding of those "facts". The reference to the world being flat was quite simply that. It was a fact that was proven wrong as time went on. Just because somebody tells you something is a fact you should not discount all other information relating to the information being given. You asked that I prove them wrong. Well, first off my intention is neither to support or deny "global warming". That being said, there are "facts" that we know of today that do severely impact the whole anthropological global warming issue. Is the Earth getting warmer? Perhaps. Aside from the data showing that the last 15 years has seen no rise in the mean temperature (Breitbart). Along with this back in 2003 it was announced that Pluto's atmosphere has increased in density as it is moving away from the sun. This is an indication of the dwarf planet heating up. What is the cause for this shocking heating? After all it was revealed that this warming is occurring during its orbit as it moves away from the sun. Now I have seen a couple debunkers try and say that it has taken on heat, kind of like the Earth does, and it takes a bit to cool back down but for me the explanation can be discounted out of hand. The Earth does not take months to "cool" off from being nearer to the Sun in it's orbit(NY Times). In 2007 National Geographic did a story on Mars and how it was warming up(National Geographic). Still down the road are stories of other planets in our solar system warming up. Is the Earth warming? Again I say perhaps. Could it be because of our Sun? Perhaps. Do I believe it is because of humans? No. That is just silly. Now I have entertained your question as to proving them wrong (although admittedly not in great detail) but perhaps you will honor me with a similar rebuttal. If I am to prove to you they are wrong, please prove to me that if the solar system is heating up then why can't Earth be warming like the rest of the planets?

Yes as I stated earlier there is some debate as to what may be causing the Earth to warm.

I'd like to point out that although the sun might be causing some of the planets to warm, there is a strong spike in the increase of the warming of earth occurring right along with the industrial revolution.

This dramatic spike in the mean temperature that lies directly along side the industrial revolution, is it a coincidence? I argue that it is not a coincidence and 95% of scientists also argue the same.

-Alien

Alien Abduct
This dramatic spike in the mean temperature that lies directly along side the industrial revolution, is it a coincidence? I argue that it is not a coincidence and 95% of scientists also argue the same.

What's your source for this 95% figure?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I got curious about that to, so a little search brought up this. But, it is from 2010 and 2009.

Clic k me

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."

Click me to

31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

But, also found this.

Click me to 2

I just read a opinion piece by Craig D Idso Ph.D " In his State of the Union address, President Obama advocated an energy policy aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which he claims are causing catastrophic changes to the earth’s climate and “harming western communities.” In his policy prescription, the president advocates a combination of increased regulation of the energy and transportation industries and more government spending on research designed to bring low-carbon-emitting sources of energy, i.e., so-called renewables, to market. He considers those actions to be the only viable options “leading to a cleaner, safer planet.”
thehill.com...

further he states and I have come to believe this as well. "With respect to the science, Obama conveniently fails to disclose the fact that literally thousands of scientific studies have produced findings that run counter to his view of future climate. As just one example, and a damning one at that, all of the computer models upon which his vision is based failed to predict the current plateau in global temperature that has continued for the past 16 years. That the earth has not warmed significantly during this period, despite an 8 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, is a major indictment of the models’ credibility in predicting future climate, as well as the president’s assertion that debate on this topic is “settled.”

The article is a easy well written piece ..peace

Alien Abduct

Yes as I stated earlier there is some debate as to what may be causing the Earth to warm.

I'd like to point out that although the sun might be causing some of the planets to warm, there is a strong spike in the increase of the warming of earth occurring right along with the industrial revolution.

This dramatic spike in the mean temperature that lies directly along side the industrial revolution, is it a coincidence? I argue that it is not a coincidence and 95% of scientists also argue the same.

-Alien

     Correlation is not causation. We can look back throughout the data they give us and see temperature spikes everywhere. Just because this one coincided with human progression doesn't mean that we made it happen. Could it be coincidence? Absolutely. Also, your "97% of scientists" stat is unreliable since going from what Mianeye linked for us has an interesting line.

Mianeye

... polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic...

     This tells us they people they polled about human caused global warming are the same people that are pushing the idea of human caused global warming. Of course they are going to be in almost 100% agreement; they like their jobs.

     I'm not sure where to find it but if another member could link or show me a place to find some numbers on the amount of grants pertaining to "anthropogenic global warming" and how easy they are to attain, it would be interesting to see how much money is available and how hard it is to get at for people in the climate fields. It would also be interesting to see if there are any grants for people who are showing us it's not true.

    I would like to point out one more thing. Do a search for temperature vs. carbon dioxide during the carboniferous period. You will see some very interesting stats.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

Considering that a lot of the globe has been monitored and a lot has not over the longer periods doesn't give us a true measurement .We know about Island sinks and monitoring stations put on tar mats at airports .These things have to make a difference to the whole of the measurements . Every couple of years they come up with supposedly better ways of doing measurements with better equipment ..I think its getting possible for them to fudge their numbers and there are some who know what to look for that are saying just that .

The latest thing I have heard is that they are not going to maintain the buoy systems in the pacific .Funding problem they are saying ,but if you think about it ,how accurate have these buoy's been over the time frame they have been used ,seeing they are not going to use them anymore . I can see them in the end using just the satellite array they have and possibly adjusting the data to say to us what they want us to believe . I guess in the end many will drink their cool aid but until I can grow bananas in my yard 2 to 4 degrees is not going to make a big deal , especially to the degree of $'s they want to shove on to the public in the way of taxing the co2 molecule . The warming camp has vilified it and has gone so far as to say we need to make it 0% ...

I am of the persuasion that by moving the pollution debate away from true pollutants and labeled co2 as such the msm beholden to their controllers will reduce the population by hook or by crook ....

Sigh, this is another one of those skeptic arguments that won't die. The heat island sink.


First off, temperatures are measured all over the planet, and they are warming, weather in a heat island sink or not.

Which means that even in frigid places, with no heat island sink , they are warming, and in the oceans too.

By admitting that the heat island effect can effect global temperatures, means that human activity is effecting global temperatures.

gort51


And if you are really curious about weather change (which I agree with btw), why did the Earth Suddenly get cooler in the 1960s early 70s, at the heighi of USA car pollution (those big tasty V8 muscle and family cars everyone drove then.

I would really like to have and explanation about why the Earth cooled at that period...

It didn't cool in the 1960s and 70s. The fact is, the earth entered into the cycle where it should begin cooling, but it didn't, because of GW.



which i would think, lead to the 1970s predictions for coming ice age etc. To me this is more intriguing than the so called warming.

A crackpot scientist predicted an ice age at the time, and the media ran with it, for about 2 weeks. The rest of the scientific community and research at the time supported GW.

Other than that, a pretty animation that proves nothing. Particularly over a scant 50 years (Notice they didnt include the 1940s, a very Cold period on Earth).

Wow. Just wow. You have all sorts of bad information going on in your head. When you fill your own head with junk to prove your own point, know wonder you don't accept any facts.

GW skeptics are like bible thumpers, the only book they read is the bible because they know that reading anything else would inform them how the planet really works and might have to actually leave their skeptical viewpoint.

The 1940s cooling was man made. It was a result of sulfate aerosols because of industrial activities. We were artificially dampening GW.

the2ofusr1
I just read a opinion piece by Craig D Idso Ph.D " In his State of the Union address, President Obama advocated an energy policy aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which he claims are causing catastrophic changes to the earth’s climate and “harming western communities.” In his policy prescription, the president advocates a combination of increased regulation of the energy and transportation industries and more government spending on research designed to bring low-carbon-emitting sources of energy, i.e., so-called renewables, to market. He considers those actions to be the only viable options “leading to a cleaner, safer planet.”
thehill.com...

further he states and I have come to believe this as well. "With respect to the science, Obama conveniently fails to disclose the fact that literally thousands of scientific studies have produced findings that run counter to his view of future climate. As just one example, and a damning one at that, all of the computer models upon which his vision is based failed to predict the current plateau in global temperature that has continued for the past 16 years. That the earth has not warmed significantly during this period, despite an 8 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, is a major indictment of the models’ credibility in predicting future climate, as well as the president’s assertion that debate on this topic is “settled.”

The article is a easy well written piece ..peace

So why don't you list some of these studies then? And not follow the advice of a right wingnut article's advice?

nixie_nox


The 1940s cooling was man made. It was a result of sulfate aerosols because of industrial activities. We were artificially dampening GW.

Do you have a source for that statement? I would like to do some reading on that.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Sure! In my haste I forgot to add that a volcanic eruption subdued the southern atmosphere.

newscientist[ /url]

[url=http://www.tellusb.net/index.php/tellusb/article/viewFile/15404/17254]scientific explanation` in case you can't fall asleep tonight

NASA

reply to post by nixie_nox

What I meat was that the temps are collected from all places ,including the man made parking lots (think black asphalt) and added into the records .A simple experiment can show that by doing that you will get different results . When the first study and only one I can think of was done on Temperature stations ,it was quite shocking what was happening .Temp stations in Jet Engine blasts at airports ..Other stations were in the middle of parking lots , some were in the exhaust air flows from air conditioner units .

Now I am not a scientist and but I would think if you sought out cooler spots (in the shade ,next to a stream ) you would almost likely have a distorted outcome .There are papers out there on both sides of the isle .What was found in a lot of the prowarmers camp was those papers were Pal Reviewed .Think the hockey stick and the climate gate emails and do a little reading between the lines and you will get a much clearer picture ....

edit to add ..Here you go ....A paper just published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology finds that the data homogenization techniques commonly used to adjust temperature records for moving stations and the urban heat island effect [UHI] can result in a “significant” exaggeration of warming trends in the homogenized record.
The effect of homogenization is clear and quite pronounced. What they found in China is based on how NOAA treats homogenization of the surface temperature record.


According to the authors:

“Our analysis shows that “data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.”

wattsupwiththat.com... s-of-surface-air-temperature/

reply to post by nixie_nox


Thank you. I found the last paragraph (the "update") quite interesting.

eriktheawful
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Thank you. I found the last paragraph (the "update") quite interesting.

I also found that interesting. I had no idea about the "bucket" effect and apparently neither did most scientists until they started digging into it!

Here's more proof of global warming. How much more do you need?