Nasa says no global warming

How did they measure the atmosphere from 600 million years ago? Time machine?

 

Polar ice drillings is one way, soil sample drillings another.

L

 

I've noticed that every time there's an unusually cold morning or a heavy snowstorm somewhere, someone pounces on it as 'proof' that global warming is a sham.

Considering how much of the country has been undergoing record heat waves this summer, I wonder how citing the weather has been working for those folks lately....

Here where the Mojave Desert meets the Sonoran Desert, today was totally cloudy and overcast; we never really saw the sun. And the temperature hit 110 degrees Fahrenheit anyway.

For you Celsius folks, that would be about 44 degrees. And you know, it does look cooler written that way. Maybe I'll invest in a Celsius thermometer.

 

Lurvio, that is why people are sceptical when scientists babble their bovine shizer.

Any type of measuring requires a calibration. The Yard is taken from a yard stick in an air conditioned room somewhere, time is taken from the Earth's revolution and the metric system is calibrated by water along with the celsius temperature.

The results from carbon dating or drilling holes in an iceblock are fantasies out of the tiny minds of a few sterile academics. They are similar to religious nutters who expect you to believe in blind faith without providing evidence to support their ramblings.

Deering, they do not use a time machine, that is a silly idea. Haven't you heard about the aliens in area 52 (I think it's 52, please excuse me if I'm a couple of areas out), there are a few 600 million year old aliens there and they are advising the scientific world of conditions back then.

 

Speaking of blind faith... it doesn't get much blinder than simplemindedly dismissing the vast majority of scientists worldwide as the equivalent of religious nutters.

 

The headline should have said; Scientist on big oil's payroll is cooking satellite data for profit.

The original article, page 1608 chart shows the time lag in question. To my eyes, the "net" which is in black, is still going up. Could the dip in temps from 2008-09 be from the great recession? We (the whole world) all cut back on producing, right?
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

It looks like the authors of the report (Roy Spencer and William Braswell) have tried this sort of thing before (data and conclusion) and have their critics. This article is from 2008 and may shed some light on the relative importance of the 2011 paper.

How to cook a graph in three easy lessons
RealClimate: How to cook a graph in three easy lessons

Some of the comments from the above link are enlightening.

Example:
RealClimate: How to cook a graph in three easy lessons

More recent stuff on Spencer: looks to me like the paper is a short version of his recently released book.

Review of Spencer’s ‘Great Global Warming Blunder’
RealClimate: Review of Spencer’s ‘Great Global Warming Blunder’

The oil companies have spent over 22 million fighting climate change science, at least according to the flash intro here: Exxon Secrets

About Spencer:
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Roy W. Spencer

Christy, Spencer and Braswell are all fed by Exxon Mobil's money.

Roy Spencer - SourceWatch

A good argument list;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

Haven't read the whole thread but I can confirm there is no such thing as "Global Warming" it is called "Climate Change" and I can assure you, it is very real, just look around, duh...

-Tom

 

Kach nailed it

as for that graph the resolution is so poor that its impossible to see the rate of change relative to todays rate of change. Deal is that yes, there have been periods of significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have today, but, those levels came about gradually ( which you can't really see in that resolution graph ) The changes we're creating today are happening so fast that the ecosystem simply doesn't have time to adjust itself./adapt

case closed

 

Troy the quantity of nutters doesn't make it any more valid.

Scientists like to predict things, in the one in a million chance they are right, and then they become famous.

If Global Warming and man's effect on it were proven facts, there would be no debate.

 

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time[not even if you are Al Gore(not said by Lincoln, but by me)].
Abraham Lincoln

 

In a nut shell, spencer is the same quack that still writes articles on smoking being good for you and NASA didn't publish anything denying the existence of global warming.

once again
Case closed

unfortunately global warming is very real, in a way every time I read stuff like this I wish I were wrong, but the evidence is overwhelming, climate change is just to well established. Basically we're screwed, the IPCC has consistently been correct in its predictions, or conservative. Which means that the 2.5 to 4.5 temp increase before the end of the century is most likely low. There is a very real chance of a five degree increase in temps which is about one split second from uninhabitable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8qmaAMK4cM&NR=1&feature=fvwp

the orange line right smack in the middle of the shaded area is if CO2 is held at 2000 levels ( which we have already exceeded ) through to the end of the century ( fat chance of that )


below is another research groups work done a few years later, the numbers worked out a little lower but they started lower as well. Even moderate growth in CO2 brings temps to +~3°C by the end of the century. Big deal, we still are steadily increasing which eventually brings the whole ecosystem down.

 

Yes of course Tom it is now called Climate Change. That is because the nutters used the term Global Warming until the meteorologists informed them from their records the Globe has not got warmer. So they changed it to Climate Change.

This is of course what they like to use a non calibrating term, ( a generalised term that can't be measured against anything)

The Earth has got warmer because we had the ice age.

All that is left of the ice age are the polar ice caps.

Ah say the nutters, but they are now melting faster.

Yes the nutters are so busy drawing graphs they have forgotten basic physics and maths.

The smaller ice gets, the faster it melts. This is due to the less volume of latent cold to prevent melting and as it gets smaller the surface area is larger in relation to its volume.

Humans have as much chance of changing the natural phenomena of global temperature as thay have of stopping the world from spinning.

 

It's not a bad ideal to keep track of the truth when analyzing policy:
The term "Climate change" was coined by a the republican pollster Frank Luntz not by the environmentalists.

Luntz, in a now infamous memo provided Bush with a number of ways to restate the science as a means of controlling the debate:

"The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says. Luntz advises that, “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’ ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge” (p. 142).

And, despite years of intensive study by and near-universal scientific agreement that global warming is happening and that human beings are at least contributing to it, Luntz urges his readers to assert that the country needs more accurate, “up-to-date” information before deciding to take action. By coaching his clients and allies to portray the scientific community as divided on the issue when it is not, they can block action on the problem while appearing well intentioned.

Republican political appointees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forced scientists to always use “climate change” instead of the accurate and alarming “global warming.”

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.""

Such theatrics leave me a bit ill...



No one has run with the graph I posted in post #15 so I will clarify:

I think this is a remarkable record portrayed there.

I find several things of particular interest-
1) Temperature constraint: The global temperatures stay rigidly between the lower constraint of 12 c and the upper of 22 c.
2) Excepting the short forays down to the lower constraint, the earth largely stays at the upper end of the scale @ 22c.
3) We are now at the lower end with the global temps at 12c; the 400,000 year long romps between glacial and interglacial periods are simply static which is not even visible on the scale of this graph, however profound they may be for the fauna on the planet.

4) I see no correlation between the atmospheric CO2 graphed and the global temperatures on this long (600,000,000 yr) scale....

Some degree of heat regulation in our system via CO2 is inarguably real, but I wonder now if the effect is not simply constrained within the far larger temperature changes as described by the very long term record as portrayed on the graph...

 

I mentioned the issues with that graph in my last B

temp is tied to a number of factors, not just CO2, those factors, things like global geography change slowly over periods of hundreds of millions of years. During the time of human development the continents have been relatively stable and the oceans conveyor belt steady. Makes for the correlation between temp and CO2 a major component of the climate system. Methane is another good example of a governing factor. A hotter world produces more methane whereas the CO2 is more involved in the seasonal cycle.

The chances of this correlation being random are extraordinarily small.



The main thing to remember is that yes, at one time these cycles held to a certain pattern, we have changed that pattern when we artificially add 30% more CO2 and 150% more methane into the system over an extremely short time geologically speaking. Both very strong greenhouse gasses, Means the system WILL deviate from the norm until it finds some point of equilibrium that reflects the altered atmospheric chemistry.

 

Ya I read the inspect element comments as well and eventually I'll find the source of this graph. Your right in that its an interesting bit of work. Who did it and off what information is it based as well as where's the resto of it are going to be some interesting questions.

found it
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...=2&ndsp=20&tbm=isch&ei=eHo1TvqjJq-40AHMu5jwCw

I"m off the the last day bash at the CO Ren Fest so no time to read it till maybe tomorrow but it looks legit just from a quick glance