16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming

Trader666 · Jun 22, 2014

futurecurrents said:
Ha ha, Hansen a skeptic. Good one moron. Wrong.
More...

Moron? Wrong? ROFL!!! What part of "James Hansenâs Former NASA SupervisorDeclares Himself a Skeptic" didn't you understand, diaper boy? No wonder you can't get even the simplest things right.

futurecurrents said:
Adjusting for the urban heat island is the correct thing to do and does not change anything with regard to world temps.
More...

Of course data tampering is "is the correct thing to do" if you're a zero integrity AGW moonbat like you with an agenda to push.

NASA Hiding The Decline In US Temperatures Through Data Tampering
Posted on June 15, 2014

In 1999, NASA reported the US was in a 70 year cooling trend.

Whither U.S. Climate?

By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato â August 1999

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases â in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country (Figure 2)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

That story wasnât scary and wasnât going to raise any money for NASA, so they massively altered the data to create a warming trend. The 2014 version adds 1.3C/century warming from 1976 to 1998, which didnât exist 15 years ago.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt

The thermometer data which NASA uses to generate the temperatures, shows the US cooling over the past 90 years

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ne-in-us-temperatures-through-data-tampering/

futurecurrents said:
World temps have not paused.
More...

Tell it to the IPCC.

Trader666 · Jun 22, 2014

Gore Blames Syria Civil War on Global Warming
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/06/19/gore-blames-syria-civil-war-global-warming

Trader666 · Jun 22, 2014

Junk Science Week: IPCC commissioned models to see if global warming would reach dangerous levels this century. Consensus is ânoâ
Matt Ridley, Special to Financial Post | June 19, 2014 |
Even if you pile crazy assumption upon crazy assumption, you cannot even manage to make climate change cause minor damage
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/19/ipcc-climate-change-warming/

futurecurrents · Jun 22, 2014

Trader666 said:
Moron? Wrong? ROFL!!! What part of "James Hansenâs Former NASA SupervisorDeclares Himself a Skeptic" didn't you understand, diaper boy? No wonder you can't get even the simplest things right.

Of course data tampering is "is the correct thing to do" if you're a zero integrity AGW moonbat like you with an agenda to push.

NASA Hiding The Decline In US Temperatures Through Data Tampering
Posted on June 15, 2014

In 1999, NASA reported the US was in a 70 year cooling trend.

Whither U.S. Climate?

By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato â August 1999

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases â in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country (Figure 2)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

That story wasnât scary and wasnât going to raise any money for NASA, so they massively altered the data to create a warming trend. The 2014 version adds 1.3C/century warming from 1976 to 1998, which didnât exist 15 years ago.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt

The thermometer data which NASA uses to generate the temperatures, shows the US cooling over the past 90 years

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ne-in-us-temperatures-through-data-tampering/

Tell it to the IPCC.
More...

OK asshole. Show me the quote, in context, where Hansen says he is a skeptic. Can you do that one thing instead of this huge dump of total bullshit denialist nutter propaganda.

Why can't you ever use authoritative sources like NOAA NASA The Met Service etc? Why do you always quote know denialist propaganda websites. Who is "Steve Goddard" again? LOL You're so gullible and ignorant.

Trader666 · Jun 22, 2014

futurecurrents said:
And the point of the CO2 chart above is to show that the current rise is not natural......dipstick.
More...

Which doesn't change the far more substantive point that it's asinine to pretend that the last 15 seconds of the earth's 24 hour lifespan are in any way "normal" for the planet, especially since CO2 concentrations have been 10 to 15 times higher than they are now in the relatively recent past... diaper boy.

futurecurrents · Jun 22, 2014

Doesn't matter what this handful of low level non-scientist right wing nut jobs think. Why would you think it does?

The debate is over.

jem said:
Shortly after the real scientists and astronauts wrote this letter in 2012... NASA got rid of hansen and his misrepresentations.

"We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data," the group wrote. "With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."

http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html

A NASA spokesman confirmed that the agency received the letter on Tuesday (April 11). [Read the full story about the letter]

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASAâs history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASAâs advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASAâs current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack â JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell â JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard â JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick â JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman â JSC, Scientist â astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox â JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham â JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry â JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day â Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. â JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich â JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron â JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke â JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany â JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson â JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon â JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin â JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs â JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath â JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. â JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree â JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones â JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin â JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight â JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft â JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer â JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger â JSC, Assât. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell â JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen â JSC, Project Engineer â Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser â Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller â Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock â JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland â JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers â JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum â JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt â JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows â JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit â JSC, Assât Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson â JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer â Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine â JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried â JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
More...

Trader666 · Jun 22, 2014

futurecurrents said:
Show me the quote, in context, where Hansen says he is a skeptic.
More...

LOL what a total IDIOT you are. Even when I highlighted it in red, you still couldn't grasp it.

Since it might be a while before your mommy changes your diaper again (and she can explain it)... for the THIRD time, James Hansenâs Former NASA SUPERVISOR is the skeptic. Get it now, dumbass?

futurecurrents said:
Why can't you ever use authoritative sources like NOAA NASA..
More...

I did and showed how they fudged the data but you're too stupid to grasp that too.

futurecurrents · Jun 22, 2014

Wow. Just wow. I'm dumbfounded.

Simple question. Do you think that it is extremely logical to conclude that this recent spike in CO2 levels is due to man? Or not.

piezoe said:
Indeed, I don't believe that, as you say, "... government and taxes are evil per se. I also don't believe it is possible to resolve scientific questions by resorting to opinion polls, personalities and insults.

There is plenty of room, from my perspective at least, for questions and doubt when it comes to the question of whether man's CO2 emissions are causing an observed temperature increase during the twentieth century.

One of the things that everyone can grasp from the proxy record that goes back thousands of years is the obvious cyclical nature of CO2 and temperature. Are we simply near one of those cyclical peaks, or have we caused a peak to appear prematurely? The the period variance of the natural cycles is large enough to incorporate the present temperature CO2 excursion.

Two things especially give me pause. One is the time relationship between temperature rise and CO2 rise that Salby has explored. I think that is his major contribution. If his work is correct -- it must be independently refereed -- then temperature rise leads CO2 rise for shorter time scale events such as the observed twentieth century temperature rise. It is difficult to explain how CO2 rise can be causing temperature rise with that phase relationship.

Obviously the more common explanation that CO2 rise is increasing temperature is also consistent with most of the data, but it is the time relationship that has to be explained by those who are insisting that CO2 rise is causing temperature to rise.

There are a lot of special interests that have a stake in the eventual outcome. The oil industry wants the science to turn out one way, and those who see profit in trading carbon credits or those who went out on a limb and drew early conclusions from the obvious correlation of CO2 and temperature want the science to turn out another way. This latter cohort seems to have made the error of getting emotionally and political involved in what should be a purely scientific question.

If we allow for a moment that something other than CO2 is driving up temperature, then is it possible that natural sinking would have sequestered most or all of the additional man made CO2 had temperature not been driven up? Would temperature rise result in an increase in gaseous CO2 regardless of man's contribution?

FC raises a point worth considering and that is ocean pH change. I don't recall seeing any data regarding the timing of ocean pH changes relative to rising gaseous CO2 and temperature, but surely there are those looking at this.

The recently observed hiatus in integrated temperature rise is also troubling for those predicting positive feedback, and perhaps run-a-way temperature rise, because we aren't seeing a decline yet in CO2. (I'm confident FC will correct me if I'm wrong about this.)

I'm still betting that Salby will end up sharing the Nobel Prize twenty years from now for his study of the phase relationships between CO2 rise and temperature. That guy is brilliant! -- though apparently a little hard to get along with. On the other hand, the prize is highly political and a number of worthy recipients have been passed over because they irritated influential colleagues. I'm thinking particularly here of M.J.S. Dewar.

So far it would seem to me likely that we are just following another of the historically observed temperature CO2 cycles with only minor interference from man made CO2. That scenario is, so far, consistent with what we observe. (Salby's analysis of the ice core data shows that we don't have to go back hundreds of thousands of years -- as some claim -- to find periods when atmospheric CO2 content was higher.)

As is obvious to anyone who takes the time to read my posts, I strongly disagree with those who maintain that this is a settled issue, and that we already know what we need to know to conclude that man made CO2 emissions are driving temperature up.

In the end, before we can conclude anything, we have to have a complete picture into which all the pieces fit. We seem to be quite a ways off from that goal.
More...

futurecurrents · Jun 22, 2014

Trader666 said:
LOL what a total IDIOT you are. Even when I highlighted it in red, you still couldn't grasp it.

Since it might be a while before your mommy changes your diaper again (and she can explain it)... for the THIRD time, James Hansenâs Former NASA SUPERVISOR is the skeptic. Get it now, dumbass?

I did and showed how they fudged the data but you're too stupid to grasp that too.
More...

He said no such thing moron and the data was not "fudged". It was adjusted to compensate for the urban heat island effect. But by all means continue to keep deluding yourself with lies. You apparently can't handle the truth. Too stupid.

Trader666 · Jun 22, 2014

futurecurrents said:
The debate is over.
More...