Nasa contradicts Nasa

[Dementia_Madness]

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.

In theory, one could argue that the computer models are accurate, and that the real measurements have some problem. However this is not the case. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible.

The atmosphere is extremely complex in its behavior. Because of this, finding the correct explanation for the behavior we observe is complex as well. Virtually all scientists will agree that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should have some effect on the temperature of the Earth. But it is much less certain how or if we will recognize the effects of this increase.

 
 *  First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.
    * Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.
    * Third, the ways in which clouds and water vapor feed back and ultimately influence the temperature of the Earth are, at best, poorly understood.
    * Fourth, while the whole Earth is indeed in a state that scientists describe as "radiative equilibrium," where the incoming sunlight equals the outgoing infrared radiation to provide a roughly constant overall temperature, the surface is far from this radiative balance condition. Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor. So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere - poorly represented in computer models of global warming - that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper troposphere, not radiation balance.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/volcano.htm

Volcanic eruptions are thought to be responsible for the global cooling that has been observed for a few years after a major eruption. The amount and global extent of the cooling depend on the force of the eruption and, possibly, its latitude. When large masses of gases from the eruption reach the stratosphere, they can produce a large, widespread cooling effect. As a prime example, the effects of Mount Pinatubo, which erupted in June 1991, may have lasted a few years, serving to offset temporarily the predicted greenhouse effect.

See here's something I don't really understand....we are told the "greenhouse" effect is cused by HUMANS adding Co2 to the atmosphere.....and yet somehow a volcanic eruption that adds even more Co2 in a short span of time than all human activity in the long term...somehow that "reverses" (temporarily) the "greenhouse" effect.

As volcanoes erupt, they blast huge clouds into the atmosphere. These clouds are made up of particles and gases, including sulfur dioxide. Millions of tons of sulfur dioxide gas can reach the stratosphere from a major volcano. There, the sulfur dioxide converts to tiny persistent sulfuric acid (sulfate) particles, referred to as aerosols. These sulfate particles reflect energy coming from the sun, thereby preventing the sun's rays from heating the Earth.

Global cooling often has been linked with major volcanic eruptions. The year 1816 often has been referred to as "the year without a summer." It was a time of significant weather-related disruptions in New England and in Western Europe with killing summer frosts in the United States and Canada. These strange phenomena were attributed to a major eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1815 in Indonesia. The volcano threw sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, and the aerosol layer that formed led to brilliant sunsets seen around the world for several years.

However, there is some confusion about the historical evidence that global cooling may be caused by volcanic emissions. Two recent volcanic eruptions have provided contradictory evidence on this point. Mount Agung in 1963 apparently caused a considerable decrease in temperatures around much of the world, whereas El Chichn in 1982 seemed to have little effect, perhaps because of its different location or because of the El Nino that occurred the same year. El Nino is a Pacific Ocean phenomenon, but it causes worldwide weather variations that may have acted to cancel out the effect of the El Chichn eruption.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/another-nasa-defection-to-the-skeptics-camp/

omething about retirement apparently frees people up to say what they really believe. I retired early from NASA over seven years ago to have more freedom to speak my mind on global warming.

You might recall that after Dr. Joanne Simpson retired from NASA she (trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/3rd_trmm_conf/simpson.doc) admitted to a long-held skepticism regarding the role of mankind in global warming.

And who can forget NASA’s Administrator, Michael Griffin, admitting that he was skeptical of the urgency of the global warming problem? After the outrage that ensued, I suspect he wishes he had never brought it up.

And now my old boss when I was at NASA (as well as James Hansen’s old boss), John Theon, has stated very clearly that he doesn’t believe global warming is manmade…and adding “climate models are useless” for good measure. Even I wouldn’t go quite that far, since I use simple ones in my published research.

I remember the old days at NASA, when even John Theon was singing the same tune as most people at NASA were. Manmade global warming was a potentially serious threat, and NASA wanted Congress to fund new satellites to study the problem. It was a team effort to get that accomplished.

Global warming research was a relatively new field back then. Was Theon always skeptical, and just being a team player at the time? I don’t know. It could be that Dr. Theon, after watching 15 years of climate research go by, decided that he was no longer convinced that mankind was at fault for warming.

After all, there is some precedence for scientists changing their minds. One of today’s leading global warming alarmists is Stephen Schneider, who did a major about-face from the 1970s when global cooling was all the rage. At least Theon didn’t write a book back then about how serious the global warming issue was, as Schneider did on global cooling.

And how many defections have we seen in the other direction — from the skeptics’ camp to the alarmists’ camp? Seems like it’s been a one-way street so far.

Theon now also supports what I have repeatedly said over the years. That NASA’s James Hansen routinely ignored NASA policy, and said whatever he wanted to the press and to Congress without getting approval first. The reason why everyone at NASA looked the other way was that we were trying to get congressional funding for satellite missions to study climate. I personally don’t think we needed Hansen’s extremist views to get that accomplished, but it probably helped to some extent.

I asked NASA managers at the time, how can Hansen get away with saying whatever he wanted to? The answer was, “well…he’s not supposed to”.

You might think it’s OK for the lone scientist to warn everyone of impending planetary doom. But I consider it much closer to someone who makes a habit of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Forcing expensive energy on people will lead to death and suffering. These are very real threats, not theoretical like manmade global warming, and they exist today. I personally don’t care where our energy comes from — but I do care that a maximum number of people can afford it.

In truth, it wasn’t Hansen who was muzzled, but it was me in the Clinton-Gore years, who was asked to keep my mouth shut about my skeptical views. That was fine…if a little annoying. At least the flap Hansen caused has managed to force NASA to say that their scientists no longer have to march in lock-step on scientific issues. That’s a good thing.

I have to wonder…how many more scientists will be outing themselves as skeptics? While we may never constitute a majority, and many of us have differing views on the real causes of climate change, it only takes one of us to be right for the global warming house of cards to collapse.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1A5E6E32-802A-23AD-40ED-ECD53CD3D320

  James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’

Gore Faces More Scientific Blowback 

Also See: Gore’s Inconvenient Astronaut: NASA Moonwalker Defies Gore's Claim That Skeptics Are Akin To Those Who Believe Moon Landing was 'Staged'   

Stooopid flat earthers  Lane

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Ok, let me get this straight. You cite an article, WRITTEN IN 1997, by two people, as "proof" NASA contradicts itself when they release a study in 2010 about global temperatures rising in the decade of 2000-2009????  If ever there was any doubt about your sanity, that line of reasoning should settle it.

I like how you conveniently cite this quote ("Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades"), implying to the casual reader than the last two decades would be the 2000's and the 1990's. Of course, the authors ostensibly were talking about the 1970's and 1980's, given that the 90's were not over when the article was written. Or at best, their study only covered the time frame up to the mid 90's. I think even a flat earther like you would concede the enormous advances made in computer technology and climate science since the time this article was written ... in 1997.

Also, Dr. Roy Spencer is a regular on the Rush Limbaugh show, which that alone says a lot about his credibility. It seems Dr. Spencer also rejects evolution in favor of intelligent design. I think it is safe to say that Dr. Spencer is in the tiny minority in the scientific community when it comes to his views on evolution and global climate change.

There are PhD historians who deny the Holocaust happened. They cite "sources"; write papers; and appear on talk shows lecturing that the idea of the Holocaust was a  Zionist Jewish conspiracy. Dr. Roy Spencer has as much credibility in the climate science field as these charlatans do in historical studies.

[Dementia_Madness]

 

F  Lane  L despite the age of this story, the overall theme is still the same today...and even the modern day NASA data confirms this as the other thread referencing this link states http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=41400&src=eoa-manews

The fact is we do know a little more today than we did ten years ago....BUT not enough to say we have a full understanding of the complexity of climate change on earth. You libs love to try and denounce the facts piece by piece but YOU never open yourself up to the bigger picture..you reply on the other thread about NASA being "directed" towards climate change rather than space exploration exemplifies this. And your arguments against all the cold weather stories do as well, the fact is that you libs prefer this puzzle in pieces that way you can pick one up one piece at a time and argue your case, however when you scientifically examine all the pieces, a better picture of reality emerges.

In the end NASA's story has changed over the past decade...we have former NASA employees denouncing Global warming..including the former head of the climate studies...we have climate-gate, we have snowmageddon, we have Copenhagen...We have 17200 scientists...and we have the truth about the IPCC flaws and errors.

 You have ALGORE and the UN.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

You have ALGORE and the UN.

D  M,

Uh, no. We have the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of scientists all around the world who study the climate for a living on our side.

You have a tiny minority of the scientific community, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity (both college dropouts).

[Dementia_Madness]

Really?

If that is true show us the NUMBERS.

If you cannot then all you have is the erroneous belief that you have the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of scientists all around the world who study the climate for a living on your side.

Over 17,200 scientists deny global warming, sign their name and stake their careers to that belief...give us something solid, show us the names of those on your side...

[NCVol]

Over 17,200 scientists 0.003 of the total population of U.S. "scientists" allegedly signed a card agreeing with vague statements denying some claims made by climate change experts, and stake their careers standing among like minded wingnuts to that belief...give us something solid, show us the names of those on your side...

Gladly!!  Here's a link to 619 authors of the IPCC report, complete with links to their degree year, their website, their area of expertise, and the number of academic citations for each! 

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/AR4wg1_authors_table.html

The difference between these men and women and your list of "scientists" is those on your list could be selling vacuums for all we know at this point, but got a degree in "science" 30 years ago.  These 619 actually work, you know spend their days researching, climate and related fields -- that is their JOB. 

[Dementia_Madness]

Well now that is a start...but hardly a consensus...
 And as for "MY" list, IF you wish to make such accusations it is beholden upon you to back up such wild accusations.... You besmirch these men and women for your own political designs and that is simply wrong. So unless you show us EVIDENCE that they are what you claim, (you know like hacked emails or stories of NASA and the EPA manipulating data) I suggest you respectfully resend your accusations, that is unless you are just like F Lane  L and believe your opinion is enough FACT to carry the issue.

[Sasquatch]

I like this quote from the top of your link NCVol regarding one of the scientists, Christopher Landsea, who resigned from the IPCC:

In his resignation letter he states that 'I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized'.

I wonder if any other parts are "politicized"?

I also went to the Wikipedia page of the second person on the list, Kevin Trenberth:

Trenberth says his quote "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment." was taken out of context: "We've always had some problems with the observing system," he said. "It's obviously not as good as we would like, and that's true of the temperature record, as well. What this is saying is we need better observations. What it's not saying is that global warming is not here

Also note that Landsea accused Trenberth of "misrepresenting the effect of global warming on hurricane activity".

I believe I will delve further. I just started and this is reading like a soap opera.  

[NCVol]

Be my guest, what you see is the scientific community in a robust exercise of challenging each other on the existing theory.  That's EXACTLY what I think is healthy, and contrary to the claims of the deniers that the scientific community is a bunch of lemmings and sheep blindly accepting climate change as fact.  I've never claimed that is the case! 

The science is evolving and the only opinions I do NOT respect are those who have prejudged what this inquiry will tell us, aka the climate change deniers like Mondo and Sen. Inhofe who are contemptuous of anyone who thinks humans can affect climate.

[Sasquatch]

I have read some more bios on the scientists at the IPCC website. Here are some interesting exerpts:

He (Jim Hansen) consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology.

he (Jean Jouzel) acts also as an activist, supporting partisan economic and political views (Hmmm...interesting term)

Then, there are those in the top 20 (I think I have seen enough) that were involved in the recent email scandal where they discuss "hiding" the global temperature declines.

Of course this is all in the name of science and not ideology, partisanship, or bias. 

[Dementia_Madness]

Do not worry SAS you know that we are ignoring science, why everyone who is against global warming is only that way because of a political or religious ideology or they are getting rich...no wait, that's actually the Global Warmers.

We have shown that not only does climate-gate reveal a deep seated non-scientific agenda driven approach to "proving" global warming...but that also NASA is guilty of manipulating data (which ncvo excuses by saying every one does it) and the EPA manipulates data, and The NCDC manipulated data...we have evidence that on EVERY level of the global warming science, there are people manipulating data...and yet it's still considered by some heard set individuals (most of whom have some vested interest in anti-industrial motivations) still think that somehow the science itself is not tainted by this.

[NCVol]

Do not worry SAS you know that we are ignoring science, why everyone who is against global warming is only that way because of a political or religious ideology or they are getting rich...no wait, that's actually the Global Warmers.

We have shown that not only does climate-gate reveal a deep seated non-scientific agenda driven approach to "proving" global warming...but that also NASA is guilty of manipulating data (which ncvo excuses by saying every one does it) and the EPA manipulates data, and The NCDC manipulated data...we have evidence that on EVERY level of the global warming science, there are people manipulating data...and yet it's still considered by some heard set individuals (most of whom have some vested interest in anti-industrial motivations) still think that somehow the science itself is not tainted by this.

Mondo, aka , every climate analysis "manipulates" data.  You have a dictionary available to you online.  Read the definition.  Here's one, with the first two entries.

1 : to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner
2 a : to manage or utilize skillfully

Now, it's true that there is a third meaning...

3 : to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose

Note that it says "artful OR unfair."  In the real world, an artful means of doing something is skillful, and the ends dictate whether that's good or bad.  Look up artful if you want.  So it's artful OR unfair.  And if you want to allege unfair, that, then you have to say how the change was "artful" or "unfair" to serve some malicious purpose, which I invited you to do.  Instead, you cling to an ignorant understanding of what the word "manipulate" means and how it applies to researchers working with raw data.  The two toughest jobs in any analysis heavily dependent on data is to 1) obtain the data, and 2) manipulate the data to properly measure what the researcher wants measured.  In this case, they have to take raw temperature data from all kinds of different locales, covering all kinds of different land or sea masses, in all kinds of conditions and convert, aka manipulate, that raw data to a single WORLD temperature.  My guess is they "adjust" each single point by at least a half dozen factors (sq. meters of land mass, time of day, the surrounding environment, frequency of readings...).  Even if they just weight each point differently - the bare minimum - what do you call that if not "manipulation?"  

Here's another definition:

1.    to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings.
2.    to handle, manage, or use, esp. with skill, in some process of treatment or performance: to manipulate a large tractor.
3.    to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.
4.    Medicine/Medical. to examine or treat by skillful use of the hands, as in palpation, reduction of dislocations, or changing the position of a fetus.

In some contexts, manipulate implies "unfair", in others, "skill."  If you continue to cling to the ignorant idea that it always implies "unfair" then thanks for making my case about your intellectual honesty.

And you're free, as I've mentioned, to indicate WHY you think the "manipulation" of the data is unfair or biased.  And if those measurements are incorrect, what measures do you prefer, or is it enough to simply conclude that ALL data related to climate is bullcrap, so let's just throw up our hands and admit defeat - we're just going to have to wait and see, and conveniently do nothing hard, take no difficult steps, make no hard decisions, threaten the profits of no existing energy big player.