Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling

basketcase said:

Conspiracy theories aside, Scientists are addicted to evidence based conclusions. Funding pays for research but except in cases like Willie Soon, does not pay for certain conclusions.

Click to expand...

LOL you are so full of shit!!
Just look a what Wall Street bankers / bond agencies did to the bank mortgages! And you don't think scientists cannot be corrupt by funding/ addicted to research grants. If the housing market crashed was caused by polticians and bankers & Wall Street & bond agencies & poor people who wanted mortgage with no jobs... did not happen then in USA . THEN I will says climate scientists may not biases and not addicted to government research grants ( climate grants). climate grants are in the billions of dollars for research. But it did happen that a facts with the Banks .. NOw it happening with the climate scientists ( alarmisms) !

PornAddict said:

LOL you are so full of shit!!
Just look a what Wall Street bankers / bond agencies did to the bank mortgages! ...

Click to expand...

Do you really think scientists work in the same field as Wall Street Bankers? Wow.

basketcase said:

Do you really think scientists work in the same field as Wall Street Bankers? Wow.

Click to expand...

I saying scientists can be corrupted! Corruption can happen! No one is above corruption!!

More Special Interests groups who benefits in believe in aka global warming.

“The current issue of global warming/climate change is extreme in terms of the number of special interests that opportunistically have strong interests in believing in the claims of catastrophe despite the lack of evidence.

In no particular order, there are the leftist economists for whom global warming represents a market failure, there are the UN apparatchiks for whom global warming is the route to global governance,

there are third world dictators who see guilt over global warming as providing a convenient claim on aid (ie, the transfer of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the wealthy in poor countries),

there are the environmental activists who love any issue that has the capacity to frighten the gullible into making hefty contributions to their numerous NGOs,

there are the crony capitalists who see the opportunity to cash in on the immense sums being made available for ‘sustainable’ energy,

there are the government regulators for whom the control of a natural product of breathing is a dream come true,

there are newly minted billionaires who find the issue of ‘saving the planet’ appropriately suitable to their grandiose pretensions, etc., etc.”

There are climates scientists addicted to research grants ( billions of dollars) basically unlimited money for their pet research project in climate( psuedoscience) .

There are liberal / democratic government the need for more money from taxpayer for more government spending.


You honestly think that scientists ' people in general ' cannot be corrupted ! You only think the Wall Street bankers ( junk mortgage bond rated as AAA rating) have a monopoly on corruption!!

People can be corrupted whether their climates scientists/ governments / Wall Street/ bankers / Credit. Agencies ( Standard Poors) , the mortgagee ( Peopke who had No income but can get a mortgage) and
governments( democratic ' Bill Clinton POTUS ' then ' Republican George Bush POTUS ' pushing affordable housing act . People used this credit for expensive loans, causing the price of homes to rise. This created an economic bubble. Because they had a lot of money, the loaning companies made it easier to get a loan, even if the borrower didn't have a good credit history. These loans are known as subprime loans.

And then the housing market crashed all helped by Crooked Wall Street Bankers too.


PS All I am saying Global warming akin to a House of Cards ready to come crashing down just like the subprime mortgage caused by crooked Wall Street bankers!

PPS This not a conspiracy just old fashioned greed!!! You should think about this deeply.. If someone 15- 20 years ago told you that Wall Street Bankers & Credit agencies ( Standard & Poors) rated junk mortgage/ subprime mortgage as AAA credits . and then sold it to all the world investors ( Banks) their sub prime mortage as rated AAA would you believe them? This caused last Great Recession in USA .
It almost caused a depression!

There's a better chart here:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

By the way, can you read your charts, CM?
They show that arctic ice minimums have been declining.
Big change in your two charts.

Frankfooter said:

There's a better chart here:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

By the way, can you read your charts, CM?
They show that arctic ice minimums have been declining.
Big change in your two charts.

Click to expand...

The 2019 map shows a larger ice area than the 2008 one not only you have poor reading problems you cannot read maps. The link you listed shows once fluctuations in the winter sea ice is larger in the winter months where IT IS COLDER

canada-man said:

The 2019 map shows a larger ice area than the 2008 one not only you have poor reading problems you cannot read maps. The link you listed shows once fluctuations in the winter sea ice is larger in the winter months where IT IS COLDER

Click to expand...

Your two maps are cherrypicking, where you pick two specific months out of 10 years of charts in order to make a claim that the rest of your charts show as false.
If you could actually read the chart in the corners of your image you'd note that the base line has gone down drastically from the first chart to the second (if you compare the grey base line to the yearly charted lines).

Frankfooter said:

Your two maps are cherrypicking, where you pick two specific months out of 10 years of charts in order to make a claim that the rest of your charts show as false.
If you could actually read the chart in the corners of your image you'd note that the base line has gone down drastically from the first chart to the second (if you compare the grey base line to the yearly charted lines).

Click to expand...

Somebody who suffers from confirmation bias have no right to cry cherry picking. The map clearly shows arctic ice is thicker than in 2008.

canada-man said:

Somebody who suffers from confirmation bias have no right to cry cherry picking. The map clearly shows arctic ice is thicker than in 2008.

Click to expand...

Try reading both the map and the charts that you posted.

The maps show two cherry picked months, one picked as the lowest month in 2008 and one as the highest to falsely claim that arctic ice is increasing.
But the charts in the corner show that this is cherry picking, as it shows that year after year arctic ice has been declining.

You really can't see that, can you?

Frankfooter said:

Try reading both the map and the charts that you posted.

The maps show two cherry picked months, one picked as the lowest month in 2008 and one as the highest to falsely claim that arctic ice is increasing.
But the charts in the corner show that this is cherry picking, as it shows that year after year arctic ice has been declining.

You really can't see that, can you?

Click to expand...

The top map shows January 2, 2008 which is in the WINTER the bottom map shows January 2, 2019 in the WINTER both maps are in the Winter when sea ice is the thickest. Winter is from dec 21 to March 21. Go back to high school geography

PornAddict said:

https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/....

Click to expand...

Do you not know the difference between a blog and a scientific journal? If you want a way to tell, scientists don't tend to publish on "wordpress".

And as usual, it is neither a new idea nor does CERN say that it eliminates CO2 as a major factor.

PornAddict said:

I saying scientists can be corrupted! Corruption can happen! No one is above corruption!!...

Click to expand...

But unlike Wall Street, scientists publish both their data and the conclusions they draw from it. Some like your friend Willie are willing to take money to deliver certain results but most are more concerned about being exposed as a fraud.

basketcase said:

Do you not know the difference between a blog and a scientific journal? If you want a way to tell, scientists don't tend to publish on "wordpress".

And as usual, it is neither a new idea nor does CERN say that it eliminates CO2 as a major factor.

Click to expand...

Look at the bottom of the blog they listed all the journal references.. what a dummy you are if you can't read!!

Here the list of scientific journal references from the blog !!

References

J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, 2011. The authors list and abstract are available at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html



H. Svensmark & E. Friis-Christensen, E., J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 59, 1225–1232, 1997

Relevant Danish experimental reports since 2006, not cited in the new CLOUD paper

Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerhøj, ‘Experimental Evidence for the Role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions’, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Vol. 463, pp. 385–96, 2007 (online release 2006). This was the SKY experiment in a basement in Copenhagen.

Martin Andreas Bødker Enghoff; Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen; Torsten Bondo, Matthew S. Johnson, Sean Paling and Henrik Svensmark, ‘Evidence for the Role of Ions in Aerosol Nucleation’, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, Vol: 112, pp. 10305-10309, 2008. Experiment in the Boulby deep mine in England.

M.B. Enghoff, J. O. Pepke Pedersen, U. I. Uggerhøj, S. M. Paling, and H. Svensmark, “Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam,” Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L09805, 2011. Experiment with an accelerator in Aarhus.



PS CERN says the sun cosmic ray & clouds are the major causes of clouds formation and climate changes!!

basketcase said:

But unlike Wall Street, scientists publish both their data and the conclusions they draw from it. Some like your friend Willie are willing to take money to deliver certain results but most are more concerned about being exposed as a fraud.

Click to expand...

This peer reviewed proofs that it the sun, cosmic ray and clouds is the main cause of climate change!!
Not CO2 !

It the fucking sun.. Stupid!!

References

J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, 2011. The authors list and abstract are available at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html



H. Svensmark & E. Friis-Christensen, E., J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 59, 1225–1232, 1997

Relevant Danish experimental reports since 2006, not cited in the new CLOUD paper

Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerhøj, ‘Experimental Evidence for the Role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions’, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Vol. 463, pp. 385–96, 2007 (online release 2006). This was the SKY experiment in a basement in Copenhagen.

Martin Andreas Bødker Enghoff; Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen; Torsten Bondo, Matthew S. Johnson, Sean Paling and Henrik Svensmark, ‘Evidence for the Role of Ions in Aerosol Nucleation’, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, Vol: 112, pp. 10305-10309, 2008. Experiment in the Boulby deep mine in England.

M.B. Enghoff, J. O. Pepke Pedersen, U. I. Uggerhøj, S. M. Paling, and H. Svensmark, “Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam,” Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L09805, 2011. Experiment with an accelerator in Aarhus.



PS CERN says the sun cosmic ray & clouds are the major causes of clouds formation and climate changes!!

canada-man said:

The top map shows January 2, 2008 which is in the WINTER the bottom map shows January 2, 2019 in the WINTER both maps are in the Winter when sea ice is the thickest. Winter is from dec 21 to March 21. Go back to high school geography

Click to expand...

Again, you are picking the maps which show only 2 cherry picked months while ignoring what the annual data shows.
Its a classic case of cherry picking while ignoring the full data.

You really don't understand, do you?

lol

PornAddict said:

Look at the bottom of the blog they listed all the journal references.....

Click to expand...

Yet you chose to post some ridiculous blog and not the actual article. Once again you know the actual journal doesn't justify your blogger's interpretation.


And I'll patiently wait until you post where CERN says CO2 is not a major player in current climactic changes.

basketcase said:

Yet you chose to post some ridiculous blog and not the actual article. Once again you know the actual journal doesn't justify your blogger's interpretation.



And I'll patiently wait until you post where CERN says CO2 is not a major player in current climactic changes.

Click to expand...

Yes the article actually justifies everything the blog says!
Research at CERN proves it!
All the published peer reviewed articles proves!
You are so blinded by your stupidity of left wing ideology!! You don't know how to read the facts and peer reviewed articles!

WWhere is the blogs says CO2 is a major players in current climate changes?
They don't says anything about CO2,
Because they CERN know that CO2 is not a major player and there they don't mention CO2 ...

IT Always been the SUN, cosmic rays, and formations of clouds ( water vapour) account for 90% of earth greenhouse gas .

Finally it always been the sun stupied!!

Sun plays major role !!
Not CO2 !!
Why should CERN mention CO2 when it don't play extremely minuscule role( CO2 is only 0.04 % of the atmosphere ) !!

PornAddict said:

Yes the article actually justifies everything the blog says! ...!

Click to expand...

Please post the part of the CERN journal article that says CO2 does not play a major role.

by James Delingpole

A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.

But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.

The most commonly used ones were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

Ewert’s findings echo that of US meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities both with the way they were sited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.