NASA Climate Fraud At A Pace Unprecedented In 1,000 Years

Gavin Schmidt at NASA says that Earth is warming at the fastest pace in 1,000 years.

Screen Shot 2016-08-31 at 6.57.58 AM-down

Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace ‘unprecedented in 1,000 years’ | Environment | The Guardian

Gavin’s own data set shows earth cooling over the past five months at the fastest rate since 1917.

Screen Shot 2016-08-31 at 7.10.46 AM

www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp

Satellites show the Earth cooling for almost 20 years.

Screen Shot 2016-08-31 at 7.01.37 AM

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

NASA temperatures are diverging from much more accurate satellite temperatures at a spectacular rate.

Screen Shot 2016-08-29 at 4.57.14 AM

But why would the US space agency use modern satellite technology, when they have a garbage surface data set which they can tamper with constantly?

GISS-2000-2012-2016

Data.GISS: GISTEMP HISTORY

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to NASA Climate Fraud At A Pace Unprecedented In 1,000 Years

  1. CheshireRed says:

    Apart from this hysterical claim being yet another part of the relentless climate lie machine I also wonder if they’re pushing harder this year because they know el Nino is over and a la Nina – and the cooling it brings, is on its way? Right now is the best opportunity for scary headlines that they’ll have for a while and they must know it.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Oh they know it alright.

      You have Dr Joan Feynman at NASA showing them solar is important and Dr Evans prediction with the math to back it up. He is one of many saying we are looking at colder weather going forward.

      El Nino is the ocean expelling a lot of energy. If the sun is sleepy, that energy is not replaced completely in the recharge part of the cycle. This means lots of La Nina and few El Ninos.

      It is not rocket science and the empirical data is there and easy enough for most people to understand.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The other reason for the major push on CAGW is the US election.

      If Trump wins it will not be like another Bush winning who will protect the progressives. Trump thinks CAGW is Bull s…t and will clean house.

      Good bye cushy jobs, good bye easy grant money. Most important good bye United Nations climate treaty controlling the economic output of the USA.

  2. DonG says:

    There is no way to measure monthly temperature change by looking at the rights of a 1000 year old tree. People just don’t understand measuring any more. We never switched to the metric system and it turns out it doesn’t matter because people are totally detached from physical reality. Degrees, meters, feet, change rate, … are all meaningless :(

  3. mcraig says:

    This all started years ago with the “hockey stick”. That’s why the hockey stick was invented, to make the claim that current warming is unprecedented. That’s been skewered, roasted and turned to ashes but has no effect on the Climate Alarm Industry.

    This is clearly a tactic of continuing a lie over and over until it just becomes accepted as the truth.

  4. mcraig says:

    @moderator/Steve Goddard…

    Is there any way to put that anti-spam line above the “Post Comment” button? I mostly don’t see it and then am surprised by the blocked due to spam page I get to. This might discourage some commenters.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The blocked due to spam page seems to show when two people try to post at the same time.

      Try going back, copying post, hit refresh and repost.

      Also WordPest is playing head games with people on non-progressive sites and has been for a couple of years now.

      • mcraig says:

        Gail, I just figured something out. I use Firefox with NoScript.

        If I don’t allow scripts on this page, I get an anti-spam line where I need to fill out the current year (see my image). If I allow scripts, it goes away. Who knew?

      • mcraig says:

        Image now?

  5. Alan Davidson says:

    One of the many comments to this Guardian item refers to P666 of IPCC WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL “Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere.

    Could someone who understands this explain how atmospheric carbon dioxide sustains atmospheric water vapour, or this nonsense?

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      It’s their precious positive feedback hypothesis. You see, not even the most rabid proponents dare to claim that atmospheric CO2 increases alone can cause the catastrophic warming they all love so much. So they say it will get catastrophic because the much smaller CO2-caused warming they dare to claim will put more water vapor in the atmosphere that will further heat things up and—BOOM—we are all dead (except for a few surviving human breeding pairs in the Arctic).

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Claiming this self-feeding runaway warming effect and quantifying it in in their global warming modeling is to me the most egregious stupidity because the role of their beloved CO2 villain is completely accidental.

      By definition, any warming for any reason would create more evaporation and sustain more moisture in the warmer atmosphere and therefore more warming and more evaporation so what they are really saying is that the temperature of the Earth is inherently unstable.

      I guess they imagine the Earth to be just as hysterical as they are and expect it to freak out at the slightest provocation.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Seems the ClimAstrologists never figured out that when water evaporates from the surface of the earth it forms CLOUDS…. OOPS there went the runaway GoreBull Warbling.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          I’ve heard some wild alarmist speculations that atmospheric vapor may be condensing into clouds but the whole concept seems very mysterious to them and they don’t include it in their climate models. :)

      • ItsGettingHotinHereSo says:

        This from Marshall Shepherd in his science blog at Forbes.com.
        [M. Shepherd is good at propaganda so not sure how accurate this is.]

        The fact that water vapor is the dominant absorber in the Earth’s greenhouse effect can lead to a flawed narrative that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is not important nor a significant driver of climate warming. I have always felt that narrative is like concluding nitrogen (78% of the atmosphere) is more important to human respiration than oxygen (21%) because it is more abundant. Such oversimplifications can be very misleading. It is worth laying out the science of whether water vapor or CO2 “wins” in climate warming.

        The American Chemical Society’s ACS Climate Science Toolkit cuts right to the chase in an excellent analysis on its website,

        …water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect…However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature…If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.

        The atmosphere is self-limiting in terms of water vapor. If a parcel or volume of air becomes saturated as it is cools, a cloud forms. Professor Adam Sobel of Columbia University provides a nice analogy,

        Saying water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is like saying the amplifier in a sound system is more important than the volume dial for producing the sound. It’s true, in a literal sense, but very misleading. CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases are the volume dial on the climate, and the water vapor amplifies the warming that they produce.

        Texas A&M’s Andrew Dessler’s work on the importance of water vapor in climate warming also discusses these complex interactions and amplifications.

        Let’s step back and review the Greenhouse Effect. Ironically, the most abundant gases (nitrogen and oxygen) exhibit virtually no warming affect. A small collection of minor gases representing about 0.43% of the atmospheric constituency allows us to live on Earth. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) include: water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexaflouride. If teaching Atmospheric Physics or Radiative Transfer (staples of good meteorology/climate curricula), I would refer to them as selective absorbers. Selective absorbers absorb and emit energy at preferential wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. For example, in the stratosphere, ozone is a selective absorber of ultraviolet (UV) radiation (thank goodness for us). GHGs selectively absorb in the infrared portion of the spectrum. A refresher of blackbody radiation, the foundation of the statement that “good absorbers are good emitters” can be found here.

        The sun drives the climate system, but I often see its influence misrepresented due to lack of understanding of the complexity of the climate’s radiative system. The sun’s energy is mostly shortwave radiation (visible and UV). Much of it gets reflected or absorbed by the clouds, atmosphere, or Earth’s surface. The absorbed energy is emitted from the surface as longwave radiation or infrared radiation (heat). Wien’s Law says that objects at different temperatures emit at different wavelengths. The Earth is cooler than the sun so emits at longer wavelengths (i.e., there is an inverse relationship between temperature and maximum wavelength of emission). The longwave radiation from Earth is emitted to space or absorbed by GHGs. GHGs reemit the longwave energy to space, other gases, or back to Earth. The astute reader will note that the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect is really a series of absorption-emission processes rather than just heat entrapment (as a real greenhouse does).

        According to NASA, water vapor accounts for about 50+% of the absorption. Carbon dioxide accounts for 20%. Clouds also account for roughly 25%. Atmospheric physics theory dating back to Arrhenius (1895) and Callendar (1938), respectively, have pointed out how relatively small contributions of CO2 can warm the atmosphere. Yet, many mistakenly latch on to the fact that water vapor is dominant and not the aforementioned feedback processes. Dr. Gavin Schmidt writes,

        …as temperature rises, the maximum sustainable water vapor concentration increases by about 7% per degree Celsius. Clouds too depend on temperature, pressure, convection and water vapor amounts. So a change in CO2 that affects the greenhouse effect will also change the water vapor and the clouds. Thus, the total greenhouse effect after a change in CO2 needs to account for the consequent changes in the other components as well. If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the “feedbacks” are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone.

        People are often surprised to learn that moist air is less dense than dry air or that deserts can actually get cold at times. Both of these simple assertions are wrong. This article cautions readers that oversimplification is very dangerous.

        [illustrations not included.]

        Dr. Marshall Shepherd, Dir., Atmospheric Sciences Program/GA Athletic Assoc. Distinguished Professor (Univ of Georgia), Host, Weather Channel’s Sunday Talk Show, Weather (Wx) Geeks, 2013 AMS President

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/06/20/water-vapor-vs-carbon-dioxide-which-wins-in-climate-warming/#367073123b6b

        • Gail Combs says:

          What absolute drivel.

          At 400 ppm CO2 has pretty much shot its wad since most of the effect is in the first 200 ppm. The entire CO2 forcing is 32 to 44 WM^2 [Reid 1997] and all but 5 to 6 WM^2 occurs in the first 200 ppm.

          It takes 5.44 WM^2 to raise the temp by 1 degree C so you are looking at far less than 1 degree C as the change for 360 ppm to 400 ppm.

          Second water is EVAPORATED, changed from liquid or solid to gas.

          ..the molecules in liquid water are held together by relatively strong hydrogen bonds, and its enthalpy of vaporization, 40.65 kJ/mol, is more than five times the energy required to heat the same quantity of water from 0 °C to 100 °C (cp = 75.3 J K−1 mol−1).
          WIKI

          Thanks to convection that heat energy travels from the ground to the tropopause where it is dumped by thunder heads or somewhere in between for other types of clouds. And that is not even getting into the phase change to ice.

          • ItsGettingHotinHereSo says:

            Thanks, Gail. Always appreciate your insights.

            (I am also a North Carolinian, (CLT). We need to have a meet up of all the Tar Heels one of these days.)

          • Gail Combs says:

            Gallopingcamel maybe in the area this fall for the last time. Perhaps we can have a bunch of us get together. (Camel and I have already met over dinner the last time he was here.)

            E. M. Smith (ChiefIO) also mentioned coming back to this neck of the woods. Having a lot of livestock, I am limited in the type of trips I can make.

        • Radical Rodent says:

          If CO2 is the principle warmer of the atmosphere by “greenhouse effect”, why is the Venusian atmosphere (~97% CO2), at an altitude where the pressure is Earth-equivalent, the same temperature that the Earth would be, were it the same distance from the Sun (and similarly, though inversely, for Mars (~93% CO2))? Surely, the atmosphere of Venus at levels where the pressure is Earth-equivalent should be a little more than 11 x ECS (i.e. anywhere between 11° and 88°C) higher?

  6. Richard Lee Stevens says:

    The reference to 1917 is very interesting. During the winter of 1917-1918, the Seine froze at Paris. That had not happened for the previous 120 years. May we expect an ice cold winter in Europe this year?

  7. TA says:

    Gavin Schmidt at NASA must know his own data disputes his “hottest evah!” claim, yet still he makes the claim. It’s really criminal because he knows what he is doing.

    • Olaf Koenders says:

      I’m surprised he can still spew diatribe despite Obummer sausage stuck firmly in his throat, which could be at either end.

  8. RickS says:

    What did I say about that Guardian ?

    Hells News Outlet (HNO) !!

    The “only” the NHO Guards is the Gates of Hell !!!

    Since they guard it, why not let them dwell within it…

  9. Pingback: NASA Climate Fraud At A Pace Unprecedented In 1,000 Years - Principia Scientific International

  10. Pingback: Energy & Environmental Newsletter: September 12, 2016 - Master Resource

  11. Pingback: Recent Energy And Environmental News – September 12th 2016 | PA Pundits - International

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.