NASA Climate – Destroyers Of Science And History

Measured temperatures in Iceland show a cyclical pattern, with the late 1930’s warmer than the present. The measured data doesn’t fit NASA’s theory about CO2 driving climate, so they cool past temperatures to create the appearance of a warming trend.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Temperatures around 1940 are cooled more than two degrees centigrade.

NASA wants temperatures to track atmospheric CO2, which has been rising exponentially since abut 1940.

Iceland temperatures show essentially no correlation with CO2, so NASA changes the measured temperatures to bring them closer in line with theory.

If the climate people at NASA were actual scientists, they would look for a real explanation of the cyclical behavior of temperatures in Iceland – rather than tampering with data to match their theory. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is an ocean circulation pattern which closely matches the cyclical behavior seen in Iceland temperatures.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The correlation between Iceland temperatures and CO2 is essentially non-existent, but correlation with the AMO is excellent.

We have other physical evidence that the time around 1940 was as warm or warmer than now in the Arctic. NASA data tampering has no justification.

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier

23 Feb 1940 – THE NORTH POLE

It should be obvious to any serious scientist that NASA doesn’t understand climate, and that they are committing massive, unprecedented  fraud by tampering with the data. But this story is much larger than the Arctic. Atmospheric temperatures for the entire planet closely match the AMO.

Which means that Earth is likely to start cooling again soon.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

This is why Gavin Schmidt at NASA is ramping up his data tampering every month. More and more fraud is required to hide the decline.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to NASA Climate – Destroyers Of Science And History

  1. gator69 says:

    Religious zealots are an intolerant lot, we have witnessed them blowing up giant stone Buddhas, and destroying carefully collected data. They cannot have any evidence that their narrative is not the one true story. Submit or lose funding.

    Gaia is the one true god and Gavin is her prophet.

    • R. Kooi says:

      CO2 traps heat.
      According to radiative physics & decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

      * In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
      * In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations.
      * Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing I.R. energy radiation over the 26 year period .
      GOOGLE: IRIS Satellite
      GOOGLE: Japanese Satellite IMG
      Google this SOURCE: (Harries 2001).

      What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy.
      The change/reduction in outgoing radiation was consistent with Global Warming theoretical expectations.

      ** Thus the paper found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Global Warming.

      ((If Infra Red Energy, does not escape, it is retained in our Earth System as rising temperatures…(( in the Oceans, soil and atmosphere ))

      This result has been confirmed by subsequent Research papers using data from later satellites.
      Google this SOURCE: (Griggs 2004)
      Google this SOURCE: ( Chen 2007 )
      Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
      ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature
      Google this SOURCE: (Harries 2001).
      When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
      Much of it makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
      Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
      Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth.
      Google this SOURCE: (Wang 2009)
      A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
      Google this SOURCE: (Philipona 2004)
      Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases.
      Google this SOURCE: (Evans 2006)
      The results lead the authors to conclude that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
      Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
      Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases.
      Google this SOURCE: (Evans 2006)
      The planet is accumulating heat
      When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet’s total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice.
      Google this SOURCE: (Murphy 2009)
      Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
      Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere.
      Land and ice heat content(eg-the energy required to melt ice)were also included.
      Total Earth Heat Content from 1950.
      Google this SOURCE: (Murphy 2009)
      SOURCE: (Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.)
      From 1970 to 2003,
      the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
      Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
      What about after 2003?
      A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep .
      Google this SOURCE: (von Schuckmann 2009)
      Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet’s energy imbalance.
      Google this SOURCE: (Hansen 2005)
      Google this SOURCE: (Trenberth 2009).

      The planet continues to accumulate heat.

      1. So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.

      2. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellites and many surface measurements.

      3. The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements….”

      • tonyheller says:

        Nice spam.

      • Kozlowski says:

        But then why the disconnect between CO2 and temperature post 1998 El Nino? If the theory was accurate and true we should see continuing acceleration. No?

        • gator69 says:

          Ms Kozlowski, please help me out.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          Simples. Yes?

      • AndyG55 says:

        “CO2 traps heat.”

        BULLSHIT from the very first.

        CO2 absorbs a tiny section of the sectrum and immediately thermalises that tiny amount of energy to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere where it is dealt with by convection

        If anything, CO2 is a transmitter of radiation, as proven by the FACT that CO2 tests in double glazing show that it transmits energy better than a normal air gap.

        Hansen, Trenberth.

        You really need to get more reliable citation than a pair of rabid alarmist activists. one of whom think s the planet is flat and non-rotational.

        So , all in all. a load of baseless HOGWASH !!

        • cdquarles says:

          Exactly. The only way carbon dioxide could ‘trap’ heat is by it being trapped in impermeable walled vessels, shining a strong enough light on it and having the absorbed energy solely converted to kinetic energy.

          IR is light. Heat is the net exchange of energy from a mass with higher overall kinetic energy to a mass that has a lower overall kinetic energy. IR can do it, provided it is intense enough and the absorption of it can be converted to internal KE. If not, then it can’t.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “The planet’s total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice.”

        Now you are getting into MANIC assumption driven modelled BS. No-one measured any heat content of the oceans before 2003, and since then the ARGO data has been in the hands of another rabid activist who has actually ADMITTED to throwing out cold data because he didn’t like it.

        • gator69 says:

          Now Andy, scientists concluded that there were canals on Mars with far less data. Get with it mann, data is so not needed!

      • AndyG55 says:

        The Harries 2001 paper gets the John Daly treatment.

        CO2 effect is TRIVIAL and INSIGNIFICANT.

        And Kooie, next time before you cut and paste from some vapid alarmista site, do some actual research on each thing you post.

        That MAY avoid making a monumental FOOL of yourself, although I very much doubt it, as FOOL is probably inbred. !

      • Will Janoschka says:

        Troll R. Kooi;
        Can you please show any evidence whatsoever that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels- above 180ppmv have any influence on Earth surface temperature at any location? The Earth’s atmosphere absorbs isolation as a small part of atmospheric sensible and latent heat. Most of those ‘heats’ are developed via atmospheric convection from the surface.
        EMR exit flux to space from the atmosphere is completely controlled by the mass of atmospheric water in all 5 phases. Surface exit flux can be correctly ignored in any evaluation of atmospheric effects, because of dominance of the thermal effects of atmospheric water. CAGW has no science!
        All the best!-will-

        • cdquarles says:

          Hey Will, 5 phases? Could you name them, please?

          That said, I got to thinking about your essay on Maxwell’s equations. I realized that the ones I have worked with were 1. not the full set and 2. used simplifying assumptions that may or may not be applicable in rigorous analysis, such as when high resolution and accuracy are needed for analytical chemistry.

          • Will Janoschka says:

            Besides solid, liquid, and gas; there are two colloids that share the latent heat at constant temperature. Most of the atmosphere’s power\energy is in the colloid between gas and liquid H2O!
            All the best!-will-

      • leopoldo Perdomo says:

        What happened in the past, long ago, when the atmosphere heated? It was also the cause of the CO2?
        Moreover, the satellite data give out numbers. One you have those data, you attribute a meaning to them. I can accept that when the sun is shining, the surface of the earth heats, and also the atmosphere heats as well. But during the night, the atmosphere and the surface of the earth cools during the night. This means that the atmosphere is sending out a IR radiation back to outer space after all. How fast it gives off this IR energy is another question. But it looks the heat of the atmosphere do not last forever, as we can see with the changing seasons.

  2. Frank K. says:

    Breaking News:

    “Trump is pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal”

    Making climate GREAT again!

    • Arn says:

      I really hope he will do so.

      It will be amazing to watch wall streets tv station turn into full insanity mode and ordering their usefull 100% mindcontrolled idiots(progressives)
      to march on Washington(My Pussy Has Pees)
      to help Goldman Sachs and other banks to tax the whole planet.

      “In searching for a common enemy against who we can unite(=NWO=One World Government),
      we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming,water shortages,famine and the like would fit the bill”
      (aurelio peccei,club of rome(=rockfeller=hitler sponsor=without hitler
      it would not be possible to keep the political right by simply calling them nazi/fascist/racist though hitler was a socialist)

  3. Don B says:


    Is that a misprint of the R2 for the CO2 vs. Temp correlation? It is the same number as the one for the AMO correlation.

    • tonyheller says:

      Stupid Excel …..

      • Stewart Pid says:

        To err is human … to get things really f’ed up requires a computer.
        We had that on the main frame at Energy Mines and Resources Canada when I was a student and working there part time … punching data onto IBM cards in the late 70’s. I can remember spending entire weekend days key punching so I could have money to ski – freaking mind numbing work.

  4. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    HEADLINES: Trump officially announced plans today to pull the US out of the UN’s Paris Agreement!

  5. Rah says:

    I’m sitting at the Oneida service area I-90 in NY listening to Rush and he is spending the first hour of his program telling people why Trump must get out of the Paris deal.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Another good correlation is the AMO vs SSN.

    It is pretty clear from the graph that each ~11 year solar maximum causes a spike of about 0.1 C trough to peak. Given the AMO is based on sea surface temperatures, which swing less than land temperatures, that is a large delta. The climatistas can’t acknowledge it though because to do so would admit the Sun has caused half of the warming last century, not CO2.

Leave a Reply

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