This NASA report just came out (18 January 2012).

2011 was only the ninth warmest year in the GISS analysis of global temperature change, yet nine of the ten warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1880) have occurred in the 21st century. The past year has been cooled by a moderately strong La Niña. The 5-year (60-month) running mean global temperature hints at a slowdown in the global warming rate during the past few years. However, the cool La Niña phase of the cyclically variable Southern Oscillation of tropical temperatures has been dominant in the past three years, and the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data occurred over the past half dozen years. We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years.

Let me repeat that last sentence for emphasis:

quote We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years.

No, I'm not expecting to change any minds here about this subject.

I just wanted to put this latest NASA statement into the "PFF" record.

For the complete NASA report:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

it's all Al Gores fault

In before fierobear calls NASA a bunch of cheats and liars...

From the same people who can't predict the weather for the next week?

Heck, bring on the warmth! Bring on the cold! either way, it works for me.

The thing to do is ignore science! What do they know anyhow? Nothing we do affects anyone else or the earth.

quote Originally posted by dratts: The thing to do is ignore science! What do they know anyhow? Nothing we do affects anyone else or the earth.

I truly believe in science, but it has to be pure. With government grants on the line, sometimes science gets in the way of funding. I am not saying that all scientists are corrupt, but some will manipulate their data to support their financiers.

BTW, the earth is old... very old. To think that we can change it so quickly is narrow minded. We know so little of the real history of the earth. We can look at samples, but sometimes the whole picture is not there. To think that man can change the world is pretty amazing, but I am guessing that any climate change was going to happen with or without man's involvement. Remember back in the 70s when we were going to have a mini-ice age? As a scientist looking for grants, if you can tie in your work to support the cause, you will pull in the funding. If you have evidence that doesn't support the cause, do you risk providing it knowing that your funding will be cut?

"Liberal bearing whine."

Here have some kool aid. lol

I can't equate age with being unchangeable. Just because the earth is old doesn't mean it's a hard ship to turn. Considering the various volcanic events that have produced some dramatic and immediate changes in the weather, it's totally plausible that we have influenced the climate in a very short period of time.

At this point though, it doesn't really matter. No one can be right now. You can thank the scientist and pseudo-scientists for that. All we can do is go for the ride. There will be no bathroom stops.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 03-07-2012).]

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: From the same people who can't predict the weather for the next week? Heck, bring on the warmth! Bring on the cold! either way, it works for me.

"Winter 2011-2012 for your area is going to be drier that normal--Texas drought will continue on thru the winter"

BTW, if the Earth didn't warm up, I would be living under a couple miles of glacier right now.

One example of how the NASA GISS temperature set is questionable

NASA GISS – Adjusting the Adjustments

================================

Here is another that I posted recently:

So, what do you do when observational data (meaning, what is actually happening and is measured) doesn't match with your computer models? Well, just dick with the real numbers until they agree with your computer model!

In NASA's James Hansens's OWN WORDS:

Hansen’s Arrested Development

[article excerpt]

Hansen’s paper says the following (emphasis mine):

The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009).

I bring it up because it is climate science at its finest. Since the observations were not of the expected range, rather than figure out why the results might be wrong, they just twisted the dials to “reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models.”

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: This NASA report just came out (18 January 2012). 2011 was only the ninth warmest year in the GISS analysis of global temperature change, yet nine of the ten warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1880) have occurred in the 21st century. The past year has been cooled by a moderately strong La Niña. The 5-year (60-month) running mean global temperature hints at a slowdown in the global warming rate during the past few years. However, the cool La Niña phase of the cyclically variable Southern Oscillation of tropical temperatures has been dominant in the past three years, and the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data occurred over the past half dozen years. We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years. Let me repeat that last sentence for emphasis: No, I'm not expecting to change any minds here about this subject. I just wanted to put this latest NASA statement into the "PFF" record. For the complete NASA report: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

Since you don't think you will change minds, is your post to help us prepare? If so how DO we get ready, how are you getting ready? I would expect digging caves to live in, massing water and food is logical.

...so the earth is warming and people think this is news and are in a panic over it (well except for certain people (cough)Al Gore(cough) that are raking in the money over peoples fear of this? Of course NASA is going along with it, since most of their funding is earmarked for research into this phenomenon (as their space budget was cut by certain elements in the government) - just saying. The average PHd is not stupid, they KNOW where the money is.

Get over it, the earth is just returning back to the climate it had BEFORE the ice age as proven by the tropical fossiles found in the Antartica:

http://news.softpedia.com/n...o-Europe-51095.shtml

quote Today's Antarctica is the most inhospitable place on Earth: it detains the records of cold, being covered by the largest ice pack of the planet (that harbors 90 % ofthe ice on Earth), haunted almost all year round by chilly winds. Moreover, it is also the most isolated continent, located at thousands of kilometers away from the closest land masses. But this situation was not like that since ever. New fossilized remains of an amphibian which roamed the Earth more than 245 million years ago have been discovered in Antarctica, suggesting that its clime during much of the Triassic, the Epoch when dinosaurs and the first primitive mammals emerged was remarkably warm. The 60 cm (24-inch) piece of skull was dug out from thick sandstone at Fremouw Peak in the Transantarctic Mountains, just six degrees away from the South Pole. The mixed team of European-American paleontologists has assessed the creature as a Parotosuchus, a 2 m (6.5 ft) long giant crocodile-like predator (but it was rather related to modern salamanders) that lived 40 million years before the first dinosaurs appeared, inhabiting lakes and rivers.

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 03-07-2012).]

quote Originally posted by dratts: The thing to do is ignore science! What do they know anyhow?

Exactly the opposite of what to do.


Take a close, objective look at the "scientists" and their PRIOR projections. Then compare them to what has actually happened.

Then make a REASONED decision on whether their prediction record makes their current predictions credible and worth heeding.


What? Because they are a "scientist", they don't have to actually be right? At least once in a while?

The answer to your question "what do they know anyhow", after evaluating their PRIOR predictions, is:

apparently not much.


I WISH I was in a field where I could be blatantly wrong that often and everyone STILL listens and touts me as an "expert".

I watched Bob Lutz on the Daily Show last night. He is a climate change denier too. I know that he was with GM. Was it during a good time at GM or was he part of the reason they almost failed? He sounded just like Fierobear.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 03-07-2012).]

quote Originally posted by dratts: I watched Bob Lutz on the Daily Show last night.

The Daily Show is, of course, the only real source of truth about everything on the planet, like MSNBC.

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: The Daily Show is, of course, the only real source of truth about everything on the planet, like MSNBC.

I thought THAT was Fierobear. j/k j/k
We've had 2 days of snowing all winter... and VERY few days below freezing. It's over 70 degrees outside today, and two weeks ago it was in the end of February. Does that indicate Global Warming? Not sure, but it does indicate Ohio Warming because we have NEVER had a "winter" like this.. its been Spring since Autumn.

I am basically gonna say this.. if you live in Florida or California (yeah, you know I am talking about you Bear, but listen) how do you know its any better or worse out there? California has mild weather almost all year round. I have lived in the upper Midwest my whole life, and now Ohio, and I have never even heard of winters like these until the last 10 years or so. I'm used to 8-12 inch snowfalls over 24 hour periods..we don't even get that in a whole season now. Same with cold temperatures, we have had only 1 or two really wintery-winters in the last decade, or at least in the places I have lived. Cold weather in winter has become the exception, not the rule. Thats crazy.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 03-07-2012).]

quote Originally posted by KidO: In before fierobear calls NASA a bunch of cheats and liars...

For doing what they're told?

quote the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change

Source: The Orlando Sentinel

Here's more info from NASA:
NASA Study: Global Warming Alarmists Wrong

quote NASA has released a new study that may prove global-warming alarmists have been wrong all along. Data from NASA's Terra satellite covering the period 2000 through 2011 shows that when the earth's climate heats up, the atmosphere appears to be better able to channel the heat to outer space. The satellite data call into question the computer models favored by global warming believers and may put to rest controversy over the discrepancy between the computer models and actual meteorological readings. ... article continues...

It's handy to have them release reports supporting whichever side you've already decided is correct. Everyone's a winner!

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: The Daily Show is, of course, the only real source of truth about everything on the planet, like MSNBC.

He IS a comedian. I was asking about Bob Lutz. I went ahead and googled him. He was behind a lot of performance cars including the Viper. I like performance cars, but that would fit with his anti climate change views. Surprisingly he was also a promoter of the volt. Do you think that the Daily Show is a news show?

Scienctists are now predicating global cooling...why can't well all just admit that it is ALL junk science and has no basis and there is nothing we can do about it and are just along for the ride? I still have yet to see undeniable proof that man is to blame for the changes in the climate - all this talk about man made global warming is conjecture and specalitive.

http://fullcomment.national...ues-look-to-the-sun/

quote Ottawa’s giant skating rink on the Rideau Canal was closed in February due to thin ice caused by unseasonably mild temperatures. Yet, at the same time, ice blocked the canals of Venice for the first time in recent memory as temperatures in the exquisite Italian city dropped to -10C for more than a week. In the Netherlands, canals were closed to commercial boat traffic because ice made them unnavigable — another unusual development. Also in early February, fountains in southern France froze over. Polish rail lines were chocked with metres of snow. Swiss villages were cut off by record accumulations this winter. In Japan, tens of thousands of residents were confined to their homes because there was too little removal equipment to clear all the white stuff. At one point three weeks ago, more than 140,000 people worldwide were reportedly stranded by snow. So which is likely to be the new norm: North America’s mild winter, or Europe’s and Asia’s cold, snowy season? To hear climate alarmists and environmentalists tell it, the world will soon be without winter. There will be no more backyard skating rinks or Arctic sea ice to sustain the polar bears. Snow will become a rarity in much of Europe, and tornados such as the ones that devastated large swaths of the American Midwest last weekend will become more commonplace. But that’s not what some solar physicists are predicting. Scientists who have made careers of studying the sun warn that our star is about to enter a less-active phase — a solar minimum that could last 30 years or longer. If that happens, some physicists see a worldwide return to the temperatures of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Not coincidentally, the deepest part of the LIA — during the late 17th century — was the last time our sun generated as few sunspots and as little geomagnetic activity as it appears set to generate for the next few decades. Solid records of the connection between solar activity and Earth’s temperatures go back at least 300 years. If so-called proxy records are included — evidence from tree rings and ice-core samples, for instance — then the connection is thousands of years old. The sun-temperature connection only makes sense. Which is warmer, summer or winter? Daytime or night? A sunny day or a cloudy one? Sometimes I wonder whether our Neolithic ancestors understood better than modern climate alarmists what warmed the Earth. They didn’t build monuments that marked the summer and winter solstices because they worried the soot from their cooking fires was dangerously warming the planet. They built Stonehenge and the Goseck Circle and others to ensure the declining sun of winter would come back and prompt the return of spring and the plants and animals they relied on for their subsistence. For years, now, the global-warming establishment has tried to minimize the effects the sun has on weather and climate. For instance, rough drafts of the UN’s next five-year report on climate change (which are already circulating) apparently devote just a single sentence to the sun’s role as a “driver” of temperatures on Earth, while page after page after page obsesses on the carbon-dioxide-temperature theory. The fact is, scientists have studied the sun so thoroughly for so long that they can forecast with about 85% confidence what will happen to our temperatures if the number of sunspots rises or lowers from one cycle to the next and if the sun’s geomagnetic activity strengthens or weakens. They even know the effect on temperatures if one solar cycle — typically about 11 years — is longer or shorter than the cycle before it. And by studying the forces at work deep inside the sun, they can estimate with accuracy the length of the next cycle or two. This gives them a good idea of the sun’s influence on climate for the next few decades. According to a recent study by three Norwegian scientists — Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum — the sun’s current cycle has lasted so long that the next, due to begin any time now, will see a decline in temperatures of 0.63C. And that cycle is expected to last so long that the cycle after that will witness a temperature drop of 0.95C. Given that the planet has warmed only about 0.7C or 0.8C over the past century, that means all the warming Earth has experienced since 1900 could be wiped out in the next solar cycle, and in the cycle after that temperatures could retreat to levels not seen since the 18th century. Start idling your full-sized SUVs in your driveways now. The planet may need all the global warming it can get.

quote Originally posted by dratts: The thing to do is ignore science! What do they know anyhow? Nothing we do affects anyone else or the earth.

You do have a point. We know as ice melts the sea levels will rise. We must do everything in our power to prevent sea levels from rising. It's much better to err on the side of caution, right?

So we must ban all forms of ocean vessels; ships, submarines, anything that travels in any of the planet's oceans. Every single vessel displaces water and causes the sea levels to rise. Just a single super tanker displaces nearly 500,000 tons of water. That's just 1 ship out of the thousands in the sea at any given time. We MUST get these vessels out of the oceans to prevent certain disaster.

Any of you buoyancy deniers need to realize anything that floats displaces water. The science is proven on this. You can even test it yourself with a glass of water and an ice cube.

So, dratts, are you ready to get on the "ban" wagon?

I know it's sarcasm but ship displacement really is "a drop in the ocean".

The total volume [of the ocean] is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometres (310 million cu mi). Source: http://hypertextbook.com/fa...2001/SyedQadri.shtml

quote Originally posted by Formula88: You do have a point. We know as ice melts the sea levels will rise. We must do everything in our power to prevent sea levels from rising. It's much better to err on the side of caution, right? So we must ban all forms of ocean vessels; ships, submarines, anything that travels in any of the planet's oceans. Every single vessel displaces water and causes the sea levels to rise. Just a single super tanker displaces nearly 500,000 tons of water. That's just 1 ship out of the thousands in the sea at any given time. We MUST get these vessels out of the oceans to prevent certain disaster. Any of you buoyancy deniers need to realize anything that floats displaces water. The science is proven on this. You can even test it yourself with a glass of water and an ice cube. So, dratts, are you ready to get on the "ban" wagon?

When the price of diesel fuel gets too high it will be the end of those ships. Thank you for your sense of humor. It cracked me up!

quote Originally posted by Formula88: You do have a point. We know as ice melts the sea levels will rise. We must do everything in our power to prevent sea levels from rising. It's much better to err on the side of caution, right? So we must ban all forms of ocean vessels; ships, submarines, anything that travels in any of the planet's oceans. Every single vessel displaces water and causes the sea levels to rise. Just a single super tanker displaces nearly 500,000 tons of water. That's just 1 ship out of the thousands in the sea at any given time. We MUST get these vessels out of the oceans to prevent certain disaster. Any of you buoyancy deniers need to realize anything that floats displaces water. The science is proven on this. You can even test it yourself with a glass of water and an ice cube. So, dratts, are you ready to get on the "ban" wagon?

...hey, don't forget about all those people that go to the beach and take a dip in the ocean as well - they displace water as well - in fact if you take a leak in the ocean you are simply raising the level more as well.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: I know it's sarcasm but ship displacement really is "a drop in the ocean". The total volume [of the ocean] is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometres (310 million cu mi). Source: http://hypertextbook.com/fa...2001/SyedQadri.shtml

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
If you cut through the sarcasm, that was the point. We know for a fact that ship displacement DOES cause sea levels to rise, but we can quantify that it's such a small amount as to be negligible. Nobody does that with regard to global warming. We see alarming figures like "xxx tons of CO2" and think we must do SOMETHING, just to be on the safe side. Well, the tonnage of those ships is a big number, too.

We need a simple, straightforward quantification of what size impact we are having, very much like your post here, but we don't get that.
You can also make water sound frightening by talking about it in the language of environmental activists. As you know, it's not how scary the argument sounds - it's how sound the data is.

Is mankind's impact on the climate the main driving force, or just a drop in the ocean? If people are willing to pursue extreme green measures "just in case," by the same logic they should be lobbying to ban sea vessels. Conservation is always a good idea. I'm talking about large taxes to force behavior changes or legislation that can have a dramatic cost to the economy with no certain benefit. The entire climate argument has become paniced, that we must act *now* or it's the end of the world. Anyone who doesn't agree is written off as some neanderthal mouth breather with an uncle for a brother. That's not about science. That's all about politics and power.

Follow the money.

Wonder if they were promised anything in return for this scientific report. They have been cut to the bone over the last few years. I really hate to say that but I have become very cynical the last few years. Would not be the first time false reports have been thrown to the public on the side of man made global warming. Sure seams to be getting the desired base voter excited.

Well I agree about the part about the Neanderthal mouth breather for a brother. Because I admire your choice of words.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I am basically gonna say this.. if you live in Florida or California (yeah, you know I am talking about you Bear, but listen) how do you know its any better or worse out there? California has mild weather almost all year round. I have lived in the upper Midwest my whole life, and now Ohio, and I have never even heard of winters like these until the last 10 years or so. I'm used to 8-12 inch snowfalls over 24 hour periods..we don't even get that in a whole season now. Same with cold temperatures, we have had only 1 or two really wintery-winters in the last decade, or at least in the places I have lived. Cold weather in winter has become the exception, not the rule. Thats crazy.

I understand what you are saying but for California, it's been known for 60 years+ that the rainfall we have received since as far back as the 20's is unusually high and not the norm. Unfortunately we have built up an agriculture sector that can't be supported if our rainfall goes back to what is considered more normal.

I'm almost 60 and I can't say that the rainfall variability we are seeing now is all that unusual but at the same time, being against an ocean makes the variability far more extreme. The geography alone greatly affects how much moisture is dropped and where. If a storm hits the bay area head-on, there will likely be heavy rain and snow in the Sierra. Shift it north or south 20 miles and it might dump it on the coast and somewhat inland and nothing in the Sierra.

Want a short lived job - be a weather forecaster on the West Coast. You will be wrong more than right.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 03-07-2012).]

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: I WISH I was in a field where I could be blatantly wrong that often and everyone STILL listens and touts me as an "expert".

Start doing Defense Medical Evaluations for car insurance companies trying to avoid paying insurance claims....

quote Originally posted by dratts: Well I agree about the part about the Neanderthal mouth breather for a brother. Because I admire your choice of words.

I see the logic only applies to things you already believe. I wouldn't mind just agreeing to disagree with the global warmists if they weren't expecting me to adhere to their beliefs as well. If it only affected them, I'd say have at it, but they're demanding the world believe as they do and follow their prescribed courses of action.

It's like a religion in many ways.

I was just saying I got a kick out of the phrase. I already know that we disagree and that's OK.

What is their definition of "over the next couple of years"?

What are they going to do if they are shown to be wrong yet again? I already know what they will do: Ignore the faulty prediction and make up a new one out of thin air.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It's like a religion in many ways.

Or politics.

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Get over it, the earth is just returning back to the climate it had BEFORE the ice age as proven by the tropical fossiles found in the Antartica:

Antartica, however, wasn't located where it is now back in the Triassic period...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic

[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 03-07-2012).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years. Let me repeat that last sentence for emphasis: No, I'm not expecting to change any minds here about this subject. I just wanted to put this latest NASA statement into the "PFF" record. For the complete NASA report: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Since you don't think you will change minds, is your post to help us prepare? If so how DO we get ready, how are you getting ready? I would expect digging caves to live in, massing water and food is logical.

Looks like some folks are thinking about it.
If its inevitable, youd think this would be more prevelant.
Also saw an article that said there will likley be mass exoduses to the north from the equator. Canada should likley prepare as they will be sitting on prime real estate.


"Eco Architecture: Futuristic designer envisions ULDUs for global warming refugees
Eco Factor: Self-sufficient habitat to house global warming refugees underground.
With the increase in greenhouse gases and the continuous emissions of harmful gases to suffice the planet’s need for energy and technology, global warming does seem inevitable. While the world is getting more conscious out the environment and the need to prevent such a disaster, futuristic designers have started thinking about the habitats of the possible millions of global warming refugees.
Reynard Loki and Jennifer Daniels are thinking about future living units which could house all those people in deserts in self-sufficient underground homes, which they call Underground Desert Living Units or simply ULDU. If global warming does strike at its full potential, people will be made to shift their habitats to drier places such as deserts, where they can afford to live on the land or probably below it.
The underground dwellings are designed to be powered by solar and wind energy generators which will be mounted above the surface. A solar-powered greenhouse and an air purifier system will also be mounted on the surface to provide the inhabitants with food and clean air.
The design does seem an interesting proposal for a future, which no one would actually like to see. However, the designer doesn’t answer some really important questions like, where will the inhabitants get clean water to drink, especially if the home has to be built in a desert, what will be used to construct the building and how will food be grown in such dry areas."
http://www.ecofriend.com/en...bal-warming-refugees

I see extremists on both sides of the global warming controversies.

There are some who say that global warming is already "dead" because of certain discrepancies between observed temperatures and the computer models. They make statements that start with an observation like "no warming for the last 14 years" and end with the implication that there is therefore no reason whatsoever to be concerned about carbon dioxide levels".

OK--but what will happen when carbon dioxide levels are even higher than they are now?

NASA says that we have been experiencing a temporary respite from warming because of current La Nina conditions and also an unusually large solar minimum--both of which have cooling effects.

The problem with this is that the La Nina and the solar minimum are only temporary--they will sooner or later change over to the other side (warming again).

Even if the current computer models are in error, there may be a future point at which higher levels of CO²-driven warming really does start to kick in with a major and undesirable effect on global climate.

I don't consider myself a radical. I'm not "hard" against the Keystone oil pipeline (for example). I don't think that we should go hell-bent on turning the world's economies upside down just because of the possibility of global warming.

On the other hand, I think it is too soon to declare global warming "dead" and completely rule out a significant (and potentially controllable) anthropogenic factor, as some on this forum seem so eager to express.

The "fat lady" (even higher CO² levels) hasn't sung yet.

Those of us who are around when that happens (and that means our children and grandchildren) might not like the "tune".

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: No, I'm not expecting to change any minds here about this subject.

Ok, I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk here, but I've noticed a trend and I just want to ask.

Is there ANYTHING... anything at all that you know of that is typically considered "Democrat Philosophy" that you disagree with? Anything at all... ?


I'm just curious.


Todd