Climate Science Explained In One Simple Graph

ScreenHunter_2417 Aug. 31 06.29 Climate is complicated, but climate science isn’t.

US winter temperatures plummeted from 1950 to 1979. Scientists reacted to this with the global cooling scare, as reported by Science News in 1975

ScreenHunter_2418 Aug. 31 06.31

NASA warned of a new ice age by the year 2020.

ScreenHunter_36-Feb.-07-00.051 (1)

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/

After 1979, temperatures got much warmer, so NASA’s James Hansen began the global warming scare.

ScreenHunter_2417 Aug. 31 06.29

But after the year 2000, temperatures began to plummet again. So NASA and NOAA responded with the  only sensible solution. They altered the data to eliminate the earlier warmth and the current cooling.

But the data tampering wasn’t enough to keep up with cooling temperatures – so a few years ago they renamed “global warming” as “climate change”

ScreenHunter_2417 Aug. 31 06.29

You might be tempted to think that the practice of climate science is a complete fraud, and if you did, you would be correct.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Climate Science Explained In One Simple Graph

  1. wwlee4411 says:

    Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
    Figures don’t lie’ but liars do figure. They’re saying now is, “Wait 10 years. It will start again.” Yeah and wait for another 10 years after that and things will be different again. It’s called cyclical.

  2. geran says:

    The climate “scientists” are so confused that they have confused their own sycophants. Now, their whole status quo is confused. They live in confusion. No wonder Obama has been so confused about his birthplace.

    (Sorry, I couldn’t resist….)

  3. kirkmyers says:

    Changing from AGW to “climate change” was an ingenious marketing ploy. The earth’s climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. So the climate-change alarmists can never be wrong. They have deliberately clouded the issue, implying that any anomalous weather event is caused by warmer temperatures, which, in turn, are triggered by fossil fuel emissions. Alarmists now absurdly blame every severe weather event on climate change. They’ve ceased to practice science (because the science isn’t on their side) and have switched to fundraising. They are desperate to keep the grant money flowing. The AGW scare has been a funding gold mine for unscrupulous scientists. If it goes away, they’ll have to invent another bogeyman.

  4. NancyG says:

    The other day I posted this link somewhere: http://www.broadwayworld.com/off-off-broadway/article/New-Eco-Drama-EXTREME-WHETHER-to-Run-102-26-at-TNC-20140826#.U_6De2K9KSN

    I guess no one read the site? It’s an off Broadway play about global warming. From the site, “..the scientist named John Bjornson, is largely based on Dr. James Hansen, the NASA scientist who testified to congress in 1988 that global warming had begun. Other influences are the life and work of Dr. Michael Mann, author of “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”;”

    There is also going to be a discussion after the play each night as part of a “Festival of Conscience.” Oct 9 – Opening Night with climate prophet Dr. James Hansen, NASA scientist, who told Congress in 1988 that global warming had begun.

    Climate prophet of doom is more accurate, no?

  5. roger says:

    So funny!
    So true!
    Brilliant!

  6. Keith says:

    Very perceptive post

  7. Andy DC says:

    If you want to cherry pick a starting date, use 1934. Since that year, there has been one 18 year period of warming, 1980-1998. The rest of the time, temperatures were either flat or falling. I don’t think 18 years of warming out of the last 80 is exactly catastrophic warming. That is only 22.5% of the time.

  8. mjc says:

    It’s all ‘cherry picking’.

    The science of Climatology is pretty young. It basically started in the late 1800s/early 1900s. Back then, they approached climate with the idea that the longest records available would be best for deciding what was happening. But the problem was, they didn’t have very long records. ‘Modern’ record keeping didn’t really begin until the late 1870s, in the US and slowly spread from there. So, as a result, they decided to base everything on a 35 yr period…because that seemed to correspond to several cycle periods (solar, Bruckner, etc). There was a sort of understanding in the texts that as the records built, the period would expand to encompass the whole length of the record. Sometime later…that was cut down to 30 yrs, which doesn’t really correspond with anything.

    So, basically, by going back to some of the basics of the science, it would seem that anything other than the complete record is ‘cherry picking’.

  9. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    Its amazing what you can do with data today! We could prove just about anything today even climate change I bet … lol

  10. rishrac says:

    ‘The world could see a disastrous new ice age in as little as 50 – 60 years’ If that was written in 1971, then it may still stand if this ‘pause’ continues. The next 10 years should be very interesting. There are three outcomes. 1) the climate doesn’t change much. 2) it gets OMG is it cold. or 3) Global warming starts up somehow.

  11. that is such a short timeframe you show…please show a graph that goes further back in time, thanks

  12. Jack Smith says:

    This is not possible. Polar bears are dying. We must stop CO2.
    Signed. Al Gore.
    PS. I’ve only made a couple hundred mil off hyping global warming…peanuts I say!

  13. Jo says:

    I don’t know the first thing about science like most others here, but I will agree with you!!!

  14. pitou69 says:

    Here’s how a older layman looks at climate change.
    Sun active = warmer climate; Sun dormant = climate cooler.

  15. Pat says:

    You never cited a single one of your graphs, and the only link on this page is to a news article about a scientist who told the Washington post the the earth was cooling. He never once published an actual paper because he knew that he didn’t have enough data to support his conclusion. This is reflected in this quote from the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report: “We do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate ” (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html)They admit their own ignorance, but you still want to take their word as law.

    Everyone on here who comes here looking for proof that global warming/climate change is false is subscribing to a wave of denial and confirmation bias his world has not seen in years.

    • You have no idea what you are talking about

      • Gail Combs says:

        Correct you are Steve,
        Two seconds with a search engine shows NASA still carries two of Dr Rasool’s papers on their website:

        Rasool, S.I., and S.H. Schneider, 1971: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate. Science, 173, 138-141, doi:10.1126/science.173.3992.138.

        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ra00600k.html

        Rasool, S.I., and R.W. Stewart, 1971: Results and interpretation of the S-band occultation experiments on Mars and Venus. J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 869-878, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1971)0282.0.CO;2.

        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ra03300x.html

        • You need to follow up your sources. The second author of the first article (Schneider) has published much information about AGW. There seems to be no doubt about his findings and resulting concern. The reports you quote are from 43 years ago. Is this the best you can do? There’s been a bit of an advancement in climate understanding in the intervening years. Anyhow, you folks just go on deluding yourselves. Decisions will be made by people less ideologically-bound than you. Even oil companies may eventually get on board but probably not until things are so bad that even a blind person could see what’s going on. A graph of “US Winter Temperatures” as your evidence showpiece?. You may “believe” that the earth isn’t warming, but the evidence shows that it really is and that we are the primary reason. Suck it up boys, but your world is about to get a whole lot warmer.

        • Gail Combs says:

          “…..Even oil companies may eventually get on board but probably not until things are so bad that even a blind person could see what’s going on….”

          You are right Steve, ROTFLMAO!

          This turnip doesn’t even know who funded the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia,. Who was the Lead Author of Scenarios for the IPCC. Who set-up and runs the WWF. I am also sure he has never heard of the “Broken Window Fallacy’ or corporate maneuvering for market share.

          BIG CLUE for the Turnip

          Coal can be stockpiled so it’s price does not vary much. Oil and Gas is very sensitive to supply and demand. If you want to make big bucks playing the commodities market you need VOLATILITY. Oil and especially natural gas fit that bill. That is why Al Gore is OUT of Green Energy and IN Natural Gas. The green energy hoax has about run its course sucking down taxpayer money and he knows it. Encouraging VOLATILITY is why Obama nixed the Canadian pipeline, that and Warren Buffet’s trains.

          This same game was played with Food.

          Clinton (and Al Gore) got rid of the US strategic Grain Reserves in 1996, and by May of 2008 the USDA Undersecretary Mark Keenum reported “Our cupboard is bare.” Then the Council on Foreign Relations in 2011 ran a report: How Goldman Sachs Created the [2008] Food Crisis

          Open your eyes turnip. If Big Oil and the Banksters did not support CAGW you would not even know what the phrase meant.

          Did you forget the Supreme Court Decision making Corporations the big players in terms of campaign contributions?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Dave McCormick says:
          “You need to follow up your sources….. Is this the best you can do? “
          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          You do not know what the heck you are talking about. Follow the conversation –

          Pat says: “…. the only link on this page is to a news article about a scientist who told the Washington post the the earth was cooling. He never once published an actual paper…..”
          …..
          I REPLIED showing that the scientist in question, Dr. S.I. Rasool published two papers still important enough to be on the internet and showed Pat is LYING. That was my only goal.

    • Which internet search engine do you use, Pat? Democratic Underground or Daily Kos?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s