NASA At The Halfway Mark

In a fine propaganda piece specifically directed at young impressionable minds, NASA released the forecast above – which predicts regions near Antarctica warming up 10ºC from 1960-2060.

We are at the halfway point now in 2010. Let’s see how they are doing.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

So far, the forecast +10ºC hot spot east of the Antarctic Peninsula has not warmed at all. In fact, their red hot southern hemisphere has barely warmed anywhere. View from the South Pole is shown below :

Likewise, the northern hemisphere has warmed much more slowly than their 2-8ºC forecast. Barely half a degree from 1960-2009.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif

The NASA forecast is showing every sign of being a total bust. The impact of each new molecule of CO2 on the Earth’s radiation budget decrease logarithmically as concentration increases. So why don’t they take the article down, explain to the children that they got it wrong, and that they are very sorry for scaring them needlessly.

ess than

About stevengoddard

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

10 Responses to NASA At The Halfway Mark

  1. Paul H says:

    Did I read about a man in a gorilla suit threatened with prosecution for scaring kids in the US?

    Perhaps NASA should be treated the same.

  2. BarryW says:

    At least Dave Hathaway keeps correcting his solar cycle 24 forecast down when the results don’t agree with his prediction. NASA seems to be going the other way.

  3. Ron McCarley says:

    Re: the “red hot” southern hemisphere shot, I wish that my eyes were as clear.

  4. Ed Caryl says:

    Antarctic peninsula. Compare the satellite results to the surface map above. Then tell me it’s real. All those orange and red grids are UHI.

  5. Specific statistics may be off, but it would be prudent to also note that in the last 50 years, the earth has warmed by 4-6 degrees. I agree that we must not blindly accept statistics as fact, and that fear-mongering ought not to be the basis of an entire generations understanding of their environment. However, we indisputably face a drastically different climate now, and in the future. This would be true even if the warming aspect of climate change were extracted from the equation. It is dangerous to decontextualize data from the social, economic, and philosophical argument it seeks to validate. The global model (figure 1) you show above, has been extracted from three possible temperature projection scenarios. This is the third, which expresses the “worst case scenario”. There are two others which show projections with current CO2 emissions, and slightly elevated CO2 emissions. Criticism of fear-mongering is both welcomed, and necessary. However, when it has the effect of deligimizing a serious global issue that is not represented by these figures and projections alone, but mountians of legitimate and demonstratable data, your argument becomes propaganda itself. You may benefit from reading the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 4th Assessment Report. The data in this report has been peer-reviewed many times over and is accepted worldwide.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

    • Latitude says:

      you’re missing a decimal there hotshot…..

      It’s a 1/2 degree……………

    • PhilJourdan says:

      The “data” has not been peer reviewed (and data does not need to be). No one has been able to review all of the data due to the UEA cabal’s “hiding the declining data” (as discussed in the emails). As for the report, you are about a year late and many dollars short. Virtually everyone here has read it and picked it apart. The report has thousands of references to NON-peer reviewed articles. So how’s that peer review thing?

  6. You’re right, I am missing the decimal. Thank you.

  7. Click to access ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf


    “PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION,
    APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis
    see top response

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis
    see conclusion to article. IPCC scientists were determined to have not been forthcoming regarding the data and emails in question, however, there was found to be no fault with the science.

    • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

      IPCC is a political body that compiles research by scientists that support the supposition that humans contribute to imagined global warming. There is no such thing as an IPCC scientist. The current head of the IPCC is a railroad engineer and most others that work for the IPCC are either paper pushers or public relations flunkies.
      The review you cite was little more than a public relations cover-up as the science was not reviewed and they even admitted that minor situation. The Files from UEA CRU showed unscientific practices in play to create the impression that Global Warming is an issue when there is NO real world evidence that shows a statistically significant difference in the temperature today from dates in the 1800s. It depends on the date you pick to show your “TREND” and long term variable weather patterns account for the minor fluctuations the globe has experienced in various regions as some regions have not experienced any trend over most periods. Any imagined warming can well be explained by measurement errors that are well beyond your .4 to.6 numbers.
      You need to get a grip on reality!

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s