Brain Damage Is The New Normal At NASA

NASA knows that climate change is real, because trace amounts of a colorless, odorless, normally undetectable gas have risen. It is difficult to comprehend how anyone can be that stupid.

ScreenHunter_2274 Aug. 24 09.28 Climate Change: Evidence

I have discovered an even better correlation. Perfect in fact.

ScreenHunter_2277 Aug. 24 09.51

As the oceans warm, they outgas CO2 – and vice-versa, That is why the CO2 curve follows the temperature curve in the ice core record.

The geniuses at NASA are correlating carts to horses.

About stevengoddard

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

40 Responses to Brain Damage Is The New Normal At NASA

  1. R. Shearer says:

    Disturbing propaganda from NASA, indeed.

  2. ed says:

    Now plot both temp and co2 with similar scales (on top of each other). The recent anticorrelation is impressive.

  3. DakotaKid says:

    The lie is the comparison is to two data sets that are not comparable.
    The proxy data (CO2 from Ice Cores) are known to be 2000-3000 year averages of the data due to the lack of tight seals in the core data. The proxy data are available so they have not been fudged, as there are too may copies. look at comparison of Ice age to gas age in the data to see the averaging effect.
    First we know NASA and NOAA fudge currrent data to fit their models. Second if the CO2 data are 2000yr to 3000yr averages the peaks and the troughs are cut off so to make an apples to apples comparison of the old data with the current data we need to process the data by averging with all the data since 1000 bc to now. If you do this processing on the data set, we have absolutely no abnormal peak. There are too many data points in the set to have current numbers have much affect on the 300 year average. The numbers NASA is using are patently false and it is a ruse for people ignorant of data and how to make comparisons of different types of data sets.

    • Edmonton Al says:

      Please tell NASA that. Thanks.

    • mikeishere says:

      And the analog ice core CO2 proxies do not agree with the digital stomata CO2 proxies. Because the ice core measurement is analog it requires calibration, the digital stomata counts require no calibration.

  4. pete j says:

    I agree that the averaging period of the proxy data were extended to the instrumental “data” you would not see any hockey stick-like end on the 50 yr period all the societies are making pronouncements about. What NASA is calling “DATA” is actually averages of averages of anomolies of low resolution proxy and instrumental data reconstructions. If the data was of high precision why would it be nesessary to make any adjustments at all?

  5. Latitude says:

    Does anyone really believe they can measure CO2 levels like that?…
    …and that they aren’t fudging the CO2 data too?

    …I have a bridge

  6. Pops says:

    The truth is out there for those who wish to see:

    From here:

    • Gail Combs says:

      The real problem is CO2 STARVATION! Plants would like it back up to ~ 1000 to 2000 ppm.

      C4 plants developed because of CO2 starvation. The C3 pathway of photosynthesis is the better pathway in terms of energy efficiency.

  7. Steve Case says:

    And the lag time is about 800 years or so. So what happened 800 years ago? Can you say Medieval Warm Period?

  8. tom0mason says:

    Dear NASA please adjust your chart scales so the smallest increment is 1% and redraw – now feel the ‘sense of perspective’ that gives you.

  9. Scott Scarborough says:

    Why isn’t more rebuttal made with higher resolution methods of paleontological C02 measurements? for example, plant stoma. Plant stoma measurements (the pores in plant leaves that absorb C02 from the atmosphere) show that atmospheric concentration of C02 were as high as they are today about 13,000 years ago. Plant stoma are a very high frequency measurement of C02.

  10. Send Al to the Pole says:

    I’ll bet the CO2 concentration plots well to the rise of the S & P 500

  11. Phil Jones says:

    This is one of the best analogies I’ve seen on here… or anywhere else. ..

    The horse following the cart…

  12. Anthony S says:

    So, what’s the correlation between raw temp data and adjusted temp data?

    • d says:

      Magnitude of the difference is directly proportional to funding received and inversely proportional to the integrity of the researcher.

  13. darrylb says:

    Well, on this one I did a calculation—kind of involved, the last century warming of 0.75 deg C, (which may be incorrect) would only cause the oceans to emit about 5ppm per volume.of CO2.
    If it is requested, I can show the chemistry (about a page) at a later date.

  14. Eliza says:

    Actually I think the scamsters have been nailed in Australia this is really HUGE mark the date and the story. Prosecutions could follow.
    REASON Australian government now an official anti-warming organization LOL

  15. thegriss says:

    If that graph of CO2 is correct (lol) then it is a classic example of a predator/prey mechanism.
    (predator = plants, prey = CO2)
    CO2 goes gets gradually used up by plant life until it hits the 180ppm level, at which point a large proportion of plant life dies off, releasing that CO2 back into the atmosphere, (maybe with a secondary trigger for plant die back)

    Then the cycle repeats.

    Now look at the far right, that is us, saving the planet from yet another massive die back. !!

    We should be proud that we are doing so, not doing what is probably THE MOST STUPID THING HUMANKIND HAS EVER DONE, in trying to restrict the emission of CO2. !

    CO2 is the building block of all life on earth. When are these idiotic climate pseudo-scientists going to wake the **** up and realise this undisputed truth. !

    We cannot let the CO2 level drop to such disastrously low levels EVER AGAIN. !!!

  16. Robertv says:

    II have never understood the problem with this grafiek. It only shows that when CO2 is on its minimum temperatures go up fast and that when it reaches a certain maximum temperatures go down and you can’t stop the decline until it reaches its minimum.

  17. Gail Combs says:

    The interesting thing is the revisionism at work.
    The ice core data shows time periods of CO2 = 180 PPM yet the C3 plants did not all die out.

    In my old notes from ~ 2007 I found “ under 200 pm CO2 trees starve”
    but the link no longer works… Now all the searches turn up papers showing 180 ppm or lower….HMMMmmmm

    I then check a couple of studies in 2010 and found the 180 -200 ppm CO2 for trees is now based on “models” derived from the ice cores. GRRRrrrr

    Here is an example of a recent search:. Notice the obvious answer to the question posed, that the ice core data is flawed as Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski stated** is never even entertained as a possibility.

    Plant responses to low [CO2] of the past

    …Studies addressing the effects of low [CO2] on plants are also fundamental for understanding plant evolution in response to changes in resource availability through time –primarily since changing [CO2] has been shown to have major implications for plant fitness (Ward et al., 2000).

    Modern plants grown at low [CO2] (150–200 ppm) exhibit highly compromised survival (Ward & Kelly, 2004) and reproduction (Dippery et al., 1995) at conditions that occurred only 18 000–20 000 yr ago. Such findings beg the question of how glacial plants survived during low-[CO2] periods, especially considering the lack of evidence for plant extinctions during these times. Furthermore, past work has demonstrated that low [CO2] has the potential to act as a strong selective agent on plants, and therefore evolutionary responses may have ameliorated some of the negative effects of low [CO2] in the past (Ward et al., 2000).

    However, the full suite of mechanisms accounting for these adaptive responses is currently unknown, as well as how adaptive processes may have been influenced by other inter actions with climate change (for a discussion of possibilities see Sage, 1994; Sage & Cowling, 1999; Ward et al., 2000; Beerling, 2005). Furthermore, it is also important to consider that any genetic changes that occurred in the recent geologic past as a result of low [CO2] may continue to affect the responses of plants to rising [CO2] throughout the next century (Strain, 1991; Sage & Cowling, 1999). Overall, low-[CO2] studies are critical for understanding plant responses to past environments when carbon resources were most limiting, evaluating physiological and growth constraints for response to rising [CO2], determining the full continuum of plant responses to changes in [CO2] over evolutionary time scales, assessing the impacts of low [CO2] on plant community composition and ecosystem function ing, and understanding the influence that low [CO2] may have had on early human cultures via influences on the development of agriculture. Moreover, studying plant responses to low [CO2] provides information about past ecosystem functioning, such as estimates of glacial NPP (Prentice & Harrison, 2009), as well as insights into the availability of food resources for animals (Coltrain et al., 2004) and early humans (Sage, 1995; Richerson et al., 2001).


    Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to –73oC) contains liquid water[2]. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3].

  18. KTM says:

    I saw a very similar bait and switch style argument for Climate Change last summer at Timpanogos Cave on a family vacation. They had a set of informational panels displayed near the trail head, with a very similar (if not exactly the same) graphic of the CO2 levels spiking in the last century. That’s the bait, which they then nonchalantly switch into Global Warming and then launch directly into the horrific impacts that would occur if temps were to rise by 5+ degrees.

    It’s pretty sickening, actually.

    • Gail Combs says:

      That is why I keep dragging out “The earth is at the end of the Holocene and about to descend into glaciation” There are enough papers to back it up and it leaves the Warmists with nothing much to say.

      If they do try to refute it I haul out Ruddiman’s Hypothesis and as the final sledgehammer JOE ROMM!

  19. Braindamagehahaha says:

    It’s always fun reading a comment that says that anyone who disagrees with the author must have brain damage. That sort of argument is akin to any North Korean leader. In any case, the arguments placed here are based on flawed logic, and highly subjective, based on an idealogy called “faith”. Science is objective and questioning… but wait! I must be brain damaged. 🙂

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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