Forget spacewalks and mars missions, today it’s newsworthy if NASA writes on Bill Nye’s facebook page.
“NASA BRUTALLY shuts down climate change deniers on Facebook as they mock Bill Nye” — Express
“NASA smacks down climate change doubters in Facebook discussion” –Washington Post
Here comes a “smackdown”…
When it was accused of “fudging numbers” in producing global warming data, it retorted: “NASA does not ‘fudge’ numbers. All data requires statistical adjustments to remove bias.”
… more a tap on the wrist with a logical fallacy and a loose generalization.
The language Jason Samenow at the Washington Post, and Sean Martin of The Express are using is less “reporter”, more rap-song hyperbole. This, err brutal event seems to have shut down nobody, and answered nothing.
Bill Nye’s Facebook comments are eye opening — skeptics are all over it. One skeptic somewhere made a silly comment and it became a Washington Post story?
Ponder how often NASA would have been so casually and repeatedly accused of “fudging numbers” back in 1969.
The real story is the decline of NASA. It’s getting trashed on Facebook.
I wonder what odds one would get,
From a warmist, if willing to bet,
That a N.A.S.A. decree,
By some hundredths degree,
Claims this year the warmest one yet.
— Ruairi
I just happened to find these under a Kelly Rodriguez comment —
Mark Baumbach When NOAA literally changed decades of temperatures how can you make a bet. Heads I win, tails you lose. Bill Nye has debated Moreno on other outlets and has always looked silly, unprepared, and without facts.
Keith Rice That proves nothing. NOAA recently rewrote old data to better conform to increasing temperatures. Science is no more trustworthy than religion because the people who represent these institutions have the same human motivations.
George MP Macesich Climate Change, Man Made Global Warming, Global Warming or whatever the Leftist Soup de Jour name now in fashion is a scam. It’s designed to raise revenue and shut down industries the Left hates. This scam is the New Inquisition. Well I’m a heretic to this politicized pseudo-science. Nye you’re an Inquisitor a hitman if you will for this rather boorish fad.
Norm Lamar A most gratuitous disposition NASA has taken regarding the pseudo science surrounding Global Warming; in fact, it’s quite pathetic….and disappointing from an engineer’s perspective. NASA has degraded their scientific ethos with their futile attempts to convince us that Global Warming via hyperbolic computer simulations juxtaposed with skewed empirical data subjected to variable boundary conditions and invariably interpreted by biased researchers, is somehow, an impartial scientific finding we should all believe in…ah-yeah.
Gary John Woodside What part of his mechanical engineering training makes Ole Bill a climate genius or authority on any other “science” guy subject? Why take a bet from someone who can’t prove his theory for multiple hundreds of years when they already doctor evidence and would never admit being wrong EVER! Like betting against the casino that changes the odds of the games on the fly….
Brad Leak Oh good grief…. here we go with the Climate-Gone-Wild alarmists again. A cult-like narrative was produced by Al Gore, high priest. A narrative that has failed to be accurate time and time again. A narrative with it’s own plan for salvation that just happens to be the same plan of salvation of far left politics. It would be nice if NASA Climate Change would stay out of politics.
Thanks Michael Davison. :- ) “Excerpt – “...Bill Nye offers lame bets on pointless noise, talks of slavery, jail — other “sciencey” stuff”
NASA Climate Change on facebook
I wonder if Sarah Palin will be tossed into the can by Bill Nye?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/04/15/sarah-palin-bill-nye-much-scientist/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+breitbart+%28Breitbart+News%29
160
Quote: Bill Nye from the article you linked.
His quality of life indeed. I wonder what his quality of life will be if his view of things gts the upper hand. Sitting alone freezing in the dark for lack of ability to heat and light your house doesn’t sound like any kind of quality of life to me.
380
No one is holding you back Mr. Nye. So go out and get a job and then get to work. It will do you good to see the world from where the rest of us see it.
192
The 1975 ‘Endangered Atmosphere Conference’, organised by co-founder in the 1920s of US Eugenics, Margaret Mead and her Eugenicist ally, Paul Ehrlich, decided to invent a CO2 scare to persuade the Public to opt for Global Government, in effect rule by the Banks (Ehrlich was and apprently remains connected to the Club of Rome). John Holdren, a long term colleague of Ehrlich at Stanfrod, is Obama’s chief scientific advisor.
In 1976, R D Cess published a paper which claimed Earth’s radiant Emissivity is the ratio of OLR (-18 deg c) to surface radiant exitance (+15 deg C). Any science professional knows emissivity is defined for identical emission temperatures. This ‘mistake’ created >40% more atmospheric warming than reality. Also that year, GISS published a 1-D atmospheric heat transfer model which offset the extra energy with ‘negative convection’. There is no such physics. 24 years later, a member of the GISS team, James Hansen, admitted that fraud to an AIP interviewer
The IPCC, whose fake science is used to justify Agenda 21, was set up by the late Maurice Strong as a subsidiary of UNEP, which he created. Strong went into exile in Beijing after being indicted in a food for oil scam which diverted to his private account resources meant for starving Iraqi children. Please read this UN fraud timeline, prepared for Australian parliamentarians, all the way to the IPCC: http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/The%20Eco%20Fraud_part%201.pdf
‘This timeline started with Maurice Strong. Sixty three years later he is a member of the board of the Chicago Climate (Sic) Exchange (CCX) established to trade carbon credits. In the now unlikely event that the USA passes Cap- n-trade legislation, the CO2 trading industry is projected to grow to 10 trillion dollars annually.’
Obama was on the board of the foundation which in 2008 set up the Chicago Carbon Exchange: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/shorebank.php
Look at the other names; the Clintons, Bob Ayres of the violent Weather Underground, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore……….This appears to be a giant commercial fraud to enrich the bankers, with backing by corrupt scientists, bureaucrats and politicians. If the Nye bloke feels I am threatening his cosy little world, very good, because anyone who knowingly supports this scam is an odious little rat, and if they do it without investigating the detail, leave out the odious.
51
Hey Roy Hogue, !!….
You said: ” It will do you good to see the world from where the rest of us see it.”
Do you mean some kind of ‘flat earth’ constant from when science was a straight line, and not curved or convoluted as discovered by Galileo?
44
Real science is like a black sheep kind of…
I am not a great fan of translations….
From: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015
” Luke 15New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Lost Sheep
15 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
31
Nothing new under the sun
21
Mike,
By, “…see the world from where the rest of us see it,” I meant from the perspective of those of us who have spent our adult lives doing productive work for the benefit of both ourselves and others. I imagine that has various shades of meaning, including your interpretation.
It’s pretty clear that Bill Nye has not pursued a career in mechanical engineering as he was trained but instead has taken an easy road to notoriety and whatever income he gets from being “The Science Guy” and other endeavours. I think it absurd, not to mention insulting, that he should be speaking against honest questioning of global warming while the rest of us have been looking into it, evaluating the claims, looking for empirical evidence (which he doesn’t have) and speaking out, not with his bluster, threats of jailing anyone or his holier than thou attitude but with honest questions and sound counter arguments. He can’t stand up to us in a debate so he threatens instead. And he’s only the latest in a long list of such people.
It’s no secret to readers of Jo Nova that I have no use for such people. They cause a lot of trouble and benefit no one.
41
You can alwaty pick Leftists – they seem to reatreat to the victim state to make it look like you are picking on them, rather in reality they are more like sneaky cattle dogs which will sneak around behind you and bite you in the back of the leg when youre not looking…..not to be trusted….
20
I appreciated Bill Nye as an instructor for children – he created an interest for science and experiments in my niece when she was young. And that is where I feel he shines – on TV, showing little kids how to make soda-pop volcanoes or what-not. Doing nothing else, nowhere else.
10
Roy, i suppose he is talking about the ‘economic climate change deniers’ who deny that the exacerbated cooling of the economic climate has resulted in the closure of oil and gas including the closure of the biggest coal producer in the world the other day, namely Peabody, and that this is not a result of severe economic climate change.
The quality if life of millions around the world is affected, as severe austerity and economic woes impact the ability of the masses to heat and cool their homes if they even have homes any more.
Those darn economic climate deniers …..
111
Roy,
You are quite wrong about Bill Nye’s situation if his views gets the upper hand. As a climate propagandist his role will be essential to the maintenance of the new state. He will be part of the climate nomenclature, so will be entitled to special privileges. It is the masses who will have to freeze (in the UK) or sweat it out (in Australia) when the wind fails to blow at night.
180
Kevin,
Possibly so. But just as easily his new masters could figure out that he’s not so indispensable and toss him out with all the rest of us. After all, he’s turned out to be quite a bit of trouble and I suspect, embarrassment too, judging by the energy NASA is putting into defending him.
You don’t usually spend time defending a faithful servant who has done well, you might need to prop up one who has screwed up though.
121
We only need wait and see. The handwriting is on the wall.
61
The introduction of this constant extreme alarmism … about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen, so I can see where people are very concerned about this and are pursuing criminal investigations as well engaging in discussions like this … it’s keeping me from getting to work, they’re holding me back.
00
Sarah Palin publicly outing an unqualified mouthpiece for supporting a totalitarian government agenda, now that’s a smackdown!
190
I do not like Palin – she’s as nutty as the far left zealots, and I think she may have done more harm than good in her attempt to smack-down the Nye guy. But it sure was funny!
00
NASA has steadily gone downhill in the last 30 years. I recently visited the Space X factory in El Segundo, California and was amazed at the number of people around even at 7:30 at night. That facility is building rocket motors, assembling the rockets, making cargo/crew capsules all in one facility and then they are put on a truck and driven to Cape Canaveral. Space X clearly wants to go somewhere. NASA wants the organization to survive so kowtows it to politics. Remember, After the Columbia burn up on reentry, NASA could not come up with a new man rated vehicle in 10 years, more time than it took to put Apollo on the moon.
231
What appears to be the base (in both meanings of the word) article, can be found at http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. At least, that is the article that the NASA site points to.
The list of contributors will be no surprise to regulars of this site: John Cook1,2,3,16, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13, Dana Nuccitelli3, Peter Jacobs9, Mark Richardson14, Bärbel Winkler3, Rob Painting3 and Ken Rice15.
The numbers, after the name, refer to a footnote that gives the institution where these people work (or are receiving medication), and not to papers they have published.
“Our friend” John Cook, has four references. These include Skeptical Science, the Global Change Institute (which I believe he set up?), and himself as author of the paper in question.
It is all smoke and mirrors, folks. The sad thing is that NASA has lowered itself to allow this dross to be published on their site.
452
RW,
A snakes knees are now higher in every respect than NASA. As I said below, this is nothing but a damned street brawl.
182
Maybe a “glass is a tiny bit full” view but I’m seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. That’s unless this smart ar-e gets the boot.
Science was built on experiments that were designed to remove bias, not on data adjusted once the results were in.
140
And to make matters worse, Climate Science™ doesn’t conduct experiments.
30
‘Economic climate science’ does heaps of experiments, like high tech negative interest rates, so maybe it offers and alternative for the dissatisfied with CO2 greenhouse garden variety ‘climate science’.
20
Alternative sciences are a great option if the laws/formulae are not to ones liking.,…..
20
NASA used to be a fantastic organisation, a trailblaiser for mankind into space.
Unfortunately, space exploration became progressively more difficult to fund, as the romance of space science steadily faded. Equally unfortunately, science fiction in the form of climate alarmism became unbelievably easy to fund – our troughs overfloweth – so what are NASA bureaucrats to do?
Answer: Give the politicians what they want and to hell with scientific integrity – anything goes, as long as our salaries and careers are safeguarded.
191
Until the IPCC has it’s charter changed to consider all climate change science, not just specifically anthropogenic CO2, science is doomed to be hamstrung by politics. What ever forces or influence made the IPCC what it is, brought the scientific industrial complex to it’s knees.
It’s not just sad, it is serious and a bigger threat to mankind than any CO2.
122
Boomed should have been doomed.
[Fixed] Fly
71
IPCC — 1988.
Partisan management for the CSIRO — 1986.
Sequence in time. Is there a connection?
72
Robk April 17, 2016 at 9:25 am
“Until the IPCC has it’s charter changed to consider all climate change science, not just specifically anthropogenic CO2, science is doomed to be hamstrung by politics. What ever forces or influence made the IPCC what it is, brought the scientific industrial complex to it’s knees. It’s not just sad, it is serious and a bigger threat to mankind than any CO2.”
Correct about the politically centered IPCC! But “climate change science”, are you trying to claim that the concept of the average earth’s surface temperature, has some physical or scientific meaning? Only academic meteorology and its current offsprout climatology has been so much disgraced by the efforts of the IPCC.
I exclude most hard science and weather forecasting from such disgrace. Forecasters only claim attempt to distinguish the deterministic repetition of weather patterns from the apparent statistical chaos that is the main characteristic of Earth’s weather. Another endeavor astrology, seems also an attempt, by careful record keeping, to explain the deterministic effect of relative position of all solar system bodies, upon the long term aggregate of Earth’s weather. This effect seems to become much, much more important with each passing day. I do not believe, I only consider!
All the best! -will-
00
40 years ago they flew to the Moon on Commodore 64 power, now they can’t predict a climate using supercomputers
191
Sean,
That’s a good point echoed in a Facebook comment.
60
Sean you will probably find that not only can they not do space anymore, but they have a bigger budget and ten times the staff, very proficient in PC and spin doctoring. Science and engineering take a back seat. Private enterprise will beat NASA in space over the coming decades, they may make some income with rental of the cape launch facilities.
30
The best way to diffuse the NASA standing ( and other institutions that are flogging a dead climate “horse” ) is to say they have lost their way…
This uses the Lefts own victim-ology attack against it, and not dissing NASA outright, but rather saying it is an need of a gentle hand to get itself back on track.
Leftists are born brawlers, if you can keep the brawler bit suppressed without engaging it, by sympathy and being reasonable, they will go incandescent and be made look bad when they do try and bite your head off….
20
Some very telling comments about NOAA and NASA with no punches pulled.
Many years ago it was obvious that the old parable of the Emperors New Clothes was applicable to the CAGW scam but never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that it could last this long.
In Sydney a month ago I am told that 42,000 concerned people marched to save the planet.
Civilisation is not marching forward, it is living in a state of mental delusion orchestrated by our “betters” comfortably established in our parliaments and the U.N..
God help us all.
Pass the brandy.
KK
292
We are living in a time of rising Leftist/Nhilist barabarism.
People dont believe me when I say the australian public has basically been disarmed ( from its firearms ) ahead of time becasue fo whats coming.
I suspect in true leftist fashion, when the knives eventually do openly come out, it will be more like a french revolution approach, bloody, thuggery and nasty….
To properly overthrow our civilisation requires removal of Christainity as well, as it is the one main thing that underpins our laws and impoertantly , morals.
History isnt really taught in schools any more, due to the leftist influence on academia, so people soon will have no moral structure, no sense of history and no right to complain ( due to PC ) – in short we are being hollowed out by a Leftist cancer that will cripple us. Then add the eco-Nazism and power and resource rationing on top, and you have full paralysis…..
Kind of scary – but then we always knew it would come to this. Our society is directly under threat, and openly now, notably by the powers that be….now whats the word for that, starts with …?
20
Well! Finally, after all the years FaceBook been around, I actually have a reason for wanting a FaceBook account and don’t have one. Just my luck. 🙁
I would dearly love to give Bill Nye and NASA a good thrashing with some facts and figures. But I’ll stick to my guns and stay away from FaceBook, also Twitter (isn’t that what birds do?) and avoid the aggravation. I expect a number of people who can do it even better than I could will jump in and easily make up for my absence. The one worry I have is that some who don’t know enough to counter Nye and NASA correctly will end up smearing skeptics all over the landscape. But there’s nothing we can do about that now.
Meanwhile I’m sitting here wondering if there’s an even lower rung on the ladder of shame that NASA can step down to. It’s embarrassing to see the once proud and respected organization that once was NASA now engaged in a damned street brawl.
Bill Nye might be suitable to teach grammar school science to children, “Hey class, watch this. If I hold this ball up high and then release it, see how gravity pulls it right down to the floor.” But that’s as far as I’ll give him any credit. I wonder if he could explain g if he had to or if he could explain why the ball bounces back up again.
NASA once would never have given Nye or his bet as much as a second of attention. And now look at them, living proof that no matter who or what you are, no matter what your founding principles were or how high your mission, sooner or later you begin to serve only your lowest instincts.
To quote Sarah Palin.
And that’s verbatim right off the internet after a Google search for “bill nye”. And we know for sure that Sarah Palin is no scientist.
332
He had a 50% chance of being right. I’m unimpressed. No credit warranted.
91
Thanks for pointing out Sarah Palin is not in fact a scientist Roy. You know…just in case we didn’t get the point. You’re as sharp as a sack of wet mice, aren’t you? (Just in case…sacks of wet mice aren’t very sharp).
215
A sack of wet mice would have FAR more intelligence that you, Ross.
122
Kootchy kootchy koo, Andy Pandy.
113
Are you an 8 year old? or have I over estimated.
92
“citizen scientist”?? including amateurs
“Citizen Science Day 2016 ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc4e9haLeaM
04
Citizen Science Day: April 16th to May 21st. The days are getting awfully long for citizen scientists. Warmer too, apparently.
06
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, Ross? Or maybe you have a hangover?
50
” When it was accused of “fudging numbers” in producing global warming data, it retorted: “NASA does not ‘fudge’ numbers. All data requires statistical adjustments to remove bias.” ”
Sure does. The wrong kind of bias anyway 😉
232
If this is the way that NASA is heading, soon they’ll be saying that the moon landings were a fake.
221
They can’t admit that. I personally bought some cheese from a guy in a NASA coverall, at Berkley.
141
RW,
It’s only genuine if it’s American Cheese.
Sorry I couldn’t resist. I remember Snoopy the dog in the Peanuts comic strip dancing up and down excitedly after the successful moon landing, proclaiming that the moon is, “…made of American Cheese!”
40
Given that it was totally tasteless, I will vouch for the fact that it was American cheese, and therefore genuine.
00
The NOAA/GISS/HadCrut surface data sets are now only useful for one thing…..
‘climate change™’ propaganda.
183
They are not removing bias.. they are INTRODUCING IT. !!
214
Luckily we have you Noddy, railing against bias in the warmist haunts. Dont know what you guys are all complaining about, its my understanding that there are no climate “change deniers” on this site so why should you care if “NASA smacks them down”
214
What is Homogenisation?
It is an unproven, irrational assumption that all rural sites should be warming as fast as sites next to air conditioners and at airports, (except if one of those urban or airport sites happens to be cooling). Its sole purpose is to introduce a BIAS towards UHI affected sites, purely for the sake of creating a warming trend for propaganda purposes. That is why the process was invented.
What is “regional expectation”.?
Is a totally unfounded assumption that everywhere within a region should be warming at the rate that BEST thinks it should be warming. A BIAS that is tally to do with the climate change meme, nothing to do with science.
92
errata.. last line
” tally ” = totally
10
I live about 10 miles from where I work. The temperature difference in the summer can be as much as 10 degrees (F). Another 5 miles to my sister’s house and there could be another 3 to 4 degree (F) difference. The southern, industrialized, end of my city of residence can be 5 degrees or more (F) warmer than where my house is, at the northern end.
In the winter the large body of water keeps my area warmer – usually 5 or 6 degrees (F) – until the water ices over.
The differences are explained by the large body of water, the terrain (lowlands to highlands) and the amount of concrete/paving/industry.
Homogenizing the areas would produce an unreliable and inaccurate temperature and, at the least, ruin a day at the beach for those expecting 80s and getting 70s (F).
00
Aren’t “Statistical adjustments” just a subset of Fudging the numbers?
Fudjing doesn’t imply any motivation just says they change the numbers to suit their beliefs, so isn’t changing the numbers to suit your beliefs of the biases synonymous with Fudging.
Great own goal NASA
113
Good morning Jo,
Sad isn’t it?!
Doesn’t anyone any more understand the difference between primary and secondary objectives??!!
Here’s some possible examples…
1. Develop a replacement or back-up transit vehicle to the international space station;
2. Develop a second or back-up space-tourism vehicle, esp. more needed since the 2014 fatal accident of Virgin Galactic; (I know income is a dirty word among most in the public sector – except of course when it comes to putting up charges to the voters – but that’s a whole other ‘kettle of fish’!)
3. Issue some ‘p.r.’ defence of a ‘climate change catastrophe acolyte’
Clearly in the last 10 – 20 years there’s been too much of the latter and not quite enough of the former.
It never ceases to amaze me how those of the ‘climate change cult’ are always so adept at projection.
Indeed the intensity of their projections is just getting worse and worse.
For instance, since An Inconvenient Truth, Circa 2006, the name-calling has morphed from … sceptic, to denier, to dinosaur, to paedophile, to enemy of the state.
Surely this multi-trillion-dollar boondoggle must be in its final few months.
Once this happens, the Greens in our midst will have to eat a serving of humble pie that will last for years!!!
Keep up the great work.
Warm regards, reformed warmist of Logan
142
Much as I dislike the cold, I am seriously hoping the La Nina now forming will drop the satellite temperatures back down to where they started in 1979.
The screaming and screeching from the climate alarmists would be a real sight to see.
194
La Nina is already showing here in Britain. Last Sunday morning there was a severe frost in April. As the clock strikes midnight here, temperature are 2C and falling. In December when El Nino was raging there were no frosts. Personally I hope there is not a strong El Nino as I like the warmer weather, when I can turn off the central heating and bask in the sunshine with daytime highs above 20C. Spent a week in Southern Scotland last July, the hottest month of the year. Highest temperature was about 16C.
151
correction required???
“Personally I hope there is not a strong
El NinoLa Nina as I like the warmer weather.”142
Quite right Andy. Thanks for the correction.
111
🙂
82
We knew what you meant.
130
No we didn’t.
70
Yes we did. 🙂
102
Meanwhile, in Mongolia …
A Climate Disaster in Mongolia
Mongolia is being hit by a serious livelihood and food crisis arising from a slow-burning but deadly climate disaster unique to the country known as a “dzud.”
The dzud consists of a summer drought followed by a heavy winter snow and especially cold temperatures during winter and spring.
. . .
Forget La Niña.
They need more wind farms, solar panels & a carbon (sic) tax.
90
It matters not how far temperatures might plummet; for at least ten years, it will continue to be dismissed as “weather”. All it would take for the, “We are all going to burn!” meme to resurrect itself would be a three-day heatwave.
80
Oh Andy. Enough of your screaming and screeching. It’s getting old.
17
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825216300277
More about 60 year cycles
90
Scafetta will eventually become the flavor of the month, with his name on everyone’s lips, until then The Conversation finally recognizes that negative feedbacks are making a comeback.
https://theconversation.com/the-atlantic-is-entering-a-cool-phase-that-will-change-the-worlds-weather-42497
92
I don’t know how many times I have pointed to the AMO for Arctic Sea Ice, Temps in Iceland, even NH glacier retreat and advance.
The AMO has a HUGE effect.
152
Even glaciers in the US on the opposite coast to the Atlantic seem to follow the AMO dates and pattern
http://s19.postimg.org/qr70ve69f/mt_baker.png
122
Of interest in that article is that the tags ‘global warming’ (as searched by Cook et al) is nowhere to be seen, so this article would never be counted. I take the view that the search terms used are pretty much self selecting, in which case the result is remarkably low considering how many papers were discarded.
91
True, but they do cover their credentials by saying “after adjustment for warming”. It qualifies them for the Conversation.
92
This Cook article is not about “global warming” or “climate change”
It is an anti-science paper about consensus in science.
ie It is totally irrelevant to anything to with any sort of real science.
182
OT..
“News from the Netherlands:
Hundreds of wind turbines in the Netherlands are operating at a loss and are in danger of being demolished. The main cause is the very low energy prices, which mean that the maintaining the turbines cost more than what the generated energy bring in, the Financieele Dagblad reports based on own research.
Subsidies for generating wind energy are in many cases no longer cost-effective. Smaller, older windmills in particular are running at a loss, but even newer mills are struggling to be profitable with insufficient subsidies.”
Puts a big grin on my face. 🙂
242
That can’t be correct, our Government and the Opposition are still pushing Renewable Energy as the future of electricity in Australia.
Fools!
111
Reading an article in Friday’s Aust. saying current subsidy levels were 50% and would go down to 4 % when we have 50% renewable energy by 2030. A few problems with that inasmuch need about 12,500 4 MW wind turbines to supply 12,500 MW (half of our 25,000 MW requirement), and for that need about 8,000 sq. km. of coastal land. Metropolitian Melbourne occupies 9,900 sq. km., and Sydney about 12,360 sq. km. It’s really fantasy stuff, just think of the logisitics, objections by the public, the amount of bird kill and so on. And then there is the problem of lack of wind which happens quite regularly, e.g. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday this week with production closer to 10% and not the 25% as planned. Seriously, it is not feasible to run a grid with only 5,000 MW coming from half your capacity. But no one seems to mention, nor understand, these details.
151
Come on Robert…
You know that after the first couple of years, the bird kill rate would drop to near zero.
122
If it requires a subsidy to be “profitable” it is not profitable. It is theft pure and simple: the forceful taking of something not earned by you from someone who earned it. That it is “legal” does not make it right. ANY such law is wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong. Using “their” words, it is unsustainable.
130
I’d dispute this.
If people are in danger, get them out of the way.
If the windmill falls on a solar farm then we get a twofer . . bonus.
Imagine all the subsidies saved.
41
Quote: “There is far too much focus on surface temperatures.”
So, forget about the hottest hour-day-week-month-year decade hype?
131
Bill Nye may well be the Peewee Herman of science. He looks the part.
I wonder what Bill does in the dark back seats of movie theaters, who or what he is fantasizing about…
62
Bill Nye once won a Steve Martin look-alike contest.
31
“Bill Nye…the Peewee Herman of Science.”
Ouch! I never slammed an outhouse door that hard.
71
Yes, the cowards and NASA just pick out a silly comment to “smackdown” and they become heroes of the warmist left. Meanwhile, I and others have provided substantial replies on Facebook to NasaClimateChange, and … crickets … no responses. Here’s what I posted to them:
NASA Climate Change – Some questions and points, pick any or all answer or rebutt if you care to, or can:
1) If the “science is settled” and the “debate is over”, then perhaps wouldn’t that mean we no longer need taxpayer dollars going to NASA or anyone else for the purpose of more research on Global Warming?
2) Let me try clearly stating what you and many others misrepresent as the viewpoint of most “deniers”. Yes, the earth is warming, and yes, some of this warming may be human caused, and yes, this may have some kind of effects on us in the future. But we lack enough certainty over any of these factors to have enough confidence that significant policy changes today – which are likely to have consequences of their own – will make a difference or are even at all necessary.
3) Assuming that such evidence exists that urgent action is needed, why is so much focus put on things like solar and wind, or other forms of renewable energy that in their current underdeveloped state could do little to either meet global demand or make any appreciable difference in CO2 levels. If indeed the need is urgent to reduce CO2 levels now, then would it not be just as much of a denial not to recognize that until safer and cleaner alternatives can be more fully developed that for at least a couple of decades we may need to be implementing some mid-term solutions than can – and provably have – lowered the human caused CO2 output relative to the amounts emitted by coal and oil. So in other words, I would be more inclined to believe NASA and others who say we need to act now if they also said this means that, at least for now, we need to ramp up our use of fracked natural gas and nuclear as the only viable short and mid-term solution to meeting our global energy demand. If NASA and other alarmists deny THAT reality, then how can they expect anyone to take their claims seriously?
4) The so-called “hottest year on record” is a specious argument which proves nothing, since as I said, even most so-called deniers say the earth is now in a warming trend. So the issue never has been whether this year was hotter than last year, but rather what is causing it, how much hotter did it get, and how much of an average annual increase in global temperatures can we expect, and is there really anything we can do about it. There is a big difference between the temperature going up 1 degree vs. 1/10th of a degree vs. 1/1000 of a degree each year. But in either case, if last year was a record, and this year goes over last year by even a hair, then whoopee, we set another record – which means nothing. Shame on Bill Nye for even wanting to make that bet, as any REAL scientist would easily recognize that one year-over-year result in temperature is meaningless.
5) Here’s another kind of “denial” to consider. I’ll call it Geo-Political Reality Denial, with the question being – what strategy is needed to get political and industry leaders to agree on a sustained and multilateral course of action that would include significant changes to our energy production processes, in order to appreciably reduce CO2, since they would be convinced that the benefit of avoiding the consequence of inaction outweigh the economic and social disruption that would result from making those significant changes. It would seem that NASA, along with MANY others who adhere to the so-called mainstream view of climate science think that trying to use hyperbole and distortions in order to prevent those leaders from hearing or considering ANY dissenting opinions is the most persuasive strategy for getting those global leaders to listen to and believe their point of view, when in fact, it should be clear to anyone with a basic understanding of the kinds of serious debate and dialogue those leaders would require before engaging in world-changing decisions with any confidence, that this is the OPPOSITE of what they should be doing. But as I said, with all the juvenile taunts of “denier” and false claims of consensus, I can clearly see that your side is in deep denial on this issue.
—
Thank you. It surely must get to them to see so many well considered responses. Though they will never admit it. I was delighted to see that so many skeptics were “into the fray” — Jo
180
Excellent
60
Ditto for me.
30
In an email to Micheal Mann on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 Kevin Trenberth wrote (emphasis mine)
Trenberth articulated what is widely practiced in climatology. The theory is a priori true, so the data must be wrong. When compiling temperature anomalies there are a variety of different techniques to choose from in order to eliminate measurement biases within the data and outliers, along with infilling in the gaps where there is poor coverage. If the people who are checking the data have strong beliefs about how the data should look, they will be biased in what data is anomalous. If the data adjusted a number of times, then at each stage it will move more into line with the beliefs.
181
Greetings Kevin,
This actually goes back farther than what you think. It is my opinion that my classmates and I began what you indicated, that if the ‘… theory is not in line with the data, then obviously the data are wrong …’.
I was attending (yes, for credit) a graduate seminar in one of the hard sciences, and our “professor” (term used lightly) was showing us some of his latest research. While it was mathematically elegant, the data he collected and his ‘model’ of the data, were, quite simply, in two different universes. He insisted that the data supported his idea — — a room full of grad students saw it quite differently: his idea was useless (at best), and the data contradicted his conclusion.
I did not see that his “findings” were ever published.
The upshot of that episode was that we decided, “If the data do not fit the model, then obviously, the data are WRONG!”
This was in 1975, at a major US university.
Regards,
Vlad
20
“Slap down”. No, this is the language of click bait. In the world of internet news, headlines are no longer funny or punny, they are just enticement. Just answering a question is now a ‘zinger’. Saying “no” is a slap down. Then headlines like, “you would not guess what Bill Nye did next!”
From Todays news.com.au
New Australian Victoria’s Secret model killing it
Thaiday’s gesture was all class
One thing never to do at airport security.
and utterly prejudicial headlines
Donald Trump will not stop whining
So much for reporting the news. Facts are irrelevant. You get fantasy and enticement with every headline.
Cannot wait for a book of Tim Flannery’s greatest zingers.
150
Just posted this on his Facebook page.
Bill Nye – I’ll throw a challenge your way (since you’re so smart and know everything there is to know about sic “climate change/globull warming”). Why don’t you agree to a scientific debate with mmmm – oh how about Mark Steyn and ermmm – yeah, Christopher Monckton. You can bring anyone whom you choose to help in your endeavour to win against the evil deniers. I’ll personally bet this won’t happen – PROVE ME WRONG!!! Cheers,
This guy is comedy GOLD – trashes his name FOREVER over something that no-one on the planet can PROVE>
Cheers,
201
Ah, this must have been what I caught the tail end of on the Weather Channel a few days ago. I didn’t get a weather report, instead what I got was some propaganda. To paraphrase from memory:
“So your opinion on climate Change is vindicated by NASA..” Interjecting: “It’s not an opinion it is fact supported by the scientific data and the math. The facts are that climate change is real, it is dangerous, and it is caused by human activities..”
At which point I changed the station.
120
Math, is that the same Math that says that its possible to evaporate 15% more water with just 0.6W per square meter radiation imbalance ?
More like an attempt to repeal the law of conservation of energy to me.
40
You gotta love these fluff articles where they post a screen grab from the internet, and most of the body of the article is simply quoting verbatim what the screen grab says.
60
Good old [Ctrl][Sys Req] and Microsoft Paint have done a lot of work over the years. Those two let me make pretty pictures of my graphic data display software to show the boss. So don’t knock screen grabs too hard. 😉
00
I wonder what odds one would get,
From a warmist, if willing to bet,
That a N.A.S.A. decree,
By some hundredths degree,
Claims this year the warmest one yet.
200
Classic, Ruairi – one of your best!
40
Is anyone willing and able to gather and maintain a collection of these gems?? Fly?
30
Do they measure the annual mean temperature of other planets to 1/10th of a degree? Rounding to the nearest degree doesn’t make their assertion true. Seriously, didn’t Schmidt, director of GISS at NASA, say that satellites are not good enough to claim a pause in global warming for Earth? And seasonal changes on other planets! There are only three other planets with enough data in the past 36 years to see whats seasonal and what’s long term trend of a fraction of a degree.
Venus should have the least seasonal change but the temperature profile of the atmosphere has only been measured precisely since 2007. That’s half way through the pause!
81
With all the above NASA criticism, please let us not forget the splendid progress that that noble organization has made in its outreach program to the Muslim populations of the world.
And as for Bill Nye – I’d rather have a sty in the eye than listen to any garbage from this guy. Best thing he could do is remember the old saying: “What goes around comes around.” Are you listening Bill?
40
NASA didn’t you blow up more the 14 astronauts due to incompetence and bureaucracy and crash a probe unto Mars because you were too dumb to able handle metric units. Exactly why you should be trusted with Climate Science??
31
I think the number is 18, not 14.
10
Sorry, I forgot to add the link. This is actually the full list, world wide so it includes Soviet disasters as well as our own.
This one is just U.S. space programs. Space flight has taken its toll.
10
I know personally a senior scientist in NASA – a colleague of my astrophysicist prof daughter – I have always had a high opinion of him as a scientist and, as I knew that he was involved in work and n CO2 levels in our atmosphere I was keen to get his opinion is on the work that David Evans is doing on the routes of heat loss to space. I sent him links to David’s work, not expecting a hugely enthusiastic response, but rather a muted, but considered, comment.
To my amazement and deep disappointment I got this –
“From what I have seen, Dr. David Evans appears to be a classic charlatan. I have seen a lot of this style of “climate skepticism.” Much of it is fueled, not by science, but by ultra-Libertarian organizations such as the Heartland Institute. The primary premise of these organizations is that climate change will lead to more government regulation and thus expanded government, which they strenuously oppose. These organizations, generously funded by the fossil fuel industry, have amassed a small army of “merchants of doubt,” like Dr. Evans, who skillfully craft and disseminate misinformation on climate (and a number of other topics that might lead to more government regulation). I am certainly not an advocate for big government, but I find that their behavior to be reprehensible.”
To prove what a charlatan David is, he directed me to articles in the Guardian and ScepticalScience!
I responded that I was shocked that a professional scientist would describe another, of whom he had no personal knowledge, as a “charlatan” on such flimsy evidence from two dubious sources. I also pointed out that it was exactly 10 years that week since Al Gore had prophesied that by that week there would be no ice in the Arctic and if he was looking for a charlatan he should look no further than Mr Gore. I have not heard back from my contact since!
What I find disappointing is that a person that I know to be experienced and knowledgeable in this general area of science to be so dismissive of another point of view that was clearly a threat to his own career.
NASA is clearly not what it used to be.
171
Damn! Despite preview typos still got through – sorry! Maybe the iPad is too small for my ageing eyes!
50
Peter,
I too have recently begun to experience the joys of predictive text systems on my mobile phone.
As for the content of your main post; sad but possibly associated with job protection.
Just imagine the mess he could get into if he voiced the truth as you and I know it, and then his message became public.
End of job.
KK
40
Yes KK – I did suggest to him, towards the end of my response, that “time would tell, and if a Republican became president he might have to find a new research project – or job!”
61
Peter,
What you witness, is a symptom of Government not just setting policy; and building a regulatory framework to facilitate what the policy should achieve, but also employing people to deliver the actual goods and services required to meet the policy requirements.
In the second case, the people delivering the goods and services know that their job will be over, once they have delivered. Some of these folks are therefore inclined to make the delivery more complex, and more difficult, and more costly, than it needs to be, in order to extend their involvement, and maintain their income stream.
I make no judgement in regard to your senior scientist in NASA, other than to surmise that he may well see Dr David Evans as a competitor, and therefore a risk.
I have done enough work with Governments to see this at first hand, many times, and I will admit to occasionally finding ways to extend my own tenure, if the outcome is extremely interesting and/or I am acquiring valuable experience. Surprising though it may seem, money is rarely a consideration for me personally, because there is always another job I could be doing, but probably not as exciting.
The problem is not with the people, who are human, and therefore have human nature, but with Governments setting the policy and taking it upon themselves to deliver on that policy. In such a structure, there are few checks and balances.
101
RH, when I wrote to him initially I intimated that, because of NASA policy, it would be difficult for him to acknowledge that David might be right. I made it clear that, at this stage, it was a theory to be tested in time, like the IPCC climate models. I though he would be interested and could at least have acknowledged it as an interesting theory. It was the slur of “charlatan” and the reference to conspiricy and “fossil fuel funding” that got to me, especially the latter, knowing how Jo and David get much of their financial support.
Which reminds me, it’s chocolate time again.
61
It seems to me a shocking response. Good for you Peter. I hope we can find a bit to send some belated Easter eggs to Jo. It’s Greek Orthodox Easter on the 1st May, so there’s still time!
30
You got your reply from someone you apparently respect, Peter.
“David Evans is a shill for the fossil fuel industry, and a charlatan.”
This is what the real world thinks, outside of playgroups like Jonova et al. Shocking isn’t it?
Have another chocy, dear.
112
I did wonder at the start of this post when NASA would be referring to cartoonist’s blog SkS for evidence, only I didn’t expect it to be so soon.
20
Here’s Bill Nye as super hero Speed Walker before he became a globally renowned scientist. It’s not uncommon for Boeing engineers to hold down multiple jobs. Maybe NASA should check his references – I suspect that as a former super hero he is very capable of defending himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e6h4zLC5U8
10
He does comedy a whole lot better than he does science. He should have stuck to Speed Walker.
10
Unfortunately, climate change is like beauty: no matter how objectively you measure it, the result is in the eye of the beholder.
In 2009, Kevin Trenberth was basing his views on Hansen, et. al.(2005) which had estimated net radioactive imbalance at the top of the atmosphere at 0.85 W-m2. In 2011 Hansen and others revised their 2005 estimate of global energy imbalance from 0.85 Wm-2 to 0.58 Wm-2 based on later data.
Comparing these results to incoming radiation of 240 W-m2 and doubling that to 480 W to take account of errors in both directions, we are entitled to ask if Hansen et. al. could achieve a precision of 0.17% in 2005 and 0.12% in 2011, given their data sources.
But we don’t have to do that, because other scientists within NASA and associated institutions have already done it.
Hansen, James, et al. “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11.24 (2011): 13421-13449. (Loeb, Norman G., et al. 2012 & Stephens, Graeme L., et al. 2012)
I quote Stephens, et al,
“The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm-2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Fig. 2b). The uncertainty is also approximately an order of magnitude larger than the current estimates of the net surface energy imbalance of 0.6 ±0.4 Wm-2 inferred from the rise in OHC. The uncertainty in the TOA net energy fluxes, although smaller, is also much larger than the imbalance inferred from OHC.”
In effect, Stephens et al have said that the uncertainty is ten times greater than what Dr Hansen estimated. James Hansen has become a climate extremist based on the spurious precision of his results.
The moral of this story is that NASA has many staff scientists and many scientist-contractors. To find the real NASA scientists you have to look beyond the politician-scientists, especially beyond those in management positions and that is true of all Federal agencies.
I never bad-mouth NASA scientists because I once worked as a UK government scientist and witnessed how administrators and higher-level civil servants suppressed science they didn’t like. Don’t blame all NASA scientists.
Loeb, Norman G., et al. “Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty.” Nature Geoscience 5.2 (2012): 110-113.
Stephens, Graeme L., et al. “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations.” Nature Geoscience 5.10 (2012): 691-696. URL: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html
Now for some recent science that confirms what H.H. Lamb said about climate chant between the beginning and end of the 20th century: there was not much change. Lamb wrote, “In fact, from about the beginning of this century up to 1940 a substantial climatic change was in progress, but it was in a direction which tended to make life easier and to reduce stresses for most activities and most people in most parts of the world. Average temperatures were rising, though without too many hot extremes, and they were rising most of all in the Arctic where the sea ice was receding. Europe enjoyed several decades of near-immunity from severe winters, and the variability of temperature from year to year was reduced. More rainfall was reaching the dry places in the interiors of the great continents (except in the Americas where the lee effect, or ‘rain-shadow’, of the Rocky Mountains and the Andes became more marked as the prevalence of westerly winds in middle latitudes increased).
H.H. Lamb, Climate, History and the Modern World, 2nd Ed. 1995.
The paper by Belda et al (2014)is probably the best to date in reconstructing the Koppen-Trewartha climate classification map for the valid reasons claimed by the authors. The maps show the climate regions of the world (except Antarctica) for two periods, 1901-1931 and 1975-2005, based on a 30 minute grid, average area about 2500 km2, (About 50,000 grid cells cover 135 million km2, the land area of the Earth except Antarctica.)
Between the two periods separated by 75 years, 8% of the cells changed climate type. When you plot a scatter diagram of distributions for the two periods, you will find there is little divergence from the straight line passing through the origin and with slope unity. R-squared is 99.5. The two maps are so nearly identical, I did not test further.
The paper does not discuss error bars. However, the CRU (UK) has revised the climate data to remove wet bias, an adjustment that would increase R2, indicating even less change than these maps show.
In any other field of Earth science, using data with similar precision, we would claim confirmation of the null hypothesis that the two data sets separated by 75 years are not significantly different.
So yes, climate has changed a little and most people worldwide are better off than their parents and grandparents. The people benefiting the most are those on the margins of steppe to desert and those on the margins between ice and tundra.
Climate classification revisited from Köppen to Trewartha, Belda, M. et al, Climate Research, 2014
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c059p001.pdf
Globally, the Earth has warmed a fraction of a degree Celsius, but NASA research shows that the amount of warming is uncertain. Furthermore, the data we have do not support the claim that regional climates have changed enough since 1901-1930 to alter significantly the ecological zones defined by the Koppen-Trewartha system.
For all of these reasons, I am skeptical that we can even accept that climate has changed. Climate has fluctuated, and it will continue to fluctuate, unless the astrophysicists determine otherwise.
102
That’s it, the phrase I’ve been looking for:
climate fluctuates.
30
Frederick,
I’m going to save a link to your comment. It’s very well written and is about the best single dissertation on where climate change really is at this point in time that I’ve read. I’m glad you posted it and thanks for doing it. It’s no small effort to do that much typing.
You raise a fair point by saying, “Don’t blame all NASA scientists.” Unfortunately the whole organization gets judged by its public face, which right now is disgraceful. I’ve never been in the position the good people in NASA are now in but I can easily imagine they don’t like it. They’re in a similar position to the many honest accountants who did no wrong at Arthur Andersen after the Enron collapse and subsequent criminal charges against their employer. And they were put out of a job by the deal with the DOJ that put Arthur Andersen out of the CPA business.
I hope NASA survives. And it probably will, being a government entity and quite immune to the same kind of justice Arthur Andersen got.
40
No Frederick. You are wrong. The climate is warming and will continue to do so. We know how. We know why. How much it warms is up to humankind.
Ask yourself why your dissertations are confined to play groups like Jonova or Wattsupwithtatthat, but considered irrelevant by the outside world.
Be honest with yourself, at the very least.
115
Ross, I base my comment on research published in peer-reviewed journals, which I cited, and I provided you with the URLs so you could read the papers.
Within the limited space allowed for a comment, I have shown that the scientific evidence presented by consensus climatologists does not support climate alarmism.
I wonder how many years you have studied climate, and how many peer-reviewed papers you have read that would leads you to state with confidence that I am deceiving myself.
I know it’s a lot of work to locate the papers and thousands of hours of study to learn how to read them, but to assess the evidence you cannot rely on journalists. Why not read the papers I cited?
90
And yet, the world of accepted science moves a full 180 degrees from your scientific conclusions Fred. How can that be? Leave the play group, Fred. Prove to them, (not me) how wrong they are. BECOME FAMOUS!
05
Yeah, become Famous — like Happer, Michaels, Carter, Salby, Miscolczi, you too could lose your job, your funding and even your email address. This is “fame” climate science style, where bad research gets you a Nobel Peace prize and good research gets you an exit door.
Science is not done by consensus, or namecalling, or bullying.
80
Such a good argument, Ross.
. . and ever so well presented.
But if you ever intend to engage intellectually and mount a rebuttal, please share the wisdom missing from you’re attempted dismissive troll.
Thanks.
60
Raven,
You’ll have to forgive Ross. He seems extra peevish today. It’s probably because Bill Nye made such an ass of himself with his big talk and of course, the bet and then NASA followed suit by defending him. And then Jo had the nerve to flash the whole affair around the world on the best climate change blog in the world. He’s really in a sour mood.
70
Here hee, good one Roy.
Jonova thinks she’s rattled ”those people’ at NASA by flashing the angry thoughts of ‘Citizen Sausages’ around the world on the ‘best climate blog in the world!’ If fantasies like these get you to sleep at night, go for it.
I’m sure they’re trembling with fear and anger down at NASA. Either that, or just getting on with the work they are paid to do. They don’t have time for indulgences like Jonova.
05
Note the teen hazing level of Ross’s comments. No content, no substantiation, just the wet dream fantasy. Tribal sneer and aggression.
71
Joanne Nova April 18, 2016 at 3:44 pm
“Note the teen hazing level of Ross’s comments. No content, no substantiation, just the wet dream fantasy. Tribal sneer and aggression.”
Joanne,
Your blog is good but not sufficient to blow the academic CAGW meteorologists away forever!
My premise is that these folk are so inept that they do not even know how much atmosphere the Earth has, let alone why it has that amount!
The meteorological claim is that surface atmospheric pressure is that: P = force/area. Where the columnar mass of the atmosphere in kilograms times the surface gravitational force of 9.8 Newtons/kg yields a surface gas pressure of 101325 Pascals. This nonsense results in the claim of total atmospheric mass near 5 x 10^18 kg.
My claim is that total atmospheric mass, under the compressive force of gravity is less than 2 x 10^18kg. This is a result of the Yang-Mills theory of projective geometry upon a convex manifold. I do not claim to have that level of mathematical skill, but I think your hubby David Evens does have such skill! Please ask him to consider, Thank you!
The idea here is that the wee columnar normal contribution to surface pressure 2mv change in differential pressure, must be integrated over the whole 2PI steradian hemispherical pressure, taking into account the normal component of delta mv is proportional to cos(theta), angle from normal.
All the best! -will-
00
David
EvensEvans does have such skill! ..so sorry!00
Gee sorry Jo. But you were the one who said “I bet it got to them…Even though there’d never admit it!” [snip]
[I’ll let you answer Jo if you want to but not the rest of it.] AZ
02
No Ross, she rattled you.
20
You think, Roy? Yeah, that figures.
00
The official figures, from the IPCC, is that the average temperature (whatever that is) is increasing at the rate of 0.067 degrees celsius per decade.
Scary stuff eh?
0.067 degrees per decade, translates to 0.67 degrees per century. Or two thirds of one degree, every hundred years.
That is why the projected warming is considered irrelevant by the outside world.
What we are discussing is the political reaction to such a miniscule change in temperature, by those politicians (and fellow travellers, such as yourself) who seem to have no mathematical or science education at all, and therefore panic when something goes “bump”, in the night.
30
Not original. I got it from J. P. Morgan
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan
40
I visited the Bill Nye FB page and noted specifically the reference to “no warming of the other planets”, where NASA Climate Change response was that ONLY the Earth is undergoing warming.
This statement is a testament to the quality and integrity of information being disseminated on NASA’s climate change FB account. 🙁
Checking the number of currently active probes orbiting other planets in our solar system, I find the following:-
Mars –
Mars Odyssey (14 years)
Mars Express ( 12 years)
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (10 years)
Saturn – Cassini ( 11 years)
Mercury – ( 4 years)
Venus –
Venus express orbiter (8 years) (now decommissioned)
Uranus – none
Neptune – none
Jupiter – Juno (on the way)
Pluto – ( flyby ) New Horizons
There have been various flybys from the other probes, but the mission statements for these current probes has not been one to monitor climate change, in addition the limited duration of these missions is not enough to gather sufficient data to claim with certainty the long term climatic behavior of these planets
The fact that NASA Climate Change would use these current and previous probes to affirm its conviction in AGW is very disturbing.
30
Reminds one of Der Stürmer and the 1930’s. Socialist morphing into oligarchy and fascism with full MSM sponsored propaganda.
41
Yep NASA ‘did’ the moon alright. And they achieved it without the help of so called ‘citizen scientists!’ Who’d have thought, eh puppies?
113
I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of scientists working for NASA were citizens of the US. Not all of them were, of course. They also brought in specialists from other countries.
I fail to see how your comment has any relevance to anything,
60
Ah, I see now, what you mean by “citizen scientists” – you mean it as a derogatory term, for those lesser mortals that do not hold appropriate qualifications, by your definition of what might be appropriate, or not. It is a pure ad hominem response, which implies that you have no facts at your disposal, which you can to bring to a debate.
Would you care to give us a list of all of the specializations that were required, in getting the Astronauts to the moon and bringing them home again? Then, perhaps we can do a survey of readers and commentators to this site, and see just how many of those specializations are covered by the audience here or not.
If you can’t do that, then we must assume that you are all hot air, and have nothing better to offer than pontification.
20
Gee Rereke, you don’t ask for much do you? Why don’t I look up each individual scientists specialisation and qualifications from 46 years ago, get back to you, and then cross reference those with each of the contributors here. I don’t think so, Rereke. Make of that what you will, I guess. Citizen scientists, yeesh.
—Argument from authority. Yawn. Got nothing else? — Jo
00
Sorry Jo? What??
00
When it was accused of “fudging numbers” in producing global warming data, it retorted: “NASA does not ‘fudge’ numbers. All data requires statistical adjustments to remove bias.”
But how on Earth can you know what the bias?
Sure, if you know that the data is coming from an instrument that has a known bias you can do it, but NASA just guesses, having first assumed that data that doesn’t fit mush have a “bias”.
This is utter nonsense, and NASA shoul dbe ashamed of such statements.
30
If they know the data has a bias and can adjust the data to correct such a bias, they know what the correct value is. That being the case, they don’t need to use actual data. They simply need to use known correct values. That is if they aren’t simply going through a complex process to hide the fact that they don’t know what they are doing.
I suggest it’s nothing but a vicious game of lets-pretend that what they want to happen is happening. All in hopes that if they pretend in such a complicated way no one can question them and will believe what they say. Its all done to cash in on their past glory. Sadly only some of the past glory is real and that was a very long time ago.
Simply calling something what it isn’t, doesn’t change the thing to what it is called. Yet, that is all they have behind their words.
31
So, in effect, they are indistinguishable from any other form of cargo cult.
20
What they are in effect doing is adjusting or indeed “fudging” data to what they think it should be based on their failed theoretical models as the point of reference. It’s a fantasy world. It is incredibly shoddy methodology!! The damage it is doing to science can not be calculated. It would not pass muster in a middle school science lab back in the day. Then when empiricists present better science (see post 21) they have the nerve to dismiss them as shills and charlatans.
10
Sorry Jo from:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-115718suricat says: April 18, 2016 at 2:32 am
Ben Wouters says: April 17, 2016 at 1:17 pm
(“Fine. Now explain to the atmosphere that from now on wind is only allowed to flow strictly horizontal, and thermals, rain showers etc. (CONVECTION) are only allowed to rise strictly vertical.”)
“That isn’t necessary Ben, the atmosphere does what it does and we need to observe it accurately.”
“(CONVECTION)” is always ‘mediated’ by ‘gravity’ and a ‘density differential’ who’s ‘x,y,z, orientation’ has its ‘z’ axis as ‘perpendicular’ to the local surface (the ‘z’ axis may be modified by the local topography)!”
“Advection, or ‘wind’, is generated by forces ‘other than “(CONVECTION)”‘ (when we ignore the surface wind induced by a local convection cell)! Let’s take a look at a ‘Polar cell’, as this is easier to comprehend.”
Ray! You seem to be starting to get that this atmosphere is never simple straightforward and wrong as promoted by academic meteorology. Thank you!
Question. Why do you always end up ‘nearer’ the ‘pole’ when you move/walk ‘into the wind’ at either ‘polar’ near latitude? RSPV. Best regards, Ray.
On a rotating planet with atmospheric gas constrained somehow by planetary gravity, seems that the centrifugal action of shear forces on the low density gas atmosphere always promotes a radially outward atmospheric mass motion at the location of maximum radius to the spin axis!
At low angular velocity rates (shear) compared to the surface reynold’s number of this atmosphere There will be only one circulatory convection motion in each hemisphere, in the direction of outward at the equator poleward an high altitude, radially inward at the poles and equator-ward near the surface.
With the high spin rate of this planet. 1000 Mph eastward at the equator!, this atmosphere creates three such circulatory cells (always odd number) from equator to each spinning pole.
Why is it that the government cannot recognize the obvious.
All the best! -will-
00