It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Nasa - Global warming is conclusive

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:46 AM
Hopefully NASA checked their data this time. One of their researchers fudged the data which NASA had to correct as recently as 3 years ago.

Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder
August 14, 2007


In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.

After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review.

Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998.

More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.

Don't forget about NASA's data calculation error that made the Mars Climate Orbiter a $125M lawn dart, slamming into the martian soil back in '99.

Or their 2010 claim that the glaciers in the Himalayas were melting and would be gone (disproved by researchers in India).

However one interesting article on the NASA supports positive correlation between sunspots and global temperature, only affected by volcanic activity.

Volcanic Eruptions Interfere with the Effect of Sunspots on Global Climate
June 11, 2002


University at Buffalo scientists working with ice cores have solved a mystery surrounding sunspots and their effect on climate that has puzzled scientists since they began studying the phenomenon.

The research, published in a paper in the May 15 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, provides striking evidence that sunspots -- blemishes on the sun's surface indicating strong solar activity -- do influence global climate change, but that explosive volcanic eruptions on Earth can completely reverse those influences.


"Knowing the mechanisms behind past climate changes is critical to our understanding of possible future changes in climate, such as global warming, and for assessing which of these changes are due to human activities and which arise naturally," explained co-author Michael Stolz, doctoral candidate in the Department of Physics in UB's College of Arts and Sciences.
"By carefully studying the timing of other volcanic eruptions, we found that they coincided with all of the correlation reversals between sunspots and climate," said Ram.

A chart in the paper shows how six major volcanic eruptions between 1800 and 1962 occurred during precisely the same years when there were reversals in the correlation between sunspot activity and climate.

That revelation provided a further insight into how sunspots affect climate.

"All energy comes from the sun, but the change in visible radiation from the sun during any one solar cycle is less than one half of a percent," explained Stolz. "Scientists have said it's impossible that so small a change could influence any signal in the climate. But here we have evidence to show that it's not just radiation energy from the sun that is affecting climate, it's the solar-modulated cosmic rays that have a strong influence because of their impact on cloud cover."

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:51 AM

Originally posted by audas

Originally posted by ParaShredder

Originally posted by audas

The position on AGW of the entire scientific community from climatologists, planatolmogists etc is that BASED ON THE EVIDENCE there is 95% certainty - thats more certain than the sun is in our solar system -

, No, wait,
My side hurts.

I didn't understand this thread was meant to be comedy.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:43 AM
James Hansen is a shill for the environmental movement.

And a long time Sierra Club member.

Plus he has made in grants, awards. book deals and speakers fees somewhere over $4,000,000.00
$1.350,0000+ in awards alone

This is on top of what he makes working for NASA

Oh and he was arrested On June 23, 2009, for obstructing police and impeding traffic during a protest.

And he has has irked many longtime supporters with his scathing attacks against President Obama's plan for a cap-and-trade system.

Even his ex boss at NASA does not agree with him.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:01 AM
To finish off this stupidity about AGW here is a quote from May 11, 2010 by Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He questions the prevailing dogma of man-made global warming and challenges his peers to “take back climate science.”

Dr. Soon: Most of the weather and climate variations we observed are essentially related to the sun and the changing seasons – not by CO2 radiative forcing and feedback. The climate system is constantly readjusting naturally in a large way – more than we would ever see from CO2. Within the framework of a proper study of the sun-climate connection, you don’t need CO2 to explain anything.

What is your opinion of the anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming theory?

Dr. Soon: It’s never been about the science – even from the very beginning. It’s based on confusion and a mixture of ideology.

Many of the scientists promoting the global warming theory appear to be driven by politics rather than hard scientific data. What are your thoughts?

Dr. Soon: I am a scientist. I go where the facts take me. And the facts are fairly clear. It doesn’t take very long to discover that their views [of man-caused global warming] aren’t grounded in the facts. Why would any solid science need so much promotion and advertisement and the endless shouting about how the science has all been “settled”?

[edit on 17-5-2010 by expat2368]

[edit on 17-5-2010 by expat2368]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:13 AM

Originally posted by audas
reply to post by unityemissions

The Carbon emissions trading scheme is a fraud - even James Hansen agrees with this - however that is not the point - the science behind AGW is absolute - it is as good as science gets.

Read Storms of our grand children for a good understanding of how well we understand it,....great read.

There's no such thing as an absolute science.

That comment right there proves you have no clue what you're talking about.
If science is absolute then why do new theories on the same subject exist?

There's been too much fraud involved in this and many other sciences. You can believe everything you're told if you wanna. I choose to remain skeptical and to
continue to ask questions.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:43 AM
Why is it in the province of NASA to study global temperatures? That sounds like a task for NOAA. NASA is supposed to be an aeronautics and space administration. If NASA can research global warming, then why can't they research anti-gravity, to finally develop an efficient space exploration program?

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:16 PM
after an iceage the only trent must be wats the deal....??????

the supervolcano's are overdue.... but that can chanse quick...than comes cooling again...

[edit on 17-5-2010 by ressiv]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:13 PM
Global warming? Dur. Human made, global warming? Your kidding me....

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:27 PM
And for those who think that anyone not on board the AGW bandwagon are in the pockets of the big oil companies, why does Exxon Mobil chief exec Rex Tillerson support a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions? Isn't it also interesting that the Rothschilds own a nice piece of the carbon trading market? Follow the money.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:35 PM
reply to post by audas

If you read the OP carefully, NASA does not say that global warming is conclusive. This is a spin website...proves nothing.

NASA won't release the temperature data...for fear that real scientists will get ahold of it...NASA now stands for "Not A Science Association"

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:12 AM
oh, well if its Nasa then its got to be true..

guess "Illuminati" had to go this far because their BS was getting shot down..

lets type that in backwards in the browser & see yep right to Nasa

[edit on 18-5-2010 by reeferman]

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:18 AM
It is because it is supposed to happen, it is probably cosmic radiation

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:30 PM

V - If you have confidence in your science why didn't you come out fighting like the UK government's drugs adviser David Nutt when he was criticised?

I don't feel this question merits an answer.

If it doesn't merit an answer, it is because he does not stand behind the science.

I think this thing is dead and buried.

MMGW is a SCAM! It is really to do with power (of the poitical kind) and control (of the population). It also has to do with the fact we are running slowly but surely out of oil, and when things start to get tight, it will get ugly.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by mirageofdeceit]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in