Jump to content

Has NASA lost its way?


Ed Cesnalis

Recommended Posts

"El Niño events release vast amounts of heat from the tropical Pacific into the atmosphere. This year’s event is near its peak and may begin to weaken soon, but is expected to remain strong into the winter, likely keeping global average temperatures above or at least very near previous record levels."

 

This climactic fenomenom is not related to Global Warming. It has been around for EONS !

 

Cheers

 

It's also not producing drought breaking rains in California..or record snows in the Sierra as they fantasized.

 

Also note that the worldwide mean temperature has dropped 1.5C over the past 17 years...a period when the greenies falsely claim has risen.   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling/

 

And NONE of the catastrophes they predicted or continue to predict occur.  So how do they excuse their errors?  They now blame EVERYTHING on warming...namely, if it's cold, it's warming, if it's an Indian summer, it's warming, if there is a refugee crises, it's warming...

 

An extra special note.  During the past decade the greenies predicted record hurricane numbers in the mid-Atlantic.  Instead we have had ZERO hurricanes for ten years running.  So guess what?  The greenies now say the drought of hurricanes is warming....  Laughing.  http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/florida-hurricane-drought-erika

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 469
  • Created
  • Last Reply

And then logically it follows that since it has "been around for EONS" it becomes even more significant that this is the warmest on record...including past El Niños. Right?

 

The record goes back a short period of time.  Reporting that this event was the warmest on record without noting that the geological record indicates warmer times that no doubt had warmer Octobers is biased.  

 

There was recent warming, it stopped 18+ years ago.  Have we had El Niños this big in the last 18 years?  

 

Comparing recent to EONS isn't valid let alone significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, here is a question. If El Niños basically warmer water, doesn't it make sense that a warmer planet would cause the water to warm overall and thus make El Niños warmer and possibly more frequent?

 

Depends.  If the phenomenon is cause by warmer water, then yes.  But my understanding is that it is caused by temperature *differential* between a mass of warm Pacific water and surrounding, colder water.  If that is the case, the El Nino occurrence and severity would actually be less as the overall ocean temperatures become warmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/18/2015-a-year-of-record-exaggeration-not-temperatures/

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says October of 2015 was the “warmest” October on record, all but ensuring that 2015 will be the “warmest” year on record. Time to panic?

No.

Although NOAA is always happy to tout its surface temperature data as measured by land-based thermometers, NOAA never mentions the surface temperatures measured by satellites. None of the satellite data indicate that 2015 will be the warmest year on record, a record that goes back only 136 years, in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, here is a question. If El Niños basically warmer water, doesn't it make sense that a warmer planet would cause the water to warm overall and thus make El Niños warmer and possibly more frequent?

 

el Nino (warming water) and la Nina (cooling water) are both phenom that have been recurring in the Pacific for billions of years.  That fact alone should tell you that if you suspect the warming waters are a result of man-made Global Warming from a 150 yo industrial period you are drinking some of the false science koolaide the greenies are peddling.

 

Here is the science:

 

Usually, the wind blows strongly from east to west along the equator in the Pacific. This actually piles up water (about half a meter's worth) in the western part of the Pacific. In the eastern part, deeper water (which is colder than the sun-warmed surface water) gets pulled up from below to replace the water pushed west. So, the normal situation is warm water (about 30 C) in the west, cold (about 22 C) in the east.

 

In an El Niño, the winds pushing that water around get weaker. As a result, some of the warm water piled up in the west slumps back down to the east, and not as much cold water gets pulled up from below. Both these tend to make the water in the eastern Pacific warmer, which is one of the hallmarks of an El Niño.

 

But it doesn't stop there. The warmer ocean then affects the winds--it makes the winds weaker! So if the winds get weaker, then the ocean gets warmer, which makes the winds get weaker, which makes the ocean get warmer ... this is called a positive feedback, and is what makes an El Niño grow.

 

The Atlantic has a similar phenom called the Atlantic Conveyor.  This one gets driven by Arctic melt.  When fresh cold water dumps into the N. Atlantic it disrupts the warm current conveyor causing cold water to dominate thus driving down mean temps over Europe, for example.  That then causes longer more severe winters which in turn build the ice back up and reverses the conveyor once again.  It's a long cycle of climate that you'll notice the greenies are either ignorant of, or ignore.

 

So then you might ask, why would the winds change and the ice melt?  The answer links back to the Sun.  When the sun varies it's radiation our climate is directly affected both short and long term (the Sun has cycles too).  In fact the two most relevant aspects of climate are the oceans (giant heat batteries) and the Sun which affects warming/cooling leading to the winds via convection.  Right now the Sun is entering a dormant period we have not seen since the middle ages called the Maunder Minimum.

 

You may want to click the link on the Maunder Minimum so you can prepare for the mini-ice age we have already begun to enter.  http://tinyurl.com/qa2jftk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wrote a response and then erased it. Whack-a-mole is not one of my favorite games. I've got better things to do. God bless and stay warm.

 

Confused here.  You write a question, but when get several  responses (some more polite than others), you get annoyed about "playing whack-a-mole"...?

 

Didn't you throw down the mole food on this one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Confused here.  You write a question, but when get several  responses (some more polite than others), you get annoyed about "playing whack-a-mole"...?

 

Didn't you throw down the mole food on this one?

 

Global Warming is a political weapon of the left.  They are unable to defend it with science and facts and depend on the laziness and gullibility of others.   When people learn the truth and move away from their manipulation they call them 'Climate Deniers.'  Which is ironic because the skepticism justified. 

 

When that happens one reaction is to run from the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even NASA has decided to pick up their marbles and go home.  They can't reveal their sources even when subpoenaed by congress  because it will jeopardize scientist's integrity.  That right their is an admission, isn't it?

 

Its the same thing, NASA puts out there the startling news that the warming is real and worse than reported but when questioned they don't want to play.  They even risk jail for contempt to keep secret the reasons to once again adjust the data in favor of demonstrating warming that wasn't there a minute ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  If you believe in Global Warming then the the wind is from the Left. If you think Global Warming is nonsense then the wind is from the Right.

 

If you really don't give a hoot then the wind is straight down the runway!

 

I have no idea what that means but still it made me s/lol (snort / laugh out loud).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here's the deal. I just read- If someone is not convinced by the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence at this juncture, they will not be convinced by anything they can be told, or shown. It is a waste of time. - I agree.

(BTW, my question about El Niño was legitimate, the answers were obfuscation and speculation.)

Oh, and I no longer live in MN, but in balmy ND - my home state and one of the biggest producers of hydrocarbons in the US. One of the main reasons your gas is so cheap. You're welcome.????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here's the deal. I just read- If someone is not convinced by the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence at this juncture, they will not be convinced by anything they can be told, or shown. It is a waste of time. - I agree.

(BTW, my question about El Niño was legitimate, the answers were obfuscation and speculation.)

Oh, and I no longer live in MN, but in balmy ND - my home state and one of the biggest producers of hydrocarbons in the US. One of the main reasons your gas is so cheap. You're welcome.

 

I thought my anser on El Niño was legit. You cannot compare EONS to 100+years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave the complete science on it...betcha he didn't read it...facts are inconvenient to some.

If you think there is any such thing as "complete science" then clearly you don't understand the fundamental concept of the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scientific method, as Ian calls it, is nothing more than an approach, or a technique, that's employed in a bid to understand something.

 

But it's no guarantee of success, even when conclusive results are obtained.  Presuppositions and interpretation are almost always present, and these can produce 'conclusive' results that are wrong.  

 

Just consider how many of the scientific 'certainties' of yesteryear are now in the bin.  (The garbage can.)  The one thing I can be absolutely certain of is that many of today's established 'scientific facts' will end up there too.    We are far too certain, sometimes, and the grounds for that certainty are, very often, highly questionable.

 

There's one thing more I'd like to add to this interesting debate - there is a very dangerous general assumption that all scientific research is altruistic and completely objective.  In other words, we assume that scientists are only interested in the facts, and could not possibly be interested in furthering their own careers or having an underlying agenda. 

 

The point I'm making is that published scientific papers are given a sort of unassailable 'concreteness' by our western society that they do not merit.  

 

I think we're not nearly as smart and as knowledgeable as we like to make out, and I'm speaking of Western Science in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Record Crushing Fraud From NOAA And NASA Ahead Of Paris

 

 

Somehow, they managed to calculate Earth’s temperature within 0.01 degrees – even though they had no temperature data for about half of the land surface, including none in Greenland and very little in Africa or Antarctica.

 

http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/record-crushing-fraud-from-noaa-and-nasa-ahead-of-paris/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The scientific method, as Ian calls it, is nothing more than an approach, or a technique, that's employed in a bid to understand something."

 

This is true however the Scientific Method is the concept through which most of current advances in Medicine, Engineering , Space Travel, Architecture etc. Have been achieved. There is no question there is a warming trend on the earth surface as measured by surface temperatures , over the last 200 years (and probably longer). What is less certain is that this change is due to human activity. Furthermore , the actions  proposed by European countries, and the US. are clearly going to be ineffective when the worse Carbon emitters are going to do nothing. This endeavor is a study in futility.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The scientific method, as Ian calls it, is nothing more than an approach, or a technique, that's employed in a bid to understand something."

 

 

This is my biggest problem in these kinds of discussions.  There is a terrible misperception about what "science" is.  It's nothing more than a method of inquiry based on experimentation and formulation of ideas based on those experiments.  

 

Unfortunately that idea has been perverted to mean "the correct opinion".  Opinions cannot be "unscientific", nor can people be "anti-science", unless they are actually denying the scientific method of inquiry.  Saying "The moon is made of green cheese" is not an "anti science" position.  It's simply a position that is not well supported by current measurements and observations.  New information could always come to light confirming that the Moon is, in fact, made of green cheese (perhaps with a thick cover of dust and rocks?)...

 

"Out of favor" ideas about how things work have historically been found to often be correct, even after being scoffed at by the "mainstream" scientific communities.  Einstein famously rejected the idea of Quantum Mechanics, stating "God does not at play dice with the Universe".  Eventually he was found to be wrong and he relented.  Just because a vast majority of people, even scientists, believe something, does not make it truth.     

 

My point is that it's not enlightened or in line with the scientific method to claim that unpopular or less well supported positions are "anti-science".  This is a rhetorical device to advance a pet position or theory, just like saying "the science is settled."  Science is never settled, and no question is ever 100% incontrovertible.  When something is deemed to be very reliable it becomes a law, like the law of gravitation or the law of entropy.  Even then those are never considered "settled" -- we just have a huge number of measurements and observations regarding them and have found no exceptions to them.  It doesn't mean exceptions or special violations of them don't exist, but only that we have to have some compelling and repeatable measurements in order to show they have in fact been violated.

 

The climate debate rises nowhere near that level of certitude, as I pointed out above.  Almost all of the information is based on NASA and NOAA data, as as I've shown those organizations' measurements have changed over time, calling their validity into question.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know nothing about climate change - the arguments for and against.

However, upon following the link above I came across this Wahsington Post article:

 

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/whistleblowers-in-noaa/

 

This astonishing situation should be headline news. 

 

Yet, it doesn't even appear as a blip on the Popular News radar.

 

When you actually sit down and think through the implications of this, it's very worrisome indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know nothing about climate change - the arguments for and against.

However, upon following the link above I came across this Wahsington Post article:

 

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/whistleblowers-in-noaa/

 

This astonishing situation should be headline news. 

 

Yet, it doesn't even appear as a blip on the Popular News radar.

 

When you actually sit down and think through the implications of this, it's very worrisome indeed.

Agree !

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...