NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18 Read Newsmax: Earth Cooled by Half a

It has nothing to do with loving or hating NASA, it's to do with nature itself: nature is ever in flux therefore will never be stable. Whatever NASA might say!

 

Which makes you 10 times smarter than your little opponent.

 

I'll take your word for it.

 

You’re the one who always engages in jerkism when others disagree with you

 

All the money goes to the ma-made-global-warming-we’re-all-gonna-die crowd

So naturally all the data supports their position

 

Hes, under obama its mission was to raise the self esteem of jihadies aka muslims

 

So canadians hate us because trump pulled out of that stupid paris climate scam?

Hum

 

You're morphing into a troll.

 

I explained why Canadians don't like Trump. The problems for the rest of us will come if Canadians begin to think Americans agree with that guy.

You still refuse to deal with this:

 

Not at all

You should inform yourself of how bastardized the executive branch departments became while the community organizer was in office

http://humanevents.com/2011/07/26/nasas-new-mission-boost-the-muslim-worlds-selfesteem/


NASA’s New Mission: Boost the Muslim World’s Self-Esteem

 

I can not find anything relating to the claim in the Newsmax article from NASA either.

Regardless - Global Temperature variations are not the best indicator of Global warming - except perhaps long term trends and even these are problematic because the fact of the matter is that we do not expect the Temperature to rise that quickly until the ice melts.

Suppose we put a glass of ice water in a temp controlled chamber. Then suppose we increase the energy in the system by raising the temp by 1 degree.

What happens to the temperature of the water ? Very little - that is the point of putting ice in your drink - to keep it cool.

What you would notice are 2 things 1) increased convection currents and 2) the rate of ice melt would increase.

This is what we are seeing - The Sea Ice in the Arctic and on Greenland is decreasing at an alarming rate. We are also seeing more extreme weather events (which btw will include things like snow in Texas).

 

You keep citing the propaganda they pump out for dummies. Sheesh.

 

Texas gets snow and has for hundreds if nt thousans of year

But its zone 8 to zone 10 so the snow does not stay more than a few days

 

Its a fact

Obama probably did not intend for his new NASA chief to blurt that information out

But he did and you cannot rewrite history now

 

Thanks for avoiding the majority of the content of my post.

 

He's not Canada's president. (Just a reminder)

 

Not according to NASA
"Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede."

 

...why are people on the right so consistently scientifically ignorant...

 

I live by Lake Michigan.
I don’t give a **** about Canadians!

 

If the ice caps shrinks, it is AGW. If the ice cap grows, it is AGW. And if it remains the same. Yep, AGW.

Trouble is, they don;t understand it well enough to even make predictive models that can predict. So it probably isnt nearly as bad as they predict.

 

That is half of it. The other half is they are comparing apples to oranges. They are comparing temperature readings made in the past with instruments that were literally eyeballed to determine the reading, then comparing those readings to current digital instruments which can measure temps to a fraction of a degree. Then they make a prediction to a hundredth of a degree, then qualify it by saying it is accurate to plus or minus 2 degrees. There has also been many incidents of measuring instruments being placed at locations that give a false reading that will support their theories. For example, taking measurements on a black top parking lot instead of a grass field. The main reason for this is "global warming" foundations award big grants for studies that support their position.

 

Guess you didn't bother to read past the headline of if you did it obviously didn't register that the author was in fact demonstrating that short term data fluctuations have no bearing on the actual valididity of the global warming hypothesis.

 

I saw no such claim in the article.

 

I hesitate to post this because I can't find the year that all the countries were included.
But I bet most people have noticed that their high temperature records are more and more in the past few years.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records

 

Funny, considering that it’s the conspiracy theorists who cry foul play whenever researchers try to account for these measuring differences. If I recall, the guy who came up with this argument, Anthony Watts, actually signed on to a study investigating the errors originating from improper siting. What he found was that the errors are in both directions and don’t actually change the long term trend. Another paper by Mene actually showed that poor siting of stations resulted in a slight cool bias.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkp...ve-a-slight-cool-bias-not-a-f1ec80bd789d/amp/