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

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/earth-cool-half-degree-says-nasa/2018/05/16/id/860837/

NASA appears to be defying the world man-made-global-warming hoax

 

You people have hated NASA for years, not to mention science.
You get a tiny bit of good news for your cause, spanning almost two years, and
suddenly NASA is your champion? What a huge surprise.

 

Global warming supporters, predictors of all things warming couldn't predict a cooling period. When it comes they go denial.
Cant win with that coconut mentality

 

It's called "cherry-picking". It's also why "global warming" is a misnomer. "Climate change" is the more accurate term. One concern among climate researchers is that the melting of the ice caps could shut down the Atlantic conveyor belt system.

From the actual link: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20180118/
Earth's global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.

Continuing the planet's long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016.

https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/videos/thermohaline-circulation-great-ocean-conveyor-belt

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/atlantic20100325.html
The latest climate models predict the overturning circulation will slow down as greenhouse gases warm the planet and melting ice adds freshwater to the ocean. "Warm, freshwater is lighter and sinks less readily than cold, salty water," Willis explained.

For now, however, there are no signs of a slowdown in the circulation. "The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Willis. "The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling."

 

Or at least since they stopped being the NASA that put a man on the moon and became, under obama, community organizers who have to pay the russians to get our people to the International Space Station

 

The change to “Climate Change” was not by choice

World temps stopped rising and the mam-made-global-warming-we’re-all-gonna-die chant was making the greenies look like fools

 

It's good to know that you all trust NASA and therefore their conclusions.

There is 100% confidence that the earth is warming, and about 95% confidence that human activities are a significant cause of that warming.

Beyond that fact there is nothing but noise.

 

If a bank robber denies his crime chances are he’s lying

But if he confesses to the crime he’s most likely telling the truth

Maybe the obama politicalization and wusification of NASA was not permanent after all

 

It might appear that way when you don't bother to read beyond the headline you were shown in your right-wing disinformation silo of choice before copy-pasting the article here.

 

That makes sense in a lib la la sort of way

The earth always gets cooler during global warming spells

 

It makes sense if you read the article you posted, Troll-7.

 

Well not according to the AGW folks. Their position can never be wrong for even a cooling is what they say happens with global warming. So, they cannot lose. If the earth cools, it is still warming, and of course if it is warming, that happens to with global warming.

Of course if you saw something like this, heads I win, tales you lose in other areas of life, most will call it out really quick, that this is what con men do. ha ha. But not when it comes to this issue. So no matter what temps end up being, it does not matter. Even if you got 20 years of cooling, they would say this is to be expected with global warming. For warming is special, and what you would say about any other field making these claims would mean something, but it is exempt from incoherence.

So when you can only prove global warming by co2 exists, no matter what happens...heads I win, tales you lose, and cooling equals warming and warming equals warming...ha ha ha. Well, it starts to look like a religion with its faithful and true believers. Complete with the religious like fervor.

It looks like science can turn into something resembling a religion. And some people are saying just that. And some of these are scientists. Who are basically called heretics by those with the faith. Seldom are the points made by these heretics get addressed, for if they are heretics there is no need to address the points these scientists will make, in questioning the "settled science". Yet the very history of science involves what some say was settled, as being far from settled, evidenced by new discoveries and new knowledge that comes from such discoveries. So real scientists have qualms about uttering certitude when it comes to science. But others don't seem to have such a reluctance. ha ha. Priests of any religion generally do not have reluctance either, when it comes to their beliefs about their religion. And like some scientists, exhibit certainty. The scientists who will not have such certainty of course become heretics. ha ha ha.

 

I think that even if we saw the beginning of another ice age, the faithful would still say it is global warming. This paradigm is very common among all of the religious.

I like what freeman dyson said on this subject. That even if the earth was warming, due to natural climate change, aided by co2 levels being higher, that this may be a good thing instead of a bad thing, once the net good or net bad is determined. For a warming earth has always benefited our species, and its the cooling that brings the most negative effects.

As population continues to grow, a warmer earth, opening up new agricultural areas to the north, might be the means to feed an ever growing population of humans.

So I am wondering now....if you double your human population, adding more bodies at the heat of 98.6, would adding billions over time warm up the earth? And since co2 levels, higher levels is said to also warm up the climate, has anyone ever figured out what losing hundreds of millions of acres of forests and other flora has added to the co2 levels, given that plants extract co2 from the air?

And if we were so concerned about co2 levels rising and driving global warming, why has there been no effort, worldwide, to stop rain forest deforestation as we also added billions of co2 extracting flora? The lack of such an effort, and only wanting to address it with carbon taxes, seems just a bit suspect here. And it should make anyone suspicious! For it looks like carbon taxes, which is a way to redistribute money from everyone else, into the hands of the few at the top who are already richer than hell, is the only thing some people want to do to address rising co2 and a warming.

If the world does not ever get serious about land management, and only will try to solve a problem with taxation, redistributing income to the top, then clearly this is not a very serious issue at all. And it looks just like another scheme to make the rich, richer.

So carbon taxes or bust!!!

 

The question is how much of a factor we are. Scientists on both sides have good arguments.

Both sides have their motives. Perhaps we should consider not poisoning our air and contaminating our soil just to be on the safe side.

 

Ha!

I’ll get right on that

 

The greenie message is “Don’t think. Just go directly to panic mode”

 

I know the learned scientific geniuses on the Supreme Court say otherwise

But I dont consider CO2 a pollutant

 

I hear you, but both sides have strong arguments. Of course, one side is using their observations to find more ways of confiscating more money from tax payers.

We are putting a lot more than just CO2 out there and I feel that the less poison, the better.

 

Global warming/ Climate change = Excuse to tax the public.

 

And what steps has trump taken to undo the damage Obama’s did to NASA?

 

Cut the budget and deny climate change exists?

 

I'm not going to even read (yes quote me on that) this is nothing but flame bait, twist data to bend to your purposes.

:EDIT:

I meant the OP is dishonest to its core.

 

True.

I think most people are with you there, in not poisoning our air and contaminating our water or soil. According to the experts, the world is facing a problem with drinking water in the years ahead. I assume that includes the US. Is this problem attributed to our drinking water being polluted? That is how I understand it.

But calling co2 a pollutant is "out there". It is one of the gases found naturally in our atmosphere. I guess they had to reclassify co2 so as to get lawful control over it? Shady behavior in full view. They don't even try to hide it anymore. ha ha

 

Dude, I think you are missing the point. We are made of up to 60% water. Up to 90% of our body weight is water yet, if we drink too much water, it's possible to become "polluted" with water and die....not to mention it takes relatively little water to drown you.

BTW, this is what evidence looks like:
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/propertyyou.html
Water is of major importance to all living things; in some organisms, up to 90% of their body weight comes from water. Up to 60% of the human adult body is water.

According to H.H. Mitchell, Journal of Biological Chemistry 158, the brain and heart are composed of 73% water, and the lungs are about 83% water. The skin contains 64% water, muscles and kidneys are 79%, and even the bones are watery: 31%.

Each day humans must consume a certain amount of water to survive. Of course, this varies according to age and gender, and also by where someone lives. Generally, an adult male needs about 3 liters per day while an adult female needs about 2.2 liters per day. Some of this water is gotten in food.


https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hyponatremia/symptoms-causes/syc-20373711
In hyponatremia, one or more factors — ranging from an underlying medical condition to drinking too much water — cause the sodium in your body to become diluted. When this happens, your body's water levels rise, and your cells begin to swell. This swelling can cause many health problems, from mild to life-threatening.



https://www.medicinenet.com/drowning/article.htm
Wet vs. dry drowning


Most drownings are unwitnessed, and the victim is found floating. While only a small amount of aspirated water is required to cause significant problems with lung function, it is the prolonged submersion time and lack of breathing that causes complications due to hypoxemia.

Approximately 10% to 20% of drowning victims have dry drowning with no water found in the lungs atautopsy, but even most wet drowning victims have less than 4cc/kg of water found in their lungs. For a 50 pound child, this amounts to less than 3 ounces of water.

 

Not trying to be a party pooper, but your ocean current directions in that picture are backwards.