NASA GISS Practicing Political Science, Not Atmospheric Science; Why Doesn’t NASA Rely on Satellite Data?
This slideshow requires JavaScript. Now what we have always known to be true is official, NASA is essentially a Political Action Committee for the Political Left. How else can you explain NASA using highly flawed and “adjusted” NOAA data when they have their own state of the art Satellite Temperature Data? The Answer: because the highly accurate satellite data doesn’t give them the results they want. The organization that once put a man on the moon clearly has people smart enough to understand just how wrong they are on this Climate Change issue, and the damage unhinged activists like James Hansen and the scathing IG report does to their reputation. (I’m ignoring the missing $1.63 million and focusing on the politics) GISS’ prominent role in Earth science research – as a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Nobel Prize winning report on climate change in 2007 – coupled with on-duty public outreach and education, as well as off-duty advocacy by individual GISS staff about climate change, has raised the group’s public profile. At the same time climatologists debate the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions in predictive models, the issue has carried over into Government policy discussions and congressional hearings about the impact of human activity on global climate change. What society needs to ask is, “can we really afford to politicize science and critical institutions like NASA that can influence public policy that can cost in the trillions of dollars?” The EPA, IRS, FBI, NASA and who knows what other critical institutions were politicized over the previous 8 years, and the results have been disastrous. Progressives behave as if the public treasury is their own private piggy bank, and politicize everything in an effort to circumvent the democratic process. Why doesn’t NASA use NASA Satellite Data? Climate alarmists are certain to claim that there isn’t a long enough history. That is partly true, but the period it does cover includes the period of greatest CO2 growth. Using the ice core data, it wasn’t until 1950 when CO2 levels broke into recent historic levels above 300 ppm (Note: that level is still very low on a geologic scale, CO2 has reached 7,000 ppm). The satellite data started in 1979 when CO2 was 330, so satellite data covers a 70 ppm change in CO2, or a 21% increase. During the previous 400,000 years, CO2 bounced around between 180 and 300, or a 67% swing. That data is fine to define natural variation, but the NASA data covers the period that best defines the man-made contribution of AGW. Simply take a look at the bizarre construction of the “Hockeystick” graph. It cherry-picks proxies, uses “tricks” to “hide the decline,” excludes available instrumental until 1902, mixes proxy and instrumental data between 1902 and 1980, and then drops proxies after 1980, causing distinct “dog legs” in the chart. Only a fool would accept that as an accurate reconstruction. The ground measurements aren’t any better and are legendary for their “adjustments,” yet the climate alarmists attack the highly accurate satellite data. The reason is simple, the satellite data demonstrate an extreme relationship between global temperatures and the ocean temperatures, and no relationship between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures. Ironically, if you control for H2O and the Urban Heat Island Effect, like in a real science, even the ground measurements debunk the CO2 and temperature relationship. Using the Climate Alarmist approach of combining data sets, the logical approach would be to use ice core data up until 1860, ground measurements between 1860 and 1979, and then satellite data after that. That would be a reconstruction using the most accurate data sets available at the time. If you do that and test the hypothesis “man does not cause climate change,” you quickly discover why climate alarmists rely on bizarre data manipulations. Using that dataset, there is absolutely nothing abnormal with the temperature variation over the past 150 and 50 years when compared to the entire Holocene. Congress should have NASA GISS testify and explain why they use NOAA and HadCRU data and not NASA Satellite data. They should also testify as to the political activities of their “scientists.” Lastly, NASA should be asked to defend the “Hockeystick” and the many “tipping points” predicted by James Hansen that have passed. More on this topic: Ceteris Paribus and Global Warming; Ground Measurements are Garbage GIGO; On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data Greenland, Antarctica And Dozens Of Areas Worldwide Have Not Seen Any Warming In 60 Years And More! Almost 300 Graphs Undermine Claims Of Unprecedented, Global-Scale Modern Warmth Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS Climate “Science” on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming Climate Science Behaving Badly; 50 Shades of Green & The Torture Timeline Climate “Science” on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
— gReader Pro
