NASA admits all previous warming trends caused by sun

April 4, 2011crisisboomLeave a commentGo to comments

helium.com

I wonder what Al Gore’s rebuttal is going to sound like…

Under mounting pressure from scientists that reject the politically popularized man-made global warming and climate models—the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory—the American space agency NASA has admitted that all past warming trends were driven by solar activity.

A victory for the man-made ‘global warming deniers’

As more scientists have joined the outcry over the politicization of Earth’s climate cycles—the current number exceeds 20,000—promoters of the AGW model have denounced the “global warming deniers” countering that little evidence supports the view that the sun is driving the observed warming trend.

Now, however, new study released from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland measuring the global temperature variance during the past 100 years has found the sun’s heat and variable cycles have indeed made a significant, measurable impact and greatly influenced Earth’s climate.

In fact, the influence extends as far back as the Industrial Revolution.

Goddard’s research shows that the solar cycle’s ups and downs directly affect the temperatures and long term climate. During solar minimum they discovered about 1.36 watts per square meter of solar energy hits Earth’s mesosphere; solar maximum escalates to 1.40 watts per square meter.

It’s well-known that the sun passes through cycles of 11-year and 22-year intensities. Currently, the sun is on the upswing towards solar maximum when sunspot activity and solar flares will peak. The height of the maximum is expected during 2012-2013.

Earth now cooling

After the current peak, NASA and other space agencies believe the sun will go unusually quiet for the next 30 years or more.

Another proverbial nail in the coffin for the AGW theory is the fact that the Earth has been cooling since 2007.

Despite the fact that certain NASA scientists keep clinging to AGW (those with the largest government grants tied into the theory), the model has been showed to be flawed and some heavyweights are weighing in against it including one of the world’s great paleoclimatologists.

George Kukla, 77, retired professor of paleoclimatology at Columbia University and researcher at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory has stated categorically that “The only thing to worry about global warming is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid.”

During a lengthy interview with Gelf Magazine, Kukla explained: “What is happening is very similar to the time 115,000 years ago, when the last glaciation started. It is difficult to comprehend, but it is really so: The last glacial was accompanied by the increase of a really averaged global mean surface temperature, alias global warming.

“What happened then was that the shifting sun warmed the tropics and cooled the Arctic and Antarctic. Because the tropics are so much larger than the poles, the area-weighted global mean temperature was increasing. But also increasing was the temperature difference between the oceans and the poles, the basic condition of polar ice growth. Believe it or not, the last glacial started with ‘global warming!’”

Far from warming, Kukla is warning everyone that will listen that the world is about to enter a new Ice Age.

The real reason for global warming ! The SUN .

Im looking to see what other countries are seeing geoengineering AKA chemtrails . please send any information and pictures to treasurecoastskywatch@yahoo.com along with location time and date and description and I will post them .Thank You . 

Rocket experiment creates eerie cloud Particles spewed into upper atmosphere to produce evening light show

By Tariq Malik

Managing editor

updated 9/20/2009 7:23:10 PM ET

• Share
• Print
• Font:

An eerie cloud that glowed briefly in the night sky Saturday was no UFO. It was created by humans — more specifically, a NASA rocket built to make clouds that shine at night.

The rocket launched as part of an experiment to create artificial noctilucent — or night-shining — clouds, the highest clouds on Earth. They naturally appear around 50 miles (80 kilometers) above Earth's high latitudes and are also known as polar mesospheric clouds.

Saturday night's rocket experiment lifted off at 7:46 p.m. ET from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island, Va. It created a brief light show that was visible across the United States' East Coast and sparked calls from curious skywatchers as far away as Boston, according to the Associated Press.

"It was very impressive ... albeit short-lived," said Joe Rao, an instructor and guest lecturer at New York's Hayden Planetarium, who witnessed the event. Rao is also Space.com's skywatching columnist.

The experiment created a human-made noctilucent cloud using the fourth stage of a NASA Black Brant XII suborbital sounding rocket that spewed exhaust particles 173 miles (278 kilometers) above Earth. Ground-based radar and camera stations recorded the resulting cloud's formation and illumination. The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory and Department of Defense's Space Test Program oversaw the launch, which it called the Charged Aerosol Release Experiment.

NASA has observed naturally occurring night-shining clouds using its AIM satellite. The Naval Research Laboratory and Space Test Program used a satellite called STPSat-1 to observe Saturday night's artificial cloud.

"We weren't exactly sure what we were going to see, as this was the very first time that a noctilucent cloud experiment was attempted," Rao said. "Would it be something obvious to the eye, or something rather faint?"

The result, he reported, was spectacular.

Rao described the cloud as "a brilliant object" that displayed a wide, fan-shaped tail shortly after it was created. But the artificial phenomenon was over in just a few minutes.

"The 'head' of the comet (which was the rocket's fourth stage) rapidly faded out and the 'tail' gradually faded over the next minute or so into the background of the sky," Rao said.

Scientists will use the measurements of the artificial cloud to better understand natural noctilucent clouds, as well as help predict the effects of rocket engine exhaust in the upper atmosphere.

Saturday night's experiment was a cooperative effort by NASA, the Naval Research Laboratory, the Defense Department's Space Test Program and several universities. But the stunning cloud it created was seen by more than just the project's scientists.

"I'm sure many unsuspecting folks up and down the East Coast were surprised by this very unusual sight," Rao said.

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA8.2011157.terra.1km

D-Day 6-6-2011

6-5-11 Vero Beach Florida

More propaganda from Nasa {once a great space agency}

Space Shuttle 5-16-11

химтрейлы украина 2011. 04 ukraine

Hazy Daze !

May 13th 2011   Our Skies filled with a haze for quite some time now .I havent seen the bright blue skies in weeks and lack of normal white  cloud cover , would add pictures but feel theyre not worth adding .

http://biggovernment.breitbart.com/

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data-AGAIN!

by Jeff Dunetz

One of the big threats from the global warming moonbat types is that a rise in temperature will melt the polar ice caps causing the oceans to rise, with the cataclysmic result of skyscrapers being under water.  Let’s face it, if you think that the commute into Manhattan is bad now….just wait.

There is only one problem with this scenario,  Mother Nature isn’t being cooperative.  You see it is true that sea level has risen during the 20th century and probably well before that.  Scientists estimate that sea level has increased by 7 inches during the 2oth century.

The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).

But Mother Nature was never good at computer science.  Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What’s even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006.  Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. So the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they fudged the numbers.  They simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of  what was actually happening–decelerating.

The University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is coming to their rescue. The NASA-funded group claims glacial melt is removing weight that had been pressing down on land masses, which in turn is causing land mass to rise. This welcome news mitigates sea-level rise from melting glacial ice, meaning sea level will rise less than previously thought. However, it is very inconvenient for alarmist sea level predictions. Therefore, instead of reporting the amount by which sea level is rising in the real world, the Sea Level Research Group has begun adding 0.3 millimeters per year of fictitious sea level rise to “compensate” for rising land mass.

The extra 0.3 millimeters of fictitious sea level rise will add up to 1.2 inches over the course of the 21st century. While this is not monumental in and of itself, it will allow alarmists to paint a dramatically different picture of sea level rise than is occurring in the real world. For example, the current pace of 8 inches of sea level rise for the present century is essentially no different than the 7 inches of sea level rise that occurred last century. However, with an artificially enhanced 9.2 inches of sea level rise, alarmists can claim sea level is rising 31 percent faster than it did last century.

This isn’t the first time NASA climate-change scientists have fudged data. James Hansen is famous for it.

James Hansen of NASA is not just any global warming Moonbat, he is Al Gore’s global warming Moonbat. It was Hansen’s data that was used in Gore’s Oscar/Peace prize winning film. Hansen’s work is ruled by one motto: “If God gives you rotten apples, tell everyone it’s champagne

In October of 2008, Hansen made the announcement that it was warmest Oct. in history. A few days later after all the doom and gloom headlines passed he announced “Oops, never mind, I was wrong.” He only admitted the mistake after he was “outed” by other scientists. In reality, Oct. 08 was quite an average October. It Ranked 70th in the last 114 years.

In 2007 Hansen was forced by reporter Stephen McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest year in history was not 1998 as he had claimed, but 1934.

Well It wasn’t exactly a correction. He fought tooth and nail against correcting the numbers, mislead the press and in the end  Hansen didn’t fully make the change.  Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request and gained access to all the NASA Documents related to the incorrect data, It showed that unlike an objective scientist, Hansen wasn’t very anxious to correct his mistakes.

According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

These new documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal GISS email correspondence as NASA scientists attempted to deal with the media firestorm resulting from the controversy. In one exchange GISS head James Hansen tells a reporter from Bloomberg that NASA had not previously published rankings with 1998 atop the list as the hottest year on record in the 20th century [not true].

Hansen announced recently that “The 12-month running mean global temperature in the Goddard Space Institute analysis has reached a new record in 2010  The main factor is our estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.” The GISS figures show that recent temperatures in the Arctic have been up to four degrees C warmer than the long-term mean.

Those arctic numbers that  important to Hansen’s announcement were a figment of his creative imagination.

Art Horn, at the Energy Tribune blog, has blown the whistle on Hansen and GISS. He points out that GISS has no thermometers in the Arctic! It has hardly thermometers that are even near the Arctic Circle. GISS estimates its arctic temperatures from land-based thermometers that supposedly each represent the temperatures over 1200 square kilometers. That’s a pretty heroic assumption.

Meanwhile, the Danish Meteorological Institute is publishing sea-surface temperatures from the Arctic showing a cooling trend in the Arctic oceans during melt season since about 1993. Clearly, we have no accurate measure of the real temperatures and trends in the Arctic at this moment. Probably that’s not very important. The Russians say that the Arctic has its own 70-year climate cycle. The files of the New York Times, in fact, are filled with stories from the 1920s and 1930s, clearly showing that the Arctic was as warm then as now.

But this is the moment when proposed energy taxes would start to scuttle 85 percent of the energy which powers the modern world and its lifestyles. Global climate alarmists, Hansen among them, are playing a desperate and short-sighted game of “pass the energy taxes.”

Or in other word James Hansen is full of crap. He made the temperatures up…there were no thermometers in the Arctic to measure temperatures.

The global warming hoaxers have their backs against the wall, the longer it takes to get their job-killing regulations in place, more information will be discovered proving that their man-made-global warming theory is nonsense.

NASA funded scientists are just trying to speed up the process, by inventing data. Its no wonder that some people believe the moon landing was faked (not me).

AAAR 30th Annual Conference Presented by the American Association for Aerosol Research
Home > Abstracts > Timothy Bauer
	Timothy Bauer Biological Warfare Agent Slurry Droplet Methodology TIMOTHY BAUER Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren      Abstract Number: 64      Last modified: March 29, 2011      Preference: Platform Presentation      Working Group: Chemical and Biological Defense Hazard Assessment Abstract Predicting the dynamics of biological warfare agent dispersed as an aqueous slurry from a commercial-grade spraying system requires simulation of several complex processes. The resulting biological agent particles of interest are the respirable ones less than 10 microns in diameter; however, the initial slurry droplets are expected to range from 10 microns up to 500 microns in diameter. The droplet fall velocity must therefore be accounted for. The droplets will evaporate as they are carried by the wind and fall towards the ground. The rate of evaporation of a pure water droplet is a function of fall velocity, vapor pressure, and relative humidity. Biological warfare agent slurry droplets add the solution effects associated with the presence of organisms, insoluble growth media, and soluble growth media, all of which act to lower the droplet vapor pressure. The slurry droplets leading to respirable particles must be small to begin with and will evaporate within seconds under conditions of low humidity. Under moderate to high humidity conditions, though, complete evaporation will not occur. Finally, a fraction of droplets and particles reaching the ground will deposit. Only a small fraction of respirable particles reaching the ground will deposit; the rest will be carried by eddies back into the plume. This presentation discusses the methodology developed by the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, VA to address these processes.   home | overview program | submission | organization

From Big Government .com sun halo

MORE FRAUD FROM THE GLOBAL-WARMING HOAXSTERS

NEWS: Climate Change May 05, 2011 - 12:46 am

Warming earth’s sick: scientists

The “dramatic acceleration” of Arctic climate change needs a cure

JANE GEORGE

If the world doesn't rein in its hunger for fossil fuels, the Arctic — shown here by climate scientist Bob Corell at a conference on Arctic climate change and pollution in Copenhagen — will see average temperatures rise by 11 C or more. (PHOTO BY JANE GEORGE)

COPENHAGEN — The earth is sick and needs to go on a diet or it may die, say scientists at this week’s conference on Arctic climate change and pollution.

Sickness is the image which best describes the critical state of the warming planet, suggest the authors of a new climate change report, Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic, released May 4 in Copenhagen.

The earth is like a person in a movie theatre, who is gorging on a bag of popcorn buttered with oil and gas, they say.

Soon this bag will be empty, but the signs of indigestion are already becoming more and more evident and acute.

Just because some places in the Arctic and elsewhere experienced colder weather this past winter doesn’t mean a thing: the earth is still sick, they say.

Sometimes there may be normal years when the earth appears to have recovered, but the “attacks” won’t stop: in the Arctic, these show up as extreme events like severe storms and more snow.

The authors of the SWIPA study, who met with reporters during the conference, say they see a “dramatic acceleration” of all the warming “symptoms” or signs which previous climate change studies predicted.

For the Arctic, these include:

• increased melt of Greenland’s ice sheet, which means sea level rise will be higher than forecasts in earlier reports;

• increased summer sea ice melt in the Arctic Ocean, once predicted to be heading towards an ice-free summer state by 2100— but which may now occur as early as 2035 or 2040;

• thinner sea ice, which will melt more easily and become more dangerous for travel;

•    more acidification of the Arctic Ocean water, which can prove fatal to sea life;

• increased glacial melting in all Arctic regions, which will lead to more floods, run-off and landslides;

• higher temperatures and a “profound loss” of Arctic lake ice, particularly in the High Arctic;

• shorter ice duration, with freeze-up later by 10.7 days, and break-up earlier by 8.8 days;

• more contamination released by melting ice and snow, which ends up in fish, birds, marine mammals —  and people.

That’s in addition to changes in Arctic Ocean and wind currents and lower numbers of some migratory seabirds.

Scientists admit there are many uncertainties about what the future holds for the Arctic, and the entire world.

But, as they work towards a global assessment of climate change — which one scientist described as a CAT-scan for the world, we should treat the “climate change disease” not by talking about the symptoms, but by developing geo-engineering techniques to lower the earth’s temperature, for example.

By finding ways to absorb or reflect heat, geo-engineers could cool down air, land and sea temperatures.

Ideas to soak up heat include adding iron to the oceans, so more plankton can grow and eat the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, and seeding clouds with tiny particles to soak up and reflect heat.

Ideas for reflecting heat off the land include using huge, aerial sunshades, white-painted roofs white and reflective reflectors on the land to bounce sunlight back into the atmosphere, or even a using a “space hose” to create more clouds in the northern latitudes.

Controlling the size of the earth’s population could also help deal with climate change, even in the Arctic, where climate change will be more intense, scientists at the Copenhagen conference say.

That’s a because if the earth gets “fatter,” actions taken to curb warming won’t keep pace with growth and the global hunger for fossil fuel

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=TOPICS+American+Association+for+Aerosol+Research+30th+Annual+Conference+Florida+Oct+3-7+2011%3A

Why geoengineering is like the Manhattan project

BY SARA PHILLIPS

ABC Environment | 27 APR 2010

One of the first nuclear weapons goes off, destroying Nagasaki in August 1945.

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." These were the words that went through J. Robert Oppenheimer's mind as he watched the test of the world's first atomic bomb in 1945.

"We knew the world would not be the same," he later remarked.

In a tumult towards the end of the Second World War, American scientists developed the atomic bomb in what was known as the Manhattan Project. A few weeks after the test, it was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with well-known devastating effect. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were killed and the war skidded to a halt.

A similar tumultuous rush is currently on to develop solutions to global warming. As described in ABC Environment's feature today, ideas such as injecting sulphur into the upper atmosphere and putting mirrors in space are now being considered as real ideas with merit, rather than dismissed out of hand.

If ever there was any doubt about how seriously climate science is taken, look to the regard such crazy-sounding schemes are being given in humanity's quest for solutions to the problem.

As science journalist Eli Kintisch recounts in his brand-new book Hack the Planet, "Since [a 2007 meeting in Harvard], almost every forum relevant to the climate crisis has reached out to embrace, if tentatively, the former pariah called geoengineering."

He lists the Royal Society, the US National Academies, the Pentagon, the American Meteorological Society, and the US Department of Energy as examples of organisations that have looked into the idea of tinkering with our climate systems to undo the damage that has already been done.

Bill Gates is so enamoured of the idea that he devotes US$1.5 million of his vast fortune to research in the area every year.

"Two years ago it was possible to read the relevant literature in the field on a train from Boston to Washington. Now, publications proposing analysing various means of large-scale intervention appear every few weeks," Kintisch writes.

It is a sentiment echoed by Sam Doust, the creative director and co-producer of the ABC's new project, Bluebird AR. Part online game, part entertainment, part thought-experiment, Bluebird explores the scenario of geoengineering technology falling into the wrong hands.

Doust says that when the idea for Bluebird was dreamed up, geoengineering was a niche scientific discipline, the preserve of kooks and retired engineers. But over the development period, all that changed.

"During the initial months of Bluebird AR scoping and pre-production, geoengineering was a fringe subject in the climate change debate and reasonably unknown. In the past 12 months however, geoengineering has become a hot topic and events in the real world have actually played out in uncanny similarity to those in the narrative," says Doust.

Geoengineering is increasingly being touted as our insurance policy for if the world fails to arrest our carbon dioxide emissions. As Kintisch says, "To cogently oppose geoengineering research... one has to accept one of two faulty propositions: either the problem is not that serious, or we're on our way to solving it. These days, one will be hard pressed to find many takers for either."

While it is distasteful to many scientists, such as David Battisti, a professor of atmospheric sciences who Kinitsch's excellent book follows, many acknowledge that at least doing the research is worthwhile. Just in case.

Much like the atomic bomb, it is a morally abhorrent idea that might be worth pursuing as a last resort.

Back in the Manhattan Project's bunker, other reports from the test of the atomic bomb relayed that Oppenheimer had looked pleased with the explosion. One of the military men present described Oppenheimer's reaction as: "his face relaxed into an expression of tremendous relief."

As a scientist intent on a project, no doubt he was pleased on some level that the invention had gone off as expected. The worst-case scenario project - the Plan Z - was ready to roll.

Today's geoengineering researchers are no doubt aware of their ability to become "destroyer of worlds". The question is what kind of calamity is great enough to warrant the deployment of such modern-day Plan Zs. The extreme end of climate change disaster predictions are that sea levels rise by seven metres, whole countries disappear, coral dissolves, seafood disappears and temperatures soar by six or more degrees Celsius triggering drought and famine. Would such a series of events be a sufficient trigger for the untried idea of geoengineering, with its unknown outcomes?

Like dropping a bomb, it may or may not win a war. But like dropping the A-bomb it may trigger unforeseen consequences. Just as we had the nuclear arms race, we one day could see a geoengineering technology race: the first to develop weather-changing technology wins.