NASA predicts 8 degrees of warming in the US by 2100

CACCA is doing terrible damage to the reputation of science. In forty years, climatologists will have to deny their discipline ever forecast temperatures so high for this century, just as they now try to cover up their imminent ice age predictions of the 1970s.
If humanity be lucky, the current interglacial will break all longevity records, as some scientists expect, but based upon Milankovitch cycles, not CO2.

Allison Leidner, Post Doctoral Researcher
Ph.D. North Carolina State University, Department of Zoology, 2009
M.S. Stanford University, Department of Biological Sciences, 2003
B.S. Stanford University, Department of Biological Sciences, 2002
Allison is broadly interested in the conservation of rare and endangered species. At the University of Maryland, she will be using bioinformatic approaches to develop scientifically defensible recovery goals for threatened and endangered species in the United States. Allison’s dissertation research examined how urban and agricultural fragmentation affected butterfly communities, and particularly focused on conservation strategies to ameliorate the effects of habitat fragmentation.
In addition to the biological aspects of conservation, she is interested in the intersection of science and policy, and promoting communication between scientists, policy-makers, and the general public. Allison left the lab to accept a prestigious AAAS postdoctoral fellowship where she is working with NASA on climate change issues.

rk says:
July 29, 2013 at 1:15 am
William Astley says:
July 29, 2013 at 12:37 am
I wish the petitioners well, but I don’t think they’ll get far. Here’s Scalia’s opinion
It is really not up to the Court to decide on such matters
William:
You miss the two points I was trying to make.
Point 1: The silly presentation produced by NASA is obviously propaganda it does not address the scientific issues, it hides the scientific issues. Obvious propaganda issued by NASA does not make sense. NASA is a scientific agency, not a propaganda group like Green Peace or 350org. Why would a scientific agency issue propaganda? It is asserted there is a cabal at NASA that is trying to push, trying to justify the green scam agenda. The NASA is ignoring the science/observations/analysis that disproves the extreme AGW hypothesis and are ignoring what is currently happening to the sun which is ironical, surreal, as we will see unfold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal
There is an economic reason why the Supreme Court petition was filed and there are scientific issues raised in the petition. Raising the cost of electricity and transportation fuel will negatively impact the US. There is only some much money to spend on all government departments including NASA. NASA is already facing budget cuts. Changes that will make the US less competitive will negatively impact all US citizens particularly government employees. This is lose-lose for NASA employees and US citizens. NASA propaganda is part of the problem why the Obama administration is trying to force States to spend money on green scams. i.e. NASA does not provide independent scientific analysis to assist in making policy decisions.
Point 2: The planet and the US are going to cool not warming. A silly graph produced by NASA does not affect what will happen next. The planet warms and cools due to physical reasons rather than propaganda. There is data and scientific issues raised in the Supreme Court petition and in EPA’s own analysis (see below) that supports the assertion that planet has warmed and cooled in the past cyclically and that the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C, all else being equal.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EF_SC_Cert_Amicus_153014_1_Final-1.pdf
All else is not however equal. There is a significant solar magnetic cycle change underway. Each and every warm period in the current interglacial was followed by a cold period when the sun when into a Maunder like minimum.
The sun is going into a Maunder like minimum.
In the past, for some unexplained physical reason there was a delay of roughly one cycle (10 to 12 years) from the time that the solar magnetic cycle slowdown started and the cooling occurred. The delay is caused by a process … (no need to explain the mechanisms as to why there is delay in cooling until there is more cooling.)
As there is now cooling observed in high latitude regions both pole it is evident by observation that the inhibiting mechanism is ending. Observational evidence
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Based what has happened in the past, the cooling is in the same regions that experienced the warming, except due to the ice sheet see-saw there is additional sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. The most amount of cooling on the planet will be on the Greenland Ice sheet due to the mechanisms. Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/
At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf
The following is a technical brief written by the EPA’s own expert that questions the AGW science and the scientific independence of the IPCC.
“Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”
Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable. The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view: (See attached for details.)
1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis 2009 v
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.
“2.9 The Missing Heating in the Tropical Troposphere
Computer models based on the theory of GHG/CO2 warming predict that the troposphere in the tropics should warm faster than the surface in response to increasing CO2 concentrations, because that is where the CO2 greenhouse effect operates. Sun-Cosmic ray warming will warm the troposphere more uniformly.
The UN’s IPCC AR4 report includes a set of plots of computer model predicted rate of temperature change from the surface to 30 km altitude and over all latitudes for 5 types of climate forcings as shown below.
The Hadley Centre’s real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below, however, does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that most of the global temperature change cannot be attributed to increasing CO2 concentrations.”