Goddard Institute for Space Studies

I love what Robert Jastrow, he was a NASA astronomer.

He founded the Goddard Institute in 1961.

He says it all.

Science has proven, and he's an agnostic.

And when James Hansen retired from that position, Gavin Schmidt took over.

What's that? GISS, they didn't call it a

climate division.

Yeah, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, something like that.

Right, so at the time of, in 2007, Gavin Schmidt was number two at NASA GISS.

But he was one of the three scientists on the mainstream side.

So what was interesting about that debate was each side got to state their case and um and you can watch it this that debate is on youtube i think it's it's about an hour and a half long i think it's wonderful to watch um but the and the audience in the debate were people from manhattan mostly it was done in a studio on the upper west side of manhattan tends to be politically pretty left-wing but very smart people but a bunch of old jews like us probably sorry to be racist all right so um And before the debate, the audience was polled, you know, what's your attitude about global warming? And it was something like 10% didn't have a point of view, but 60% thought global warming was a big problem, 30% didn't.

My name is Gavin Schmidt.

I'm the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies here in New York City.

I'm going to talk to you a little bit about how we know the planet is warming.

We have enormous amounts of evidence of changes of the Earth's system.

The runaway greenhouse model described above is the leading framework for understanding Venus' climate history, but significant questions remain about the timeline, the initial conditions, and whether Venus ever had the stable liquid oceans that the model in its strongest form implies.

One influential line of research, led by Michael Way and Anthony Del Genio at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has used general circulation models adapted from Earth climate simulations to explore whether Venus could have maintained habitable surface conditions for an extended period.

Their results, published in 2016 and expanded in subsequent studies, suggest that if Venus had a shallow liquid ocean covering a portion of its surface, and if it rotated slowly, as it does today, atmospheric circulation patterns would have produced thick, dayside cloud cover that reflected enough sunlight to keep surface temperatures moderate.

Under these conditions, Their models indicate Venus could have remained habitable for up to 2 billion years, possibly even 3 billion, before some catastrophic event tipped the climate past the point of no return.

The public is virtually unaware of the good data and what it says.

Here is a comparison of UCRN data on the left, the good data produced by this new network versus NASA GISS over on the right.

Now, I'm sorry these aren't to scale but you can see that NASA GISS is reporting a significant upward trend whereas the same period over on the left, it's flat virtually.

Eh, maybe a slight trend but nothing like what GISS is doing and GISS using all of the bad data.

So the idea here circumvent them by creating an independent network and that's what that weather station is about.

Place stations to get clean independent data open architecture and open access no need for the government anymore.

The other school of thought says Venus was habitable for billions of years.

Computer modelling from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, led by Michael Way, used general circulation models, the same type used to study Earth's climate, to simulate Venus's early conditions.

The results suggested that with a slow rotation rate and the right cloud cover, Venus could have maintained shallow surface oceans and temperate conditions for up to 2 to 3 billion years.

Reflective clouds would have bounced enough sunlight back into space to keep temperatures moderate despite Venus's proximity to the Sun.

Remember James Hansen? He got together, I think it was 16 scientists, and they released, it wasn't very long ago, and it was about the fact, in fact, I have it right here.

It was NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies said, is where he has been, and he now directs the program on climate science awareness and solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute.

He and 16 other prominent climate researchers collaborated on a July 2015 paper in which, this is James Hansen, with them said, quote, if the ocean continues to accumulate heat an increased melting of marine terminating ice shelves of Antarctica and Greenland, a point will be reached at which it is impossible to avoid large-scale ice sheet disintegration with sea-level rise of at least several meters." And that was one of the headlines in the New York Times back in July when they released that paper saying, And Hanson said that he thought now, conservatively, that by New Year's Day 2100, that there could have been a 12-foot rise in sea level.

Well, that would take out at least half of Florida.

Nevertheless, it could not prove significant, which is crucial.

And the results are essentially the same by using different SST datasets, such as NASA GISS and HadSST center.

Thus, we can predict delta CO2 by this equation.

So we can reproduce the total amount of delta CO2 using this equation.

I chose this period because NASA CELLES only offers data of this period.

I'm also aware of the issues with the CELLES data.

However, I thought that presenting counter-arguments to the unsupportive theory was significant because CELLES is so closely, because CELLES is so closely tied to NASA GISS and using CELLES data outweighed those concerns.

Among the insight we can draw from this data, I'll start with the simplest one.