NASA Says Earth Is Entering A Cooling Period

Most of the headlines are grabbed by NASA’s James Hansen, Head of Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Hansen has been the doomsayer-sayer-in-chief of the climate alarmists along with Al Gore. Hansen has been quoted as saying, “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains.” But other NASA scientists who use satellites to collect real data, take a different view, and are now saying that “our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.”

Here is the complete NASA article:

What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?

The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world’s climate system and makes possible life as we know it.

Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. Thus, changing Earth’s exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.

However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.

Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system include such “variables” as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool. For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or “aerosols”) would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool.

Scientists are using NASA satellites to monitor all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth’s climate system to better understand how they are changing over time, and how any changes in them affect climate.

I note that other NASA pages contradict the statement above and are more alarmist. So much for consensus.


  1. So, because this article mentions a possibility for other factors to counteract our gargantuan dumping of fossil carbon in the atmosphere, you say it means that other factors ARE counteracting it?  The author of this article almost certainly does not think that their article overturns 150 years of physics, 35 years of climate science, and 20 years of US-initiated international review of that science (the IPCC).
    If you have a theory that is better than the theory that 98% of climatologists agree on, you are very gifted and you owe it to God to get a PhD science degree, get involved in the scientific discussion, and show society the light before we “waste” any money by becoming more passing a law that makes us more energy efficient and more energy independent.

    1. How big is a “gargantuan” or is that just some subjective value judgment you make in lieu of science?  Is it some fraction of the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere  by volcanoes or decomposing plants? If you want to do science you should measure the sensitivity of global temperature something that has not be demonstrated.  You cannot demonstrate it since you do not accurately know how the various  factors affect global temperature and since for the past 15 years the global temperature has been flat or decreasing despite the rising CO2 levels.

    2. basing your citations i’ll assume you’re just a lay person who has no involvement in atmospheric/climate field. i as a meteorologist have only one plea for you alarmists: plead with the IPCC to amend their policy and release their data and methodologies, also its peer-review process for the open scientific community to audit because we NEED IT!! blocking access to the scientific world is unscientific and more to being political. thank you.

  2. Brian, Im not the smartest guy out there, you will know that by my
    spelling errors. I was sounding the global warming alarm 15 years ago.
    I wanted a hydrogen economy, solar, wind, you name it. Then I realized
    that all the green tech would not help. You see, the real problem, (
    if you believe the 98% of climatologists, 150 years of physics, and 35
    years of climate science), is not carbon pollution itself. The problem
    therefore is far to many humans using fossil fuels causing carbon
    pollution. Far to many people and an ever growing population. Green
    tech would only allow more people to live off the same amount of
    resources, and the carbon pollution would most likely still be the
    problem. So, as I am no Phd, this has obviously been the conclusion of
    any one smarter than me. Well then the problem is not carbon
    pollution, its overpopulation. MMMMMM….. you know what, the
    foundations funding global warming research have a very long history
    of trying to control the population. MMMM….eugenics, and wow look at
    what we have now Ted Turner stating he wants a 95% reduction in the
    worlds population….by force of law, like brave China. And another
    thing the author mentioned, volcanic activity puts many times the
    amount of carbon into the atmosphere than humans. So could it be that
    in order for the Phds to get there funding they better prove that
    global warming is real, as it is the goal of those  foundations who
    pay the bills and have a well documented, un-deniable history of
    eugenics and population control as their stated goals. Also,
    scientists should not be pushed to prove something is true, thats not
    science. Scientists should analyze data, thats it. It seems that there
    is a big push to prove global warming, yet how much funding goes into
    the other side of the argument (no global warming). Actually, when
    scientists don’t conclude that the earth is warming, it seems like
    they are kicked out of the club. So hows that science? How come the
    mountain glaciers are still intact? How come the sea has not risen?
    How come we have  normal polar ice levels? Where are the islands which
    have been lost forever? Where are the plants that have migrated from
    the south to the north? Why is the UN stating that cap and trade is
    not about global warming, but about re-distrubiting wealth form
    wealthy nations to poorer nations, threw world bank loans of course.
    How is cap and trade going to work if China and India do not take
    part? Ill tell you why, because its all bull crap. People saw how ugly
    eugenics is with the rise and fall of Hitler (an environmentalist) and
    regected it. Now it has reared its ugly face wearing the mask of
    global warming. I have a suggestion for all you global warming
    believers, put your money where your big authoritarian mouth is. No
    kids, no using electricity, no cars, no planes, no dogs, meat, and
    last but not least no exhailing the awful gas carbondioxide. Oh yea.
    if you want to reduce the birth rate, give people in the third world
    electricity, raise their standard of living. The birth rate in
    industrialized first world nations is low, because we burn fossil
    fuels. The birth rate in 3rd world countries is very high, if they had
    access to high energy bills like we do they would not be able to
    afford 8 children per family. The way to control the population is to
    burn fossil fuels. One child policies, hitlers death camps, and forced
    sterilization is not only evil, it is satanic. So is the global
    warming movement.

  3. I’m going to sell my carbon credits and use the money to buy some carbon.  I’m going to need to burn it for heat if this keeps up.

  4. Didn’t we reduce net CO2 by eliminating the buffallo heards roaming the plains? – as well as relpacing horses with cars?  ….  I think garganutan is defrined as 5% (the human contribution) of the 4% of greenhouse gases represented by CO2 – one very rough way to figure the numbers. 
    Once I tried to research why Water vapor wasn’t a more serious “green-house gas” than CO2.  I went to the recomended web sites, read the articles, then asked questions – It felt like I was in the movie “Spinal Tap” – the answers I got to sincere questions amounted to “but this one goes to 11” – It should have been obvious to the most casual observer that the emporor had no clothes.
    I was scared as a kid in the 1970s reading about how the earth would freeze… Now just when I thought I was safe! ….  perhaps I should turn up the heat and open the door – do you think it will help?  😉

  5. To understand the true motivation of “98% of climatologists”, reread the last line of the article:
    “I note that other NASA pages contradict the statement above and are more alarmist“. 

    In other words, the global warming zealots are much more alarmists in their conclusions.  The alarmist factor of these zealots (Al Gore, etc.) is what drives the government funding for this “science”.  In other words, the greater the purported danger from global warming, the more money governments throw at these zealots.  What a nice racket, create an issue, then get an unlimited stream of government funding to study the issue.

    And by the way, the science behind “global warming” is no where near settled. 
    ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life“,  Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. 

    Here’s the link:

    Once the zealots lose the “global warming” argument, watch for the new fraud “climate change”.  Climate change is a natural phenomenon, and pre-dates the use of fossil fuels by several billion years; which I learned in a 6th grade science class.

  6. The earth has been going through cooling and warming cycles since the day it was made.  Buying and selling carbon credits won’t do a thing to stop the cycle.  The earth can heal itself a lot better than the life on it can.  Think about it…What’s the age of the oldest dog, horse, turtle or human?  Now, what’s the age of the earth?  Other than the earth, life is sexually transmitted and it is ALWAYS FATAL.

Comments are closed.