- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,585
- Reactions
- 7,464
Ahh the D word again. You lose basilio.
However, to repeat *yet again*, nobody is denying the warming and sea level trend since the end of the little ice age, otherwise we'd still be in the little ice age wouldn't we?
But wasn't the immediate point the lack of integrity and debunking of the Cook paper? What has that got to do with a paper on Antarctica?
When people think of NASA, they think of rovers on Mars, astronauts floating aboard the International Space Station, or probes veering out to the edge of the solar system. They don’t necessarily link NASA with climate research and observations. But Earth is a planet too, and NASA is one of the biggest players in the Earth science arena, with broad expertise on observing our climate, especially from the vantage point of space. Today it spends over a billion dollars a year doing Earth science and has more than a dozen satellites in orbit around the planet watching the oceans, land, ice, atmosphere and biosphere.
In the 1970s, NASA’s planetary exploration budget fell dramatically. It was then that the agency really got into the business of studying our home planet from orbit. It was also a time when people were beginning to realize that our climate could change relatively fast, on the scale of the human lifespan. Today, we know that our climate is changing at an unprecedented rate and that humans are a key part of that change. NASA continues to launch new satellite missions, and is also relying on aircraft (manned and unmanned), as well as scientists on the ground, to take vital measurements of things like snowpack and hurricanes, augmenting the big-picture view we get from space.
NASA’s role is to make observations of our climate that can be used by the public, policymakers and to support strategic decisions. Its job is to do rigorous science. However, the agency does not promote particular climate policies.
If you choose to ignore this evidence- and the thousands of other papers that document how our world is being affected by warming - thats your business.
You see it as a binary deal:
a/ outright denial, or
b/ a worst case scenario Wayne
One degree of warming since when?
How do you explain the difference in the Berkeley data and the sets I put up earlier?
How do you explain the difference in the Berkeley data and the sets I put up earlier?
Because, Wayne, your data only covered the period from 1996-2014 while the graph I posted was from 1950 to 2009. The longer term does tell the full picture.
I'm comparing the relevant (same) period, i.e 20 years
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/decreasing-arctic-albedo-boosts-global-warming.html
Decreasing Arctic albedo boosts global warming
A new paper in PNAS, called Observational determination of albedo caused by vanishing sea ice, reminds me of scientific work Peter Wadhams published a year and a half ago wherein he showed Arctic ice melt is 'like adding 20 years of CO2 emissions'. He based this assertion on calculations, as can be read in this BBC article from around that time.
This new paper by Pistone et al., however, is based on observations (as it says in the title) and similarly concludes that the "decrease in albedo is equivalent to roughly 25 percent of the average global warming currently occurring due to increased carbon dioxide levels"
Thanks smurf for the detailed post.Not sure about in total (assuming you are referring to Australia only rather than global) but I can comment so far as electricity generation emissions (the largest single source) are concerned.
Thanks smurf for the detailed post.
Where were you when Flim-Flam was raking in $180k of taxpayers money each year, plus public speaking fees, to tell us that Perth was going to be a ghost metropolis? And that the dams would empty? Or now suddenly becoming a paid advisor (salary undisclosed) to the Climate Council.http://www.theguardian.com/environm...tic-set-up-australian-centre#comment-50567296
Abbott gives $4million to Bjorn Lomborg to sprook drivel; See what happens when you don't have a Science Minister.
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk
Funding better spent on women sheltering from domestic Violence maybe. Not to Captian Climate Change Is Crap Clown Shoes. If that ain't Denialist I don't know What is
How can flim flam Fannery live with himself after making all the wrong predictions and accepting climate change scientist of the year.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...l_warns_sceptics_that_it_knows_where_we_live/
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?