NASA report heats up climate change debate
Want to know more about global warming? Ask the people who get closest to the sun.
A new NASA report shows the 2000s were the warmest decade on record, further solidifying the scientific evidence in support of global warming. The study shows 2009 is tied for the second warmest year on record, but it was the hottest if you live in the Southern Hemisphere.
Temperatures have increased by about .36 degrees F per decade for the last three years, and the average global temperature is up 1.5 degrees since humans began measuring in 1880, according to the NASA report released this week.
In the days following the report, the global warming debate has raged on even with science showing obvious signs of melting glaciers and rising temperatures.
The Ohio Section of the American Institute of Professional Geologists, for example, just came out with a position against climate change, saying that “there is no scientific evidence supporting this premise” of human-produced global warming.
Weather Channel founder John Coleman continues to deny climate change. He recently said: “Our carbon footprints are not creating any significant global warming. The global warming frenzy is based on a myth - a scientific hypothesis that has gone bad.”
And the American people continue to support politicians and businesses who believe the whole thing is a hoax.
And with Scott Brown’s big win in Massachusetts, President Obama’s climate change legislation is only more shrouded in the smog of doubt. Brown doesn’t have a clear record on climate change, but many believe his conservative slant will make a national climate control bill an even tougher pill for the Senate to swallow. And unfortunately, the world’s climate negotiations are heavily contingent on the world’s largest polluter – the U.S. – being a leader with climate change policy.
Advertisement
Follow us
Comments
Here's an example of NASA's problem and giss data in general:
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/UK-records.htm
Until you can get untampered temperature records, NASA's report is a lot of hot air.
Untampered results wouldn't help the majority of sceptics. They believe what they want to believe.
I have seen NASA's indexed graph. Really, the title of the graph sould be "2009 the hottest year, when compared with the 1951-1980 land temperature average". Don't you think that's a small comparison when you look back to the 100 years of industrialisation and 800 million years of existence?
Any statistician, worth their salt will tell you that they can get any data to say what they want with the way they display the figures.
More scare tactics.
Yes, that's true especially if you look at only the statistics that prove what you want to believe in. Co2 is a culprit for warming, we only have 1 planet earth, and co2 levels that we are currently enjoying, have not been this high for a much longer period than the start of the industrial age.
Scare tactics are good for everyone if they are warranted. Otherwise no one would have the ability to avoid a potential bad ending.
The science of global warming is supported by data and records from agencies, national weather services and universities all over the world. Dozens of lines of independent research by thousands into many different aspects of climate change are converging to that it is real and a threat to our well-being. Of course there will always be a body of people who will deny it till they are blue in the face. These people are only concerned about continuing with their wasteful and terribly profligate lifestyles.
Victor,
Many of the agencies don't have the resources or the manpower to replicate research studies into climate change, so they just parrot what other studies have shown. And much of the original work comes out of the UN's IPCC research, which can only be considered questionable at best once the UN politicians have massaged the raw data to prove their point.
And please stop generalizing that ALL people who don't agree with AGW have "wasteful and terribly profligate lifestyles". You are making a huge assumption and are just as bad as the head of the UN IPCC, who also said it. My carbon footprint is so small it's not even worth planting a tree to counteract it.
What about all the politicians that went to COP15. Their carbon footprint was greater than the operation of a small country!
I agree with the basic premise that there is something going on with our climate - I don't agree with the spin that the UN IPCC politicians are putting on it.
If laymen sceptics doubt the science of climate change, with the stakes so high, how can they not doubt themselves? How can they not wake at night dripping with sweat, suddenly wondering if, for the sake of a pithy post on a blog, they've drowned their own grandchildren?
Victor,
You seem to know a lot about other peoples' minds, or are you just projecting your own unconscious content?
The current research on sea levels indicates that it will take at least 7 generations for the island of Tuvalu to start to go under water, not the immediate disaster that the IPCC had predicted. That's nearly 700 years.
Also, the IPCC said that the Himilayan glaciers will be gone by 2035, but later research said that it will be more like 2350.
And then today,
"Experts appointed by the United Nations said rising temperatures were to blame for an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.
But it has emerged that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based the statement, made in 2007, on an unpublished report that had not been properly reviewed by other scientists
".
So where are the high stakes you are talking about? Surely, as a people we can fix our pollution before we all drown in 700 years. That's as long as people wake up and realize the Emporer has no clothes on.
All this non-sense about gobal barming.
It's much more fun to party on and shoot ourseves when the floods arrive.
Anyway - I don't care, I live on a hill!
Its interested to study climate changes and how it effects heat, flood zones, and the environment. If your house was not in a flood zone, but recently changed into a flood zone on the Fema maps, you may want to consider getting a flood elevation certificate.
Post new comment