It’s glorious and depressing at the same time: NASA used its official Facebook account to shut down one user who was misrepresenting climate science:
It’s climate change denial 101: you take some random fact, gobble it up without even thinking about it, add in some buzzwords to make it look more scientific and spit it out as loud as possible. But this guy went a bit further: he went for the old “NASA said this” – which of course, is simply not true. Not only did NASA never assert that fossil fuels are cooling the atmosphere, but they very much in agreement with the rest of the scientists (read: everybody) who understand that climate change is driven by humans.
But don’t take my word for it, check out just a few articles published on the NASA website:
- Coal and Gas are Far More Harmful than Nuclear Power reads: Human-caused climate change and air pollution remain major global-scale problems and are both due mostly to fossil fuel burning.
- A blanket around the Earth quotes results from the IPCC: In its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there’s a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
- Discussing the virtual consensus regarding human-driven climate change, this NASA article reads: Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
They’ve made it abundantly clear several times, yet people still misrepresent them and spread false information. I’m glad someone at NASA wrote such a firm reply, but I’m quite sad they had to do it. I wish people would understand the reality of man-made climate change, even though it’s difficult to swallow.
NASA then went on in the comment section to put in place another user who claimed that the space organization “fudges numbers:”
For the sake of clarification, these views likely stem from a previous study which found that some aerosols released by burning fossil fuels can temporarily cool localized areas by reflecting more radiation. The overall effect though is still overwhelmingly warming.
oops, what did you write?
“…they very much in agreement with the rest of the scientists (read: everybody) who understand that climate change is driven by humans.”
this is -of course and obviously- not true. everybody? really? only when you neglect all the articles and books depicting the opposite. unless of course…… you deem all those scholars who disagree with you as people who do not understand what you, naturally, do understand.
don’t get me wrong: climate changes. but where were we, when climate changed uhm, let’s say, 65 million years ago? how many cars did we drive a mere 10.000 years ago?
shouldn’t we -finally- agree that climate changes, whether there or humans or not. after that, maybe -just maybe- we can discuss how much of the climate change is inherit to the earth itself, which part is because of flora and fauna and finally, which part is due to humans.
i hope the quoted sentence was a ‘slip of your pen’ and you will read some of the books disagreeing with you, written by real scientist – believe you me. :D
It was no “slip of my pen” – I meant just that. We are causing global warming. Natural climate change does happen, but in millions of years, not in centuries, and that’s an entirely different situation, on a very different scale. I’ve been through this argument countless times, I’ll just leave this for your reference: https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/climate-change-credibility-12122012/
Really? boy those billions of dollars in fossil pr and propaganda sure do work.
World heat content is up. Tracking CO2 and GHG since 1960.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract
Don’t confuse temperature with heat content:
The mass of the pole ice is decreasing. That’s why the Temperature has not fully tracked air GHG. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/antarctic-ice-melt
“Extent” doesn’t matter, it’s the volume and that’s going down at both poles of the last 10 years. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html
Read carefully when someone says the pole ice extent is increasing, they are trying to trick you.
Just like the Temperature not going up is another physics trick. It’s not temperature it’s heat content.
Fossil use emits 300 times all the volcanoes in the world combined. http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm could be as much as 460 times.
CO2 is the highest in 15 million years, enough to cause sick building syndrome outside. Remember that urban areas have higher CO2 than average, and even suburban areas go over the average daily. occupants of a building will start to complain of pain, fatigue etc… when the CO2 goes over 500-600 ppm. Humans evolved with CO2 never going over 300ppm. Oxygen levels are falling twice as fast. We have destroyed fresh air.
Humans are poisoning the air and water and changing the climate.
But climate change or not, fossils and nuclear are welfare queens sustained now only by gov largess and protection. Solar, wind, ecars and waste to fuels are all now cheaper when you strip away all the gov breaks. They are forever, recyclable clean, safe, zero land, carbon negative, low water use and many times our global energy needs even with 12B people.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/242407-imf-study-governments-subsidize-energy-53t
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/20/wind-power-subsidies-dont-compare-to-fossil-fuel-nuclear-subsidies/#ABfIXAl3UjBqeQOP.99
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-real-deal-on-u.s.-subsidies-fossils-72b-renewable-energys-12b
We go to war for oil and gas, we strip the earth and poison the air and water for fossils and nuclear.
Fracking has destroyed most of our aquifers, it’s only a matter of time till the wells leak. It’s called entropy. All wells eventually leak
http://www.alternet.org/economy/american-capitalism-has-failed-us-were-overworked-underemployed-and-more-powerless-ever
Scandinavia, Sweden Denmark, why they are better.
Yes, the evidence is clear. Ocean heat content has gone up and tracked GHG since the 60’s. Fossils use is emitting 300 times the CO2 of all the volcanoes on earth combined. Highest CO2 in 15 millions years. Homo Sapiens are only 20,000 years old or so. We evolved with much lower CO2 and get sick building syndrome when CO2 goes over 600 ppm. CO2 now does that in rural areas all the time, and in urban areas just about constantly. We are poisoning ourselves, we are not plants.
It doesn’t even matter as far as getting off fossils because renewables, solar and wind, are available much cheaper, cleaner, safer, and forever, with no wars needed.
Correlation is not proof of causation.
Just because temperature went up at the same time as CO2 emissions, doesn’t prove that one caused the other.
… and, try to keep up… While volcanoes aren’t the real cause of atmospheric CO2 rise, your figure of 300X is way off.
Like most things in “climate science” – you’re off by a factor of four.
Notice the mind of the denier. I just state that temperature does not matter.
We know CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, we can measure it in the lab.
if you drop something it will fall. Is that correlation, or experimental science? Deniers don’t know.
Human fossils use emits 100’s of times volcanoes.
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html
Note it’s from 2010, and Fossil emission have gone up.
The deniers own link support that.
“this is -of course and obviously- not true. everybody? really? only when you neglect all the articles and books depicting the opposite.”
Please list some of the legitimate science organizations, and articles written by actual legitimate climate scientists who disagree with human caused massive climate change. There aren’t many. I fully realize that you may consider NASA to be some backyard science experiment, but it seems that most others do not.
“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You are correct, climate does change over time, but barring asteroid strikes, when has it changed this much within 100 years?
“Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years”:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
And from the World Meteorological Organization:
http://www.wmo.int/media/content/record-global-temperatures-and-high-impact-weather-and-climate-extreme
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf
http://web.ornl.gov/sci/knowledgediscovery/Langley/docs/Langley_Air_Force_Base2.pd
Here’s another 197 legit science organizations worldwide:
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/donner-the-kiribati-people-battle-sea-level-rise-slide-show/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/27/world/climate-rising-seas.html?_r=0
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/infographic-sea-level-rise-global-warming.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/11/sea-level-rise-global-warming-climate-change/27119957/
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/energy/the_challenges/global_climate_change.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/full/nature14093.html
http://www.voanews.com/content/scientists-say-global-sea-level-rise-happening-now-is-unavoidable/2934266.html
Gross evidence that Arctic areas are now experiencing dramatic weather change:
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/958/
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/ArcticMatters.pdf
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/projects/protecting-life-in-the-arctic/life-in-the-arctic/arctic-challenges
http://www.ibtimes.com/exxon-arctic-drilling-benefitting-global-warming-oil-company-denied-climate-change-2136118
http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global-ice-viewer/#/3
For the nonsensical myth that scientists made an error decades ago and said that the earth was cooling:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
As I’ve just shown you over 200 organizations who all state the same thing, please show me the research that disagrees. I want to see actual science organizations who disagree with human caused climate change, and I do NOT mean recently formed organizations whose sole purpose is to deny climate change.
The bottom line is that deniers no longer have anything to rely on except junk. If I’m wrong, show me, as your personal opinion is worthless without any scientific evidence.
The facts of the matter are that still no one has actually proven that CO2 causes global warming, no matter how many people say it, it's not true. That temperature increases 800 years before CO2 increases is not shown on Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth Movie, but it's proven in ice core samples. I could go on and on but why bother cause real deniers are denying the fact that temperature does increase CO2 levels, not the other way around.
West Antarctic glacier began retreat in the 1940s, http://bit.ly/2fxhmAh, It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800, http://bit.ly/2hdntuY, Are Modern Temperatures "Unprecedented"? Greenland Ice Core Research Finds They're Not Even Close, U.S. Climate Agency, http://bit.ly/2jw0ekx, Northern Greenland warmer 1000 years ago, warmer in the 1920s too « JoNova, http://bit.ly/2lDE0NQ, Ocean temperatures – Is that warming statistically significant? « JoNova, http://bit.ly/2mg4ZPU
Six myths about "deniers", http://bit.ly/2ibjcIQ
"Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA", http://go.nasa.gov/2dZGJvG, "Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability", http://go.nature.com/2hy9KSr, "West Antarctic glacier began retreat in the 1940s", http://bit.ly/2fxhmAh, "Antarctic sea ice strangely the same as 100 years ago when Ford Model T was around" « JoNova, http://bit.ly/2mfZmBe
please tell make me laugh, as solar and wind are the most uneconomical energy choices available. They only are competitive because of the subsidies involved, else wise, they be in the garbage can as far as wind goes, they will be soon enough as the turbines will be idled and rusting in place.Solar needs a battery storage device to make it effective, and so the owner doesn't end up tying into the grid or they should pay the same charges no one else does to maintain the grid. There's 1000 years worth of fossil fuels available both underground and off our shores in the form of methyl hydrates,we just need a little technology to learn how to break free this crystalline substance.
care to share a reference regarding this so-called ocean heat content?
Wow, I got it totally wrong! it's not 300, it might only be 100 times. seriously? In any case, you list does not compare that to fossils emissions not counter the link I sent. 300 times is the high end of the estimates. I'm sure you will use the low end or just plain deny it at all.
When was that last time you looked? It's fossils that get 5.3T$ in gov breaks, and nuclear proportional. If you don't want to breath, fossils are great, if you like wars for oil and gas, fossils are great.
Obviously you are a fossils use caused climate denier too.
Solar and wind are the cheapest available energy on earth BEFORE ANY GOV BREAKS OR SUBSIDIES.
https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf
Utility solar and wind are available cheaper than fossils and 4 times cheaper than nuclear before gov breaks.
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7b2224faac1d44170624c08f2ee02784?convert_to_webp=true shows investments are in solar and wind, not nuclear.
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2016-HTML.html#_Toc455972957 good report, now TWH per and how solar and wind replace fossils and nuclear rebuts to anti renewable claims.
"The average levelized long-term price from a sample of wind power sales agreements signed in 2014 (and admittedly concentrated in the lowest-priced central region of the country) fell to just 2.35¢/kWh. http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/Wind-Energy-Could-Blow-US-Coal-Industry-Away.html
https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/cheapest-solar-power/ 2.91 cents per KWH.
"Chile just signed the cheapest unsubsidized power in the world at ¢2.91/kWh. Of course, it’s solar energy"
Gosh, is that the newest fossil funded pr game? The fossils industry has been proven to hire trolls, scientists, fake web sites, journalists to spread the pr. I'm sure some deniers are just duped true believers. Other are paid fossils shills. Can't tell which.
Have you noticed all you links are to what look like a bunch of computers generated sites?
Just go to here: https://skepticalscience.com/
All you questions have been answered, all your claims debunked.
Yes they have proven it as much as science ever proves anything. Go to the link that will explain how we know that in detail. I doubt you will. It's very cleaver written. You seem to be on a denier crusade. "no matter what people say" that's you.
Brian, I went to that link again, and I find it's once again the silly site supported by the fraudulent scientist, if you: can call him a scientist, Cook, who cooked up the stats on publications to create this so-called 97% agree with AGW. Such nonsense! There's nothing of value here.
more Skeptical Science BS! Again done by Cook minions.
yes I frequently use Bit.ly URL shortening software to shorten my URLs, but I can give you the real thing if you like.Are you afraid to follow them, like CB is?
On your 1st point, fossil fuels get a smaller percentage of subsidy than wind and solar, I believe nuclear is the lowest. It's not the amount, it's the proportion compared to the amount of energy delivered, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-energy-storage-20161007-snap-story.html.. As far as your claim about not being able to breathe, fossil fuels have no more emission problems than anything else, CO2 is an odorless, tasteless gas essential to life as we know it.. If you think that fossil fuels cause climate change, climate is always changing and we been increasing in temperature since the Little Ice Age, a slow natural progression of warming, https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/guest-post-the-continuing-recovery-from-the-little-ice-age-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/ (you asked for it so you're sure whole URL).
As far as your assertion that wind and solar are the cheapest energy sources without subsidies, that's ludicrous, http://dailysignal.com/2016/10/11/first-us-offshore-wind-plant-costs-17600-per-home-powered/, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2016/03/02/banner-year-for-renewables-not-for-consumers/?ss=energy#502cd7855bc3, and https://www.masterresource.org/windpower-problems/wind-taxpayers-trump/.
The USA's experience with solar doesn't show this at all,http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2016/11/a-big-disconnect-between-words-and-actions/ . NSW is Australia, of course, mot the US but they, AU,.suffered a huge meltdown in our a few weeks ago when they wind ceased to blow.(wind turbines) and they lost the entire grid.
What, are you short of electrons? can't afford complete links?
It's not like there are viruses at many sites, huh?
First of all I said gov breaks, not subsidies. Fossils have been getting these breaks for 100 years, including wars.
Fossils get 5.3T$ in gov breaks per year. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf IMF 5.3T$ in gov breaks for fossils not including wars for oil and gas.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/05/increasing-gas-prices-subsidies/
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/20/wind-power-subsidies-dont-compare-to-fossil-fuel-nuclear-subsidies/#ABfIXAl3UjBqeQOP.99
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-real-deal-on-u.s.-subsidies-fossils-72b-renewable-energys-12b
solar 2.3, wind 12B, ethanol 17B, 70B fossils. nukes 120B$
We don't want more fossils, they are the richest companies on earth they should have stopped getting gov breaks 50 years ago.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/ocean-heating-argo-probes-20032017/
Your links are jokes, right? the first offshore wind in the USA is going to be expensive. Hilarious. The Forbes article confuses cost with prices AGAIN. Folks read the Lazard link. CO2 is toxic, even to plants. umans are NOT plants and humans have never had co2 over 280 ppm till now.
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10037/
“Conclusions: Cognitive function scores were significantly better in Green+ building conditions compared to the Conventional building conditions for all nine functional domains. These findings have wide ranging implications because this study was designed to reflect conditions that are commonly encountered every day in many indoor environments. “
http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/10/19/modest-levels-of-carbon-dioxide-indoors-can-impair-decision-making/46328.html
The study, conducted with researchers from State University of New York Upstate Medical University, found that test subjects showed “significant” reductions on six of the nine scales of decision-making performance at CO2 levels of 1,000 parts per million (ppm) and “large” reductions on seven of the scales at 2,500 ppm.
http://www.alfaintek.com/en/info/co2 “They say carbon dioxide levels greater than 800 ppm indicates poor air quality in a bedroom and has many influences on health. “
tp://sciencenordic.com/new-theory-co2-makes-you-fat
http://news.discovery.com/earth/air-pollution-obesity-120315.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/dbnl-eic101712.php
On nine scales of decision-making performance, test subjects showed significant reductions on six of the scales at CO2 levels of 1,000 parts per million (ppm) and large reductions on seven of the scales at 2,500 ppm. And they did not even reduce o2.
Drops even at 600 ppm. http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/48858.php initiative most of all!
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2012/10/17/elevated-indoor-carbon-dioxide-impairs-decision-making-performance/
http://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/1114862-high-co2-levels-indoors-will-surprise-you performance next day was better for ventilated sleepers. 400 ppm versus 3000.