Dear NASA, do scientists agree on climate change?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world). The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that reject the consensus on human-caused global warming is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. The small amount of dissent tends to come from a few vocal scientists who are not experts in the climate field or do not understand the scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

News | January 16, 2015

2014 warmest year in modern record
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet 2014 warmest year in modern record

By Steve Cole, NASA Headquarters,
and Leslie McCarthy, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies

In an independent analysis of the raw data, also released Friday, NOAA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.
​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dear NASA, what’s the difference between climate change and global warming?

Global temperature rise from 1880 to 2013. Higher-than-normal temperatures are shown in red and lower-than-normal temperatures are shown in blue. Each frame represents global temperature anomalies (changes) averaged over the five years previous to that particular year, so for example the final frame represents global temperature anomalies averaged from 2009 to 2013. Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/NASA Scientific Visualization Studio/NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.


“Global warming” refers to the long-term warming of the planet. Global temperature shows a well-documented rise since the early 20th century and most notably since the late 1970s. Worldwide, since 1880 the average surface temperature has gone up by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), relative to the mid-20th-century baseline (of 1951-1980).


“Climate change” encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These include rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic, and shifts in flower/plant blooming times. These are all consequences of the warming, which is caused mainly by people burning fossil fuels and putting out heat-trapping gases into the air. The terms “global warming” and “climate change” are sometimes used interchangeably, but strictly they refer to slightly different things.

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ ​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet they are only 38 percent sure it was the warmest. Go figure.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And yet they are only 38 percent sure it was the warmest. Go figure.

and?

bet on teh fastest horse manifold ???

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And yet they are only 38 percent sure it was the warmest. Go figure.

So you think all the science NASA puts out about climate change and global warming is bunk? Is that your position?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Energy 1/18/2015 @ 11:29AM 15,882 views

The End of the Partisan Divide Over Climate Change

as the adage goes, the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one.

That’s precisely what the American Petroleum Institute did when it released its annual State of American Energy Report two weeks ago. Amid its bullish assessment of the nation’s ongoing boom in shale oil and gas, the leading fossil fuel trade group clearly and unequivocally acknowledged the threat of global warming, and highlighted — at some length — the steady rise of solar power as an encouraging sign.


The revelation late last week that global average temperatures set a new record in 2014 seemed to underscore a political and cultural shift on climate change that, by many accounts, was already well underway. From the stock markets and Wall Street to the boardrooms of Big Oil — and even the living rooms of Republican voters — the era of reflexive skepticism and denial of basic climate science appears to be coming to a close.

...

...Such trends would not be surprising to the many Republican voters who participated in a recent poll conducted by Yale University’s Project on Climate Change Communication. Despite promises by a Republican-controlled Congress to aggressively fight and roll-back a whole host of environmental protections, including curbs on carbon dioxide emissions, more than half of GOP poll participants said they supported regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. This was true even among those who identified themselves as part of the party’s conservative wing:

The End of the Partisan Divide Over Climate Change - Forbes​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.

academics?

We're talking about NASA. Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Come on wingnuts! step right up and declare all of NASA's climate change and global warming science to be bunk.

come on, it's pretty simple. step right up...

 

[Porker]

And yet they are only 38 percent sure it was the warmest. Go figure.

So you think all the science NASA puts out about climate change and global warming is bunk? Is that your position?

Are they a governmental agency? National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Yes they put out a bunch of goddamn bunk.

NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency

Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency
The Huffington Post | By David Freeman
Posted: 04/11/2012 1:07 pm EDT Updated: 04/12/2012 12:04 pm EDT

Is NASA playing fast and loose with climate change science? That's the contention of a group of 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.

On March 28 the group sent a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., blasting the agency for making unwarranted claims about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, Business Insider reported.

"We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data," the group wrote. "With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."


The group features some marquee names, including Michael F. Collins, Walter Cunningham and five other Apollo astronauts, as well as two former directors of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston.

The letter included a request for NASA to refrain from mentioning CO2 as a cause of global warming in future press releases and websites. The agency's "Global Climate Change" webpage says that "Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change."

GRAPHIC FROM NASA WEBSITE

Of course, NASA isn't the only government agency to finger carbon dioxide as a key culprit in global warming.

The EPA website says that "Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxidein the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood." It goes on to say that "The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."

What does NASA say?

“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate," the agency's chief scientist, Dr. Waleed Abdalati, told The Huffington Post in an email. "As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse.”

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Are they a governmental agency? National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Yes they put out a bunch of goddamn bunk.

an honest fool

 

[cnm]

38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.

Yet the overwhelming majority of scientific papers that took a position at that time predicted warming rather than cooling. That you may have swallowed a media beatup of a few scientists' positions is neither here nor there.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.

Yet the overwhelming majority of scientific papers that took a position at that time predicted warming rather than cooling. That you may have swallowed a media beatup of a few scientists' positions is neither here nor there.

RetiredGySgt Porker
Tom Sweetnam

hello? and do the other two of you (Porker already took the dive), take the position that NASA's climate science and global warming science is all bunk?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.

academics?

We're talking about NASA. Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?

Of course it's bullshit. I remember Bammy's first year in office when his major goal for NASA was to Islamisize it. Yes, that's what the world's top space agency needs to be doing, concentrating on social engineering instead of rocket engineering. And what the fuck was Obama talking about anyway? Does he even know himself? I don't have time tonight, but I'll dig up the open letter that 13 of NASA's senior scientists (all retired...so the government couldn't fire them or launch vendetta's against them) sent to that 86 IQ teleprompter moron in the White House. It's an indictment of what ignorance does to empiricism...to truth. It's not about climate. "Global warming" has never been about the planet's climate. It's about oil. Period.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course it's bullshit. I remember Bammy's first year in office...

We're talking about NASA. Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?

 

[Agit8r]

It is remarkable that so many scientists stick to their ethics, even with the nearly limitless riches available for the petroleum industry stooges.

 

[cnm]

"Global warming" has never been about the planet's climate. It's about oil. Period.

You gonna show us links to 'academics', which I assume means all academics, 100% certain about global cooling? Or are you going to pretend you never said it?

 

[BULLDOG]

38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.

I don't think there was ever a survey taken on that because that was before the right wing decided that science was evil. However, There is no reason to believe there ever has been 100% agreement on anything.

 

[cnm]

I don't have time tonight, but I'll dig up the open letter that 13 of NASA's senior scientists

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

The project seems to be headed by H. Leighton Steward, a 77-year-old former oil and gas executive. The press release also links the NASA group to his website, "co2isgreen", which also has an extensive history of receiving fossil fuel industry funding.

This story can be summed up very simply: a group of retired NASA scientists with no climate science research experience listened to a few climate scientists and a few fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists, read a few climate blogs, asked a few relatively simple questions, decided that those questions cannot be answered (though we will answer them in this post), put together a very rudimentary report, and now expect people to listen to them because they used to work at NASA. It's purely an appeal to authority, except that the participants have no authority or expertise in climate science.​

 

[cnm]

I don't think there was ever a survey taken on that because that was before the right wing decided that science was evil. However, There is no reason to believe there ever has been 100% agreement on anything.

Well this one doesn't go into the '80s, but 42 out of 49 papers predicting global warming rather than cooling seems to indicate that someone has done a lot of swallowing to come to the opposite conclusion...

Mainstream Media

http://www.skepticalscience.com

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Peer-Reviewed Literature

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).
​