New excuse... from the wack world of agw scientism... What about the idea that the simplest explanation is likely... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08...d-sea-level-acceleration-in-satellite-record/ BOULDER, Colo. — Greenhouse gases are already having an accelerating effect on sea level rise, but the impact has so far been masked by the cataclysmic 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Satellite observations, which began in 1993, indicate that the rate of sea level rise has held fairly steady at about 3 millimeters per year. But the expected acceleration due to climate change is likely hidden in the satellite record because of a happenstance of timing: The record began soon after the Pinatubo eruption, which temporarily cooled the planet, causing sea levels to drop. The new study finds that the lower starting point effectively distorts the calculation of sea level rise acceleration for the last couple of decades. The study lends support to climate model projections, which show the rate of sea level rise escalating over time as the climate warms. The findings were published today in the open-access Nature journal Scientific Reports. “When we used climate model runs designed to remove the effect of the Pinatubo eruption, we saw the rate of sea level rise accelerating in our simulations,” said NCAR scientist John Fasullo, who led the study. “Now that the impacts of Pinatubo have faded, this acceleration should become evident in the satellite measurements in the coming decade, barring another major volcanic eruption.” Study co-author Steve Nerem, from the University of Colorado Boulder, added: “This study shows that large volcanic eruptions can significantly impact the satellite record of global average sea level change. So we must be careful to consider these effects when we look for the effects of climate change in the satellite-based sea level record.” The findings have implications for the extent of sea level rise this century and may be useful to coastal communities planning for the future. In recent years, decision makers have debated whether these communities should make plans based on the steady rate of sea level rise measured in recent decades or based on the accelerated rate expected in the future by climate scientists. The study was funded by NASA, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR’s sponsor.
Futurecurrents just keeps winning: Climate Change May Be Doubted by Some, But Now It’s the Law A federal court allows the Obama administration to incorporate the price of global destruction. A federal appeals court in Chicago gave a thumbs-up this week to an obscure regulatory practice that helps the U.S. government account for projected costs of climate change. The decision comes less than a week after the White House issued guidance to all federal agencies about how they can build carbon accounting into their decision-making. Although not as splashy as the economywide “cap” on climate pollution President Obama proposed in his first term, the intensely wonky “social cost of carbon” is gradually making its mark. The seismic effect of bureaucrats at every level of government adding a new line to their balance sheets cannot be overstated. The three-judge panel held that the U.S. Department of Energy acted in a reasonable and fair manner when, in 2014, it issued two rules promoting energy efficiency in commercial refrigerators. Multiple lawsuits against the agency were consolidated into one case, which eventually landed in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago. QUICKTAKE Climate Change Unsurprisingly, the decision doesn’t read like a potboiler. U.S. Senior Circuit Judge Kenneth Ripple, a Ronald Reagan appointee, methodically addressed the plaintiffs’ arguments, moving from questions about the public availability of an engineering spreadsheet, to the thickness of insulation foam, to the industry trend toward high-efficiency compressors. But beyond the facts of the case, the decision’s broader impact on U.S. climate change policy is that it allows the government to incorporate the social cost of carbon. To understand what it does, let’s step into the shoes of a resource economist. From this vantage point, the climate problem isn’t all that complicated to describe: Scientists know that greenhouse gas pollution is disrupting the planet’s climate and causing economic damage—and that the worst of both is yet to come. The costs of these projected damages to society are not reflected in today’s fossil fuel prices. Using the social cost of carbon—or estimates of those future damages in today’s dollars—policymakers can design a fix that builds in the empirical cost of climate change over time. Agencies like the Department of Energy use it in cost-benefit analyses of regulation. The social cost of carbon isn’t a particularly sonorous moniker. One way to think of it would be as a kind of bridge to the future and back. It’s a way to express the net-present value of climate chaos, for every additional metric-ton emission of carbon dioxide. TheObama administration’s estimate—about $36 a ton in 2015 (PDF)—was developed by an interagency group in 2010 and revisited last year. The estimates are based on physical science and projections of energy use, population, and economic growth. It’s complicated, rigorous, and imperfect... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-may-be-doubted-by-some-but-now-it-s-the-law
the gas that he sells with his air conditioning equipment. I have no idea if it lags... maybe you could link us to some peer reviewed science.
how many times and ways do I have to show you the same thing. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/w...-forces-tough-environmental-choices.html?_r=0 But these gases have an impact the ozone treaty largely ignores. Pound for pound, they contribute to global warming thousands of times more than does carbon dioxide, the standard greenhouse gas. The leading scientists in the field have just calculated that if all the equipment entering the world market uses the newest gases currently employed in air-conditioners, up to 27 percent of all global warming will be attributable to those gases by 2050.
143 scientist so far. http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=289&Itemid=2 The Climate Scientists' Register “We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Old article but a good one. Some excerpts below. 49 former NASA scientists go ballistic over agency’s bias over climate change http://business.financialpost.com/b...llistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change "HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012. 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance." Below is the letter: March 28, 2012 The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20546-0001 Dear Charlie, We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, 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. 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 unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself. For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, (Attached signatures) CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years /s/ Anita Gale /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years /s/ Thomas J. Harmon /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years /s/ Tom Ohesorge /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
But you don't believe global warming is happening, so why do you continually bring these other gases up?