Flying Binghi - regarding this
I'm a bit bemused by yer thought proccess ther
De_flieger. Why do you think that "with NASA, ExxonMobil and Shell all in agreement" suddenly we got 'enough evidence'..
...ah can see why
Towering Q is -
maybe I didnt explain it as well as I should. When a number of massive global corporations who have significant financial interests in being allowed to emit as much CO2 or other gases as they can, all express very similar views about the benefits of reducing these emissions, and share these views with the CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, Greenpeace and any number of other environmental activist groups, then it tends to suggest that this view is correct. The oil companies and Greenpeace obviously have different views on the action to be taken, but none of them are actually disputing the science behind climate change.
Chevron
Climate Change | Environment | Chevron Australia
BP
Climate change | BP
and BHP Billiton
BHP Billiton - Environment
all have similar views about the role of greenhouse gas and climate change, although with different views on the best method to approach the problem. These arent radical environmentalists, they are the companies that make fortunes selling us our petrol and aviation fuel. If they had legitimate evidence that showed that CO2 emissions werent involved in climate change, or that climate change wasnt occurring, they could present this evidence and not only take a massive swing at Greenpeace and other organisations that have caused them problems in the past, but make billions of dollars in increased profits through not taking the CO2 emission reduction steps they are taking. Thats what I was getting at there. Do I want to use NASA as my only proof? No, absolutely not, but NASA, the CSIRO, NOAA and numerous other scientific organisations all in broad agreement is more convincing than a bunch of bloggers.
Interesting article Sarcs! Particularly the bit about how the impact of the carbon tax would increase the cost of the refrigerants by $75 per kilo, but suppliers have increased the price by $285 per kilo. Someone's definitely making some money there...
Jaba, I'm not sure where you get the idea that the temperature records for Bolivia are measured somewhere else entirely. I couldnt find a reference anywhere for it, but 30 seconds of googling did turn up todays weather forecast for Bolivia with output from 36 separate stations at various locations around the country recording and reporting data. Obviously there's more than one thermometer in Bolivia, and the La Paz station as a quick (2 clicks from google) example lists a station elevation of 4014 metres, so nowhere near sea level. I suspect this may be an urban legend you've been told.
But hang on a minute. Now take a climate "snap shot" which is 30 years
Ok then. Much as I dislike citing Wikipedia, they have a graph which charts satellite temperature anomaly measurements on the same axis as the measured surface temperatures.
and you get a flat line, no climb, no descent...nuthin! From 78 to 2008 a 30 year blink of an eye in climate terms, the satellite data showed no change, it went up a bit down a bit but the reference point was the same.
No, I am afraid you dont. One of the very few places I have heard that claim was in an article by Bob Carter. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature has a similar graph showing the surface temperature measurements and they discuss how short-term fluctuations within a few years can give gross positive or negative trend lines depending on where you start and stop measuring, but the overall trend is still up. Here is their image:
That should cover your 1978-2008 period hopefully!
