Guest essay by Eric Worrall
An ex-employee claims “fear and anxiety” of President Trump is causing a drop in NASA climate posts. But some of the activities which were allegedly cancelled give us a glimpse of just how far off mission NASA drifted under the previous President.
Nasa full of ‘fear and anxiety’ since Trump took office, ex-employee says
Oliver Milman in New York
Wed 30 May 2018 15.00 AEST
Those still at the agency fear climate science funding will be cut since it is now considered a ‘sensitive subject’
Nasa’s output of climate change information aimed at the public has dwindled under the Trump administration, with a former employee claiming “fear and anxiety” within the agency has led to an online retreat from the issue.
Laura Tenenbaum, a former science communicator for Nasa, said she was warned off using the term “global warming” on social media and restricted in speaking to the media due to her focus on climate change.
“Nasa’s talking point is that it’s business as usual, but that’s not true,” said Tenenbaum, who departed Nasa in October after a decade at the space agency.
“They have stopped promoting or emphasizing climate science communication, they have minimized it. People inside the agency are concerned Trump will cut climate science funding. There is a fear and anxiety there and the outcome has been chaos.”
…
Planned blogposts on coal plants being turned into solar plants, “reasons to be positive about Nasa” and an interview with Gavin Schmidt, a senior Nasa climate scientist, were all either halted or scrapped due to interference from career staff nervous about provoking the new administration, according to Tenenbaum.
…
In my opinion the alleged NASA plans to celebrate the demise of coal jobs are evidence of severe mission drift under the previous administration.
Coal provides a livelihood to 10s of thousands of Americans.
There is only one role NASA should have considered playing in the economically vital US coal industry – an Earth Science role, helping miners locate new coal deposits.
I can do that blogpost. /start-blog
You can’t successfully turn a coal plant into a solar plant. Talking about that is basically daydreaming on a technical impossibility. Why is NASA doing that in the first place?
/end-blog
Wood is stored solar energy and the UK have converted a number of their coal fired stations to run on wood pellets, so….
(Doesn’t mean it makes sense of course.)
And they have been destroying southeastern US forests in the process of supplying that wood to the UK. Many claim that the wood burning is worse than coal in regards to pollution.
I really wish that it hadn’t become a “thing” in the UK.
Coal is also stored solar energy
Right on, Hugs, …… they cannot turn coal fired generating plants into solar panel or solar reflector generating plants ………. but they can dismantle and replace coal fired generating plants with solar panel or solar reflector generating plants …… and it would probably only cost a couple TRILLION DOLLARS to complete that project.
“DUH”, the coal fired generating plants would immediately become “toxic waste sites” when their dismantling began.
Bloke down the pub – May 30, 2018 at 11:17 am
So, …. coal is ALSO stored solar energy, ……. but its “dirty coal” verses ”clean wood”.
spot on! the Pt Augusta Sth Aus powerplant they rushed to blow to pieces was a very clean plant..now the exact same warmist gullibles who got it shut down..are yelling blue murder that dust from the site which HAS remediation treeplanting etc underway is making them ill..
it has been pretty dry up that way,waters a premium and the unused near useless billions of wasted dollar desal plant is? waaay down sth in Adelaide.
could’nt make up the degree of stupid if you tried.
Coal is stored solar energy also. SO POOF I have just changed all the coal plants in the world into solar plants.
My work is done for the day, I think I’ll take a nap.
During the original oil boom, crude oil was nicknamed “black gold”.
I propose a new nickname for coal, “black sun”.
(or for the non-anthracite, whatever color your local deposits happen to be)
The progressive minions, once in power, became credibility vampires who attached themselves to the necks of any agency whose word they thought the public would trust. Look what they tried to do to the FBI and DOJ. They did the same to NASA to advance their “climate justice” bs. It warms my soul to see them cry.
https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/664089892599631872
Good, it’s about time they got back to the day job and left climate related stuff to NOAA and energy to DOE.
If they have enough time to do these blogs on Government time, then obviously they are over-staffed. Big cuts to NASA budgets are needed. Get rid of the folks who aren’t working to the original goal of NASA. There are other Government organizations that can address CAGW.
Back to their central mission of promoting Muslim achievements in space? Wait! Did that mission objective go away when I wasn’t looking?
“People inside the agency are concerned Trump will cut climate science funding.”
Good. Hope it happens. About time. This is not NASA’s mission. We’re already spending money on that elsewhere. I’m all for it when my government stops wasting my money that they coerce from me.
The legislated mandate of NASA is:
Everything else is off topic.
Not necessarily…there is the “Other Purposes” umbrella
The first part of the act down to “DEFINITIONS” lays out what NASA should be doing. It’s clear that its purpose is the “problems of flight within and outside the earth’s atmosphere”. Everything else is subservient to that. Climate doesn’t enter into it except as it impacts flight.
I don’t disagree with you Bob but the Other Purposes is vague enough to throw almost anything else under it. It doesn’t state “Other Purposes within the bounds of Space and Atmospheric Flight and excluding all else.”
If they can use the commerce clause to regulate how much corn a farmer can grow to feed his own cows, then nothing is safe from “re-interpretation”.
Bryan A.
If I may play the Devil’s Advocate here . . . .
The included phrase ‘other purposes’ does rather suggest something else in the minds of the legislators of 1958.
Might it be ‘I’ before ‘E’, except after ‘C’?
And exceptions, too, of course.
That degree of freedom invites excursions into the order of writing of the [Christian] Gospels; the relevance of warm-bloodedness [if any] in the lives of the Dinosaurs; and, perhaps, the role of CO2 in global warming [if any].
Mwahhhhh
Auto
Sitting on top of a Saturn 5 Rocket. Or being fully responsible for the lives of those sitting on top of a Saturn 5 Rocket.
That’s the kind of ‘fear and anxiety’ NASA should rediscover.
Charles Nelson – I have suffered ‘fear and anxiety’ standing at the BOTTOM of a Saturn 5 rocket at the Kennedy Space Center – just in case those shiny cones suddenly erupt – you know they won’t, and yet……
Wonder if anyone’s ever asked to be posthumously cremated by rocket engine. Can you say, most awesome funeral service EVER.
Also one of the most expensive.
NASA sadly seems to have lost its way, and may have become far less relevant given the lack of exploration zeal from your previous administrations and the private sector’s intrusion into their field of “expertise” (rockets). I am also mystified by the mission creep that happens at government agencies, especially when they replicate the work of other agencies that actually have the mandate to investigate.
not much of a mystery once you realize it’s all about increasing the power (and the budget) of the agency.
The question with jobs is not that tens of thousands of people are involved in the coal supply and generation business. The question is how many jobs are created by the energy available from such a system, per job created in the supply. Another worthy question is how much energy is needed, from that plant, to keep the system running indefinitely.
The answers for wind and solar installations are not encouraging. Both of them rely on coal, at the moment. Wind is hopeless, solar has promise, even if immature.
Ask the right questions, keep an open mind.
My question is: If wind and solar are such marvelous sources of electric power, why is it necessary to provide tax credits in order to get people to use them? Also: See Tesla cars.
My question is: If wind and solar are such marvelous sources of electric power, why is it necessary to provide tax credits in order to get people to use them? Also: See Tesla cars.
My question is: If wind and solar are such marvelous sources of electric power, why is it necessary to provide tax credits in order to get people to use them? Also: See Tesla cars.
My question is: If wind and solar are such marvelous sources of electric power, why is it necessary to provide tax credits in order to get people to use them? Also: See Tesla cars.
Get the hang of posting yet, Jim?
I would say neither has any hope, but at least wind blows all the time. To make a significant dent in our energy appetite with solar, we would have to carpet so many square miles with the toxic things, it would divert incredible amounts of materials from other more fruitful pursuits, and create a hazardous waste disposal nightmare.
And, given that the panels are specifically engineered to absorb as much sunlight as possible, it would create a UHI on steroids. So, besides destroying all those square miles of habitat, it would likely have dire direct impacts on the weather itself.
This is NOT an environmentally friendly solution. It is the proverbial “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
The above holds for wind power as well. The environmental impacts are devastating. People are so dumb.
One possibility that’s still in the realm of science fiction: orbital solar collectors. Extra large satellites bristling with PV panels, in orbits far enough away to avoid the terrestrial and lunar shadows, rotating to maximize solar exposure, charging an onboard battery/capacitor. Discharging the battery to power a microwave projector, sending a focused microwave pulse back to a receiving station on Earth. Incoming pulse flash vaporizes giant basin of seawater to make super-hot steam to turn turbines. Salts left behind in the basin providing followup heat to make more steam while the collector is charging up for the next pulse.
The concept as I envision it seems sound, and with the exception of a suitable battery/capacitor, we have all the required technologies already. It’s the engineering and logistical hurdles of actually building the things and setting them in orbit that are the rub, along with the perfectly understandable safety concerns about having what would effectively be giant thermal death rays circling the Earth.
I’ve seen that idea proposed, and the one big problem with it is that if you build it, you’ve just built a space-based Death Ray that any Bond Villain would drool over.
Bartemis
I was not limiting solar technologies to what exists now. Long term, multi-layer constructions will be able to trap a broad range of wavelengths. Storage will be built in, using ceramic or glass capacitors.
Whatever you do, it still isn’t going to work when the Sun isn’t shining. And, it’s always going to create waste heat. I’ve been hearing pie-in-the-sky hype all my life. While a game changing breakthrough is possible, I deem it unlikely.
NASA has had the unique ability to resolve the mysteries of how atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is purported to ‘trap’ heat. They have landed several craft on the surface of Mars. How have they measured the ‘Greenhouse Gas’ property of CO2 which makes up 95% of the Mars’ atmosphere? Where are the charts showing how this purported property manifests itself on Mars? Since those charts don’t exist, are we to believe that NASA is incapable of measuring this property? Since NASA hasn’t been measuring this ‘property’, is it because it can’t be measured or because they’ve chosen not to?
If it can’t be measured, does it exist?
“It” exists Thomas…to an extent.
CO2 does not “trap” heat, it actually convects it (hot air rises). CO2 is a radiatively active molecule and is mostly IR (Infrared Radiation) resonant at an amplitude of 15 microns, for which the corresponding temperature is very cold, 5to 6 kilometers above the surface at TOA (Top Of the Atmosphere) where incoming solar IR is balanced with outgoing terrestrial IR. Hence the added man-made CO2 disturbs the equilibrium and delays the radiative cooling process, which means surface temperatures can only increase in order to re-establish equilibrium.
Given the speed of light, to what extent this “delay” disturbs the equilibrium so as to increase surface temperatures in response to the added anthropogenic CO2 and supposedly change the climate is unknown and not in evidence. However, there are estimates ranging from next to zero to the IPCC’s range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. per atmospheric doubling of somewhat dubious ice-core calculated pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 levels. And, as we all know, estimates aren’t measurements.
Furthermore, the 0.5 degree C. attribution of the late 20th century warming to Anthro CO2 is nowhere near affirmed. The academic emphasis on CO2 seems to have removed the importance of the scrutiny required for the dismissal of the other arguments……Cloud cover variance, ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) in combination with the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and the AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation), variances in solar activity and irradiance, libration’s impact on the magnetic fields and Earth’s orbital mechanics including the subtle changes of insolation in response to the Precession nutations….to name a few.
What “evidence” there is amounts to extrapolations of short term trends apparent in the instrumental record, estimates using numerical models, comparing the mush of proxy temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record and treating the taxpayer funded academic “consensus” as truth.
The AGW climate change narrative is nothing more than supposition, a concept without the empirical evidence required to support the investment to fight the imagined catastrophic impacts.
What a waste.
M.W. Plia “[CO2] … delays the radiative cooling process, which means surface temperatures can only increase in order to re-establish equilibrium. … Given the speed of light, to what extent this “delay” disturbs the equilibrium so as to increase surface temperatures in response to the added anthropogenic CO2 and supposedly change the climate is unknown and not in evidence.”
“unknown and not in evidence” – precisely!
Why is it when we describe and discuss Gravity we seldom consider how this force manifests itself on a molecular level? Rather we measure and calculate in a broader sense. Why don’t we consider how Earth dissipates heat in broad waves instead of photons?
Discussions of gravity nearly always ignore that you cannot have mass without inherent charge. As EM force is 10^38 times stronger than gravity, perhaps gravity is a residual interaction from all of that charge acting in a coordinated manner.
In order to believe CO2 has a warming effect, you must totally ignore the fact that water vapor absorption spectra has saturated all of CO2 absorption frequencies. CO2’s warming impact is minimal at best! Planets surface temperature is easy to project just using the Ideal Gas Law!
Indeed. And unlike rent seeking academics, the professionals at the International Commission for Air Navigation (ICAN) who need to have the lapse rates correct for the safety of aviation have calculated the values of the ‘International Standard Atmosphere’ without any reference to carbon dioxide. The ISA and its forecast behavior is what is what is observed by balloon sondes, which do not show a tropospheric hot spot forecast by aforementioned academics.
Bill: PV=nRT?
M W Plia
” Hence the added man-made CO2 disturbs the equilibrium and delays the radiative cooling process, which means surface temperatures can only increase in order to re-establish equilibrium.”
There is a condition inferred in that statement which is holding that “all other things remain the same”. They do not remain the same. If the CO2 concentration rises, the atmosphere loses moisture, which is a radiative warming/cooling gas too. As a result, the actual ‘thickness’ of the atmosphere to IR radiation has remained constant for 61 years and counting.
This is really a straightforward thing to show. NASA has been making measurements for 61 years which show that the optical thickness of the atmosphere has remaining constant. They also now have humidity measurements showing a significant drop in water vapour in the upper atmosphere. The GHG theory as expressed (not as reality shows) says that the water vapour should increase, even though measurements show it decreases on both a short and long term scale.
What should we believe? NASA’s measurements of water vapour and optical thickness, or climate models that have programmed into them a non-physical effect? An incompletely and conceptually deficient expression of the behaviour of the atmosphere in the presence of an increase in CO2 has been adopted by some who consider that it captures the essence of GHG effects. It doesn’t.
Measurements and calculations show that this enhanced feedback model is not skilled, because it does not match reality. If the optical thickness of the atmosphere increased with an increase in CO2, then the temperature would closely follow the CO2 concentration. It doesn’t, and it doesn’t for a well-established reason: water vapour concentration drops when CO2 increases, settling the optical thickness at a value that has each photon, on average, passing through the atmosphere 1.87 times between the surface and empty (outer) space. Even though CO2 has risen 30% during NASA’s measurement period, the value 1.87 has not increased as predicted by simple GHG theory.
Recent experience does not mean “forever under all circumstances” but it now well established from measurements that adding CO2, even a lot of it, does not produce the effect claimed in the AGW hypothesis. If the CO2 continues to rise and the temperature either remains the same, or drops as it did in 2006-2008 when it dropped a full degree C, this is further evidence that the self-balancing of the CO2+water vapour mechanism, however it works, is real, and powerful.
“If the CO2 concentration rises, the atmosphere loses moisture”
Do you have an explanation for this?
“Hence the added man-made CO2 disturbs the equilibrium and delays the radiative cooling process, which means surface temperatures can only increase in order to re-establish equilibrium.”
To some extent. The gap in the CO2 band in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) establishes a strong likelihood that it warms the Earth.
However, the broad tendency does not establish the sensitivity. Sensitivity is a local measure of the additional impact on temperature from an incremental change in concentration. While the broad functional dependence may be positive, it is undoubtedly nonlinear, and therefore the sensitivity in any given state is not necessarily positive.
The entire concept of a greenhouse gas fails when atmospheric convection is acknowledged. Even on Mars there is convection, in the absence of water vapor. Here and there, the major heat transfer is by convection which is almost six time better at cooling the surface than simple IR radiation from the surface.
As all climate models have daylight 24/7, it is worth mentioning night-time, during which CO2 and water vapor act as their true form, “radiative gases,” and convert, unopposed, heat in the air to IR which is lost to space. If anything, more CO2 cools the planet.
However, it appears that, as CO2 rises, absolute water vapor content decreases, thus replacing the stronger water vapor radiative as with a weaker one. Few realize that the vast majority of IR wavelengths are NOT absorbed by CO2, being totally transparent. I beggars the imagination to think that a trace gas with truly limited absorption ability would be driving Earth’s climate. How stupid do they think we are?
Yes, convection carries heat to an altitude where it can thermalize IR active molecules, and that heat can then radiate beyond the atmospheric filter. I.e., there is an altitude beyond which the CO2 blanket acts in reverse, inhibiting radiated energy from returning to the surface.
Thus, there is both a heating and a cooling tendency from increasing concentration, dependent upon convective activity. Depending on how they balance out, the sensitivity of surface temperatures to increasing concentration can be positive, negative, or null. I suspect, in the present state of the system, that it is more-or-less null, as the start of the long term warming trend predates significant increase in CO2 concentration.
The entire concept of a greenhouse gas fails when atmospheric convection is acknowledged. Even on Mars there is convection, in the absence of water vapor. Here and there, the major heat transfer is by convection which is almost six time better at cooling the surface than simple IR radiation from the surface.
As all climate models have daylight 24/7, it is worth mentioning night-time, during which CO2 and water vapor act as their true form, “radiative gases,” and convert, unopposed, heat in the air to IR which is lost to space. If anything, more CO2 cools the planet.
However, it appears that, as CO2 rises, absolute water vapor content decreases, thus replacing the stronger water vapor radiative as with a weaker one. Few realize that the vast majority of IR wavelengths are NOT absorbed by CO2, being totally transparent. I beggars the imagination to think that a trace gas with truly limited absorption ability would be driving Earth’s climate. How stupid do they think we are?
But remember the atmosphere on Mars is only 1% of that on Earth.
So? If CO2 “traps heat” as the Eco-Fascists would have you believe, then Mars should already be experiencing a “runaway greenhouse effect” with an atmosphere of 95%+ CO2. Yet it isn’t, because the very notion of such a thing is BS.
I heard on Fox news that laws pertaining to ability to fire government employees have been changed. This might add greatly to NASA employees “fear and anxiety “.
The Guardian article is poor, lacking in real evidence for the problems quoted. The article above is worse:
“the alleged NASA plans to celebrate the demise of coal jobs …”.
Alleged by whom? The writer of the article? Is there a weblink? I could find no reference to any such allegations via Google.
“are evidence of severe mission drift under the previous administration”. Since when are “allegations” to be seen as evidence? Particularly if there’s no link to them?
It’s just Eric’s opinion. Doesn’t have to reflect reality. Coal jobs have been disappearing for decades due to fracking, lower exports, automation and the switch to mountaintop mining. It’s true that renewable energy has had a effect, but it has also provided new jobs,
Kind of ironic, though. A similar story saying that people were scared to blog about objections to solar power would be seen as the brutal use of power to silence the minority.
Kristi: What gave it away for you? When he began with “In my opinion….”? It was too subtle for Mr. Turner as well. Bob, when it starts, “In my opinion….”, then it is “alleged” by that person. Anyone following NASA during the last administration saw evidence of “mission drift” and doesn’t need a link to “muslim outreach” as just one example. Kristi, who’s using “brutal power”? According to the article, there’s no “power” in play, only administrators at NASA reading tea leaves. Classic projection at work here, Kristi knows how well progressives can use power to silence opponents, best thing to do is accuse the other side of doing precisely what progressives are doing. At least you kept it short.
I wrote a bit about sentence structure and antecedents, then deleted it, clearly too subtle.
I wrote a bit about Eric’s allegation, then deleted it too, clearly a waste of time.
I’ll just reiterate for Paul, and maybe a little bit for Kristi too, the old saying: “I know my opinions, don’t confuse me with facts”.
Renewable energy supplies nothing in the way of “jobs,” not in the real sense. “Renewable energy jobs “ are nothing more than “mandate and subsidy farming” and actually destroy REAL “jobs” someone is actually willing to pay someone to do (by unnecessarily making energy more expensive).
By your logic, we would “create jobs” by retiring bulldozers, loaders, graders, and backhoes and replacing them with lots of men with shovels, higher costs, lower productivity, and longer construction periods be damned.
The evidence of “Mission Drift” resides in the fact that NASA has not launched an American into space since 2011 and has no prospect of doing so on a NASA launch vehicle before the end of this decade.
But the outreach was successful.
define successful
If planned blog posts on “reasons to be positive about NASA” were to focus on the NASA’s role in Climate Change “science” instead of the excellent work they do to advance their actual mission of space exploration and aeronautical research, it’s a good thing they have been halted.
“Laura Tenenbaum .. was warned off using the term “global warming” on social media and restricted in speaking to the media due to her focus on climate change.” Didn’t alarmist s switch to “climate change” after a couple of record cold winters?
“They have stopped promoting or emphasizing climate science communication, they have minimized it. People inside the agency are concerned Trump will cut climate science funding. There is a fear and anxiety there and the outcome has been chaos.”
First, climate science communication is not the job of NASA, GISS should do something else in line with NASA’s mandate. Leave climate science to other agencies like NOAA.
Second, Pres. Trump should cut climate science funding of NASA to zero. Put funding to space exploration.
Third, those with fear and anxiety should not be there in the first place. Resign from NASA and see a psychiatrist for mental heath treatment.
I’ll start paying attention to the angst and trembling at NASA when their spokeshominid learns how to type NASA correctly.
Thank you.
The artificial green blight is not a viable general replacement for the organic black blob in its many forms and applications.
ex-employee claims “fear and anxiety” of President Trump is causing a drop in NASA climate posts.
Not surprising — snowflakes are employed in NASA now.
Planned blogposts on coal plants being turned into solar plants
There’s an actual 97% incident — a site were a coal plant was replaced by solar panels would be a 97% output reduction. During a sunny day of course — 100% reduction at night or heavy clouds.
Love it!!
Gums sends…
People seem to forget that inside the atmosphere energy can be transmitted by any mechanism, but the only way energy ever has been or ever will be transmitted across the atmosphere/outer-space boundary is by radiation.h
But, the amount of radiation that exits that boundary does depend upon the heat transport mechanisms that channel heat to radiating elements. Heat carried to high altitude can thermalize radiating elements there, and that radiation is actually inhibited from coming back down. It is a complex radiative-convective balance that determines surface temperatures. The cartoon physics based upon radiation exchanges alone is not rigorous.
“and that radiation is actually inhibited from coming back down”
…
That is not true. A radiating molecule does not “know” which way is up, or which way is down. (or which way is sideways)
No, but the path of least resistance is up, which is a first-order factor that directs natural phenomenon.
Exactly. The same filtering process which inhibits surface radiation going up inhibits radiation at altitude coming down.
A photon from aradiating molecule does not “know” which way is the path of least resistance. The direction it goes in is absolutely random.
Remy, are you playing dumb here or are you really this stupid.
Obviously a photon doesn’t know if it is going up or down, however at high altitudes photons going up have a much greater chance of not being reabsorbed due to the difference in CO2 (and other GHGs) compared to photons going down.
5 minutes to edit a post. Cool.
Natural gas from fracking wells is likely only a short-term resource which means Coal and nuclear will be back in vogue in about a decade.
The fracking industry is one big Ponzi scheme that actually loses money.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-22/shale-oil-ponzi-scheme-explained
The wells themselves are rapidly depleting … this is not a long-term resource .. reserves may have been exaggerated and in many cases, can’t be extracted at an economic price.
https://www.nature.com/news/natural-gas-the-fracking-fallacy-1.16430
What is this “fracking industry” that frightens your dreams?
Are you saying that the drilling industry is deliberately going out of their way to waste their own money?
If so you should buy a couple of drilling companies and instruct your employees to stop fracking. You’ll take over the whole industry in a matter of months with your ability to spot trends that nobody else can see.
Where are Gavin’s fears and anxieties when it comes to blogging?
In the spring of 2009, Dr. Alan Carlin, a former Sierra Club activist was given a gag order by his employer, the Obama EPA when he concluded that climate change was a fabrication and deception and thus wrote and spoke out about it. This order came as a result of challenging the “policy case” – aka the political position of that administration. I doubt the Guardian had room in their paper for Dr. Carlin’s story. He has a link on this site.
Let’s be specific, it is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. The weather changes within a window of 20 to 40 degrees overnight, within hours, and the climate varies within a 10 to 20 degree window over years and decades. The hypothesis is that an anthropogenic forcing will induce a 1 to 2 degrees perturbation in the natural system.
Consider the history of primate evolution in the Cenozoic Era.
During the PETM, ~55.5 Ma, it was around 15 degrees C hotter than the 1961-90 baseline. Some say “only” eight degrees C higher, but in any case, the spike up from the Paleocene Epoch was bigger than anything liable to happen in this century.
Then from about 14 degrees C in the Early Eocene Epoch Optimum, Earth cooled, sinking to about three degrees C warmer than 1961-1990 around the Eocene-Oligocene boundary. In the mid-Miocene, temperature bounced back up to ~7 degrees C above the baseline.
It fluctuated from about -1 to +5 degrees C during the Pliocene, then plummeted in the Pleistocene to -6 to +3.
During all these tens of millions of years of warming, followed a general long-term cooling trend, our primate ancestors adapted and evolved, although for most of that time, Earth was much warmer than now.
As an interglacial, the Holocene has been fairly stable and balmy, from almost -2 to nearly +2 degrees C off the baseline. Another degree warmer than now would be a good thing, to go with the benefit of more plant food in the air.
Also a link here: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/science/earth/25epa.html
Extract:
“But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin’s highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview”.
My comment was for comparative purposes. While Dr. Carlin is an economist, not a scientist, the subject of this story is essentially about a science communicator and not a scientist either.
Nobody in the so called climate community has a degree in climatology. Precious few of them have anything related to a hard science of any kind.
No one believes the CO2 climate disaster hoax, or this would be empty.
https://www.flightradar24.com
Classic shell game swindle as a logical fallacy strawman.
“climate science funding will be cut” is the introductory subject.,intended to stir up emotions.
“Nasa’s output of climate change information” is the actual subject causing worry.
Climate science is not in danger, climate propaganda is getting reduced.
Those employees whose skills are solely propagandizing or advocacy, should be worrying!
Government should never be in a propaganda business, and any government official using government funds for pushing advocacy should be charged with wasting funds and employees.
Pure drama queening!
Pushing one sided advocacy is illegitimate, as Ms. Tenenbaum’s claim proves; “she was warned off using the term “global warming” on social media and restricted in speaking to the media due to her focus on climate change.”
Ms. Tenebaum apparently believes her advocacy should be supported by government. It isn’t hard to guess which NASA officials may have hired activists.
There is that conflation again, where climate science is actually climate science opinion communications.
Proving, that there is substantial waste with in NASA while explaining why NASA science capabilities have been plummeting.
“Planned blogposts on coal plants being turned into solar plants”; another quote that proves NASA is wasting funds and supporting anti-fossil fuel advocacy!
“an interview with Gavin Schmidt, a senior Nasa climate scientist, were all either halted or scrapped”
Well, there’s a surprise! Not!
I can visualize the interview prep :
Gavinator; “What do you mean they get to ask questions!?”
Gavinator; “Can we fake the questioners and questions?”
“Career Staff”; Absolutely not! That HRC fakery will get us audited for sure!
Gavinator; “Nothing doing! I told you before; no debates with contrary scientists and no open questions from the audience!”
Gavinator; “This interview is off!”
Talking of wind – this is close to where I used to live:
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-44304296/doddington-wind-turbine-catches-fire-after-storms
NASA involved with global warming? I thought they were given funds to send rockets up into space. Who said that the shoemaker should stick to his last?
I wonder, has NASA ever put a project into space with zero fossil fuels content?
So what these nervous career staff are saying is that they lack courage to go with their convictions? Is that because they had little but political support to back them up and now that’s gone?
“Laura Tenenbaum, a former science communicator for Nasa, said she was warned off using the term “global warming” on social media and restricted in speaking to the media due to her focus on climate change.”
white supremacist busybody.