@_PrinceOfMilk @JoeTegerdine @NASAClimate 4/7. My point was that Slangen should have included a graph like that, which shows what her conclusion implies about the causes of measured sea-level trends. She didn't, of course, presumably because that would've made it too obvious how absurd her conclusion was.
7/7. To understand a contentious & politicized topic like climate change, you need balanced information. To that end, I've compiled a little list of high quality resources, here:
It has:
● accurate introductory climatology information
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● accurate information about impacts of CO2 & climate change, such as the effects on crop yields
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides of the climate debatesealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@NASAClimate 1/11. When someone talks about a sea-level measurement record starting in 1993 it means they're using low quality satellite altimetry data, and they're ignoring the much higher quality coastal measurements. It's political propaganda, not unbiased science. sealevel.info/satellite_alti…
2/11. If you use the (much higher quality) coastal measurement data, it becomes clear that there's nothing to worry about.
That's Honolulu, which has the best quality, well-sited, sea-level measurement record in the world. The "straightness" of the blue sea-level trend means that rising CO2 levels haven't had much effect on sea-level.sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@NASAClimate 3/11. The "straightness" is called "linearity," and it's opposite is called "acceleration." If you don't know how to recognize "acceleration," "deceleration," or "linearity" in a graph, here's a little primer which should help: sealevel.info/acceleration_p…
1/9. @NASAClimate is not one of the divisions & departments of NASA that do science. It's the "JPL Earth Science Communications Team" in Pasadena, which is comprised of "communicators," not scientists.
NASAClimate is a frequent source of misinformation and outright political propaganda.sealevel.info/learnmore.html
@NASAClimate 2/9. Many other parts of NASA still employ real scientists, who do excellent work.
Here's a NASA video about some of that work.
CO2 emissions are very beneficial for natural ecosystems, and NASA satellites measure the resulting "greening" of the Earth.
@NASAClimate 3/9. Do you worry about the Antarctic Ice Sheet melting? This excellent NASA study should put your fears to rest.
Note: Antarctic temperatures average below −40°, so a few degrees of warming obviously cannot melt it. cambridge.org/core/journals/…
You seem to have confused the source of the graphs with a paper that cited them. I don't know how you did that, since the source is shown right on each of the graphs.
1/10. Mouse wrote, "Increased CO2 does not increase the yield of maize or corn."
Wrong:
Even though I've seen it over and over, it still seems strange to me that climate activists just make things up like that. Surely you must realize that the benefits of elevated CO2 for corn/maize have been measured, right? So why do you do that??
3/10. Although C4 plants are better at scavenging CO2 from the air at low levels than are C3 plants, the most important C4 crops, corn & sugarcane, have been found to benefit dramatically from higher CO2 levels.
(That's probably because they grow so fast. On a still, sunny day, a healthy corn field can deplete the CO2 in the air by noon, at which point it stops growing. With a higher starting level, it can grow longer before running out of CO2.)