I haven't been able to find their height, but from the curvature of the moon's horizon (it's radius is 252 km), I'd guess a couple of tens of kilometers, at least.
Here's a surface map of them, if you're planning on landing there anytime soon:
NOAA and NASA (which uses data gathered by NOAA climate center in Asheville) has been commissioned to participate in special climate assessments to support the idealogical and political agenda of the government....Yet just a few weeks ago these data were good enough for D'Aleo to conclude:
The National Climate Data Center and NASA climate group also control the data that is used to verify these models which is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. At the very least, their decisions and adjustments may be because they really believe in their models and work to find the warming they show – a form of confirmation bias.
Global warming has ceased for 12 to 20 years (depending on the data and region). As the Atlantic cools and all these three factors synchronize, look for temperatures to accelerate down.That's a clear rule violation. So was this from February, where he used the USA48 data to write, "For 19 going on 20 years, global warming has stopped." So was this: "For example, global temperatures stopped warming close to 17 years ago and have cooled since 2002." Or this: "Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used."
The satellite data from RSS and UAH only available since 1979 also shows no warming for over a decade (two in the RSS data)which is a clear violation of Rule #2: If you're going to cherry pick your data set (RSS), and your starting year, to show a "pause," you have to acknowledge the "anti-pause" that happened from 1998 to 2008, where the "18-year" trend was greater than the canonical 0.2 C/decade.
The Secretary-General has asked world leaders to come to the Summit to announce bold actions that they will be taking in their countries, especially in several high-impact areas, such as climate finance; energy efficiency; renewable energy; adaptation; disaster risk reduction and resilience; forests; agriculture; transportation; short-lived climate pollutants; and cities. There will also be announcements from a number of multi-stakeholder initiatives—initiatives that engage coalitions of governments, businesses and civil society organizations–that have high potential to catalyze ambitious action in these same areas.and also because it might pressure other world leaders to attend and make announcements of mitigation strategies and projects, as Andrew Freedman writes at Mashable:
Obama's announcement may put pressure on other world leaders to participate, especially Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose country is the top greenhouse gas emitter in the world, as well as the leaders of India and Brazil, two other key developing nations whose emissions are increasing.It's kind of a shame that I feel surprised (and, not least, a bit proud) that the President of the United States finally takes the climate issue seriously enough to participate in a global meeting.
He [Mass] invited some of the 12 skeptics who recently wrote an anti-global-warming brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, and suggested they hash it out with some experts at the UW’s atmospheric sciences department.Fulks utilizes the full plate of denier tactics, such as the old truncating-the-data-before-they-reveal-him-wrong trick, and writing inane op-eds in the Oregonian that get him clubbed over the head by real climate scientists and corrected by yours truly.
That’s when the name-calling started.
“It all went to hell,” Mass said.
Some scientists are wary of these debates because they say they foster a false perception that there is a real “pro or con” debate. But their reluctance prompted one skeptic, in caustic emails, to brand all the University of Washington scientists as “dishonest” or “blind fanatics” who are peddling “political nonsense” in the guise of science.
“Are there any true intellectuals left at UW?” taunted retired astrophysicist Gordon Fulks, in an email to much of the atmospheric sciences faculty. “Or have you ALL morphed into climate automatons?”
There was so much smack-talk, most of it from Fulks, that Mass canceled the seminar.
“It was inimical to everything a scientific discussion is supposed to be about,” Mass said, “and the scientific discussion hadn’t even started yet.”
So a meeting to clear the air of tribal antagonism was called off due to tribal antagonism.
If we were to burn all the fossil fuel available to us, we might be able to double the concentration in the atmosphere. A doubling of CO2 will increase the global temperature by one degree centigrade in the absence of feedbacks. All indications point to negative feedbacks that decrease this warming below one degree centigrade. Hence the net result is so minor as to be of no real concern.Chuck F. Wiese is a former TV weatherman, with just a B.A. in meteorology. Because he can't argue the science, his tactic is straight out of the denier handbook -- personal attacks. He goes around questioning my PhD, saying that I "claim" to have one, trying to suggest that I don't. What a snake.
"A bunch of convoluted hooey! As if the terms "predict" or "project" have any distinguishable difference in this context. Ensembles are tweaked by changing any number of input parameters to test the soundness of the central output. The more of them that diverge away from the full solution, the less reliable the model output. To draw significance to a few of them that happen to predict a flat temperature trend proves nothing, especially when you don't even identify which parameter was changed and to what degree. These few model ensembles would indicate it is reasonable to trust the main output as programmed, not a few outliers. That is how it is done in weather prediction, Appell, not the other way around. And anyone who is foolish enough to believe the models can accurately describe the behavior of the climate system when so many other factors have not even been scripted is sheer idiocy. Not to mention the mathematical constraints which nobody in atmospheric science has been able to get around."Or this, from GF in April:
Science is not a game of 'Gotcha!' It is an attempt to extract real meaning from often confusing and contradictory data. You should understand this, even as a journalist. Of course, you have given up both journalism and science in pursuit of politics, where you think that the idea is to obscure all meaning, especially where the real meaning does not support your cause.It has gotten so bad I sent a "cease and desist all contact" request to both of them, which they have ignored, because, they say, I've been mean to them, and that if I don't want their invective I shouldn't respond to their unsolicited emails. (I'm evaluating my options, have already contacted their Internet providers.)
Are you still unable to come to grips with the dramatic flattening of the GTA since 1998? Most on your side acknowledge it, especially if they have any scientific training.
On Friday, Crist reportedly attended a 25-minute presentation by Jeff Chanton, a professor at Florida State University who specializes in chemical oceanography and has offered to meet with Scott. Chanton discussed rising sea levels as a consequence of climate change, which scientists say threatens Florida's infrastructure and real estate near the coastline.
Scott's campaign dismissed the move as a publicity stunt, per SaintPetersBlog.
Miami Beach is proposing an 84 percent increase in storm water fees — the cost of keeping rising seas at bay — with more rises in the future.(source: Miami Herald). Total expected cost: $300 million.
The city hopes to pay for infrastructure projects, which include pumps to suck water out of soggy streets. About $30 million in storm water improvements are already approved. Plans call for 65 new pump stations and improvements to 21 existing wells.
“It’s just essential,” Commissioner Joy Malakoff said at a committee meeting.
"Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase," James S. Risbey, Stephan Lewandowsky, Clothilde Langlais, Didier P. Monselesan, Terence J. O’Kane & Naomi Oreskes, Nature Climate Change (2014).What they found is that those climate models that, by chance, reproduce ENSOs since 1950, do show a slowdown in surface warming for the 1998-2012 period.
This method of phase aligning to select appropriate model trend estimates will not be perfect as the models contain errors in the forcing histories27 and errors in the simulation of ENSO (refs 25,28) and other processes. Further, ENSO is not the only process generating natural variability on these timescales and so the method used here can be only approximate. Nonetheless, the phaseselection method provides a fairer and more appropriate basis to compare model projection trends over decadal-scale periods than use of the entire multi-model envelope. When the phase of naturalvariability is taken into account, the model 15-year warming trends in CMIP5 projections well estimate the observed trends for all 15-year periods over the past half-century.