Jump to content
Ed Cesnalis

Has NASA lost its way?

Recommended Posts

 I 'believe' nothing not based on facts. 

 

So the short answer is, no I cannot be convinced by arm-waving, ankle-biting, herd-mentality snake oil peddlers.

 

 Seems to me you frequently make posts here based upon your own personal opinions and bias rather than actual 'facts'. You often proffer 'experience' and 'knowledge' about flying and different models of airplanes when in fact your experience is rather limited and sparse.

 

Isn't that the same kind of 'snake-oil peddler' you eschew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of coral atolls and sea level rise I have been skeptical simply because of the rate of rise being so low its hard for me to see how the sea being maybe 1' higher in 100 years is going to flood so many low lying areas.  I wasn't thinking that the atolls have been keeping up with sea level rise in fact

One phenomenon that suggests it could occur is the high rate of sea level rise (5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr) and the consequent changes in shoreline position that have occurred over the past 118 years at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll in the tropical Pacific Ocean. However, Kench et al. say that "despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost," noting, in fact, that "the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (AD 1897-2013)." And they add that "there is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated," noting that "reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level."

 

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V18/nov/a14.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit deceptive, don't you think? You left off the conclusion, and kept the part that supports your position.

 

The final conclusion of the four New Zealand scientists and their Australian collaborator was thus that "islands can persist on reefs under rates of sea-level rise on the order of 5 mm/year," which is a far greater rate-of-rise than what has been observed over the past half-century of significant atmospheric CO2 enrichment.

 

Am I reading that wrong or are you?  I think they are concluding that islands can persist on reefs with the current rate of sea level rise (5 mm/year). They also point out that the current purported rate is far greater than the actual rise over the last 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was, "the past half-century of significant atmospheric CO2 enrichment."

And, this is a "book review" of others work. An analysis of an interpretation of data from an undefined source. There is no indication what kind of "scientists they are except I don't see a Ph. D among them. There is a chance it is correct.

The UN just came out with a report on the increase in global temperatures. I suspect however that NASA, NOAA, and the UN are not acceptable sources for you, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I suspect however that NASA, NOAA, and the UN are not acceptable sources for you, correct?

 

The current question is 'are these agencies altering the data to erase the current 19 year pause?'  It seems as though they are.  Taking their word for it would be like taking Hillary's word for her innocence.

 

I would be more open to listening to NOAA but their current testimony is that they will not reveal their communications in order to protect scientific integrity. So we have to believe them on totally blind faith so they don't have another embarrassing climateEmailGate?

 

Why do they bother to alter the data time and again to come up with a tenth of a degree of warming?  That degree of precision is silly.  Something smells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough of this bullshit already. Nobody is convincing anyone of anything except the stubbornness of a few old men.

You noticed that, did you. lol

One of the foundations of democracy is good debate...Too bad this isn't one. I have no issue with CT, and yes, we aren't getting anywhere. I still think he is a pretty good guy.

Tell you what CT, if it will make Mickey happy, let's agree to disagree and call it off. ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You noticed that, did you. lol

One of the foundations of democracy is good debate...Too bad this isn't one. I have no issue with CT, and yes, we aren't getting anywhere. I still think he is a pretty good guy.

Tell you what CT, if it will make Mickey happy, let's agree to disagree and call it off.

 

Doug,

 

I responded to your direct questions, otherwise this is a long standing thread questioning the direction of NASA.  Has NASA lost its way?  I suspect a leadership problem and a mandate problem.  I think their mission has transitioned from science to politics and I am saddened by it.

 

I have no beef with you whatsoever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA, NOAA, the Royal Geologic Society and the Australian Geologic society are all good sources when their results are not withheld or spun.  And they all agree the Antarctic is GROWING at a record pace, you know where 90% of the Earth ice is located.

 

Obama appointed a green Nazi to run EPA (Regina McCarthy ).  And after four years of research a mystery now surround NASAs latest reporting on cooling and and Antarctic - the report is behind withheld. 

 

Nov 26: NOAA’s climate change science fiction  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/

 

Suppressing inconvenient data is not science.  But that seems to be good enough for the greenies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cecil / Burgers says:-

 

"Obama appointed a green Nazi to run EPA"

 

​Seriously…again with the personal attacks?

 

Why can't you make an argument, any argument, without resorting to name-calling, denigration, and extreme personal bias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fascinating article!  

 

 Hansen looks at the clues assembled by geologists such as Hearty and thinks that is what is in store for the planet if warming trends continue. That suggests not just a decades-long problem of rising ocean levels but also the potential for massive destruction.

 
Isn't there an alternate conclusion?  If in the previous inter-glacial sea levels rose much higher than now and storms became this violent shouldn't we conclude that 118,000 years ago man was not responsible?  Perhaps every transition from inter-glacial to glacial has been violent?
 
This time around we think taxing carbon and redistributing wealth will prevent what happened at the end of the last inter-glacial?  Color me skeptical on preventing historical ice age cycles with taxation and windmills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From this article we learn that Hansen is clearly and uncomfortably an activists as well as a scientist.  Add this to his 'hiding the decline' in his climate-gate Emails and we have a history of his activistism. 

 

Activists on one side get tons of press and are seen as oracles while activists on the other side are now targets for prosecution. Alarming!  Free speech is falling out of favor on multiple fronts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From this article we learn that Hansen is clearly and uncomfortably an activists as well as a scientist.  Add this to his 'hiding the decline' in his climate-gate Emails and we have a history of his activistism. 

 

Activists on one side get tons of press and are seen as oracles while activists on the other side are now targets for prosecution. Alarming!  Free speech is falling out of favor on multiple fronts.

 

Correct.  Grant money, teaching positions, and political power are all spoils in the fight.

 

Gore once stated that the best way to beat skeptics is to brainwash kids:  http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article46795925.html

 

But adults are catching up and paying attention now:  http://news.sky.com/story/1596318/poll-growing-doubts-over-climate-change-causes

 

And in case you missed it, here is a good example why the greenies have no credibility:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From this article we learn that Hansen is clearly and uncomfortably an activists as well as a scientist.  Add this to his 'hiding the decline' in his climate-gate Emails and we have a history of his activistism. 

 

Activists on one side get tons of press and are seen as oracles while activists on the other side are now targets for prosecution. Alarming!  Free speech is falling out of favor on multiple fronts.

 

From the article:
 
"The idea is that Earth’s climate went through a warming period just over 100,000 years ago that was similar in many ways to the warming now attributed to the actions of man. "
 
If Hansen's idea is that 100,000 years ago there is was a similar warming period (when man was still living in caves), why in the world would we pin *this* warming period on man, instead of a natural cyclical change?  Sometimes I don't think 'experts' listen to what is coming out of their mouths when they put forth their brilliant theories...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From the article:
 
"The idea is that Earth’s climate went through a warming period just over 100,000 years ago that was similar in many ways to the warming now attributed to the actions of man. "
 
If Hansen's idea is that 100,000 years ago there is was a similar warming period (when man was still living in caves), why in the world would we pin *this* warming period on man, instead of a natural cyclical change?  Sometimes I don't think 'experts' listen to what is coming out of their mouths when they put forth their brilliant theories...

 

 

Amen brother!

 

Both sides know that in this newer ice age cycle that ice ages tend to last 100,000 years and interglacials about 10,000 years and we are at the end of the current interglacial.  Look at the graph and wee what follows that purportedly violent period ~118,000 years ago. What follows is glaciation burying New York City under more than a mile of ice. 

 

I have always been curious why we don't see the positives of current warming.  How tragic it will be to go back to the stone age to prevent warming only to suffer the next, overdue ice age that will surely displace populations.

 

Ice_Age_Cycles.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have always been curious why we don't see the positives of current warming.  How tragic it will be to go back to the stone age to prevent warming only to suffer the next, overdue ice age that will surely displace populations.

 

 

Same here.  From the "Cambrian Explosion" (when most ancient complex organisms arose and thrived) ~500M years ago, all the way through the Pliocene period ~3M years ago, the temps on Earth on average were much higher, by as much as 14°C.  Yet we are told that a 2°C rise would be a world-ending calamity...why?  

 

Higher temps are better for plant growth, which generally also benefits animal life.  Humans are much better adapted to warm climates than cold, as are most animals -- ice ages are usually marked by large numbers of extinctions, and the subsequent warming periods by prolific increases in speciation.  I guess I won't get it until a boulder lands on me.

 

All_palaeotemps.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we all agree there is global warming? That although the stats may be wrong or badly interpreted the earth is getting warmer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we all agree there is global warming? That although the stats may be wrong or badly interpreted the earth is getting warmer?

 

Depends how you define it.  Look at the graph in my last post...there is a distinct cooling trend over long times scales.   ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we all agree there is global warming? That although the stats may be wrong or badly interpreted the earth is getting warmer?

 

Yes it started 12,000 years ago and its called an inter-glacial. 

 

Places that we don't all agree:

  • Warming is bad for mankind
  • Warming has stopped for almost 20 years
  • CO2 is a pollutant
  • The climate models have value
  • Man can effect (halt or slow down) the warming.
  • The science is settled
  • Dissenters should be and are being prosecuted
  • 97% consensus
  • Effect of solar cycles
  • Current rate of sea level rise is dangerous
  • Current rate of warming is dangerous
  • Global warming is causing Islamic terrorism
  • Skeptics are 'anti-science'
  • Warmists are warmists for altruistic reasons not for funding.
  • Climategate was real

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Man can effect (halt or slow down) the warming."

 

Except that China , Russia  India and a whole host of developing nations are wholeheartedly disinterested in limiting CO2 emissions, if it is going to adversely affect their economies. So whether man can change Global Warming  or not,  remains an academic issue, the fact is that man , in the form of these nations, is disinterested in controlling CO2 emissions. This discussion needs a dose of pragmatism !

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we all agree there is global warming? That although the stats may be wrong or badly interpreted the earth is getting warmer?

 

You have to be going out of your way to not assemble the points being made....

 

There are glacial and inter-glacial periods over geologic time.  We are in an inter-glacial warming period (warming as opposed to mile thick ice sheets covering half the planet) over which man has no role or control.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation

 

Soon we will be diving into a short cooling related to Sun dormancy that could kill crops and create famine.  If there is a catastrophe to worry about, it's the one from COOLING not WARMING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell does this have to do with flying our CT's?

Bill ,

 

As I posted earlier….

 

 If you believe in Global Warming then the the wind is from the Left. If you think Global Warming is nonsense then the wind is from the Right.

 

If you really don't give a hoot then the wind is straight down the runway!    ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×