Jump to content
Ed Cesnalis

Has NASA lost its way?

Recommended Posts

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great quote, I really like it, but what happens when you don't have a generation's time to work with? When the tipping point is nearer than that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem? The warmers lack facts and ironically are the so-called 'deniers'...

 

The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal.  Follow the money as they say.

 

U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years.

 

Overall, the Antarctic ice mass has been steadily growing since first recorded by NASA satellites in 1979. The 2013-2014 expanses exceeded all previous measurements. Approx 90% of Earth's ice is in the Antarctic.

 

How about Gore's "extreme weather" predictions?  No category 3-5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005, setting a record lull since 1900.

 

The CO2 'hockey stick' graph has been proven defunct and the climate data gamed at the University of Anglica has been exposed as fraud.

 

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports: “None of the [global climate simulation] models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”   Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report says, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

 

Notice before Obama took over, NASA's studies were revealing higher than predicted levels of heat escaping into space (explaining how global temperatures have been fluctuating up and down over the past 50 years)...now NASA seems to produce nothing but alarmist propaganda and oddly non-scientific opinion papers on the subject....understand why this thread was started now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.  And it has nothing to do with NASA.  Not the real one anyway...

Personally, I would like to see NASA be more aggressive in "Manned Space Exploration"

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for the 'real' NASA to re-emerge.  

 

Here, here....the real NASA does REAL science and engineering.  Science is not a popularity contest, a political ploy, a social experiment, a con job or an effort in pursuit of funds.  Science is about empirical TRUTH...testable, repeatable, indisputable, incontrovertible TRUTH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, here....the real NASA does REAL science and engineering.  Science is not a popularity contest, a political ploy, a social experiment, a con job or an effort in pursuit of funds.  Science is about empirical TRUTH...testable, repeatable, indisputable, incontrovertible TRUTH.

 

A scientist would not say that! They do not use the word "truth" in any science I know of. No science is incontrovertible! No science in indisputable. Even something seemingly simple as gravity is an unknown. They have now discovered gravity waves which helps with understanding dark matter and dark energy, but they still don't know the "truth" about gravity. All they can say is they think they understand more than they did before. Same for the Higgs Boson. They found it, but its properties are still elusive. Scientists go by what they observe under repeatable conditions but still allow for variations and sometimes a complete turn around in their thought processes. Einstein's "cosmological constant" was one of those things. He put in a fudge factor to get the math to come out right because he didn't believe the universe could be constantly expanding and could find no reason that it would be with the technology of the time. It has now been determined that his fudge factor has a reason - dark matter/energy. (Energy and matter are equivalents thus E=mc​2 ​and m=E/c​2​.)  There is no basal definition that scientist will say it is bedrock and it is not possible that our understanding of it will change in the future. Thus, there is no basis for "truth" only a basis for what seems to fit at the moment.

Science is (in many cases) testable and repeatable, but there are exceptions such as astrophysics where they are only observable and descriptive with the hope that an observation may be able to happen again and provide further data. Another would be the Hadron Collider - is it possible that a larger collider (like the one that was abandoned in TX) would be able to split the Higgs Boson? Right now science says no, it is the last boson to be discovered and there are no others - final particle, final piece of the puzzle...until another can be found, maybe.

​It may come down to -

Will we ever reach the point where we understand everything? Is that even possible?

 

Our ability to test, to observe and even to think is limited, and may be until the end of humankind. We don't even consciously deal with the reality that our own bodies are not an individual entity, but an assemblage of millions of entities including bacteria, antibodies, biotic and a vast multiple of assemblages that go together to create a biological ecosystem - which we refer to in the singular, person. Oh, and then you throw in two things: 1) that time is not linear like we perceive it to be, and 2) that the Observer Affect seems to be a reality - that the act of observation affects the observed in physics, especially quantum physics - those two things put all observations into the realm of useful description rather than overt observation or "truth."

Sorry I don't believe in using bold and caps unless the sentence structure calls for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Will we ever reach the point where we understand everything? Is that even possible?

...

 

Some say that this is impossible at all. If you understand everything, you will understand how you understand everything. At this point you will enter an infinite loop and propably your brain will explode and vanish in a logical cloud. Because of this, some very intelligent beings say, that science at all is a step in the wrong direction :D :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"something seemingly simple as gravity is an unknown."

 

It is well known , there is no "Gravity",This phenomenon is the mass effect on the space-time continuum (ie. bending of space). Gravity is sooo Newtonian.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you postulated and seem confused regarding some basic Physics let me help you out.

 

Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions of nature. Both Einstein and Newton discovered and theorized gravity's existence and behavior - and both have been borne out by a century of verification and testing.  The gravitational attraction is approximately 10−38 times the strength of the strong force (i.e. gravity is 38 orders of magnitude weaker), 10−36 times the strength of the electromagnetic force, and 10−29 times the strength of the weak force. As a consequence, gravity has a negligible influence on the behavior of subatomic particles, and plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter (see quantum gravity to understand the difference between the macroscopic versus microscopic gravitation forces).  But gravity at the macro level is responsible for the curving of Space/Time and the congealing of Hydrogen and Helium from the early universe into every large mass objects...from galaxies, to suns, to planets, to black holes, to us. 

 

Gravitational waves are 'ripples' in the fabric of space-time. Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves in 1916 in his general theory of relativity. Einstein's mathematics showed that massive accelerating objects (such as neutron stars or black holes orbiting each other) would disrupt space-time in such a way that 'waves' of distorted space would radiate from the source (like the movement of waves away from a stone thrown into a pond). Furthermore, these ripples would travel at the speed of light through the Universe.  After a century of looking, gravity waves were detected for the first time verifying Einstein's theory by LIGO Caltech last February.  https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211

 

Science is not done by 'consensus' and the laws of nature are only discovered and verified via rigorous research and testable and repeatable results.  Sometimes taking centuries to complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"something seemingly simple as gravity is an unknown."

 

It is well known , there is no "Gravity",This phenomenon is the mass effect on the space-time continuum (ie. bending of space). Gravity is sooo Newtonian.

 

Cheers

 

Well, yes and yet the formula for gravitational acceleration in a vacuum exists. Is it the "truth"? Only in a relative sense. And yet, not so Newtonian (or only insomuch as astro/quantum science connects to Newton), since the search for the weak force has just been enhanced by the detection of gravity waves that seem to have their origin in the beginning of the universe. I know some here don't trust the New York times, but you will not find this in Brightbart -

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html?_r=0

​ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Earth has been FAR hotter and FAR colder, even completely covered with 1 mile thick glaciers worldwide (snowball Earth).  The hottest geologic period known as the Neoproterozoic, between 600 and 800 million years ago was 10C hotter than today and the polar regions were tropical like the equator.  The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred about 56 million years ago was about 5C hotter than today and ended the last inter-glacial age.

 

The Earth has hundred-thousand year micro-cycles and millions of years macro cycles of heat and cold.  Even if man somehow managed to increase CO2 by hundreds fold the WORST that can happen is delaying the next ice age by a few hundred years.  Yet you see the alarmist (like Obama and Gore and many other left-wingers) push the absurdity that the last 50 years of CO2 is producing an IMMEDIATE and catastrophic effect that will put Florida, the Statue of Liberty, New York, Amsterdam, S. Africa and half of Australia underwater and lost to human use.

 

Nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA data isn't the only piece of this, the chemical composition of the atmosphere has also changed.

"In order to synthesise and test theoretical understanding of atmospheric chemistry, computer models (such as chemical transport models) are used. Numerical models solve the differential equations governing the concentrations of chemicals in the atmosphere. They can be very simple or very complicated. One common trade off in numerical models is between the number of chemical compounds and chemical reactions modelled versus the representation of transport and mixing in the atmosphere. For example, a box model might include hundreds or even thousands of chemical reactions but will only have a very crude representation of mixing in the atmosphere. In contrast, 3D models represent many of the physical processes of the atmosphere but due to constraints on computer resources will have far fewer chemical reactions and compounds. Models can be used to interpret observations, test understanding of chemical reactions and predict future concentrations of chemical compounds in the atmosphere. One important current trend is for atmospheric chemistry modules to become one part of earth system models in which the links between climate, atmospheric composition and the biosphere can be studied.

Some models are constructed by automatic code generators (e.g. Autochem or KPP). In this approach a set of constituents are chosen and the automatic code generator will then select the reactions involving those constituents from a set of reaction databases. Once the reactions have been chosen the ordinary differential equations (ODE) that describe their time evolution can be automatically constructed."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry

 

Valiant attempt, but sounds, rather, inexact to me. You try to make predictions, but have to be aware of it's limitations.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these folks have spent their lives doing climate science, not political spin. They post in peer reviewed journals not right wing, or left leaning "news" sources. They are not cherry picked to prove a particular point.

Yes, all models of climate are imperfect and, according to those who know will remain so. And, yes I know this will convince no one who is not open to understanding.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valiant attempt, but sounds, rather, inexact to me. You try to make predictions, but have to be aware of it's limitations.

 

Cheers

 

I make no predictions.  That is the alarmists purview....exaggerated, non-science based predictions in a attempt to create a false crises. 

 

I point out the extremes of the past to put today's climate in perspective.  The actual numbers do not support the alarmists...the mean temperature change over the past 50 years shows a DECLINE of about .3C (point three cee).  This is also NASA data before the agency was turned into a 'green' mill by the incumbent powers.

 

The planet has been 10C hotter than today and still managed to enter inter-glacial ages between then and now.   Current theory suggest that after over a century of industrial CO2 production the planet is essentially the same post the last Maunder Minimum cooling.  This small stretch of centuries of warming has been a gift to mankind, crops and plant species.  

 

If a spike in increased warming did occur the likely worst effect would be to delay the next inter-glacial cooling for some quantifiable time period that even if it extended to several hundred years would be an infinitesimally small effect in geologic time spans.  But that is not a prediction...it's conjecture based on a rational description of how the planet has been operating over the last billion years or so.

Share this post


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

×