Stopped in to learn.
And grab my daily chuckle courtesy of DarrinS et al.
Its a symptom of honest distaste in you as a person. You are deceptive as a matter of course.Charming. I can see why you're so persuasive.
I am not trying to compel you to anything. that is a waste of time with such as you. You are just dissembling now as I stated so I am indicating my distaste. I am not going to go along furthering your attempt to steer towards the red herring.
Want to talk about how you respect BESTs work and periodic systems?
Stopped in to learn.
And grab my daily chuckle courtesy of DarrinS et al.
Stopped in to learn.
And grab my daily chuckle courtesy of DarrinS et al.
Do you also believe the majority of humans that have ever existed are alive today. If so, I chuckle at you professor.
I also chuckle at science that has predicted human-caused catastrophe. Not a great track record.
I don't claim to know. You on the other hand, do. Furthermore, you've made said claim without providing any evidence in support of your position.
Is the reason for my chuckling clearer now?
Again, I'll have to ask you for the exact record. I'm not familiar with outcomes reporting for anthropogenic catastrophe studies.
Thanks in advance.
Damn. You really didn't even try to fact check this.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...outnumber-dead
http://geography.about.com/library/f...alivetoday.htm
Again, I'll have to ask you for the exact record. I'm not familiar with outcomes reporting for anthropogenic catastrophe studies.
Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know that. It seems pretty obvious to me that the answer would be yes.
I believe the estimation is that we are now adding about 8 GtC (giga tonnes of carbon) annually. This is less than 4% of the carbon moving between sinks and sources. I will stand firm that is it so little of a change that mankind's influence via CO2, CH4, etc. is not the cause of warming, but that warming is the reason the equilibrium has changes so much, and therefore we see higher CO2 in the atmosphere than the past.How much of a fraction are we talking about...? Has anyone published such figures? [honest question]
Of that portion [if known, or estimated], ranging over the past 500 years or so, how much of a CO2 inbalance has been introduced into the system simply on account of the population differences between that era and the present time...??? When Earth's population booned from several hundred million peeps to about 6.5 billion...??? Obviously, I understand that there is probably a 3 order magnitude difference [at least] between the CO2 output of a car and that of the average human being... [curious... again just another honest question] I wonder if the "Earth is crowed beyond sustainability" crowd is on to something...
Lastly, how much CO2 do our corporal bodies trap and bind (as organic carbons) when we die and are subsequently buried...? I figure most of it is released slowly by scavengers / bacteria / exposure to the elements... unless the bodies are burned / cremated and all the CO2 is released instantly... But over the millenia, I would suspect that the total amount of dead humans have managed to trap some miniscule, nanotrace percentage of the total CO2 theoretically available in the pie, no? [again, curious]
Warming of the ocean decreases CO2 solubility (sinking) in the polar regions and increases CO2 sourcing from the equatorial regions. To what extent this actually changes things would be hard to say, but it does change the point of equilibrium.
Warming of the land increases bacterial actions, which also leave CO2 behind.
Our bodies, and that of mammal, reptiles, etc. is probably insignificant to that of the plants, bacteria, and insects.
Darrin...
Just remember that intelligence and education are rarely in alignment.
50 Top Astronauts, Scientists, Engineers Sign Letter Claiming Extremist GISS Is Turning NASA Into A Laughing Stock!
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
2. /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
8. /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
10. /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
14. /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
15. /s/ Anita Gale
16. /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
17. /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
18. /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
22. /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
24. /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
25. /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
27. /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
37. /s/ James Pea – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
38. /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
43. /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
48. /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
49. /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
Sigh.
Do the math, and remember the overall human lifespan factors into it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
I wouldn't say "piece of ". I *would* say "lazy", given how easy it is to fact check that particular statement.
... and that ended me up here as well ,with the link you provided:Sigh.
Do the math, and remember the overall human lifespan factors into it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
I wouldn't say "piece of ". I *would* say "lazy", given how easy it is to fact check that particular statement.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...outnumber-dead
I will have to stand corrected. It is probable that this gentleman has done the math correctly, and he does have the expertise to opine with some authority.
I will even take back some of the "lazy" comment as well, since you got the link first. Serves me right for not finishing reading posts before shooting from the hip.
NASA wants GOP support for funding. I cannot blame them. Long gone are the days of Kennedy or Reagan. You should note that they said impact and not occurrence. I mean after your stupidity of the cyclical nature of climate yesterday.
That indeed is where the arguments rests after 15 years of your energy lobby overlords obfuscation. We now have to deal with their bull while we try and figure out what the impact actually is.
You really do just throw against the wall and hope something sticks. They didn't deny there were impacts or that they could be severe. You cannot even keep up with your own arguments.
You should write a letter to each of those former NASA employees and let them know they are sophist pieces of .
Remember the part where I said that you cannot even keep up withy our own arguments? You keep on waffling back to your energy overlords attempt at debate from a decade ago.
Thats what makes you a deceptive, dissembling sophist piece of .
I guess you are going to be intentionally obtuse about the difference between arguing occurrence and causation versus impact now. Thats okay. At least you stopped with the cyclical nonsense.
You lie... err like BEST right?
I'll check but, I think I remember seeing that the signatories on the letter were all form NASA employees.
NASA, as it is today, doesn't seem interested in anything more than making Muslims feel good and bashing America overseas. They sure aren't much interested in space anymore.
Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
I realize that they are really from NASA thus my statement about them wanting GOP support ofr funding. They used to be staunch allies and now its only about cutting taxes and social issues of the christian right.
I guess you missed the stuff about trying to get funding for Mars exploration. They cancelled the shuttle program, satellite launches are more and more becoming a private enterprise and its lookng more and more like prolonged time in space is very hazardous to your health.
They are becoming more and more marginalized and it makes sense that they move away from politicizing. they need all the help that they can get for the space program.
My bad; the word "form" was not meant to be "from" but, "former," as in, they no longer have a career interest in gaining GOP favor. They seem pretty fed up with Benson and Hansen ing up the image and credibility of NASA.
Sure but the point I am making is that they still have the funding interests ie the future of NASA in their minds. It goes above and beyond the clmate thing. The GOP hasn't given a about science since Reagan.
GOP types seem to forget what made Reagan 'great.'
I don't know the politics of the 49 signatories to the letter but, they're pretty specific in the letter about what they're pissed.
I don't know that they are pissed. They also seem to be all astronauts or other individuals associated with the extraterrestial stuff. Thats not all that NASA does and they have seen their funding cut. Their space shuttle was an engineering cluster FWIW.
I agree that forecasting as its done now sucks and a new approach is needed but I also see they did not advocate just ignoring the issue.
That's the problem with some of you guys. You don't do your homework, then claim we don't.
Yep,. it's pretty bad when a government agency keeps scientists in top positions that clearly have a personal agenda... like Hansen...
Exactly what I mean.
Models will produce what ever you program them to.
You reminded me of a post I came across a couple of weeks ago...
Amazing Disconnect From The Scientific Process
I'll be interested to see if anyone takes up his challenge.
Recently, I reviewed a paper which had the following quote
I invite anyone to defend this perspective, and we will present as a guest weblog post. From my perspective, if a global climate model cannot simulate current climate, as well as changes in the climate system, accurately it cannot produce accurate projections of climate in the coming decades.“A global climate model that does not simulate current climate accurately does not necessarily imply that it cannot produce accurate projections”
Papers that fail this test, or do not even make it, which then are still published, is a subversion of the scientific process.
Source of image.
Seriously, if your model can't take historical data and accurately predict current climate why should anyone believe you can predict future climate by applying those same models to current climate data?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
