102 replies to this topic

[Karlis]

www.chron.com said:

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week criticizing 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, according to Leighton Steward of Plants Need CO2. Read more...

[JayMark]

Here goes another one.

Coming from a guy at the head of "Plants need CO₂" is quite interesting and that is immediatly telling me something is wrong.

I quickly looked at it (website) and it's completely rediculous. We all know more CO₂ is good for plants but we also know that global warming, that is partially driven by anthropogenic CO₂ emissions will outweight any advantage by far.

I have searched for this group. Here is a breif summary of what I found on sourcewatch.org.

"Plants Need CO2 was a climate complacency front group that popped up in 2009, with a mission "to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2...". One of its directors, Corbin Robertson of Quintana Minerals, "is said to own more coal through his various ventures than anyone outside of the U.S. government" - and was a Koch strategy group attendee."

"Earlier, registration information reportedly tied it to Quintana Minerals Corporation, which "provides oil and gas exploration services to the energy sector" and "offers crude oil and natural gas production services."

"According to the Plants Need CO2 website, "Earth and it's inhabitants need more, not less, CO2..."

Something is quite wrong here. I would even say that it's rediculous.

I hope I'm not the only one that is seeing it.

Peace.

[socrates.junior]

What are the horrific downsides to global warming?

[JayMark]

Ok. Can't beleive the crap they feed us. Here are some of their brilliant "facts".

CO₂ is not a pollutant because the current excess of CO₂ does not present a direct danger (breathing it). They claim that there is nothing to worry about until we reach 8 000 ppm. They say CO₂ will never directly harm us and that the indirect concequences are all positive.

CO₂ is not a cause of global warming because in the past, CO₂ level have changed after the temperature itself. They also state that the global temperature is actually decreasing as well as the CO₂ levels (since Y2K). Oh and they say solar activity is also diminishing at a constant rate.

Global warming will not have a negative impact on us because we will be able to grow more food. They also state that since cold is killing more poeple than heat, nothig to worry about. And finally, they say we will easily adapt to it and that in the end, it will only be a positive thing.

CO₂ does not acidify water because water is alkaline. And it will have no negative concequence because it'll release CO₂ as it warms up which is as they say; a good thing.

So you see not how absurd it is? Some of their claims do hold some truth but they omit the most important stuff thus their conclusion is totally biaised.

Wow.

[JayMark]

socrates.junior, on 11 April 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

What are the horrific downsides to global warming?

- Carbon sinks collapse (reduction); plants and algae mainly, oceans too at some point
- Losses in agriculture; either too much of not enough water in many places
- Sea level rise; majorly due to thermal expansion, millions will eventually have to move because of floods
- Possible collapse of Gulf Stream; radical change in local climate (mainly Europe) and eventually a drastic change in global air-water currents due to change in water physico-chemical properties
- Accute possibility of weather extremes; heat waves, storms, precipitations, drought
- Famine and dehydration in most vulnerable places like Africa for instance; millions if not billions could be threatened by lacking food and water supplies
- Economical collapse (perturbation); the World Bank report on climate change points this out entirely, the costs/loses of inaction will overpower the costs/losses of change
- Threat of extinction towards other species which will inevitably reach us at one point if nothing is done; we are part of the food chain and depend on other species and climate
- Sudden liberation of methane hydrates; irreversible process that could add several degrees to global temperature
- If global temperature reaches 5°C and more of warming (could be by the end of the century if we stall), we will face extinction in a not so far future

Just to name a few overall concequences.

Edited by JayMark, 11 April 2012 - 07:25 PM.

[Essan]

If they really think this, it's little wonder they are 'former' NASA scientists!  I wonder if they also question whether we went to the moon and whether the Earth is more than 6000 years old .....  

[JayMark]

Essan, on 11 April 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

If they really think this, it's little wonder they are 'former' NASA scientists!  I wonder if they also question whether we went to the moon and whether the Earth is more than 6000 years old .....  

Right on!

I can't beleive how much stupidity they can put up.

Critical fact: Earth's temperature changes, then CO2 follows.

Truth: In the past, yes, but not today. Then the warming that we have initiated will, like in the past, provide more GHG release. Only the initial cause is diffrent here.

Critical fact: The sun supplies over 99% of the heat to Earth's surface.

Truth: Yes but solar irradiance have only went up by 1 W/m² which provided an increase in radiative forcing of about 0.2 W/m² compared to anthropogenic GHG which added about 1.5 W/m² of forcing to the atmosphere. Yet, this same website says that sun's irradiance have been decreaisng since Y2K at a constant rate and still is. Just like the temperature and carbon dioxide levels.

Critical fact: More research is needed on all climate drivers; not just a focus on one driver.

Truth: We are already aware of that. The IPCC report covers them all the best they can according to current knowledge and understanding and do not (like they imply) only focus on one drive. They only state that anthopogenic carbon dioxide emissions have the greatest impact on radiative forcing for instance.

*Sigh*  

[questionmark]

Wow, 49 scientist among whom is one meteorologist:

s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack - JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell - JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman - JSC, Scientist - astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox - JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day - Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. - JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich - JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron - JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany - JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson - JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon - JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin - JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs - JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath - JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. - JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree - JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones - JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin - JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight - JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft - JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer - JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger - JSC, Ass't. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen - JSC, Project Engineer - Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser - Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller - Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock - JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland - JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers - JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum - JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt - JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows - JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit - JSC, Ass't Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/  Robert F. Thompson - JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/  Frank Van Renesselaer - Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15  years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine - JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried - JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf - JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller - JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

who evidently lasted 5 years with NASA...

I have the strange feeling that somebody has been on "shopping tour" again... how much did it cost this time?

Edit: forgot to post the Source

Edited by questionmark, 11 April 2012 - 08:42 PM.

[JayMark]

questionmark, on 11 April 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

Wow, 49 scientist among whom is one meteorologist:

s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack - JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell - JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman - JSC, Scientist - astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox - JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day - Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. - JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich - JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron - JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany - JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson - JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon - JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin - JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs - JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath - JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. - JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree - JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones - JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin - JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight - JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft - JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer - JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger - JSC, Ass't. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen - JSC, Project Engineer - Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser - Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller - Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock - JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland - JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers - JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum - JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt - JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows - JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit - JSC, Ass't Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/  Robert F. Thompson - JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/  Frank Van Renesselaer - Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15  years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine - JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried - JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf - JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller - JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

who evidently lasted 5 years with NASA...

I have the strange feeling that somebody has been on "shopping tour" again... how much did it cost this time?

Edit: forgot to post the Source

Well now it's even better.

That has to be one of the most rediculous attempt to spread climato-skeptic crap I have ever seen.

Their main argument:

- Plants need CO₂ so more of it will be 100% benefical for the whole planet and species (including us).

Hence the "Plants Need CO₂" website.

Who the hell can even think of taking this seriously?

According to them, we should just keep on burning coal/oil/gas because it's going to save us. Literally.

Wow.  

[socrates.junior]

JayMark, on 11 April 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

- Carbon sinks collapse (reduction); plants and algae mainly, oceans too at some point

I'm not understanding the grammar here. Plants and algae are going to die in a carbon-rich, warm environment is what I think you're saying. Maybe. I'm not a biologist, but that might be how it works. Oceans, yeah, they don't hold carbon infinitely.

Quote

- Losses in agriculture; either too much of not enough water in many places

Already a problem. Not a new one.

Quote

- Sea level rise; majorly due to thermal expansion, millions will eventually have to move because of floods

Can someone say, Don't build your house next to the ocean because the ocean's present low state is a temporary geologic phenomenon? Oh, said it.

Quote

- Possible collapse of Gulf Stream; radical change in local climate (mainly Europe) and eventually a drastic change in global air-water currents due to change in water physico-chemical properties

Only a problem if you really believe that the Earth has always, will always, and should always have the same climate as it has now.

Quote

- Accute possibility of weather extremes; heat waves, storms, precipitations, drought

Possibility? You're going to have to be more compelling than that. Maybe if all those record hurricane seasons they keep predicting actually happen, I'll believe this one.

Quote

- Famine and dehydration in most vulnerable places like Africa for instance; millions if not billions could be threatened by lacking food and water supplies

Again, already happening. Let's not blame global warming for our own crappy social justice.

Quote

- Economical collapse (perturbation); the World Bank report on climate change points this out entirely, the costs/loses of inaction will overpower the costs/losses of change

Alright, let's change the economic policy. This isn't set in stone.

Quote

- Threat of extinction towards other species which will inevitably reach us at one point if nothing is done; we are part of the food chain and depend on other species and climate

If anyone was surprised that species become extinct...well they shouldn't have been. The geologic record is pretty clear on this one.

Quote

- Sudden liberation of methane hydrates; irreversible process that could add several degrees to global temperature

Are you saying that a consequence of global warming is global warming? Well done, bravo. Dang that was some stellar deduction.

Quote

- If global temperature reaches 5°C and more of warming (could be by the end of the century if we stall), we will face extinction in a not so far future

From what, sweating? And if we do, fine. It's our time to go. We deserve it. We spun and lost...it's our own fault.

Quote

Just to name a few overall concequences.

Maybe I'm an incurable optimist, but those either didn't seem like new problems, or they didn't seem that bad.

[questionmark]

socrates.junior, on 12 April 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Maybe I'm an incurable optimist, but those either didn't seem like new problems, or they didn't seem that bad.

That is mostly the case as long as the disaster happens to somebody else.

[BFB]

JayMark, on 11 April 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

- If global temperature reaches 5°C and more of warming (could be by the end of the century if we stall), we will face extinction in a not so far future

No we will not! How did you draw that conclusion?

questionmark, on 11 April 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller - JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

who evidently lasted 5 years with NASA...

I have the strange feeling that somebody has been on "shopping tour" again... how much did it cost this time?

Edit: forgot to post the Source

I would like to add he is not an atmospheric scientist! Or at least he doesn't have a degree in the fields which is needed to be a meteorologist.

Edited by BFB, 12 April 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[TerryZ]

It's all a question of math, or in this case probability statistics of experimental science. The earth's climate has never been fixed and stable and we observe climate change only after the fact and over millions of years not decades. The tools used for measurement have sampled local weather conditions for only the past 150 or less years. Their accuracy has changed dramatically in that time. Their sample size and distribution has not been uniform across the planet and is much too little in too short a time frame.Secondary methods of CO2 and climate estimations from fossil studies are even less accurate and more sparse.

To be brief, we are in a post-glacial warming cycle for the past 10,000 years. Past times have been a lot warmer with greater CO2 than we have now (by point measurements). Finally, there is not enough data to accurately predict a worldwide trend much less data with sufficient accuracy to justify the contention that one source of CO2 is a greater contributor than any other. These poorly developed climate models are no more accurate than predicting the end of the world by the Mayan calendar. Their models don't account for all the proper variables and their boundary conditions are poorly established.

By the way you don't need to be a atmospheric scientist to recognize poor theoretical model building and data gathering. This is basic knowledge from any undergraduate physics lab.

[chainsawcam]

NASA - ohhh LOL at that lot.

Never made a true statement in their history!!

Closer than ever to getting found out as well - HOPEFULLY!!!

[BFB]

TerryZ, on 12 April 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

It's all a question of math, or in this case probability statistics of experimental science. The earth's climate has never been fixed and stable and we observe climate change only after the fact and over millions of years not decades. The tools used for measurement have sampled local weather conditions for only the past 150 or less years. Their accuracy has changed dramatically in that time. Their sample size and distribution has not been uniform across the planet and is much too little in too short a time frame.Secondary methods of CO2 and climate estimations from fossil studies are even less accurate and more sparse.

To be brief, we are in a post-glacial warming cycle for the past 10,000 years. Past times have been a lot warmer with greater CO2 than we have now (by point measurements). Finally, there is not enough data to accurately predict a worldwide trend much less data with sufficient accuracy to justify the contention that one source of CO2 is a greater contributor than any other. These poorly developed climate models are no more accurate than predicting the end of the world by the Mayan calendar. Their models don't account for all the proper variables and their boundary conditions are poorly established.

Regarding Climate Models i agree, as should every scientist in the world. We cant even predict a 7-days weather forcast with more than 70% accuracy. No atmospheric scientist would defend climate models, everyone agrees they are ****.  

TerryZ, on 12 April 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

By the way you don't need to be a atmospheric scientist to recognize poor theoretical model building and data gathering. This is basic knowledge from any undergraduate physics lab.

By the way you dont need to be an atmospheric scientist to recognize the CO2 warming effect. Its basic knowledge for any undergraduate.