Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 Next
Comments 60251 to 60300:
-
Eric (skeptic) at 09:50 AM on 13 April 2012Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic
Sorry Daniel Bailey, I didn't realize it was a reprint. My comment is related to the piece. As Don quotes in his comment, the AO modulates the strength of the vortex (which is shown in figure 2). -
HuangFeng at 09:45 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Sphaerica, Essentially correct. Minus the "Herculean" and "dim-witted". NASA pages are (AFAIK) science based, but do not always refer to the science explicitly. I feel that the people most in denial of the extent of AGW are those least likely to seek out the science, and those in the general public on the edge of denial are much the same. NASA is a key reference site and can do so much more for clearing the path to understanding and should have enough talented researchers to simply reference the science. My guess is that the letter is setting grounds for more conservative initiated funding cuts for NASA, or denying requests for increased funding. A basic dismissal of the letter will likely not serve very well for either a funding committee or general deniers. You might catch borderline denial, but, as your handbook says, they will likely remember the message. If NASA has references to actual science then the letter fails not only from exaggeration of the credentials of the signatories, but also demonstrably fails at the premise of their argument - with evidence right at the source pages on NASA. -
uknowispeaksense at 09:44 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
@ Huangfeng 31. I kind of see what you're getting at but to be fair, those webpages are directed at young school children. Providing links to peer reviewed science is probably a liitle inappropriate for such a target audience. NASA cannot be expected to nor should they need to clutter these basic informative articles with references just so that idiotic deniers can't try and use them in pointless letters. One would hope that the children accessing these pages for their school projects or just out of interest are learning in their science classes that information provided by NASA can be trusted to be accurate because the work they do is subject to the rigours of peer review. When I go to the doctor and he gives me advice, I don't ask him to provide a reference. -
Eric (skeptic) at 09:39 AM on 13 April 2012Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic
Thanks for clarifying Don. The start of the piece is Arctic amplification as shown in figure 1. Then DB says: "As high latitudes warm more than mid-latitudes, however, this north-south temperature difference weakens, which has two impacts on the jet stream [slower and more wavy]". The paper I linked in #1 theorizes that in winter the high latitude oceans retain heat while the land masses cool which increases the horizontal temperature gradient which strengthens the jet. The only difference in explanations is which temperature gradient is more dominant. It seems likely that the dominance is not constant, but varying due to factors other than the temperature gradients themselves. Kevin C, as Don has pointed out, my graph is not Arctic Amplification (or temperature) but AO, an index of Arctic pressures related to the jet stream and its undulations. Sorry for the confusion, but my diagram is related to figure 2 in the OP, not figure 1. -
Sceptical Wombat at 09:26 AM on 13 April 2012Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic
OMG Spring Snow Extent has been increasing since 1968! -
Daniel Bailey at 09:23 AM on 13 April 2012Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic
If Eric wishes to specifically discuss the AO more, better threads than this exist for that purpose. The subject of the OP (itself but a reprint of a well-written exposition by researcher Dr. Jennifer Francis) is "Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic". -
Daniel Bailey at 09:20 AM on 13 April 2012Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic
"Don9000, it's pretty much the same" Actually, Don9000 has the right of it. The only thing the two terms have in common is the word "Arctic". AO and AA are to each other as weather is to climate or polo is to golf. One describes a meteorological conditional with a short temporal sphere of influence; the other describes in a summary fashion the net effects of forcings and feedbacks in the polar regions. That the South Pole experiences polar amplification differently than does the North Pole is entirely due to the vagaries of geography/geomorphology. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:10 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
HuangFeng, So, just to be clear... you're not saying that NASA makes unsupported statements. You're saying that NASA doesn't go to sufficiently Herculean lengths to make sure that even the most dim-witted retired NASA engineer or astronaut would be able to find and read the supporting material so that they can ascertain for themselves that the statements are well based in science, and also to do so before they publicly publish an outlandishly ignorant letter criticizing NASA for making statements that are "not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data." Do I have this right? -
HuangFeng at 08:13 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Moderator Response: [Sph] Please provide references for your assertion (and theirs) that NASA has produced a "statement without reference." That whole part of their letter confuses me. NASA conducts an amazing amount of science, generates a lot of knowledge and papers that contribute to the knowledge, and produces what are fairly detailed and informative articles. What exactly are these "unproven remarks in public releases and websites" to which they (and you) are referring? Note that I am not saying unproven, proof being a loaded word. Also I am not going as far as their statement, hence my careful wording "faint hint". I would like to see NASA's site better referenced to decrease this sort of denial. We know what deniers are reluctant to perform a literature search. If references, and even better: links were to be provided then you would force them into denial of science rather than lazy hand waving of the letter, claiming the statements are unsupported. NASA What is climate change Cold Snaps Plus Global Warming Do Add Up NASA Study Predicts More Severe Storms With Global Warming Earth Impacts Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change As opposed to The Ups and Downs of Global Warming Again, because the letter provides no specific examples there is no real recourse to tackling the science that the signatories are allegedly wanting. Mind you, you would not list specifics in such a letter, perhaps an appendix if you were diligent. NASA should request that the signatories identify the specific instances on the NASA site, then provide links to relevant science. The task should take a couple research students a few weeks of work, of course this is dependent on the signatories actually being concerned about science rather than just simply attempting to raise doubt. -
Don9000 at 07:23 AM on 13 April 2012Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic
Eric, I still think you are talking about oranges when Bailey is discussing apples. I will wait for him to clarify the issue, but . . . If you click on the Arctic Amplification link in the post, the explanation of the term includes this definition: "“Polar amplification” usually refers to greater climate change near the pole compared to the rest of the hemisphere or globe in response to a change in global climate forcing, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) or solar output (see e.g. Moritz et al 2002). Polar amplification is thought to result primarily from positive feedbacks from the retreat of ice and snow. There are a host of other lesser reasons that are associated with the atmospheric temperature profile at the poles, temperature dependence of global feedbacks, moisture transport, etc. Observations and models indicate that the equilibrium temperature change poleward of 70N or 70S can be a factor of two or more greater than the global average." Thus, as I understand the Arctic Oscillation, which has to do with atmospheric pressure variations and not "greater climate change near the pole", it is not the same as Arctic amplification The AO is defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center as follows: "An atmospheric circulation pattern in which the atmospheric pressure over the polar regions varies in opposition with that over middle latitudes (about 45 degrees North) on time scales ranging from weeks to decades. The oscillation extends through the depth of the troposphere. During the months of January through March it extends upward into the stratosphere where it modulates in the strength of the westerly vortex that encircles the Arctic polar cap region. The North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation are different ways of describing the same phenomenon." -
Kevin C at 07:21 AM on 13 April 2012Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic
Eric: I see what you're saying in terms of the effects on the jetstream being similar, but Arctic amplification looks nothing like the graph you show above. Look at this figure:
Arctic amplification describes difference in rate of warming between the Arctic and the rest of the planet. As you can see, there is no significant difference before about 1980, but after 1995 the difference goes through the roof.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 07:05 AM on 13 April 2012Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic
To followup my first comment, here's a post with an AO description and although the chart there is a little out of date:
it looks like the long term trend is still positive. Although variable, this past winter's AO index was mostly positive. See http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif
-
funglestrumpet at 07:04 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Yet again the debate gets bogged down in where this pesky CO2 comes from. If it were from some unidentified non-human source, would it be o.k. to ignore it and let the planet just go on heating up? I rather think not. If these people think that CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas if it comes from a non-human source, all they have to do is prove it. Being ex NASA and obviously all wise in all things scientific, they surely have the evidence at their finger tips. However, until such evidence is forthcoming, we have to accept that the planet is heating up relentlessly, as several recent items on this site have clearly shown and the curret science is that that heating is largely due to the greenhouse effect of CO2, period. Unless we want future generations to suffer, we would be wise to reduce the atmospheric CO2 content by what ever means possible and as quickly as possible. (And that would still be true, even if the heating were due to the Sun, say, or some other cause.) As we remember the sinking of the Titanic, we can consider whether these ex-NASA experts, had they been in charge of the ship, would have even tried to steer away from the iceberg. Let's face it, the iceberg could hardly be said to be human in origin and the origin of things seems to be the issue that rattles their cage. Looking at their letter, it seems to me that they would have just carried on full-steam ahead, which probably explains why they are described as 'former' NASA employees. -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:50 AM on 13 April 2012Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic
Don9000, it's pretty much the same, the positive AO described in the paper I linked is a measurement corresponding to a stronger polar jet (i.e. 500mb zonal winds in figure 2). -
Don9000 at 06:36 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
While I respect the bravery and talents of NASA astronauts in their fields of endeavor, I've heard and seen enough from some former NASA astronauts to conclude that they are not all brilliant polymaths. When I was initiated into an honorary society a number of years ago at Florida State University, I had to listen to a keynote address by Norman Thagard, an astronaut and engineer, and a graduate of my university. Thagard's message was filled with so much optimistic mush that was in direct contradiction to the reality that people like me were experiencing that I wanted to walk out of the auditorium. Similarly, just because the late James Irwin was an astronaut, does not mean that experience lends credence to his belief that Noah's Ark was waiting to be found on the side of Mount Ararat in Turkey. On the other hand, his belief (so strong that he was involved in several expeditions to the mountain in search of the Ark) does show us that at least one astronaut has held a rather strong belief in the veracity of the biblical flood story. I'm reasonably sure few astronauts are similarly fundamental in their world views, but it does point out the flaw in trying to imply that because a person is an astronaut we have to accept what he or she utters as the equivalent of Holy Writ. -
JMurphy at 06:32 AM on 13 April 2012Data Contradicts Connection Between Earth's Tilt and the Seasons
That was a good series, Paul D, and it even gave a good explanation of the tilt/wobble/orbital changes that lead to and out of ice-ages. Orbit : Earth's Extraordinary JourneyModerator Response: [mc] Apparently only available as video if you're in the UK! -
Paul D at 06:05 AM on 13 April 2012Data Contradicts Connection Between Earth's Tilt and the Seasons
We recently had a very good BBC TV series in the UK about Earths orbit around the Sun and how it determines the seasons/weather. One point made was that the summer in the Southern Hemisphere is generally cooler than in the Northern Hemisphere, basically because of the land mass in the North and the greater water mass in the South. Well worth watching if you get the chance. -
Don9000 at 06:05 AM on 13 April 2012Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic
Eric @ 1 No mention is made of "negative AO" in the article. In fact, searching it, I find there is not even one example of the letters "AO" or "ao" appearing sequentially. If you think you read an article about the Arctic Oscillation, I think you should take another look. The topic is in fact "Arctic amplification." That two word phrase appears in the article seven times. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:44 AM on 13 April 2012Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic
This change to negative AO was not predicted, but the opposite was. For example, see ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/engels/Stanley/Textbook_update/Science_297/Moritz-02.pdf Alternative explanations include low solar UV causing blocking, I have links for that, but not handy. The best explanation will incorporate the various factors, tropospheric forcing from factors like lack of ice and other factors and concurrent stratospheric solar forcing. The resultant weather patterns result from both feeding from the other. Ice anomalies is not going to be one of the stronger factors IMO. -
Composer99 at 05:34 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Make that, eyecrometer. -
Composer99 at 05:34 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
thepoodlebites: Using my own eyecrometer, Figure 2 in the OP does not "look" "overly damped" at all compared to the GISS graph you have linked to. All either of us is going on is what a graph "looks like", which is why the eycrometer is not an adequate substitute for analysis. -
dana1981 at 05:30 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
thepoodlebites @24 - again, you appear to be looking at troposphere temperatures when you say 1998 "looks overly damped". I don't know what else to tell you - it's not damped at all, it's a graph of GISS land-ocean temp anomalies (or possibly the average of land-ocean and land-only, I forget which). -
John Russell at 05:25 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
The Huffington Post had an article on this, which ended up asking its readers whether they think 'climate science is true' (since removed). Dave Roberts wrote a funny article about it for Grist (with links to the HP article). -
thepoodlebites at 05:01 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
dana1981 @23 - Please refer to Figure 7, UAH and RSS "provide a good comparison to the surface temperature data over the past three decades." Or compare with GISS, monthly mean since 1996. Figure 2 above for 1998 looks, what's the best way to say, 'overly damped'? -
Sapient Fridge at 04:57 AM on 13 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
Bernard J., your musings about future generations and the depleted environment reminded me of "First And Last Men" by Olaf Stapledon. An amazingly far-sighted book which looks at how future species of humans might evolve after us. I suspect that our descendants will not be impressed by the steaming hot planet and lack of resources we are setting up for them. Imagine what we would think of the ancient Greeks if they had done that to us! -
dana1981 at 04:30 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
thepoodlebites @22 - we're talking about projections and observations of surface, not lower troposphere temperatures. UAH is not applicable. -
Jeff T at 04:29 AM on 13 April 2012Data Contradicts Connection Between Earth's Tilt and the Seasons
Thanks for a great demonstration of two common errors: using correlation to imply causation and failure to use all data. Has anyone considered the meaning of the fact that length of day lags mean daily temperature by ten to eleven months? #386 has always been my favorite xkcd! -
the fritz at 03:44 AM on 13 April 2012DeConto et al: Thawing permafrost drove the PETM extreme heat event
The trigger for this sudden destabilization was a variation in orbital configurations that resulted in warmer polar summers. -------------------------- I suppose these configurations happened several times earlier; so why did not the "PETM" happen earlier -
thepoodlebites at 03:39 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Figure 2 (observations in blue): The 1998 El Nino peak looks overly damped compared to the 2010/11 El Nino, should be about equal. And the latest UAH 12-month globally averaged T is about 0.3 C cooler than the last El Nino event that peaked in early 2011. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:16 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
It should be noted that Larry Bell is actually an Architect. -
dana1981 at 01:07 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
JMurphy @14 - yes, I was pleasantly surprised to see The Guardian picked up our story. No doubt they were looking for a rebuttal to the NASA letter and enjoyed ours. I noticed that the first few comments were just ad hominem attacks on SkS and James Hansen. Again, totally predictable. -
muoncounter at 00:30 AM on 13 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
According to 'World Spaceflight,' approximately 530 people of various nationalities have been in space. So of the signers, take the number who've been in space and divide. Notable on this list is number of times in space record holder Franklin Chang-Diaz, who is currently: active in environmental protection and raising awareness about climate change, notably in his role in Odyssey 2050 The Movie in which he encourages young people to get motivated about environmental issues -
SirNubwub at 00:24 AM on 13 April 2012Data Contradicts Connection Between Earth's Tilt and the Seasons
Thanks for the excellent simple example of bad science. I will definitely be incorporating this into my high school curriculum. -
Bernard J. at 00:17 AM on 13 April 2012Data Contradicts Connection Between Earth's Tilt and the Seasons
Kevin C. Just quietly I think that there is much time and space for xkcd on Skeptical Science. Especially #386...Moderator Response: [Sph] Embedded image reference:
-
Bernard J. at 00:10 AM on 13 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
Dr2chase. There are two points about your post at #24 that need to be addressed. First, the presence of particular species, in a particular bioclimatic niche, at a particular instant in time, does not actually tell you that they are persistent in that niche over evolutionary spans. To draw that conclusion one requires much more data than simple personal experience. Second (and it's really a reiteration of past posts as well as a segue from the first point), a species does not have to be immediately and profoundly physiologically stressed by a climatic parameter to be compromised by it. Even an apparently 'tolerable' but suboptimal climatic envelope can eventually push a species to extirpation in a particular environment, or, if it is a subtle pressure, to evolution to a more adapted species. This is the whole point of emphasising that humans are adapted in their current form to a mild Holocene climate. We are not adapted to an Eocene maximum, a scenario which would be quite possible if all fossil fuels are burned over the space of a mere few centuries. We just aren't cut our for the addition to mean temperature. Yes, our decendants could move poleward, but life in high latitudes, with seasonalities and with the degraded habitat that we will inevitably leave, will not be nearly as sweet as a palm-shaded beach is today in, say, contemporary Fiji, with a cold beer and an air-conditioned room two minutes walk away. Don't forget that future generations won't have the benefit of the once-off bonanza of energy density that we're chugging down today. Likely, they won't even have access to easily-obtained metals, as we've already exploited the best deposits. They'll be battling an ecosystem that will be massively deforested this century, when the oil peak is long past and wood (rather than the thermodynamically impossible pipedream of widespread renewables) is used in many regions to replace oil (and, in places, coal) for heating and lighting. They'll be battling a resurgence of diseases, including the very recent (by evolutionary standards) HIV which is only scratching its arse at the moment, waiting for a time when a degraded lack of technological capacity to manufacture drugs, combined with a rapidly developing resistance to those that are being used, allows it to sweep through humanity like a dose of Epsom salts. As social and educational sophistication decreases, the safe sex message will diminish, and the 'sleeper' strategy of HIV will ensure that it runs rampantly through many human populations, quite likely to the extent (or greater) that is occurs in places such as Swaziland and Botswana today. And there's TB, and malaria, and a host of enteric viruses, and many cryptic exotics that are simply waiting for the current human monoculture to flip them out of whichever hidden corner in which they're currently percolating. A large proportion of these diseases will all do very well in a warmer world, thank you muchly, not matter how clever the post fossil fuel generations are at shading themselves under trees, in houses, or at the beach. From physiology to ecophysiology, we're not greenhouse animals - no matter how much we can toy with basking in the sun. Heck, as persistence hunters we evolved away most of our fur - and largely during the passage of the last ice age, in fact. We did this because it allowed us to prevent overheating in what was not a greenhouse climate. And yes, it was warm in Africa, but the fact of nakedness still helps to contextualise how we adapted to a thermal upper limit. And granted, we're agricultural these days, more than predatory (although many would disagree). However, if we eschew the advantage of a high protein diet evolution might decide to select for new humans that don't have quite such a high-maintenance brain - and then adjusting to a warm climate becomes more a matter of doing what the environment tells us, and not what our descendants might want to tell it to do. In ten years, or 50 years, or a hundred years, certainly many humans will deal with the heat. Most will, in fact, as long as something else doesn't get them first. But in the longer term, on more evolutionary scales... not so much. -
Michael Whittemore at 23:41 PM on 12 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
I was looking at figure 4 and could not help wonder if CO2 lagged the temperature rise when you left out the 30N-90N proxy's. It would seem to me the reduced cooling in the northern regions are so low, that they draw down the other proxy's. The basic idea is most of the planet may have lead CO2, but due to the large cooling in the far north, when averaged it makes it look like all of the northern hemisphere lead CO2. It might had only been the far north that lagged CO2. I think with more proxy's and a batter understanding of just how cold it was in the north might bring CO2 back into a lagging state. I graphed the 80 proxy's below.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 23:20 PM on 12 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
The feedback effect of water vapor is not just a result of temperature but varies with climate regime. For example in glacial climates the storm tracks are weaker and further south, see http://www.springerlink.com/content/r8m3117000188x52/ and folk.uib.no/cli061/pdfs/thesis.pdf. That leads to less latent heat transfer than the modern climate. Thus, the change in weather patterns from glacial to interglacial causes more warming than just from increase in WV (about 10% average) and other positive feedbacks. Another evening of water vapor (causing warming) comes from the increase in vegetation (reduction of deserts). Some of that is incorporated in fig 5 above. It is important to point out that we cannot predict the changes in weather patterns that will occur from modern CO2 warming. Some predictions are for less meridional flow (net global warming), some predictions are for more. That is obviously just one factor of many. -
Gringo at 22:54 PM on 12 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
@ Captain Pithart Alex (Skip) Larsen is also misspelled. It's actually Axel Larsen. He co-authored a book in 2009 titled "Satefy Design of Space Systems". -
chriskoz at 21:09 PM on 12 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Sphaerica @3, It feels like shame and embarassment, those 8 astronauts - heroes of our childhood, but objectively, it ain't necessarilly so. How large is this sample among the total population of retired astronauts (+cosmonauts - let's be impartial)? I guess very few, less than couple %. I am optimistic that the silent majority is far less silly than those 8 vocal deniers, so I still like those heroes. Until some proper poll/survey proves otherwise: i.e. climate denialism among retired astronauts be stronger than among average population with similar education level. -
amhartley at 21:02 PM on 12 April 2012DeConto et al: Thawing permafrost drove the PETM extreme heat event
A fascinating analysis. I wonder, though, about the conclusion that "we should perhaps worry more about the far greater stores of fossil carbon that we are now quite deliberately exhuming and putting into the atmosphere..." On 4 March, this site published a piece about the increases we can expect of fires in Northern forests & peatlands, made possible by thawing permafrost & ignited often but not exclusively by lightning. Enough peat (if burned) exists in those regions to render the planet uninhabitable, said that previous article. Seems to me that, though our fossil carbon emissions are "getting the ball rolling," the thawing peat is of equal or greater concern? -
Captain Pithart at 20:49 PM on 12 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
"Tom Ohesorge" is a typo, it's "Thomas E. Ohnesorge". Several signatories also signed the Oregon Petition, for example Deiterich, Doiron, Kraft. Larry Bell is the one from Forbes. It would be interesting to have the total amount of *life years* these guys have :) George Mueller is born 1918, for example. p. -
heijdensejan at 20:38 PM on 12 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Tom Curtis, As Thomas Wysmuller is Dutch you should try the Dutch version of his last name Wijsmuller, however the result is exactly the same -
JMurphy at 20:28 PM on 12 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
I see Dana's post is now in The Guardian in the UK. The comments should be interesting... -
HuangFeng at 19:03 PM on 12 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
You people at SkepticalScience amaze me with the speed you turn this around. I was wondering if you knew who Thomas J Harmon and Tom Ohesorge were. I have a sneaking suspicion that Harmon might be a security officer, given a Google+ page with a same name person claiming to be retired from NASA. I wouldn't want to have this guy bothered though. Perhaps you've demonstrated enough with the administrators involved. I would caution that I think there is a faint hint of validity in what the astronauts are getting at. Perhaps if NASA were to link to the hard science, like refereed papers are required to do, then the nutjobbery would have no real recourse but to go back to denying actual science rather than statements on NASA. While a web site is not a peer reviewed paper, NASA being NASA, might like strive for a higher standard than producing statement without reference. I also hope that NASA comes out firing and demands what specifically these signatories are claiming is not supported by science. Also it's not just the signatory Schmitt that is an Exxon funded Heartland board member, but also Walter Cunningham is on the board of Heartland institute and has ties to Exxon Mobil through the Tech Central Station. I wonder how many others receive Exxon funding.Moderator Response: [Sph] Please provide references for your assertion (and theirs) that NASA has produced a "statement without reference." That whole part of their letter confuses me. NASA conducts an amazing amount of science, generates a lot of knowledge and papers that contribute to the knowledge, and produces what are fairly detailed and informative articles. What exactly are these "unproven remarks in public releases and websites" to which they (and you) are referring? -
macoles at 18:23 PM on 12 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Those making the noise are far worse than that, because any sensible pediatrician or dentist will refer them straight back to a surgeon. What the contrarians are doing is more like trying to treat cancer with homeopathy. The homepathic practitioner will just take their money, give them a vial of water, and reassure them there is nothing to worry about because doctors can sometimes get things wrong. -
Tom Curtis at 18:02 PM on 12 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
In the OP, Dana says of the letter's signers that "... we have a bunch of former administrators, astronauts, and engineers who between them have zero climate expertise and zero climate science publications." I had noted that one of the signatories was billed as a meteorologist, so a little further exploration was in order. As it turns out, a search of Google Scholar for author: Wysmuller turns up no papers published by any "Tom Wysmuller" at all, so it turns out Wysmuller is not a published scientist in any field. At his very own anti-global warming web site, where Tom Wysmuller offers to lecture on global warming for a fee (from universities) or for free (for high schools) we learn that he was an intern at NASA, but that since then he has been: "•Admin Director of Govt. Operations at Pratt & Whitney, where he wrote the code that solves the Polynomial Regression Algorithm now resident in millions of Texas Instruments calculators. •Insurance Executive & Board member of insurance and other companies/orgs. •President of NYU’s Alumni Association. •Vice Chairman, The New Netherland Museum, where in May, 2001, the New York City Council issued a proclamation honoring his historical contributions." Curiously given above comments @9 and @10, from linkedin we learn he was on the Board of directors of Delta Dental. Finally, from Marc Morano we learn that he worked for the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (although Morano mistranslated the organizations name) as a "weather forecaster". So Dana is right. Even from the most promising candidate, there is no actual experience as a climate scientist, or in the professional study of climate. What is more, from Marc Morano we learn that he believes that,"The largest contributor to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the warming oceans"
which gives a the quality of evidence that the former NASA employees consider "proven". Ironically, in one essay he even uses a Steven Goddard reproduction of the IPCC First Assessment Report estimate of medieval temperatures based on Central England Temperature series back to the Little Ice Age, and an educated guess based on European anecdotal evidence before that. I guess "proven" means something entirely different when the conclusions are ones that you like. -
Tom Curtis at 17:04 PM on 12 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
R Gates @9, sorry. Can't be done. The dentists and plumbers are too busy signing the Oregon Petition. -
R. Gates at 14:47 PM on 12 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Might as well assemble a team of retired dentists or plumbers to write such a letter. Oh, but of course that wouldn't have the desired impact would it, even though their knowledge of climate dynamics would be about the same. -
trunkmonkey at 14:46 PM on 12 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
Shakun is a great paper and nuance is just the right word, but check out his curves for insolation, antiphase between hemispheres at lat 65.They are sooo slow. Why here, Why now? Thermite needeed. More nuances coming IMO. -
muoncounter at 13:20 PM on 12 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Interesting that these retired gentlemen make no mention of the scandalous work done at NASA Langley: The evidence, according to Bruce Wielicki, lies in the decades of climate records that are revealing how humans are "driving our system a thousand times faster than it's ever been driven before." ... "You can't believe a single scientist, but you can believe thousands of scientists," he said, referring to several peer-reviewed science organizations–such as the IPCC group–that have arrived at the same conclusion: Climate change is happening. An astrophysics friend with some inside contacts at Johnson Space Center recently told me of a group of 'old geezers' who would argue against climate science - they're big fans of JCurry. Anyone surprised?
Prev 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 Next
