2. Open NASA facilities to "green tech" companies. NASA should be allowed to open its facilities and experts to innovative green technology companies and nonprofits. NASA has a wide range of facilities that are of relevance to green technologies from research stations in the arctic and desert, to the world's largest wind tunnels, to supercomputers. For example, a novel, high-altitude wind energy company Makani Power, partially funded by Google, is making use of the NASA Ames Research Center wind tunnels for advancing their energy production designs.
3. Create an energy/environment data center. NASA has vast amounts of relevant data. This includes Earth observation data and information on the global flow of energy, solar weather, the magnetosphere that influences our system, relevant green technologies, and aviation data. Together with other key agencies—such as the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA could provide all such data in common standard formats. Starting with the approach NASA already takes with its Planetary Data System to host the information, NASA should take it a step further, providing an application programming interface for others to use this treasure trove.
4. Utilize small, inexpensive spacecraft to collect climate data. Following the recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences's first-ever Decadal Survey for Earth Science, NASA should establish a venture class of spacecraft for Earth observing to enable the collection of more data for less cost. Today a great deal of valuable Earth observation data can be collected on small satellites that are an order of magnitude lighter as well as an order of magnitude lower cost. A good example is the Disaster Monitoring Constellation, which is an international constellation of five small remote-sensing satellites, each costing approximately $20 million (20 to 50 times less expensive than typical NASA satellites). Although of lower resolution and finesse than the NASA birds, at so much lower cost they can give higher temporal resolution and certainly more data for a given expenditure.
5. Invest in "green" aviation. Let us not forget that the first A in NASA is Aeronautics. NASA could be tasked to help to develop some of the key technologies that would enable "green aviation"—technologies that could help aircraft use less fuel or be carbon neutral. These include more fuel-efficient air traffic control, lighter-weight structures, more advanced combustion control systems as well as electric, solar or biofuel-based motors. For example, NASA could lead a concerted research effort on electric planes, focusing on production and testing of prototype vehicles whose designs are then made as open hardware, accessible to the aerospace industry.
6. Use of UAVs for regional climate modeling. Currently there is a gap between aircraft observations that are high-resolution but limited in coverage, and satellite data, which provide a global view but with lower resolution. NASA UAVs and other airborne platforms could be used as gap-fillers in a more active program that offers regional, high-resolution, climate data collection, along with immediate response to disasters. For example, in 2008 NASA flew an adapted Predator drone over California wildfires providing real-time, Web-based information delivery to decision makers, which California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger credited with playing a critical role in fighting those fires.
7. Greater U.S. Government collaboration. NASA should be encouraged to work more closely with the other relevant U.S. agencies as well as its international counterparts. Today researchers from NASA and the DoE, for instance, can't even enter one another's facilities without advance permission. Within the U.S., there is a lack of clarity for the roles played by the alphabet soup of federal agencies that have environmental programs—the DoE, NASA, NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Geological Survey, among them. It is NASA and NOAA that primarily collect the climate change data, and it is the DoE that primarily deals with energy. These three organizations alone managed over 80 percent of the $11.6-billion U.S. environment and energy research budget in 2008; they also employ the bulk of government scientists and engineers that can contribute to solving the massive systems engineering problems of climate change and sustainable energy.
See what we're tweeting about
63 Comments
Add CommentWonderful article. More information on how "green" NASA already is at http://green.arc.nasa.gov/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is NASA promoting CO2 sequestration when Earth has a looming atmospheric carbon deficit. CO2 is essential for plant life. As CO2 rates decreases towards 150ppm, agriculture yields will drop dramatically and most life on Earth will die of starvation. According to the IPCC charts, atmospheric CO2 has dropped 80% at a linear rate over the past 170 million years (when life flourished, with CO2 at 1700ppm) . Only in the past 200 years has there been a small uptick to 380ppm. In the past 200 years, crop yields are estimated to have increased 30-40% because of the extra carbon. To try to reverse this is to inhibit agricultural production. Carbon is a finite resource and nature has been sequestering it underground in carbon based fuels and carbonates, inaccessible to most natural recirculating patterns. Mankind's burning of fossil fuels has released some of this carbon but ecopolitical goals are to promote human sequestering, which will accelerate the demise of Earth's flora and fauna.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA modest proposal, fast and cheap:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Publish data, code, specifications, adjustment documentation with scientific justification and results of such adjustments (configuration management). Make them available to the public.
- Adjust for UHI and the reduction in the number of surface stations in Russia, et al. Do not adjust using records 500 km away.
- Repair or replace U.S. surface stations that do not meet specifications for siting and condition.
- Using original, unadjusted data, recompute.
Perhaps you may find "Global Warming" to be much reduced, and more in line with satellite records?
#1 is frightening - who is going to set the global thermostat? I am sure my neighbor will be banging on the pipes if it's too hot or cold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPS How does a scientist or engineer test the global temperature setting procedures? By changing the temperature? What if our models are wrong? Will we know how to roll back those changes? These recommendations are very dangerous - I really hope the new administration does not go in this direction.
This is a great idea. In the past, NASA has used untold amounts of fossil fuels and mystery metals to leave the planet and as exciting as it was, I always felt that it was too costly. Its great to know that NASA can actually help with monitoring climate change. NASA is known for its innovation and this is going to be an exciting time for alternative energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA should study the recent shrinkage of the Martian ice caps and why they are shrinking in tandem with those of earth. There may be some damping of earth's response because of its oceans, but intensified research may indicate that solar fluctuations are chiefly responsible for climate change on earth and on Mars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming is the world's number one problem? Tell that to the millions who die each year from starvation. Oh wait, you can't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world has a lot of pressing problems, but global warming doesn't even make the Top 10.
While I think innovative energy production ideas should be handled by the US Department of Energy, due to the length of time to impliment (see "Moore's Curse and the Great Energy Delusion") any clean energy technology we will have to impliment a geoengineering scheme in the interim:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We underestimated the risks ... we underestimated the damage associated with temperature increases ... and we underestimated the probabilities of temperature increases." -- Sir Nicholas Stern, author of "The Stern Report," April 17, 2008
"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07
"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
NASA could save civilization by evaluating different geoengineering schemes for future implimentation. By the way, I suggest the cheap and simple method of putting a little sun dimming aerosol into the upper atmosphere:
"The Panel (on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming) calculated that adding stratospheric aerosol dust to the stratosphere would cost just pennies per ton of CO2 mitigated." --"The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering"
Sorry to double post, but I sure wish somebody would evaluate this silver bullet energy production technology:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToday, most of our electricity is produced by "electromagnetic induction," where a magnet is moved in and out of a coil of wire in a closed circuit.
In other words, we now have to power the motion of either the magnet or the wire to produce electricity.
Instead, wind a solenoidal coil around a magnet, and apply electricity. The magnetic field is amplified, and the magnetic gradient can be exploited to yield more electricity than was used powering the solenoidal coil.
In other words, we avoid having to power the motion of either the magnet or the wire, and can instead have a solid state power generator.
A private California company called Magnetic Power Inc ( www.magneticpowerinc.com ) exceeded breakeven (i.e. produced more electricity than it used) with a prototype in late 2004.
By the way, I am very much aware of how crazy the above sounds, but I have good reasons for thinking that it is legimate. Here is a link to a video (with a partial transcript) that is very very interesting:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/379134/2290307
"In association with Magnetic Power Inc. I'm on the web talking about this. Please don't try to get me involved in your own crackpot project - one is enough. Basically, I believe it would be possible to get what looks like free energy (but which may not in fact be free) from static magnetic fields. At best, it could be revolutionary, at worst I'll have another story to tell at my own expense. I've looked at the technological approach and couldn't knock any holes in it. I am a skeptic and will believe it when I see it, and I can't see why I can't do it myself. I don't ask for permission from physicists in doing my engineering - engineers create phenomenon and physicists explain them - first things first." --Lee Felsenstein, SuperHappyDevHouse.org
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
you forgot numbers 11 & 12: "Run faster" and "Try harder."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been reading SciAm since 1949, & it's disheartening to see you supporting this Global Warming nonsense. You know there is no scientific foundation for all this hysteria, and you of all people should deal with the facts. You've become the People Magazine of 'Science'. It's a shame; and shame on you.
If global warming really exists, we know the culprit, fossil fuels. Solution: STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS! No nine ways about it. Spend the money on something that matters, like subsidies for alternative energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about doing something wonderful, tell the truth!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll your baffelgab about the "global climate change", and carbon dioxide levels is a pile of garbage being spewed out by social activist enviromentalists.
How about printing some of Dr. Tim Ball's articles for rebuttal, or how about Dr. David Bellamy from Great Britian. You don't see anything or here of anything from a far greater portion of science rebutting all your claims about the environment. Its the same smear tactics by magazines and newsprint outfits who jumped exclusively on board for the Al Gore and the dubious IPCC misfits.
You are doing a greater disservice to news and media reporting not getting the real science out to the reading and listening public.
If you ever went the the Kennedy Space Center, it is the most UN-Green place. They have tons of filthy polluting diesel buses driving fat tourists around. You would think they would have bio diesel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat place is old and so is NASA's thinking. We just need to conserve and create more awareness and tax incentives to go green. Get real NASA.
"170 million years (when life flourished, with CO2 at 1700ppm)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLife did flourish. However we came about much more recently. Our food comes from a more recent climate. If the south pole turned to farmland who could farm it? Six months of heat followed by six months of cold. There certainly has been benifit from the extra CO2 but future benifits are rapidly outweighted by negative consequences.
The important thing to remember is that life will go on at extermely high CO2 levels. However at a much earlier level our global culture and knowledge will not and just passed that our species may not survive. The end would be too far away for us to see but unlike the dinosaurs we can choose the fate of the future and survive.
"Will we know how to roll back those changes?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe climate boat is very slow to turn around. After is stops increasing then the next generation can discuss whether it should decrease.
"solar fluctuations are chiefly responsible for climate change " ... those studies have been done and while some are ongoing for refinement. Basically it does have an impact that has already been accounted for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about having NASA do a full cost/benefit accounting of energy usage. But this time instead of only adding in the environmental cost, they also add in the cost of people not starving due to fertilizers produced from fossil fuels, people not dying due to drugs produced with input of fossil fuels, people not freezing due to heating their homes with fossil fuels ....and on and on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurely fossil fuels must provide some benefit.
"The plain fact is there was never any evidence of CFCs affecting the ozone layer." - Dr. Tim Ball
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. David Bellamy while entitled to his opinion has never produced a paper refuting climate change.
"not getting the real science out to the reading and listening public" - find some real science. And I don't mean that in a bad way. It is important that people with ideas that global warming doesn't exist support science to prove it. This is not a debate like astroturf vs real grass. We had all rather not take any action on climate change if it was not occuring.
iconoclasm:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you have it front to back. The hypothesis that needs proving is that AGW is real. This is because you can't prove a null hypothesis. I can't prove that Sasquatches don't exist, but it is up to somone to prove that they do.
So far, what I see in the research are increasingly bizarre postulations put forth by pro-AGW groups that are either unprovable or systematically disproven, one by one. I have yet to see a smoking gun that AGW is real, or even a computer model that has made a prediction that has proven true. You have to admit, this is looking shakier by the day.
I would love to see someone attempt to reconcile satellite data and balloon data which show no increase in temperature with ground based data which does. I know that a pro-AGW researcher claims to have reconciled this disparity by using wind shear data and correcting it through a computer program, but this process doesn't pass Occomb's Razor.
My suspicion is that there is a systemic flaw in the ground-based data wrt to correcting for human development, deforestation etc.
I visited the Kennedy Space Center in December 2008 and considered it to be a beautiful wildlife sanctuary with a few widely dispersed launch pads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think people often mix up global warming as being the #1 problem, when it really should be that global warming has the potential to be the #1 problem. Ruin our atmosphere and all the other problems will seem unimportant. But our atmosphere isn't anywhere near ruin....yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can you prove that a sasquatch doesn't exist? That is nearly impossible, and if it was, someone would have done it. You are right in thinking that there is a burden of proof for people claiming that the sasquatch is real, but there is also a burden of proof to say that it for sure, doesnt exist. Substitue global warming for sasquatch and you have the same scenario. My belief is that we are better off dealing with it. If it does exists, we took action early, if it doesn't than we lower energy consumption and produce cleaner air for nothing (other than its own gain). If we choose to ignore, we can get lucky by global warming not being as bad as we thought, or we could get screwed by not dealing with it soon enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEither way, you still need proof to say it doesn't exist. (Even though we are absolutely sure it does exist, rather just unsure of its effect on our planet).
Lpeter: I visited the Kennedy Space Center in December 2008 and found it to be a beautiful wildlife preserve with a few widely dispersed launch pads. Albert
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisagenthucky:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate your comments, but you miss the point and process of science. Unless you can prove something exists, your belief in it's existence is a matter of faith or religion; not science. This is because science deals with testable, verifiable and repeatable issues.
To use the sasquatch example, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so I can't prove that one does not exist. However, you can begin to prove one exists by bringing back a carcass for examination, identification, genetic testing etc.
From an AGW perspective, I can't prove that AGW is not occurring, but I can refute the pro-AGW claims. It would be the same as you bringing in your saquatch and I looked at the teeth and found that they were wolf teeth, examined the hair and found that is was from a black bear or did a DNA test and found that it was from a baboon. I still haven't proved that a sasquatch doesn't exist, but I can tell you that what you brought in ain't one!
Getting back to AGW, the same issues with the evidence exist. None of them have stood up to examination in the cold light of day. Many have been proven outright false. For others, simpler explanations also fit the data. AGW is a long way from being proven.
As to your believing that we should deal with it anyway, well, get out your chequebook and spend as much as you want, that is your right and a matter of your own faith, but it has nothing to do with science.
My fault, I thought you were trying to say that "sasquatch doesn't exist' because no one could prove it does. I agree with your latest statement, and after re-reading the other one I misunderstood what you were saying. My gripe was with people saying that GW doesnt exist because they dont think the effects warrant the investigation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto reiterate my point:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7843186.stm
Now, this is scientifc fact. What I have trouble dealing with is whether or not a person thinks this is major/minor/false.
It is not false. It may not be important, but the data is there. Someone telling me that this isn't a big deal is going of opinion. The scientific data cannot tell us if it is a 'big deal' because we need time for that. This is a very touchy subject. Do we wait for the effects to be known by science, or try to estimate the damage that will be done. This is where science and humanity don't mix well. Science says that it CAN'T do anything until facts are known about the effects of the warming. The data is there for us to use, but the outcome is uncertain. Humanity says that we should do something before it is too late. There is plenty of data out there showing warming temperatures. Whether this is natural/man made/or insignificant, the data is there for scientists to consider....some are just more humane than others. This isn't bad, science cannot be led by humanity, but it is an inexcapable quality of man.
To Shoshin:
I thought you were saying that global warming is a myth. There just isn't enough data on the effects for you to judge it. For me, I choose to head it as a warning, but faith isn't present in my decision, the loss of polar ice is what makes my decision (possibly because I live near the shore).
Now, I ask, the data can be collected for eternity, what is enough for you to believe that it is worth our efforts? You will be long gone before anything major happens, so WHEN do we (as a reace) start doing something? This is not like religion that cannot be proven, it is not an empty struggle to try and prove it. As another note, there will be no huge drastic change for science to notice any effect, rather it will be done gradually, little by little, at what point does science come in and save the day?
This article should be the lead in for every evening news broadcast. Not because it is worth a poo, but because the truth is always stranger than fiction (or conspiracy). For years those who reject AGW have made the claim that it is part of a Socialist/Globalist agenda, and most of the "scientific consensus" is really just the result of scientists looking for funding. "Nonsense" say the alarmists, "these are the worlds greatest scientists, and they would never color their scientific viewpoint over money".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo funny thing. I know that the great James Hansen, Global Warming conspirator numero uno, works for NASA. And I know that the NASA GISS temperature record is the one that shows the clearest trends that would indicate Global Warming, despite other records showing no such trend. Now I just read this article, which is clearly from NASA or people close to NASA calling for:
1. Globalization in the form of a global energy plan. Which of course as good as a global government because Energy is a life and death proposition for most people and economies.
2. "Green" energy and propulsion technologies, which would of course require taxpayer funding
3. Research and Data to better understand CC, which would of course require taxpayer funding
4. Small "inexpensive" aircraft to study climate (good thinking. why buy a 747 why you can buy a Gulfstream), requiring taxpayer funding
5. Globalization in the form of "collaborating" (read giving secrets that we found and paid for, to other countries for free) on energy technologies.
There's more but I think the point is made. The cognitive dissonance of the Global Warming alarmists is unfathomable. On a daily basis they can be found almost anywhere swearing up and down that money and globalization have nothing to do with it. Yet here it is IN WRITING, and STRAIGHT FROM THE FRAMERS OF THE THEORY ITSELF. Yet I think we all know that this won't even be a speed bump for the folks who have the nerve to call folks like me "denier". The trumpets of alarm will continue to sound, even in direct contradiction to any and all available facts.
If somehow I'm wrong, then I hope the end comes quick and painlessly. But I'll die with a smile on my face, knowing that I never sold out the truth, just to appear righteous or on the side that's winning.
Hope you enjoyed NASAs inevitable tip of their hand, and their plans to be a well funded player in the selling out of capitalist America, truth be damned...
Agenthucky, the good news is there is no real danger from Global Warming, thanks to the Climate Fixing Unicorns. They just fly around cooling things off and sucking up CO2 when there's too much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've spoken to their leader and he assures me we are fine until the next ice age begins in ~800 years.
And since there is no more factual, verifiable proof supporting this than there is AGW, and since I put the burden of proof on you to disprove it, YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IT OR WE WILL ALL CALL YOU A STUPID, HOLOCAUST DENYING, OIL INDUSTRY SCHILL.
See how that works, and why you are on the side of wrong? I hope so, because you seem to be fairly reasonable otherwise. Science only works one way. The burden of DISPROOF does not exist (lucky for you), as there is no sense in proving that nothing known to exist, doesn't exist. Proving that something DOES exist, is a big deal, and a burden the AGW promoters, can't bear. Thus they resort to doublespeak, and smoke and mirrors. The fact however is this. AGW IS a thermodynamic phenomenon (nobody will argue that). Thermodynamics is qualitative and predictive as it is governed by Laws. So the theory of Global Warming as you believe it will be proved when someone comes up with an equation that says X amount of CO2 causes X amount of warming in X amount of time and space, then demonstrates it. That equation must demonstrate a verifiable causal relationship, and not violate existing laws of the universe.
Sadly this has not happened and likely never will. That is why AGW, in the context of the current debate, is neither science nor true. I can tell you for one that if such proof did exist, I would IMMEDIATELY be a 100% believer, as I have full faith VALID science. But is hasn't, and the fact that there are so many diversions and so much posturing around that point, tells me it won't.
So no hard feelings. You're probably fairly intelligent, but you're not a scientist and they know that. Sorry if someone's nifty spin or fancy doublespeak led you to get a couple things backwards. But with the air clear I hope you see there is no science at work here. As this article clearly illustrates, AGW is merely a ploy for globalization and handout money. Sorry you dedicated your time and emotions to it...
As I am not a typical scientist, I am a computer scientist. I was trained to take into account all possibilities and make the best decisions on what to do with the data I see. NOW:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are correct, science has a burden of proof. BUT, in mathematics, it is just the opposite. There is a burden of disproof, ie: The statement "all unicorns speak french" is perfectly legit in the world of mathematics because you cannot prove it false. I feel that the world of mathematics is so solid that we can put the burden of disproof first, seeing as we go by the laws of mathematics, and use them to disprove theory. SInce we know math as a truth, we use truth to disprove. Take it or leave it, but that is the way it is, and I feel math is much stronger than science.
As an example take physics, people are proving all the time its effects, and science is still unsure. Now, if you started with something that you know is true, you can use it to disprove other theories. Physics has many holes in it (although I do live by it) and things are being contradicted left and right (this doesn't happen all to often in the world of mathematics).
Now, as far as a conspiracy, those are theories, how can you claim it as truth? I understand money is to be exchanged in order to further the studies, but what will the outcome be of spending that hard earned $$$. Cheaper and more efficient energy useage, cleaner air, and as a human race, we could find a way to control temperatures on earth to the point where we can sustain ourselves longer.
As for your equation of X amount of CO2 yields X amount of climate change (hmm, seems like math): HOW ARE YOU SUPPOED TO COME UP WITH THAT EQUATION IF YOU DON'T GATHER DATA (see I can use caps too). All in all, the scientific method is applied to all the data presented to us. The disagreement comes when someone tries to value that data.
And if NASA is creating a conspiracy to get funding, GOOD! NASA is the best organization to come out of science, give them more $$$.
I don't believe in GW because I want to be righteous, I believe it because of what is happening. As you said, thermodynamics plays a huge roll in confusing us, is it manmade or is it normal? WHO CARES, it will do away with us all either way if it continues. You just seem to want to sit back and watch, all because you're paranoid.
I take comfort in knowing you'll be paying those tax dollars right along with me :-)
Also, as you said, no hard feelings, a debate is healthy and a huge part of the scientific community. NO assumptions
I am curious on your thoughts about quantum physics. So little do we know about the subject, but soooooo much money goes into that. Look at the large hydron collider, we have no clue, NO CLUE what is going to happen, yet the project was built and research went into that. Give me proof of Quantum Physics before you go spending the money on it? Down-right rediculous. QP disproves a lot of classic physics, but it is in the scientific interest to pursue it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike I said, when we use the math model, we have absolute truths, when we use the science model, we get confused. Proof of this confusion is this subject, along with religion.
Now dont get me wrong, I am not testing mathematics or science. I love both. They both are great things. All I am saying is that life isn't either of them, it contains them, so far be it in LIFE to have only the burden of proof.
Sorry, climate change is not the #1 problem, over population is the #1 problem. Deal with this #1 problem and climate change and many/most other problems go away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, but climate change is not the #1 problem, it is a symptom of the #1 problem, namely over-population. If this is not dealt with all other problems continue to escalate, especially climate change, with little or no hope of a real solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho cares, they don't pay taxes, taxes fund projects. You can't go to mars burning gratitude.=)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI started this posting, then abandoned it, then returned because I've got to say it: the postings on this thread are very disappointing. It is like you guys are fiddling while Rome burns. I mean how bad does it have to get before you are convinced global warming is primarily caused by mankind's emissions? Frankly, the minutia that litters this thread is maddening-I post a revolutionary clean energy technology and warn of massive failure of non-irrigated crops due to record heat events in three decades, but it goes ignored. Wake up, our children and countless future generations are depending upon us. NASA, one of the US premire government agencies, plays second fiddle to NSA stuff and the Armed Services. Maybe mankind deserves to go the way of the Dodo bird or the dinosaur.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisagenthucky;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuantum physics is very different from AGW. It is testable, provable and many of it's tenets are used in everyday life. We may not fully understand it, but like magnetism, something else we don't fully understand, it is governed by certain laws. Quantum Physics doesn't disprove Newtonian or Einsteinian physics; it is a matter of scale. At the macro-level, classical physics concepts work fine, but they break down at the atomic and sub-atomic level. At the sub-atomic level, Quantum effects rule, but they don't work in the macro-scale world. Why that is no one knows yet, but both classical and QP are appropriate and testable and repeatable within their contexts. AGW, not so much.
You stated earlier that you do believe in global warming. I do too, but the difference is that I also believe in global cooling. I am an earth scientist and my time horizons are in the millions and billions of years. The arbitrary 30 year time frame that is used to define "climate" on a human scale is irrelevant to the planet and merely an example of man's hubris.
Real live data support global worming and global cooling. The planet's temperature is and always will be in a state of flux. But this proven scientific reality is a totally separate issue from AGW, which states that people are responsible for warming of the the planet that may or may not be occurring. I find nothing compelling in the data which suggests that we are outside of the bounds of natural heating/cooling fluctuations.
The productivity of biofuels could be increase five fold if hydrogen were added to the process. But using electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric power plants to produce hydrogen through the electrolysis of water is going to dramatically increase the demand for platinum. Platinum is rare on Earth but abundant in the asteroids and probably on the moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos) which appear to be captured asteroids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlatinum could also be used for high efficiency methanol fuel cells for automobiles.
NASA should prioritize the mining of the moons of Mars for mass radiation shielding orbital and interplanetary manned vessels, for rocket fuel (hydrogen and oxygen), and for platinum. The exploitation of the Martian moons could be done very cheaply if space manufactured interplanetary lightsails were built and utilized.
Marcel F. Williams
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/09/mining-moons-of-mars.html
The productivity of biofuels could be increase five fold if hydrogen were added to the process. But using electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric power plants to produce hydrogen through the electrolysis of water is going to dramatically increase the demand for platinum. Platinum is rare on Earth but abundant in the asteroids and probably on the moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos) which appear to be captured asteroids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlatinum could also be used for high efficiency methanol fuel cells for automobiles.
NASA should prioritize the mining of the moons of Mars for mass radiation shielding orbital and interplanetary manned vessels, for rocket fuel (hydrogen and oxygen), and for platinum. The exploitation of the Martian moons could be done very cheaply if space manufactured interplanetary lightsails were built and utilized.
Marcel F. Williams
https://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=nasa-and-climate-change&page=3&posted=1#comments
The first step in eradicating climate change is to tackle the problem of the world's demographic explosion, which is responsable for the currently high CO2 levels. The only proven way to achieve this is to feed the old folks in undeveloped countries so that they need less children to support them in their old age. This means rationalising world food markets so prices become accessible to the 900,000,000 starving people on the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseco-steve:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you. WRT to sustainability, the 800 lb gorilla is population, but we differ on whether AGW is real. Regardless of our difference of opinions on AGW, I think you raise an interesting point on the need to change culture to solve the over-population issue. There is an interesting chapter in Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" that deals with how a tiny (1 sq mile) Pacific Island built a sustainable environment through cultural change.
dobermanmacleod:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease pose and discuss scientific issues. If you want to preach to the choir, go to realclimate.org where everyone agrees with you. If you choose to post here don't be surprised when people disagree. I read your post carefully and found nothing compelling.
You're referring to old data and an old argument that's been disproven. The satellite data IS in agreement with ground observations
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
Shoshin:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe debate is quite interesting, but one question comes up for me. Since it is in your beliefe that the current state of the temperature flucuations is all natural, and that GW is overblown, than what is your specific problem with this 'movement'. Besides the growing conspiracy that half the world's corporations are in on, what is the problem with the reaction to the subject? I can understand that it takes 'time' away from sciences, but if more funding goes into it, then more people will be choosing science as a career, its where the money is. And what harm could come out of it. Yes, altering the earth's temperature is a fragile subject, but what most people are talking about is conservation of energy usage, cleaner energies, and advancement in fuel technology. These things need not the scare of GW to justify them. Not to mention all the hype about 'organic foods' and 'pesticides' that GW has brought to the attention of the masses.
Surely I understand your stance on this subject, like many theories, it can be approached in many ways, from many different viewpoints. But what is so wrong with wanting to conserve a little more? Even if the hype of GW is unwarranted, it must surely bring about some new technologies.
Also, about the globalization of government and economy. This isn't a new theory, it was around before the global warming hype, and is applied to many other subjects, banking being a bigger one. This theory has tried so hard to fit into various subjects, its only natural that people apply it to this. As far as the frequency of that theory, I think we will only be seeing more of it as time passes. At first there were small population groups, then formed cities, then formed states, then formed a country. It is the next step, and people are very paranoid. Don't think I support globalization, I don't, but it seems to be a natural progression, and that subject is being thrown around a little too much (maybe I underestimate the severity).
agenthucky:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy issue with AGW being false is that it diverts the time, energy and resources of too many good people on a wild goose chase. There are real problems in the world, as you pointed out, pollution being one of them. But let's be perfectly clear, AGW and pollution are totally separate items, and mutually exclusive. I'm all in favour of fighting pollution, but I see the AGW movement parisitically drawing funds and resources away from good works to fund a political agenda.
change... what ever you want it to be... good or bad...just change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisomg...something is changing...how will we adapt?
we will change the world...omg...i hate my world...please change it.
what a great concept for a political/social movement. get behind it and you can join the croud and feel better no matter want kind of change happens. Change will happen, it always does, its natural; so you will be right. perfect!
Shoshin:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want you to know it isn't that people disagree with me, or that I am looking for a forum where people all agree with me, it is that you are so obviously wrong. It is very bad judgement to significantly doubt that mankind's emissions are not primarily responsible for the abnormal warming the last few decades (and it is even worse judgement to doubt that there has been abnormal warming the last few decades). If I want to have discussions with people who are ideologically blinded, I would go on a Republican website.
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming is happening. Their three key conclusions are:
* It is "unequivocal" that global warming is occurring.
* The probability this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%.
* The probability this is caused by human emissions is over 90%.
"Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a '70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That's because -- news flash! -- climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference." --David Roberts, The Nation, 24 February 2008
They'll hang onto that 5% until it dwindles down to 0%. I guess they have the right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll change in a conspiracy to a conservative...
correction IS not IN
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most important thing NASA could do is increase its credibility by telling the truth and sharing raw data and analytical details with other researchers. The present method of fudging data to reach a predetermined result is counterproductive. For example Google: hansen data errors
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdobermanmacleod;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know that you are doggedly (pardon the pun) hanging on to your vision of the coming apocalypse, but it was cancelled due to lack of interest.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24934655-5017272,00.html
The article above has the subtitle :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures"
Snowfall is caused by percipitation and can form in various temperature ranges. We simply had more percipitation. The 115 lowest ever temps is quite interesting, I am unsure of how many temp records are normally broke every winter, but thats just it, these are single temperature recording, showing nothing about the average. I ive in CT and it was 9 degrees two days ago, today its 40. We could have easily of set a record (but didnt) with the 9 degrees.
How I did read the stats they give in the article, they agree with the past 50 years of warming, then say since 2002 there has been a cooling. The data here and the data in support of the GW theory is in direct conflict. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see one fact on the average temperatures, mass of arctic ice, or heat distribution of the earth. What I did see however in the posts were people attacking supporters of the GW theory. "Punch Al Gore in the stomach next time you see him." WOW rediculous. That guy must have been mistaken, he must dilike Al Gore's data rahter than Al Gore because he didn't create this theory, it has been around (and supported) for over 50 years.
agenthucky:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the issue is that people tend to look at singular events and extrapolate too much. Case in point, the much quoted surging and melting of the Greenland glaciers has suddenly stopped. No one knows why, or if it will start again, but the expected trend that is quoted by Al Gore and his AGW supporters has definitely halted.
A few warm spells and a few cold spells really don't matter much and may actually be distracting. The two issues are: 1. Is warming real? 2: If so are people causing it or is it part of a natural cycle?
As to Al Gore, he set himself up for ridicule by making outlandish theatrical claims that have been disproven. In England, a parent sought and received an injunction against having his movie shown in school after it was determined to be unscientific at best and propaganda at worst.
My personal opinion is that he and his group should be forced to return their Nobel Prizes. It is repugnant to me that they should be considered in the same circles as Nelson Mandela.
Another exaample of a Technical Government Agency run by a Politician.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming is a hoax perpetrated upon the world by a group of speculators that want another comodity to trade on the open market.
Absolute nonsense.
I am a renowned Solar Scientist and I predict that the Sun is cooling and that the earth will also cool. I am selling Sun Credits that you can purchase for $20,000 each that will entitle you to all of the sunlight you need for the rest of your life. Please wire the required amount to my bank account in Nigeria.
AP report on Tuesday, Jan.21: Partial quotes: "Many damaging effects of climate change are basically irreversible." (Susan Solomon of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory, lead author of international team's paper published in most recent edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Scientists). She defines "irreversible as change that would remain for 1000 years even if humans stopped adding carbon to the atmosphere immediately." My reply to this post is an agreement that geoengineering technologies to block, reflect back or scatter just a few percent of the sun's light/heat energy is the only way we are going to survive, to go green gradually. We have already passed the tipping point. Although sun-shield technologies are only temporary solutions to global warming, we cannot undue the damage that is already underway by reducing or stopping our emissions of greenhouse gases. It's already too late. Another post to an article on this subject points out that when the Earth's vegetation was at its highest point, carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was many times what it is now. If we want to promote that kind of planet and give up human existence, that would be the way to do it. Meanwhile we have to implement geoengineering solutions to buy time to go green gradually. Geoengineering solutions could stop and even reverse global warming/adverse climate change in just a few years. These technologies would have to be renewed periodically until we finally succeed in drastically reducing our emissions of these pernicious and polluting gases and our atmosphere has the time to purge itself. Right now, despite all your articles showing the heroic efforts we are supposedly making, greenhouse gas emissions are still increasing by more than two percent a year. Geoengineering may be a temporary solution, but it is the only solution that will enable us to survive as a species long enough to get our atmosphere back to acceptable levels of these gases. Nevertheless, our climatologists, atmospheric scientists and astronomers are keeping quiet about geoengineering because they want to keep their jobs and their reputations. After all, they won't live long enough to witness our demise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor all the discussion regarding science and fact, there is a serious lack of references in the posts. It makes the discussion rather pointless and quite unscientific when most posts claim this and that without any references as to what the claims are based on. After reading a bunch of posts I realised I was wasting my time because I was not presented with any knowledge or data, only belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGW is garbage. Even the pro-AGW's much vaunted NASA "expert" James Hansen is being disavowed by his own former boss. I guess NASA these days stands for "Now Approaching Scientific Anarchy" .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGW enthusiasts use the fact that climate is governed by the laws of chaos. This means IPCC experts cannot forecast exactly WHEN global warming will trigger a tipping-point. But the absolute laws of physics prove that greenhouse gases increase air temperature, and while atmospheric concentrations increase, the air WILL heat up. The principle of precaution requires that we do not let this man-made situation get out of hand...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseco-steve:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything that you are saying pre-supposes that AGW is real. That has not been established. From where I sit, I see natural fluctuations and no evidence of AGW. I'm starting to wonder if the CO2 increases that we see today are the result of the 800 year lag from the Medieval Warm Period. Timing seems a bit too coincidental; I have no idea how you'd test that hypothesis so I'll throw that out to brighter sparks than me.
By using fear loaded words like "tipping-point", you're pushing people's emotional hot buttons. That is propaganda, politics and religion, not science.
Shoshin : Climate Change certainly has room for debate and this is essential to Science. But in spite of some uncertainty inherent in the system, the evidence weighs in favour of anthropically-induced climate change. The AGW people are entitled to their opinion under the American Constitution, but under British Law all opinions expressed must be backed up by the weight of evidence, in court if necessary! Ditto for the holocaust...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseco-steve:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. I'd love to see what a judge would have to say about the AGW "evidence". I think the AGW supporters would take a sorrowful spanking on it, similar to the one that Al Gore's fictional piece recently took in the British courts where it was banned as propaganda. The judge saw right through it. In the courts so far, AGW 0, Deniers 1.
AGW is a myth. GW is over and NASA knows it. Present solar wind is at it's lowest speed / pressure and coolest temperature in the 50 years that they have data. AGC is the next eco-myth as cooling becomes obvious. Hmmmm I've seen/heard this story before, 50 years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI bet you anti-global-warming guys haven't even bothered to read the IPCC reports, let alone the original treatises on which they are based. It would be big progress if comments on these threads were authoritative. How many negationists have ever done any refereed studies of their own to disprove Climate Change Theory. If there are any, please cite your sources when you comment....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisoh, stop with this 'global warming' nonsense already. Jesus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would rather we take the easier means to curb the problem. It's no value to waste time and money trying to figure out mechanisms like CO2 sequestration when it's common knowledge trees are CO2 sinks. All we should be thinking of is where to plant them and how to maintain them. The african continent is far to big we'd welcome such dev't as long as its for the better tomorrow. Forget geoengineering and think of agroforestry, i think it's a better solution, it presents no set backs unlike geoengineering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this