When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

[CrusaderFrank]

O.K., let's settle this math problem with an example most of us can understand. I go to a bar and order a Screwdriver that's 1 ounce vodka and 3 ounces orange juice. That isn't strong enough for me, so I ask for another shot. Now most people would say the alcohol content was increased 100%. However, if you use Frankematics, you've only increased the alcohol 25%!!!

Learn to read.

I said "a .01% change in atmospheric composition", not in the vodka.

Using my methodology you now have 2 ounces of vodka in a 5 ounce drink (can you count as high as the number 5?) and you've made a 20% change in the composition of the beverage.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course, for the cretins here, this article means nothing, having been written by scientists rather than an obese junkie on the radio.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044025/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044025.pdf

Abstract
Attributing observed climate change to causes is challenging. This letter communicates the
physical arguments used in attribution, and the statistical methods applied to explore to what
extent different possible causes can be used to explain the recent climate records. The methods
use fingerprints of climate change that are identified on the basis of the physics governing our
climate system, and through the use of climate model experiments. These fingerprints
characterize the geographical and vertical pattern of the expected changes caused by external
influences, for example, greenhouse gas increases and changes in solar radiation, taking also
into account how these forcings and their effects vary over time. These time–space fingerprints
can be used to discriminate between observed climate changes caused by different external
factors. Attribution assessments necessarily take the natural variability of the climate system
into account as well, evaluating whether an observed change can be explained in terms of this
internal variability alone, and estimating the contribution of this source of variability to the
observed change. Hence the assessment that a large part of the observed recent warming is
anthropogenic is based on a rigorous quantitative analysis of these joint drivers and their
effects, and proceeds through a much more comprehensive and layered analysis than a
comparison at face value of model simulations with observations.

Complete text at site

Do you ever read the stuff you link to and post?

"Attributing observed climate change to causes is challenging"

And why is it challenging?

well because there are too many variables "Attribution assessments necessarily take the natural variability of the climate system"

So.............

if there are too many variables, how can you ever prove you've eliminated all the variables save for a .01% change in atmospheric composition?

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site and do they know what you and Frank know?

You two could possibly win a Nobel.

Which part of that do you believe represents proof of anything. There was not a single bit of hard evidence there that points the finger at man as responsible for the changing climate. There was much conjecture, and guesswork, and assumption and bias, but not a single shred of hard evidence that proves that man is in any way responsible for the changing climate.

Do feel free to link to any part that you believe is backed up by hard observable, repeatable evidence of any sort.

As to the nobel, the fact that gore and obama got them pretty much proves that the organization is for sale to the highest bidder.

And of course there is bogus data on the nasa site. It has been shown over and over. The altered temperature records that they get from giss is a prime example.

Munich Re - Two months to Cancún climate summit / Large number of weather extremes as strong indication of climate change


Floods in central Europe, wildfires in Russia, widespread flooding in Pakistan. The number and scale of weather-related natural catastrophe losses in the first nine months of 2010 was exceptionally high. Two months ahead of the World Climate Summit scheduled for 29 November to 10 December in Cancún, Mexico, Munich Re emphasises the probability of a link between the increasing number of weather extremes and climate change. In the run-up to the summit, Munich Re will focus attention on this issue with a series of communications on natural catastrophes, climate change and potential solutions. Research facts and findings will be available for download in an electronic press folder at Munich Re - Leading experts on risk solutions worldwide.

Globally, 2010 has been the warmest year since records began over 130 years ago, the ten warmest during that period all falling within the last 12 years. The warmer atmosphere and higher sea temperatures are having significant effects. Prof. Peter Höppe, Head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Centre: “It’s as if the weather machine had changed up a gear. Unless binding carbon reduction targets stay on the agenda, future generations will bear the consequences.”

Munich Re recorded a total of 725 weather-related natural hazard events with significant losses from January to September 2010, the second-highest figure recorded for the first nine months of the year since 1980. Some 21,000 people lost their lives, 1,760 in Pakistan alone, up to one-fifth of which was flooded for several weeks. Overall losses due to weather-related natural catastrophes from January to September came to more than US$ 65bn and insured losses to US$ 18bn. Despite producing 13 named storms, the hurricane season has been relatively benign to date, the hurricanes having pursued favourable courses.

Munich Re’s natural catastrophe database, the most comprehensive of its kind in the world, shows a marked increase in the number of weather-related events. For instance, globally there has been a more than threefold increase in loss-related floods since 1980 and more than double the number of windstorm natural catastrophes, with particularly heavy losses as a result of Atlantic hurricanes.

Sure, Bent, sure. NASA is a fraud, NOAA is a fraud, as are all the similiar governmental institutions in all the other industrial nations, since they are seeing the same thing. Even the National Science Academy of Suadi Arabia states that AGW is happening.

Better get that little tin hat back on before you become infected with real science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, for the cretins here, this article means nothing, having been written by scientists rather than an obese junkie on the radio.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044025/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044025.pdf

Abstract
Attributing observed climate change to causes is challenging. This letter communicates the
physical arguments used in attribution, and the statistical methods applied to explore to what
extent different possible causes can be used to explain the recent climate records. The methods
use fingerprints of climate change that are identified on the basis of the physics governing our
climate system, and through the use of climate model experiments. These fingerprints
characterize the geographical and vertical pattern of the expected changes caused by external
influences, for example, greenhouse gas increases and changes in solar radiation, taking also
into account how these forcings and their effects vary over time. These time–space fingerprints
can be used to discriminate between observed climate changes caused by different external
factors. Attribution assessments necessarily take the natural variability of the climate system
into account as well, evaluating whether an observed change can be explained in terms of this
internal variability alone, and estimating the contribution of this source of variability to the
observed change. Hence the assessment that a large part of the observed recent warming is
anthropogenic is based on a rigorous quantitative analysis of these joint drivers and their
effects, and proceeds through a much more comprehensive and layered analysis than a
comparison at face value of model simulations with observations.

Complete text at site

Do you ever read the stuff you link to and post?

"Attributing observed climate change to causes is challenging"

And why is it challenging?

well because there are too many variables "Attribution assessments necessarily take the natural variability of the climate system"

So.............

if there are too many variables, how can you ever prove you've eliminated all the variables save for a .01% change in atmospheric composition?

Dumb ass. There are only two variables that count of periods of decades. How much energy the earth recieves from the sun, and how much it retains. For the last decade, the Total Solar Irradiance has been in a slight decline, yet the last decade was the warmest on record in the last 180 years. By increasing the GHGs we have increased the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat. And all the evidence say unequivocally that it is doing so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site and do they know what you and Frank know?

You two could possibly win a Nobel.

Which part of that do you believe represents proof of anything. There was not a single bit of hard evidence there that points the finger at man as responsible for the changing climate. There was much conjecture, and guesswork, and assumption and bias, but not a single shred of hard evidence that proves that man is in any way responsible for the changing climate.

Do feel free to link to any part that you believe is backed up by hard observable, repeatable evidence of any sort.

As to the nobel, the fact that gore and obama got them pretty much proves that the organization is for sale to the highest bidder.

And of course there is bogus data on the nasa site. It has been shown over and over. The altered temperature records that they get from giss is a prime example.

Munich Re - Two months to Cancún climate summit / Large number of weather extremes as strong indication of climate change


Floods in central Europe, wildfires in Russia, widespread flooding in Pakistan. The number and scale of weather-related natural catastrophe losses in the first nine months of 2010 was exceptionally high. Two months ahead of the World Climate Summit scheduled for 29 November to 10 December in Cancún, Mexico, Munich Re emphasises the probability of a link between the increasing number of weather extremes and climate change. In the run-up to the summit, Munich Re will focus attention on this issue with a series of communications on natural catastrophes, climate change and potential solutions. Research facts and findings will be available for download in an electronic press folder at Munich Re - Leading experts on risk solutions worldwide.

Globally, 2010 has been the warmest year since records began over 130 years ago, the ten warmest during that period all falling within the last 12 years. The warmer atmosphere and higher sea temperatures are having significant effects. Prof. Peter Höppe, Head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Centre: “It’s as if the weather machine had changed up a gear. Unless binding carbon reduction targets stay on the agenda, future generations will bear the consequences.”

Munich Re recorded a total of 725 weather-related natural hazard events with significant losses from January to September 2010, the second-highest figure recorded for the first nine months of the year since 1980. Some 21,000 people lost their lives, 1,760 in Pakistan alone, up to one-fifth of which was flooded for several weeks. Overall losses due to weather-related natural catastrophes from January to September came to more than US$ 65bn and insured losses to US$ 18bn. Despite producing 13 named storms, the hurricane season has been relatively benign to date, the hurricanes having pursued favourable courses.

Munich Re’s natural catastrophe database, the most comprehensive of its kind in the world, shows a marked increase in the number of weather-related events. For instance, globally there has been a more than threefold increase in loss-related floods since 1980 and more than double the number of windstorm natural catastrophes, with particularly heavy losses as a result of Atlantic hurricanes.

Sure, Bent, sure. NASA is a fraud, NOAA is a fraud, as are all the similiar governmental institutions in all the other industrial nations, since they are seeing the same thing. Even the National Science Academy of Suadi Arabia states that AGW is happening.

Better get that little tin hat back on before you become infected with real science.

Flood in Missouri = Global warming. 1930 Dustbowl =/= AGW because it's only North America

Also, the world economy has grown dramatically and more than tripled since 1980, Decline Hider. China and India were Third World hellholes with no economy, now they're Third World hellholes with economies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course, for the cretins here, this article means nothing, having been written by scientists rather than an obese junkie on the radio.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044025/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044025.pdf

Abstract
Attributing observed climate change to causes is challenging. This letter communicates the
physical arguments used in attribution, and the statistical methods applied to explore to what
extent different possible causes can be used to explain the recent climate records. The methods
use fingerprints of climate change that are identified on the basis of the physics governing our
climate system, and through the use of climate model experiments. These fingerprints
characterize the geographical and vertical pattern of the expected changes caused by external
influences, for example, greenhouse gas increases and changes in solar radiation, taking also
into account how these forcings and their effects vary over time. These time–space fingerprints
can be used to discriminate between observed climate changes caused by different external
factors. Attribution assessments necessarily take the natural variability of the climate system
into account as well, evaluating whether an observed change can be explained in terms of this
internal variability alone, and estimating the contribution of this source of variability to the
observed change. Hence the assessment that a large part of the observed recent warming is
anthropogenic is based on a rigorous quantitative analysis of these joint drivers and their
effects, and proceeds through a much more comprehensive and layered analysis than a
comparison at face value of model simulations with observations.

Complete text at site

Do you ever read the stuff you link to and post?

"Attributing observed climate change to causes is challenging"

And why is it challenging?

well because there are too many variables "Attribution assessments necessarily take the natural variability of the climate system"

So.............

if there are too many variables, how can you ever prove you've eliminated all the variables save for a .01% change in atmospheric composition?

Dumb ass. There are only two variables that count of periods of decades. How much energy the earth recieves from the sun, and how much it retains. For the last decade, the Total Solar Irradiance has been in a slight decline, yet the last decade was the warmest on record in the last 180 years. By increasing the GHGs we have increased the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat. And all the evidence say unequivocally that it is doing so.

So it should be a piece of cake for you to add 100PPM of CO2 to a controlled experiment and show us temperature increase and ocean acidification, right?

 

[wirebender]

Munich Re - Two months to Cancún climate summit / Large number of weather extremes as strong indication of climate change

Every time I think you have bottomed out on the stupidity meter, you outdo yourself. Are you back to assuming that proof that a thing happened somehow constiutes proof of what caused it?

"extreme" weather as you of the duped persuasion like to call it is nothing new. The weather has always been crazy. Floods, famine, tornadoes, hurricaines, cyclones, etc. The fact that they are now reported on in a 24 hour news cycle by a willingly duped press is the only difference from any other time in history.

 

[wirebender]

Dumb ass. There are only two variables that count of periods of decades. How much energy the earth recieves from the sun, and how much it retains. For the last decade, the Total Solar Irradiance has been in a slight decline, yet the last decade was the warmest on record in the last 180 years. By increasing the GHGs we have increased the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat. And all the evidence say unequivocally that it is doing so.

Now that is, without a doubt, the stupidest thing you have ever said on this forum and you have admittedly set the bar for stupid pretty high rocks.

The variables are legion.

By the way, CO2 has no mechanism by which to retain heat in the atmosphere and there is not a shred of evidence that proves otherwise. If there were, at least one of you idiots would have posted it by now and repeated it at every possible opportunity.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 and Heat-Trapping Gases FAQ | Union of Concerned Scientists

If all of the energy emitted from the Earth’s surface escaped into space, the planet would be too cold to sustain human life. Fortunately, as depicted in Figure 2, some of this energy does stay in the atmosphere, where it is sent back toward Earth by clouds, released by clouds as they condense to form rain or snow, or absorbed by atmospheric gases composed of three or more atoms, such as water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4).

Long-wave radiation absorbed by these gases in turn is re-emitted in all directions, including back toward Earth, and some of this re-emitted energy is absorbed again by these gases and re-emitted in all directions. The net effect is that most of the outgoing radiation is kept within the atmosphere instead of escaping into space. Heat-trapping gases, in balanced proportions, act like a blanket surrounding Earth, keeping temperatures within a range that enables life to thrive on a planet with liquid water. Unfortunately, these gases—especially carbon dioxide—are accumulating in the atmosphere at increasing concentrations due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuel in cars and power plants, the clearing of forests for agriculture or development, and agricultural practices.[4] As a result, the insulating blanket is getting too thick and overheating the Earth as less energy (heat) escapes into space.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why does CO2 keep keep heat within the atmosphere? (on the molecular level)

Greenhouse gases such as CO2 have one thing in common: They are fairly transparent in the visible range but are not so transparent to infrared light (the more potent greenhouse gases are downright opaque in the infrared). Most of the energy in sunlight is in the visible range. Greenhouse gases, being more-or-less transparent in the visible range, let sunlight pass through to the Earth's surface with only a slight reduction in intensity.

The Earth's surface radiates that absorbed energy in the infrared. Greenhouse gases absorb that ground-generated infrared energy. Those greenhouse gases re-reradiate that absorbed energy but do so according to their temperature, and this temperature depends mostly on altitude. This absorption / re-radiation process continues up the atmosphere, so by the top of the atmosphere the energy radiated by the Earth as a whole is somewhat attenuated.

We need that greenhouse effect to some extent. If the atmosphere (including water vapor and clouds) was transparent in the infrared the average temperature of the Earth's surface would be a chilly -18 C or so. The problem then isn't that greenhouse gases exist; we need them to exist. The problem is that too much of a greenhouse effect will raise the Earth's surface temperature upward.

..................................................................................

When molecules absorb electromagnetic energy, the energy from the photon will kick the molecule into a higher energy state. There are two types of transitions that molecules can undergo: molecular transitions, which alter the molecule's shape or movement (for example, by inducing vibrations or rotation of the molecule), and electronic transitions, which excite electrons to higher energy levels. Because of quantum mechanics, the energies of both vibrational states and electronic states are discrete (quantized); thus, only photons that correspond to the energy of that a specific transition can be absorbed.

As is probably apparent, it is much easier to cause molecules to vibrate than it is to kick an electron to a higher energy level. It turns out that the energies required for molecular transitions (specifically transitions between different vibrational states) fall in the IR region of the electromagnetic specturm (i.e. IR photons contain energies on the order of the energies required for these vibrational transitions) and electronic transitions fall in the UV region of the electromagnetic spectrum (for special molecules with special properties, electronic transitions can be moved down in energy into the visible region; this is how dyes work).

Carbon dioxide has a particularly strong absorbance in the IR spectrum due to a specific vibrational mode (the asymmetric stretching mode) which excites the carbon to bounce around between the oxygens. Carbon dioxide is also a very stable molecule, electronically, so it does not absorb well in the visible or UV region. These properties of carbon dioxide contribute to its properties as a greenhouse gas.

 

[westwall]

how do people deny in the face of so much scientific evidence, climate change, or the earth warming, or even the most likely cause of much -- human-induced change?

Because there is simply no empirical data to support the hypothesis that humans are driving the bus. Is the globe warming? Absolutely. But it has been doing so for the last 14,000 years. We can go on and on and pick the "evidence" of AGW apart but you don't care about evidence or science. Your side only cares about power and the redistrubition of wealth.

Look at all the schemes the warmers are coming up with. In not one of them is there even the slightest effort to curb carbon emissions. Far from it. Use all the carbon you want (in other words pollute all you want), just PAY US FOR THE PRIVILEDGE.

Even a non thinker like you should figure out there is a problem with that.

 

[wirebender]

Why does CO2 keep keep heat within the atmosphere? (on the molecular level)

Sorry rocks, there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience. N&Z have a paper in peer review at this very moment which will prove that statement beyond any reasonable doubt. I doubt that you will grasp it though as reason clearly isn't your forte'.

Ask yourself why if you check the atmosphere on venus at an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that of earth, the temperature at that altitude is nearly identical to that of earth even though the atmosphere is almost entirely made up of so called greenhouse gasses.

Then refer to the ideal gas laws for an explanation of the so called greenhouse effect here. It is a matter of pressure, not atmospheric composition. A new paradigm is coming rocks and it doesn't include alarmism over trace atmospheric gasses.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why does CO2 keep keep heat within the atmosphere? (on the molecular level)

Sorry rocks, there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience. N&Z have a paper in peer review at this very moment which will prove that statement beyond any reasonable doubt. I doubt that you will grasp it though as reason clearly isn't your forte'.

Ask yourself why if you check the atmosphere on venus at an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that of earth, the temperature at that altitude is nearly identical to that of earth even though the atmosphere is almost entirely made up of so called greenhouse gasses.

Then refer to the ideal gas laws for an explanation of the so called greenhouse effect here. It is a matter of pressure, not atmospheric composition. A new paradigm is coming rocks and it doesn't include alarmism over trace atmospheric gasses.

LOL. I give you published scientific papers and you give me yap-yap about papers in current peer review. Papers that we will obviously never see.

 

[dilloduck]

NASA needs money from the government or they would die, much like many of the liberals favorite causes. They were betting that global warming might scare people enough to support them. Now they are back talking about getting energy from the moon and gold from asteroids. Maybe they will have better luck.
Scientists should go back to alchemy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm....... Seems like the news I saw it was private investors talking about mining the asteroids.

 

[dilloduck]

Hmmm....... Seems like the news I saw it was private investors talking about mining the asteroids.

One can only hope.

Is NASA still promising to take us all to the promised land in outer space?

 

[Old Rocks]

They already have taken us to one aspect of the promised land. The instant communications that we enjoy right now owes much to the developements of computers and networks by NASA.

 

[westwall]

Why does CO2 keep keep heat within the atmosphere? (on the molecular level)

Sorry rocks, there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience. N&Z have a paper in peer review at this very moment which will prove that statement beyond any reasonable doubt. I doubt that you will grasp it though as reason clearly isn't your forte'.

Ask yourself why if you check the atmosphere on venus at an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that of earth, the temperature at that altitude is nearly identical to that of earth even though the atmosphere is almost entirely made up of so called greenhouse gasses.

Then refer to the ideal gas laws for an explanation of the so called greenhouse effect here. It is a matter of pressure, not atmospheric composition. A new paradigm is coming rocks and it doesn't include alarmism over trace atmospheric gasses.

LOL. I give you published scientific papers and you give me yap-yap about papers in current peer review. Papers that we will obviously never see.

Published papers consisting 99% of computer models which are PAL reviewed by friends and family. Yep that's real credible!

 

[konradv]

O.K., let's settle this math problem with an example most of us can understand. I go to a bar and order a Screwdriver that's 1 ounce vodka and 3 ounces orange juice. That isn't strong enough for me, so I ask for another shot. Now most people would say the alcohol content was increased 100%. However, if you use Frankematics, you've only increased the alcohol 25%!!!

Learn to read.

I said "a .01% change in atmospheric composition", not in the vodka.

Using my methodology you now have 2 ounces of vodka in a 5 ounce drink (can you count as high as the number 5?) and you've made a 20% change in the composition of the beverage.

Actually that would be a 25% increase and I was speaking about the EFFECT of the drink, NOT the volume. OJ doesn't get you drunk and most of the other 99.99% of the atmosphere doesn't enter into the Greenhouse Effect. The fact that you said "composition" is neither here nor there, since it isn't relavent to the process in question.

 

[starcraftzzz]

When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

NASA has a global climate change web site?

G]

When they started being reasonable, intelligence, and fact orientated