JSC Human Space Flight Vets Complain About NASA's Climate Change Position (Update)
Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position, Science and Public Policy Institute
“49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change.”
Keith’s note: This press release/group letter should have been titled “Former NASA [JSC] scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position” since virtually everyone who signed it seems to live in Texas or once worked at JSC. In addition, more than 90% of the signers have no apparent “science” background – and this letter is about science (I guess). That said, a lot of the names are very recognizable from NASA’s history, and they seem to be upset about something. Oh yes, guys (I only see one female signer): SMD AA John Grunsfeld (also a former JSC employee) has a perfectly good Ph.D.
Note: if comments go off topic and degenerate into a Democrat Vs Republican food fight (as they always seem to do on this topic) I will shut them off.
Response from NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati to Letter on NASA Climate Studies
“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.”
What “empirical evidence” against man-made CO2 causing global climate change are they referring to? They don’t mention it. This is starting to sound like the creationism vs evolution “debate” where the creationism side points to minor things that haven’t yet been fully explained while offering absolutely no evidence for their supernatural explanation. You can imagine the line that an organization led by fossil fuel executives and named Plants Need CO2 is prepared to deliver. Of course if plants could actually use the added CO2 in the atmosphere, the level of CO2 wouldn’t be skyrocketing now would it?
We should be able to confirm climate change when water freezes at high temperatures and ice melts at low temperatures. Till then ……
Your attempt at wit falls short, sir.
I find it ridiculously absurd the number of people around here (JSC) that think being involved in engineering disciplines automatically makes them capable of going toe to toe in virtual-debates with specialists in climatology, biology, and others. Incredibly smart people that can be so short sighted and disrespectful of the knowledge of other disciplines and their equally hard won expertise.
Don’t forget that climate expert James Hansen has degrees in Mathematics, Astronomy, and Physics, no formal education that I can see in climatology.
Check his decades of funded research.
“Climatology” is a multi-disciplinary field, it pulls in everything from palaeontology to planetology. Hansen has specialised in climate research since his career began. I mention a 1981 paper by him and colleagues in Nature,
http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
which made surprisingly accurate predictions of then-future temperatures. So the guy has been doing this, and doing it well, since at least the early ’80s.
(The only failed prediction, as I can see it, was the idea that we would have done something by now. We’re still in the worst-case scenario.)
My brother-in-law is one of the “scientists” that signed the Oregon Petition. His expertise in climate science comes from being a petroleum geologist for various oil companies for 30 years.
His other hobby is supporting legislation that allows “intelligent design” & “evolution skepticism” to be taught in public schools.
This debate is ridiculous. If you have little clue about thermodynamics and what a greenhouse gas does, you should keep your mouth shut. This is not a issue opens to opinions or democratic process.Science has long explained what all of these gases do.
No amount of whining and strawmans can change that. Climatologists and modelers are investigating smaller details, there models are wrong to the same degree a meteorologist can’t get the details of next weeks weather correct.
The Catholic Church did the same to Galileo, just as Cigarette companies did the same to cancer researchers. They were both wrong then and now, just as people who deny global warming.
My side is best side.
Other side is worst side.
Better yet Paul, when it comes time to cull the population to save the planet; it is not ‘us’ that needs to go, but ‘them…’
Much is being made of the fact that the signers do not have credentials in atmospheric science. That is not relevant. What they are saying is that enough scientific uncertainty exists so that speculation by the Hansens of the world should not be presented as “settled science”. The signers at least know that moving from speculation to hypothesis to theory requires more evidence and more verified predictability, and less polar bear propaganda, than the AGW crowd has produced.
Says you, science is all about evidence. Would you like to point to a specific flaw in the AGW’s data? You do know that climate science like any science has lots and lots of collaborative data to support AGW. That’s all science is about, collaborative data and NASA’s climate change position is based on science from its satellites and various other data gathered by other scientists all around the world.
Its understandable that such a complex issue as climate change isn’t easily understood, but if you’re going to have doubt you’re going to have to provide evidence.
I need evidence? The burden of proof is not on the skeptics; it is on the proponents. Arguably, that burden has not been met, far from it, as the dire predictions continue to fall by the wayside. To suggest that sufficient knowledge exists about the atmosphere to move this idea from hypothesis to accepted fact is either hubris or deceit.
Can you show me a link to exactly what “burden of proof” means and how it is measured?
the dire predictions continue to fall by the wayside.
…To suggest that
sufficient knowledge exists about the atmosphere to move this idea from
hypothesis to accepted fact is either hubris or deceit.
You do know that the model ensembles are quite <a href=”http://jameswight.files.wor…“>accurate, right?
And you do know that the old talking point about ‘hypothesis’ is silly, right? Unless your criterion is that thousands of papers in dozens of disciplines is insufficient for a theory?
Of course you do. So why type that?
Silly.
Best,
D
northcross,
When it comes right down to it, no science ever “proved” anything, but when the evidence supports the theory, we logically treat it as truth, without insisting that it is. When it works for you, it’s a valuable tool.
This nonsense resembles sports celebrities and actors doing promotions for consumer products that they know nothing about. Having a well-know name does not give anyone a meaningful opinion (aging astronauts included).
Only an idiot would ignore this problem as “not proven,” or “not the main cause.” If there is anything that can be done to improve the situation in humanity’s favor, whatever the cause, it is criminally irresponsible not to take that action. Always err on the side of caution.
You falsely and foolishly accuse others of “hubris or deceit” while wallowing in denial. When your great grandchildren are treading water, it will be far too late to say you’re sorry.When your great grandchildren are treading water, it will be far too late to say you’re sorry.
Steve
No science is ever fully settled, but when the evidence points in a certain direction with very high probability (90%+, 95%+, …), it seems pretty foolish to keep panting that it’s not 100% certain. On the one hand, you have professional climate scientists with PhDs, years of experience, and reams of data. On the other hand, you have non-experts funded by companies and groups who have a financial interest in allowing CO2 emissions to continue unabated. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which one of these two is likely to be trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
You also have professional climate scientists trying to get additional funding to continue their research.
Duh.
This foolish old line holds no water at all. Scientists are going to get grants to do their work regardless of the results.
Of course, outfits like tobacco companies will pay shills to produce deliberately deceptive results, but science-oriented bodies like NSF actually care about the quality of the science, not about whether you end up with a graph that points in X or Y direction.
If you want to know and understand science, you’re not going to make much progress giving your attention to filtered slanted sources like Fox and their ilk.
Gosh … what if you are wrong John? Do you even give that a second thought? Or a first? What if you are dead wrong, then what? You are on the side of those with an economic interest not to change a harmful business practice that can hurt the entire planet. You are marshaling as many people as you can to your side… but .. what if you are wrong? What are the consquences of pushing for a do nothing policy?
On the other hand, what if the Climate Scientists are wrong?
I would rather be on a side, that if they are wrong, it doesn’t matter, than to be on the side who are wrong, can hurt the entire planetary population and every economic system there is.
If they do not have appropriate scientific credentials in “atmospheric science” then how would they know “that enough scientific uncertainty exists so that speculation by the Hansens of the world should not be presented as “settled science”.
What scientific credentials in “atmospheric science” did James Hansen have before he became an expert in the field? My opinion is that Engineers and Scientists in other fields are taught the basic scientific method and have learned how to prove things.
I know Engineers are taught not to necessarily trust data provided but to examine the data and prove that it supports a given theory. Even if they are not experts in a particular field, I think that Engineers and Scientists can examine the data provided in climatology and decide if the data supports the theory.
He has a multi-decade record of peer reviewed, funded, and cited research on the topic. Go look at the backgrounds of the people who discovered the structure of DNA and get back to me.
In 1981, seven researchers, lead by Hansen, published a paper in Nature that covered radiation balance, modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (clouds, albedo changes); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake. Basically, ten pages that summarised the state-of-the-art.
It predicted future temperatures based on various scenarios. Two researchers from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) recently mapped an extra 30 years of actual temperature data over the predictions and found that the match is pretty close to Hansen et al.’s worst case “do nothing” scenario. (Real temps are a little higher, the predictions were on the conservative side.)
So considering that it was 1981, and the crap-loads of work done since then that only reinforces the predictions, it shows that the researchers back then actually knew what they were doing. All this “scientific uncertainty” obfuscation, is simply wrong. Sure, the last 30 years has seen percentage-points refinement, but by the 1980’s climate science was already mature, and robust, and right (if a bit conservative).
Original paper:
https://atmos.washington.ed…
Article about the KMNI update:
http://www.realclimate.org/…
“About 4.6 Billion years ago, because of a supernova, light gases were transformed into heavy elements, and 99.9 percent of this great swirl of gas and dust some 15 billion miles across aggregated into the sun, the rest into the solar system. When Earth was about a third of its size, it formed an atmosphere, a noxious stew of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, and sulfur. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and it was a good thing because the sun was significantly dimmer back then. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth might well have frozen over permanently. But somehow life got a toehold.” – Bryson
Since then, climate change of this era is a tug of war between two man-made pollutants: 1) CO2 and 2) particle pollution (in addition to natural changes), and the absorption of these pollutants back into a more benign state.
1) Pre-industrial CO2 levels over a ~50,000 year time frame varied from 300 to 180 ppm. Today CO2 levels are near 400 ppm and climbing. In addition to burning coal, natural gas, and wood, the world has consumed over 1 trillion barrels of oil in just a short span. CO2 warms, but more significantly, affects the oceans.
The group does not take the time to discuss the Antarctic Ice records, one point of their argument, shown here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/globa…
2) Particles of pollution are interacting with clouds that are dimming the sun, cooling down the Earth. Particle pollution has masked temperature increases.
Tens of thousands (!) of scientists across the world have studied and created models and gathered data and concluded that there is no longer any doubt in the expert scientific community that the
Earth is warming and absorbing CO2 ionto the oceans—and it’s clear that human activity has a
significant part in it. Here is one link:
http://www.ucsusa.org/globa…
The scientists welcome, embrace, any and all new data or physics, but are now pushing back on all the misinformation that barrages the media. The risks of no action are significant.
One would think that a group so highly trained in safety, would want to plan for the contingency of failure, especially since the probability of climate change is quite high and actions can be taken to mitigate the effects.
It’s good that this group’s letter is now causing vigorous debate on the issue. Unfortunately, Leighton Steward and his backers can claim another victory regardless of the outcome. They thrive simply by being able to say the issue is still under debate.
Shouldn’t the issue still be under debate? If anything, it is a victory to point out that the issue is not fully understood by any measure and still needs research.
The problem is that the people most loudly proclaiming “scientific uncertainty” and for the need for more research, are the same people trying to strangle the very research that they have called for.
I’m wondering why this rates a mention on this site. The group in question, “Science and Public Policy Institute”, is a well-funded group with an ax to grind, not an independent organization of scientists. That people of a certain political leaning would use their prominence in one area of public life to make loud and ill-informed declarations about topics on which they have no basis for commenting is hardly newsworthy.
We’d do better with something about the impending North Korean launch, which, by accounts from visiting journalists, appears to be just what they are calling it – an attempt to launch a satellite.
The only reason I posted it was the long list of prominent former and present NASA employees. That said, you will note that I questioned their individual and collective scientific credentials to make the claims that they make.
Fair enough, Keith. I guess I simply tire of the endless stream of misinformation posing as ‘news’ and ‘science’. Even the supposedly mainstream and independent media have been cowed into failing to identify these propaganda missives for what they are. It’s exhausting and discouraging.
That’s why I try and post things like this. I think both sides need time out in their respective corners.
Have been away from internet a while. but sure glad to see interest in such an important topic.
A high stakes game at the Science Casino. Somebody bet the whole planet… all in. The dice are rolling…
Telling that this letter was organized by an oil executive.
http://thegreenmiles.blogsp…
KEITH – Would you consider PILOTS, with tens of thousands of logged time to be fully qualified to comment on “atmospheric science”? 😉
Simply because they were pilots? No.
I’d like to step back and think about where we’ve come to.
The science community has pretty much failed in cultivating the trust of much
of the American public on this issue as well as some others. It isn’t enough
for qualified scientists to say “this is what’s happening, and here’s
why”. At the least, our educational system has produced a public that
considers results produced by qualified scientists to be arguable, on grounds
that are not really even quite scientific. The science community should be
asking itself some hard questions about where it has failed here. Has the
science community simply made optimistic assumptions about the science
education of the American public and the reverence they think they deserve?
Here we have the majority of climate scientists saying that in their best
professional judgement, something is happening climactically, and a bunch of
human space flight engineers, managers, and astronauts are saying no, we don’t
believe them! How do they get away with that? Perhaps climate scientists have
strayed from appearing to be just about science into appearing to be about making actual policy
recommendations? Perhaps climate scientists appear to have an ego problem? I’m
just afraid that if real science is so casually dismissed by people who don’t
appear to have the training to assess it, and the public is willing to listen
to them, where exactly are we headed?
Whether or not the public trusts scientists has no relevance whatsoever to whether their research is accurate or not. Facts are facts.
That makes no sense, Keith. It’s easy to say “facts are facts”, and both sides of the controversy will say it. The point is, the public ideally should trust qualified scientists, doing their science, with deriving those facts. It’s not about what facts are facts, but what facts are right, and defensible by the scientific method.
I’ll say it again. When the public listens to people with no scientific qualifications or expertise in the matter, spouting about a science topic as if it were debatable policy, we’re on the slow road to national collapse. But how did we get to that point? How did our public become comfortable with listening to people with no scientific expertise spouting about science? What did our science community do to deserve that?
I’m less impatient with the few climate change deniers who do have the requisite expertise. They need to be listened to, and their claims need to be checked on. But that’s not what this JSC letter is about.
I blame leaded gasoline and paint causing brain damage in children. The youngest of the great majority of these are now more than 35 years old, so if we can just hang on for a few more decades…
Whatever lack of trust the average person on the street has in basic scientific research done in this area has everything to do with the massive piles of cash being poured into disinformation campaigns by people with a financial interest in the ignorance of the voting public.
Our understanding of how to trick people into believing lies has far outstripped the ability of our crippled educational system to arm the citizenry with the weapons of logic by which they might protect themselves, their communities, and the interests of future generations.
In short, with enough cash, you can now buy whatever poll result suits your needs.
True enough, Todd. For some detail about how this works, I recommend both Susan Jacoby’s “Age of American Reason” and Charlie Pierce’s “Idiot America.”
“Here we have the majority of climate scientists saying that in their best
professional judgement, something is happening climactically, and a bunch of human space flight engineers, managers, and astronauts are saying no, we don’t believe them! How do they get away with that?”
I think they can and should be free to state their position. In view of their experience, and I know many of these individuals professionally, I would take their policy recommendation seriously.
But in your statement you are asserting as fact that “the majority of climate scientists” are saying something about climate change. First, from your language its tough to know what it is you think they are saying. Second, apparently you have identified all of the climate scientists (in the world, in the US?) and have polled them to establish their consensus position? I’d like to see the poll and how you established your statement of fact.
By the way, science does not work by votes, polls or consensus views. Thousands of scientific research studies can help to establish a scientific theory. Only a single study is required to disprove it.
“A single study”? Well, now that you have demonstrated that you are clueless as to how science works, what’s next?
“Thousands of scientific research studies can help to establish a scientific theory. Only a single study is required to disprove it.”
Actually science is quite Bayesian. I think this weird version of the “scientific method” that gets taught in schools is responsible for a lot of the misunderstanding about science, including yours.
No matter what your position on this subject is, all of you people might think about the fact that the solution set proposed for “dealing” with anthropogenic global warming by the political class does NOT include space.
If the problem is diminishing resources, planetary carrying capacity, and energy, why is space not even at the table as a solution set?
You might want to ponder this seeming contradiction.
If NASA had continued to be funded at the rate that it was at the height of the Apollo program, most of these problems that consume the political class would be mooted by our progress in becoming a multi-planet species, with the access to the resources of at least the inner solar system.
Well said Dennis. And scary to ponder.
Dennis,
I think you’re right, but then again, the same sort of people would find other things (that they didn’t really understand) to argue about. One way or another, it seems, progress will be slowed. The human race is its own worst enemy.
Steve
Surprise surprise that the god like egos of JSC once again are telling the rest of the agency how it should be behaving. Those guys need to get over themselves.
Interesting, that there isn’t a single, contemporaneous long-duration space flier on this signature list. You know, folks that perhaps even without a degree in climate science, can see with their own eyes that something just isn’t right.
Delta_v,
True enough, but to be fair, I see and use things every day that I don’t understand and couldn’t meaningfully diagnose in the case of trouble. Plus, in order to notice that something just isn’t right, we have to take the time to look, and I think most of us are probably too busy rushing from one late task to the next to actually look.
But your point hits home in so many photographs, of sunsets and smog, etc., that most of us have seen at one time or another, so I guess we’ve learned how to filter from our brains, if not the atmosphere.
Bottom line: We have a problem, whatever the cause.
Steve
Some things in science and physics shouldn’t be democratic. I’m not convinced by their letter to any degree (pun unintended) that the phenomena of greenhouse gas on the laboratory to earth scale is any less valid.
We know VERY WELL what effects greenhouse gases have on temperature and energy absorption. If they have technical PhD, they should understand this well. Did conservation of energy and basic thermodynamic principles become false? Did I miss something?
Dismissing global warming as hearsay and referencing others who agree is just plain pointless. This is a repeat of the whole era of “cigarettes are good for you because this doctor said so” all over again. These straw man arguments are just that…straw man arguments.
When is the JSC population with sound technical foundation going to break their silence on issues like this? It seems like only fools are the ones speaking.
Some may question the tactics of James Hansen, but atleast he is willing to be heard.
G-d, do progressive propagandists every get off their soapbox? It’s laughable the stench of self-righteousness that permeates your post. I too have advanced degree in science and I can state with near-certitude that my farts are not warming the globe.
No, but cows’ are.
doesn’t interfere with the flavor of my grilled ribeye
Are you saying methane is not a greenhouse gas? Because if you are, you might as well toss that degree in the garbage can.
Nobody is claiming your individual farts have any substantial effect outside of near proximity public health hazard. I can say that with near-certitude.
No, but they do have a significant impact on the local climate!
Our letter-writing friends are happily demonstrating that if you screw your eyes shut, stick your fingers in your ears, stomp on the floor, and wail loudly, you can disbelieve any fact and deny any reality — climate change, evolution, anything!
I am appalled to find this kind of behavior among my colleagues at an organization that has contributed so much to humanity’s understanding of the world and the universe we live in. I wish they would not acknowledge any affiliation with NASA. It’s embarrassing.
That is a very disturbing ad hominem attack on some extremely wise and distinguished leaders. However, it follows the pattern that seems to be applied to all the skeptics, even those that have the full credentials to debate the models, the data, and the conclusions. One could equally apply your blistering characterization to the advocates of global warming; they are the ones who have worked overtime to silence and embarrass any opposition, and that is not how science is supposed to work.
“extremely wise and distinguished leaders” — with no apparent expertise in climate science who are making ad hominem attacks on NASA management ….
Skepticism is science is essential. It must, however, be based on scientific fact, not wishful thinking. I regret that I do not recognize extreme wisdom or expertise in the letter — only wishful thinking.
There are dozens of arguments for and against global warming.
While it seems clear that the climate is getting warmer and human activity is contributing to that warming, the climate has changed continuously over the eons of earth’s history and the change is not caused by any single element; numerous factors interact in a complex way.
I recently studied about a year’s worth of New York Times articles on the subject. I usually respect the Times and the quality of its research and writings, but all of the articles I found seemed to have their basis in political dogma rather than in a scientific basis.
I looked at Gore’s Inconvenient Truth book and film, and I found that many of the assertions that Gore makes in his film are questionable at best, require significant qualification, or are technically controversial or scientifically unsupported. In my view Gore’s statements and assertions does science tremendous harm.
In my study over the last year, I’ve found that the feeling of scientists is by no means unanimous as is often asserted. The Sun-Climate Research Centre of the Danish National Space Centre, stated that “the greenhouse-effect must play some role [greenhouse effect is often asserted to be caused by the action of man during the industrial age].. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect have no scientific justification. Its pure guesswork.”
One of the statements that Gore makes is that all scientists agree that global warming caused by humans is a serious problem. Gore refers to a study by Oreskes (2004) who looked at 928 scientific papers, and found that 75% accepted the consensus view of anthropogenic climate change. She found that none of the papers she reviewed came to the conclusion that current climate change is a natural phenomena. However I found studies that looked at Oreskes’research. Horner (2007) questions why in the Oreskes’ study; 928 articles were cherry picked from a total of over 11,000 available to consider in the scientific literature.
One of the nation’s foremost researchers in this area, Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, questioned the study as well: “with respect to science, the assumption behind the consensus is that science is the source of authority, and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree]. But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science; consensus is foreign. Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggeration of highly uncertain computer projections combining implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”
In a November 27, 2011 American Thinker article, Karen McQuillan states that “global warming is benign and natural and many believe that the trend has slowed in the last ten years”. She sights specific fallacious statements made by global warming environmentalists, that claim global warming has created more and more severe weather and particularly hurricanes. She sights completely erroneous statements by President Obama and Al Gore.
I expect hard scientific evidence as proof. There are some elements of scientific ‘fact’ in the global warming debate, but a lot of it appears to be political hype. I am concerned, given the efforts towards consensus of world ‘scientific organizations’, that so many well respected meteorologists and climatologists do not go along with the majority, but that their insight and lack of support for such a contentious theory means so little.
NASA used to be held in high esteem as an organization based in science and research. Given the political contention over this subject, NASA and the NASA Administrator should have taken no position. If Bolden takes a position he does grave harm to the organization.
Hilarious: you claim that you “expect hard scientific evidence as proof” but provide none – and just use semantics and selective quotes – and expect your opponents to just admit that they were wrong?
I did a meta-study of a wide variety of studies and assertions and found there is little consensus despite many statements about there being unanimous consensus.
I found little serious scientific evidence to support a scientific position. For almost every point identified as ‘evidence’, I found another study or paper that disputed the ‘evidence’.
I also found that most people with a pro-environmentalist position, like many of the people posting on this subject, dispute the right of people to be skeptical.
Scientists should be skeptical. Sagan said it well: extraordinary discoveries require extraordinary proof. In my study I have not found any such proof.
Too many seem to be taking a position that anthropogenic climate change is real because they have voted on it (show me the vote and I’ll show you a list of people who don’t know how science works).
I am taking the position that I will believe that anthropogenic climate change is real once I see some serious incontrovertible evidence. I haven’t found any.
Skepticism is essential to science; consensus is foreign.
This is really getting to be hilarious. Anyone can post here using a fake name and claim to have done “a meta-study of a wide variety of studies and assertions”. Where is your “meta-study”? Got a link? What is your name? What are your credentials? Get back to me when you have this information – otherwise you are going to win ‘troll of the day’.
“Sagan said it well: extraordinary discoveries require extraordinary proof.”
But the central ideas behind climate change aren’t extraordinary, they are mundane:
Humans are burning fossil forms of carbon (oil/coal/etc), therefore atmospheric levels of CO2 should be rising.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are rising, and since CO2 is a greenhouse gas (demonstrable in a lab), temperatures should be rising over the same period
Temperatures have risen over the same period.
Simple mundane claims, cause and effect, with great chunks of data to back them up.
OTOH, claiming that CO2 emissions somehow can’t raise atmospheric levels of CO2, and that the coincidental rise in atmospheric levels of CO2 is due to a completely different natural mechanism, is extraordinary
Claiming that rising CO2 levels can’t cause temperature rises, and the coincidental rise in temperature is due to a completely different natural mechanism, is extraordinary.
Paul,
I agree with you all the way. I think we need to add the other side of the coin as well, though — CO2 is absorbed (ingested?) by plants, primarily trees. All over the planet the number and density of trees has been reduced at a rate that nature could never have achieved on it own. Trees felled for lumber; land cleared for farming, housing, industry; man-made and propagated forest fires and diseases; these things and more have greatly reduced the amount of CO2 being taken out of the air (at an increasing rate) while we’ve been adding more CO2 into the air (at an increasing rate), so we end up with a one-two punch, clobbering us from both directions — and both man-made.
So, the root questions to all of this — is man contributing to atmospheric changes and can man contribute to correcting the atmospheric changes — become very simple. All of this crap about evidence can only reflect on the degree of the problem, not whether or not the problem actually exists. Only those deliberately closing their eyes can deny that a problem exists that needs human attention. And that’s what we all should be concerned about — fixing the problem, whatever we call it and to whatever extent we contributed to it. I don’t care what the main contributors are, we know CO2 is one of them, and one we can have an affect on.
When anyone has watched glaciers calving hundreds of tons at a time; when you go back to the lake and the features of last year’s shoreline have disappeared; when the river you cross going to work is now only a few inches from the bottom of the bridge instead of 3 feet, no one in their right mind can deny that a problem exists that needs human attention. Not doing whatever we can to stabilize our planet’s climate is negligence. Whatever their reasons, whatever their credentials or lack of, I charge these letter writers (and those who agree with them) with negligence. I guess they’ve already forgotten the pictures of New Orleans, and other places like it around the world, after the storm, when the reality was brought home to us and rubbed in our faces.
Steve
Despite the trollish tone of your posts, I actually mostly agree with this paragraph. However the cause could still be human activity, and the speed of the change is one thing to take note of. Even if it isn’t the main cause, it certainly is contributing like you said. That means that indeed “anthropogenic climate change is real”. Now what do we want to do about it? Limiting our negative effect is a no brainer.
A meta-study?
You might want to try for the good old fashioned “review article”…you know where someone actually tries to understand the concepts being reviewed rather than the count.
let’s start. Do you understand greenhouse gases?
Oh look, here’s the liberal, wealth redistributing internet with the answers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
Not a surprise other nations run circles around us in math and physics with this nonsense being presented.
Littrow,
You keep preaching skepticism, but provide only belief. Belief can convince a person of anything, true or false, and no facts needed.
Steve
> “I expect hard scientific evidence as proof”
Global warming and/or shrinking of arctic ice pack? Unless I’m really confused I have read,
1. Russians are grumbling more and more about territorial claims in arctic region.
2. Oil companies are doing more exploration of drilling sites in Arctic Ocean area.
3. Shipping companies are considering the “Northern Passage” routes through Arctic Ocean.
These three topics were non-issues in previous years because too much ice in Arctic Ocean. So if global warming and/or shrinking of Arctic ice pack not real, then why those three groups making plans?
Littrow, I read some of the technical journals that publish on this topic (e.g., Nature, Environmental Science and Technology, Geophysical Review), and there I find none of the lack of consensus you describe. Almost all of the papers I have read in these journals over (at least) the past 10 years conclude that human activity is a significant contributor to global warming, and that it is a significant problem.
When the solutions require more power to politicians, more taxes, cultural disruption and no independent means of confirmation then the fixes will not be popular. Calling CO2 a pollutant when it is needed for life is wrong. A world wide problem, with no realistic solutions, or a method of unbiased monitoring, needs better people to solve. I am very skeptical of it all.
The wrong minds are delivering the message and providing the ideas for answers without sensible requirements. The elimination of fossil fuels is not negotiable. If the issue is too much CO2 in the atmosphere eliminating what creates it is not the answer, you may as well eliminate the human race. The answer is to find a way to naturally absorb the CO2 in the atmosphere or at the source.
Look to MIT or other great research institutions for the solution, not environmentalist and thermometer welding map readers.
I’m not worried either way, one more tenth of a degree downward on the old axial tilt and we’re heading back to the ice-age.
I think this letter is great! I am embarrassed that a few “politicians” from within NASA are using the highly respected NASA name to distribute junk science as fact. James Hansen is no less biased on this issue than his close buddy Al Gore himself. Both have too much vested financially and professionally to even consider the growing evidence that global warming was a natural trend and has actually leveled off starting in 1997. I don’t care how much education or research you have; ignoring opposing evidence or theories disqualifies you from being called a “scientist.” The old Tobacco Institute comes to mind.
To state that one side or the other is absolutely correct in this issue is ludicrous. That is what is at the heart of this letter. The zealots are quick to jump in and bash the writers of this letter without really grasping what they are saying. Thanks once again to Keith for making it clear what side of every political issue he falls on.
Let’s consider the facts. Start with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which has been precisely measured for over a century. and has risen from 260ppm, it’s level for the past few centuries, to 385ppm, higher than it has been in at least half a million years. This ris has been more rapid than any previous fluctuation in the geological record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
Do you agree?
NASA astronauts and engineers were selected to get a specific job done – launch humans and payloads into space and return humans safely to Earth (Genesis, notwithstanding).
This group’s statement/open letter is fallacious on at least two counts: 1) Onus Probandi (burden of proof), 2) Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to authority).
Your full letter to Bolden was short. There was plenty of room to provide your counter arguments, your facts. So provide us three or four arguments for admonishing NASA’s position on climate change and CO2.
What happened to your right stuff, your gall? Has your testosterone withered with age. Give us your arguments. Surely, you knew this letter would be public domain.
With smoke and mirrors you cast off your responsibility to Schmitt and Cunningham. So us what you got! Otherwise, return to your retirement homes and get out of the way.
I think those at the GISS should try to make lemonade out of this Texas-sized lemon. They should invite their JSC colleagues to an all day seminar. My guess is that many who signed the letter are simply ignorant about what, exactly, climate research is, how it is conducted, and how climate researchers reach the conclusions they do. Of course, some of them might be willfully ignorant (they’d just as soon not understand reality because it doesn’t fit with their perceptions), but others may surprise you.
Ignoring global warming, does anyone have a plan what to do when we deplete fossil fuels to the point where they cannot meet demand? Just wondering. That should happen in about 50 years.
Not that anyone should care about future generations or anything, I think the deficit is a fair indication of sentiments on that.
If the Japanese can make a go of their Space Based Solar Power plan then we’ll have a map out of the cave. Lots of folks are working on it but so far they are the only ones to plan an actual civil project.
I think one of the biggest challenges within the politics of Climate Change “Debate” is that like so many things it has become completely polarized. Either Climate change is a “lefist conspiracy” without a shred of evidence, or we’re all doomed unless we immediately return to a pre-industrial society. In reality there is a whole continum of viewpoints with varying degrees of scientific validity. Starting with the There is no such thing as climate change, or climate change is real but not caused by human activities, or it is caused by human activities, but won’t be that bad (or could be beneficial), or it will be bad, but we can mitigate it through geo-engineering, or we can’t mitigate it, but we can manage emissions through moderate investment in the development of new technologies (carbon capture, nuclear power), or we need a crash program to get us off fossil fuels today, to fire up the Carrousel.
Until we can have dicussions around the reasonable middle ground nothing will change
I think Kelly that you’ve characterized it pretty well.
What surprised me was the religious zealot attitude of so many well educated people on NASAWatch.
To read the letter sent by the JSC managers and astronauts, all they said was that NASA should not take a side in a political argument unless there is demonstrated scientific proof.
In response the doomsayers would have you tarred, feathered and crucified rather
than let you ask for information with which to make a
decision. ‘How dare you question the prophets Gore or Hansen or the overwhelming majority of intelligent climatologists who have already voted on the issue’. (Obviously anyone who voted nay either is not intelligent or not a knowledgeable climatologist.)
In fact
when I read the posts of the doomsayers in a forum like this, it takes
on all the characteristics of a religious argument: ‘damn you-I have
decided the only truth and if you are are not a true believer and you
are a heretic then we will burn you at the stake for doubting us.’
The doomsayers would have done well to join forces with the pope in 1633
AD when Galileo was tried and found guilty for believing the moon was a
world, or that Jupiter had moons.
Here are some points that are scientifically incontrovertable, no matter which side of this you are on:
1. In general, the temperature of the world has risen over the last 200 years. Specifically, since 1980, the temperature has risen about 0.5-0.7°C, with the vast majority of that rise between 1980 and 2000. Since 2003, the world temperature has been flat (with significant variation, but no trend). The rate of rise, however, is not unique during the 200 year time period as two other periods show similar temperature rise rates (1870-1890 and 1910-1940). The temperature record, as measured by thermometers, has serious data quality issues, and the impact of urban heat island effect is hotly debated (pun intended). Even so, to deny that there’s been warming goes against the preponderance of data (even when taking into account the data quality issues)
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but constitutes a small portion of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (approximately 5%, with the most prevalent being water vapor). Biologically speaking, CO2 is not a pollutant but a fertilizer. Currently, plant life on earth is mildly CO2 starved and when subjected to higher concentrations of CO2 show increased growth rates. That said, CO2 concentrations have risen over the last 100 years and there are two causes of this rise. The first, and in my opinion, the most prevalent reason is the burning of fossil fuels. The second, and one that is much more difficult to quantify, is the increase due to the rise in temperature over this timeframe. On millennial scales this value can be quite large, but it is uncertain that there’s any short timeframe impact.
3. The sun has seen signifcant increase in activity over the last 200 years. The impact on climate during this time is open for debate and very little can be said “with certainty” as to either the direct impact or the secondary impacts (such as cosmic ray impact on cloud cover and thus the impact on weather and climate). While many say that the sun has been constant over the last 30 years (minus the last 5) and that temperatures have continued to rise (thereby removing solar effects from the warming equation), very few also mention that at no time since the 1600s has the sun been as active as it was over those 30 years. Complex interactions (including the time constant on those impacts) between solar activity and the climate are simply unknown and cannot be scientifically dismissed.
4. The millennial temperature record is not nearly as clean as the centennial temperature record. It was long accepted that there was a warming period around 1000 AD and that there was a cooling period around 1500 AD. With the release of Al Gore’s AIT, a temperature plot (now known infamously as the “hockey stick”) over this time period showed that no such variation existed and that the only variation corresponded with the increase in CO2. It was the supposition at this time that the “warming” was purely a regional event (limited to Europe) and thus not an indication of global temperatures. More recent studies have shown that there was a global warming around the first millennium and that it was on par with current temperatures. The hockey stick plot as shown in AIT has been thoroughly debunked for using bad statistical methodologies and also in using bad proxy data. This point is now accepted even by the original authors inasmuch as a paper that removes both these errors now has no accuracy prior to 1500 AD.
5. The impact on CO2 on weather is currently unknown. While many pronouncements claim that recent heat waves, hurricanes, tornadoes and flash floods are an indisputable indicator of AGW, these pronouncements are not in any way justified when looking at scientifically measurable data. Roger Pielke Jr., hardly a skeptic of AGW, continually rails against these pronouncements. The measurable data shows that there is no trend in these events. Tropical cyclonic activity has lately been very low, tornado outbreaks all fall within the bounds set by previous outbreaks. Even within the last week we heard story after story about how March was 5°F above normal, but these same articles failed to point out that this was limited only to the US and parts of Canada and that the rest of the world was experiencing a colder than recent March. In fact, the global average was only 0.1°C above the 1980-1999 average. Even the IPCC now agrees that the impact of warming has not been so great as to be measurable given current technologies. Likewise, sea level rise has had no demonstrable change from pre-AGW levels. For the last century the rate of seal level rise has been between 2mm and 3mm annually, and shows no link whatsoever to temperature changes. Catastrophic pronouncements claiming otherwise are simple publicity stunts that have no scientific backing.
6. Catastrophic warming predictions are predicated on a host of assumptions on the direction of net forcing that we in fact know very little about. These assumptions are codified into very complex computer models, and these models have not been in any way systemically validated and have shown significant issues in hind-casting. Also, many of these models predictions made years ago have been shown to be inaccurate, and almost always report higher than actual temperature rises. Predictions made by J. Hansen in 1988 have shown to be high when compared to the temperature record and the temperature record is in fact more aligned with Hansen’s Model C condition (which he said corresponding to no additional CO2 added to the atmosphere, a condition clearly not met). A recent study, though, shows Hansen predictions made in 1980 and show his predictive ability to be much more accurate (and even underestimated). That said, the shape of the two curves (Hansen’s predictions and GISS temperatures) do not seem to agree. Hansen postulates exponential increases in temperature and the GISS temperature readings show more of a horizontally asymptotic shape. It is not clear that his future predictions will be born out by the GISS record. It should also be noted that of the 4 major temperature records, GISS tends to be the hottest, with HadCRU, UAH and RSS showing less warming and all showing no warming over the last 10 years.
As you can see, things are much less certain than one is led to believe
As you can see
In addition to having serious technical issues with your so called evidence and beliefs, I mostly take issue with you telling me what I can or should see.
Keith & 7-3,
Please identify what “serious technical issues” I’ve presented here so I can provide a specific rebuttal.
By the way, many of the so-called “skeptics” deny many of the points i concede (like CO2 being a greenhouse gas, temperatures rising, etc). These people are not to be taken seriously.
Also, instead of cutting funding of study in this area, we should be demanding MORE study in this area to remove the uncertainties that exist currently.
Your proposed oceanic, subsurface, surface and atmospheric heating mechanisms are in direct conflict with all of the well established peer reviewed scientific literature in physics, chemistry and geology currently available for your almost immediate viewing pleasure, through technology that has been developed by the application of these exact same scientific techniques and advances, but mostly I take issue with your attitude that I and the rest of the accredited scientific community should easily see what you see, when in fact, I don’t see it. Your evidence isn’t worth me taking the time to critique it, so all I can suggest you do is consult the published literature, like I and others have.
First, where have I “proposed” anything? I’ve just stated scientifically measured data as reported by others. What items specifically have I listed that you do not agree with. Give me specifics and I’ll give you the source for my comment.
And my attitude doesn’t matter. That you are getting worked up over my perceived “attitude” says more about your willingness to look at the data than about my ego.
Can anyone offer specific criticism to what I posted in my original comment?
You are picking and choosing factoids (without sources) that help you make your argument and leave out the things that contradict it. You fill in the blanks with “open to debate” or “cannot be dismissed” or “is now accepted” without citing sources, metrics, or any substantiation. Just because you type a bunch of words doesn’t make something true. Nor does it undermine published research.
I disagree. dean 1230 has good, widely accepted facts that are many of the specific contradictions to many of the environmentalist arguments. If you do a little research you’d find all of these points of discussions and debate widely publicized and argued in the scientific literature and textbooks. NASAWatch is not a scientific publication and I don’t think too many people are looking for all the sources. Yes, the points dean 1230 makes all are reasonably accurate and they do specifically undermine published research. Sorry the points he provides disagree with your perspective.
If you really want some references, here are some on both sides of the argument. It is not intended to be an extensive list but these cover some of the biggest points of contention.
An Inconvenient Truth – A scientific critique of a
few issues and concensus claim.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watc…
Ball, T.
Dialogue with a climate change contrarian. Global warming is not due to human
contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global warming:
the cold, hard facts? Feb. 2007. Natural Resources Stewardship Project.
http://www.nrsp.com.
http://www.enouranois.gr/en…
Caillon, Nicolas . J.P.
Severinghaus, J. Jouzel, J.M. Barnola, J. Kang, V.Y. Lipenkov. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and antarctic
temperature changes across termination III. 14 Mar 2003 V. 299 SCIENCE http://www.sciencemag.org
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/…
Ochoa,
G., J. Hoffman, and T.Tin. 2005. Climate: The Force that Shapes Our World and
the Future of Life on Earth. Irvington, NY: Rodale.
Flanery,
T. The Weather Makers: How Man is Changing the Climate and What it Means for
Life On Earth. 2005. New York: Grove Press.
van
Heerden, Ivor; Bryan, Mike. (2006), The Storm: What Went Wrong and why During
Hurricane Katrina : the Inside Story from One Louisiana Scientist, New York:
Viking, pp. 308, ISBN 0670037818
Horner,
C.C. Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. 2007.
Washington: Regnery Publishing.
Johnston,
W. R. Falsehoods in Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. 14 September 2006 http://www.johnstonsarchive…
Joint
Science Academies. Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to
climate change. http://nationalacademies.or…
Keeling, C.D. , R.B. Bacastow, A.E. Bainbridge, C.A.
Ekdahl, P.R. Guenther, and L.S. Waterman. Atmospheric
carbon dioxide variations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, Tellus, vol. 28,
538-551, 1976.
Knutson,
Thomas R. , Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA
Sept. 3, 2008; Last
Revised August 26, 2011
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/gl…
Landsea, C.W. & E.S. Blake. The deadliest, costliest, and most
intense US tropical cyclones from 1851 to 2010 (and other frequently requested
hurricane facts. 2011. NOAA/NWS/NCEP/National
Hurricane Center Miami, Florida
NOAA
Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf…
Lewis,
Marlo. CEI OnPoint September 28, 2006 No. 108
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth One-sided, Misleading, Exaggerated,
Speculative, Wrong
http://news.nationalgeograp…
Lindzen,
R.S. Some coolness concerning global
warming. [PDF] from mit.edu.
American Meteorological Society, Bulletin, 3 march 1990. Vol 71.
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty…
Lindzen, R.S.
Global warming: The origin and nature of the alleged scientific consensus.
CATO Institute. Vol.15, No. 2, Spring 1992. http://www.cato.org/pubs/re…
Rohde,
Robert A. Trends in
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Keeling Curve, from NOAA
published data, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gm…
Nielsen-Gammo, J.W. An inconvenient truth: the
scientific argument. GeoJournal, February 7,
2008
doi:10.1007/s10708-008-9126-z
http://geotest.tamu.edu/use…
Nobel Prize information for
A. Gore, from
http://www.nobelprize.org/n…
Severinghaus,
Jeff.
RealClimate – Climate Science from Climate
Scientist
What
does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about
global warming? 3 December 2004
http://www.realclimate.org/…
Oreskes, N. . The
scientific consensus on climate change. Essays on science and society. Beyond
the ivory tower. Science 3 Dec. 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
Papasian, M.H. Greenland’s faster
melt. Nature. In Environment; Nov 2006; 48, 9;
ABI/INFORM Global pg. 4
http://ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/l…
Pearce,F. Controversy behind climate
science’s ‘hockey stick’ graph. Pioneering graph used by IPCC to illustrate a
compelling story of man-made climate change raises questions about
transparency. 2 Feb 2010. Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/e…
Pielke, R.A. and N.
Oreskes Consensus about Climate Change? Letters. Science. New Series, Vol. 308, No. 5724. P. 952-954 http://ev7su4gn4p.search.se…
Ridley, J.M. Gregory, P.
Huybrechts, J. Lowe. Thresholds for
irreversible decline of the Greenland ice sheet
Climate
Dynamics,
ISSN 0930-7575, 11/2010, Volume
35, Issue 6, pp. 1049 – 1057 Clim Dyn (2010)
35:1049–1057
DOI 10.1007/s00382-009-0646-0
http://www.scientificameric…
Rohde, Recent
Mauna Loa CO2. Earth System
Research Laboaratory NOAA, October 2011
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration National Climatic Data Center
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gm…
Shermer, M. The flipping point.Scientific American Magazine. June
2006. http://www.scientificameric…
Wikipedia,
An inconvenient truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
“2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but […]
3. The sun has seen signifcant increase in activity over the last 200 years. The impact on climate during this time is open for debate and very little can be said “with certainty” “
Essentially there are two possible arguments, yours is the second.
1. Humans have been emitting a known greenhouse gas, levels of that greenhouse gas have measurably risen; that should, logically, cause temperatures to rise; and temperatures have indeed risen over the same period.
Pros:
-It arises from first principles.
-It’s parsimonious.
-It was predicted, beginning over a century ago.
-It’s supported by data, from a wide variety of disciplines that have little or no overlapping institutional or idealogical culture.
Cons:
-Real world climate data is noisy.
-The conclusions are politically undesirably.
2. Humans have been emitting a known greenhouse gas, levels of that greenhouse gas have measurably risen; that should, logically, cause temperatures to rise, but, due to… something, it doesn’t. However, the temperature has risen, but due to a completely different mechanism.
Pros:
-It’s politically convenient.
-Yet it makes you feel like a rebel, bucking the system.
Cons:
-It has one mechanism, the latter, which is speculative and largely unsupported by actual data, and a second mechanism, the former, which is completely wild-ass just-so claims and not supported by even theory.
-It’s entirely unsupported by data.
-It’s entirely post-hoc.
-It’s entirely singular. (That is, it comes from a small, politically and economically contiguous group.)
Your supposition is that ONLY CO2 has caused the rise, and that has not been proven. There are many different things that affect climate and CO2 is only one of them. For instance, the level of certainty as to the effect of clouds is very low, even according to the IPCC. To assign even the majority of the warming we’ve seen over the last century to CO2 fails to account for these other drivers. Also, that level of certainty relies heavily on the climate being constant over the last 1000 years. If, as the data supports, climate variations of +/- 1°C are common, then to say that the 1°C we’ve seen since 1800 is “abnormal” is a real stretch. That would require a much more complete understanding of the system than we have today.
Also, predictions from the late 80s and early 90s have failed to track current warming trends. There was an article a few months ago that showed how climate scientists are trying to grapple with these other drivers and how they correspond to the expected CO2-caused warming
http://www.eenews.net/publi…
Judith Curry, someone who has more climate science credentials than anyone that’s commented in this thread, or even any of the signatories of the letter, is openly critical with the level of certainty climate scientists have assigned to CO2 as being the culprit in the current warming trend. Is her criticism unjustified?
Apparently it can’t be repeated enough: for discussion of the facts of global warming and climate change by climatologists and atmospheric physicists see
http://realclimate.org
I’m sure these people are good at their jobs, but I don’t recognize a single one that has actually conducted research on this topic. I’ll believe the people who actively work in the field, thank you very much.