NASA To Receive Billions To Study Earth, Climate Change

NPR:

The Obama administration has proposed a budget for NASA that includes billions of dollars for satellites and other tools to help scientists investigate Earth-bound problems, especially climate change.

Read the whole story: NPR

Comments

[scottyknows]

07:56 PM on 04/07/2010

"With respect to science, the assumption behind consensus is that science is a source of authority. Rather, it is a particularly effective approach to inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science; consensus is foreign."
MIT professor Richard Lindzen.

[Exusian]

08:07 PM on 04/07/2010

Lindzen is correct that skepticism is essential to science, but his understanding of the meaning of "consensus" in science is shockingly ignorant.

"Consensus" in science means that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports a given hypothesis. Nothing more.

[ReedYoung]

09:45 PM on 04/07/2010

If 97.5% isn't consensus, it's close enough for government work.
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

[rougebaisers]

06:17 AM on 04/07/2010

They can take breathtaking images of the demise of humankind.

[MGhamma]

01:06 AM on 04/07/2010

OMG!!! IT'S TRUE. GLOBAL WARMING IS JUST A SCAM TO GET GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO STUDY GLOBAL WARMING.

OMG!! RUN FOR THE HILLS EVERYBODY.

OMG!! IT'S SOCIALISM/FACISM/MAOISM/REALISM/GOTACLUEISM/RESPONCIBLEADULTISM.

OH MY GOD!!

[banned again]

10:25 PM on 04/06/2010

Sediments Show Pattern in Earth’s Long-Term Climate Record

"In a analysis of the past 1.2 million years, UC Santa Barbara geologist Lorraine Lisiecki discovered a
pattern that connects the regular changes of the Earth’s orbital cycle to changes in the Earth’s climate. The finding is reported in this week’s issue of the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.

Lisiecki performed her analysis of climate by examining ocean sediment cores. These cores come from 57 locations around the world. By analyzing sediments, scientists are able to chart the Earth’s climate for millions of years in the past. Lisiecki’s contribution is the linking of the climate record to the history of the Earth’s orbit

She concludes that the pattern of climate change over the past million years likely involves complicated interactions between different parts of the climate system, as well as three different orbital systems. The first two orbital systems are the orbit’s eccentricity, and tilt. The third is “precession,” or a change in the orientation of the rotation axis"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/sediments-show-pattern-in-earths-long-term-climate-record/

[ReedYoung]

01:58 AM on 04/07/2010

Background and education

Watts grew up around Cincinnati, Ohio and reportedly attended Purdue University[1], studying Electrical Engineering and Meteorology.[2]. Watts's "About" page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. [3]. Watts has not been willing to say whether he graduated.[4]

"Anthony began his broadcasting career, in 1978 in Lafayette, Indiana."[5]

Credentials

Credentials held

Watts holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[6] with a status of "retired".[7]

Credentials not held

Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[8], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[9], and Watts possesses neither certification.[10],[11]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

[banned again]

07:04 PM on 04/07/2010

Ahh the ole shoot the messenger attack.

"UC Santa Barbara geologist Lorraine Lisiecki discovered a
pattern that connects the regular changes of the Earth’s orbital cycle to changes in the Earth’s climate. The finding is reported in this week’s issue of the scientific journal Nature Geoscience."

So this scentist was paid by Watts in your view. What about the scientific journal Nature Geoscience then? Are they also paid by the oil companies?

[Exusian]

07:36 PM on 04/07/2010

There's nothing at all wrong with Lisiecki's paper or with Nature Geoscience publishing it.

What's wrong is implying that orbital cycles have anything what so ever to do with the current warming trend.

That you and Watts think there is suggest that there is something very wrong with your understanding of the paper.

[DocSkull]

07:01 AM on 04/07/2010

There is a natural component to global warming, but there is also a human composed component which is chiefly from CO2. Since we can't do much about the planet's orbit, we need to focus on our contribution.

[banned again]

10:19 PM on 04/06/2010

Study links swings in North Atlantic Oscillation variability to climate warming

"he North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a wide-ranging pressure seesaw that drives winter climate over much of North America, Europe and North Africa. Past reconstructions of the NAO have relied mainly on terrestrial, or land-based records, such as tree ring chronologies combined with ice cores and historical climate data. Those records do not fully capture oceanic processes linked to NAO variability, and short instrumental records from relatively few locations limit the understanding of ocean-atmosphere dynamics with regard to NAO behavior.

Anthropogenic (human-related) warming does not appear to be altering whether the NAO is in a positive or negative phase at multi-decadal time scales," said WHOI paleoclimatologist Konrad Hughen. "It does seem to be increasing variability. Clearly, this has implications for the future."

A WHOI Ocean and Climate Change Institute Fellowship, and grants from the National Science Foundation and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution supported this work

[DocSkull]

07:02 AM on 04/07/2010

So?

[banned again]

07:08 PM on 04/07/2010

For further clarification,

"Anthropogenic (human-related) warming does not appear to be altering whether the NAO is in a positive or negative phase at multi-decadal time scales," said WHOI paleoclimatologist Konrad Hughen."

I agree with your comment below but I would argue that concrete and asphalt are conributing more to the warming than CO2.

[Exusian]

07:30 PM on 04/07/2010

"I would argue that concrete and asphalt are conributing more to the warming than CO2"

I'm sure you would, but you would not only be wrong, you would be wrong by several orders of magnitude.

[banned again]

10:09 PM on 04/06/2010

Examples of climate alarmism by NSIDC

"A timeline for the “breathtakingly ignorant” follows.

2007: record Arctic ice minimum in 2007 – big news, unprecedented, shocking, Navy postgraduate school scientist says Arctic summers to be ice-free ‘by 2013′

2008: ditto, this year’s ice recovery is just a blip, it’s really caught in a “death spiral”

2009: ditto, this recovery for a second year means nothing – Arctic continues death spiral, you people are breathtakingly ignorant

2010: Arctic sea ice approaches normal for this time of year, first time since 2001 – “…reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated…we must be more careful in not reading too much into one event”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/03/quote-of-the-week-33-what-no-death-spiral/

[ReedYoung]

01:52 AM on 04/07/2010

wattsupwiththat.com belongs to Anthony Watts.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a weathercaster at KPAY 1290 AM radio in Chico, California and a climate change skeptic.

Background and education

Watts grew up around Cincinnati, Ohio and reportedly attended Purdue University[1], studying Electrical Engineering and Meteorology.[2]. Watts's "About" page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. [3]. Watts has not been willing to say whether he graduated.[4]

"Anthony began his broadcasting career, in 1978 in Lafayette, Indiana."[5]

Credentials

Credentials held

Watts holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[6] with a status of "retired".[7]

Credentials not held

Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[8], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[9], and Watts posesses neither certification.[10],[11]

And so on.

[scottyknows]

07:47 PM on 04/07/2010

Right out of Liberal Playbook 101. Ignore the information and focus on discrediting the person.

The scientific method, indeed.

[Exusian]

08:02 PM on 04/07/2010

You men the tv weather announcer who has no clue what the information means and thinks the Milankovich cycles actually have something to do with the current warming trend?

[Exusian]

06:26 PM on 04/07/2010

Although minimum Arctiuc sea ice *extent* was higher in 2008 than in 2007, average sea ice thickness, and therefore sea ice volume and mass were lower in 2008 than in 2007.

Some "recovery," but then what can you expect from Watts?

2010 *maximum* ice extent means, well, zip. Nada. *Minimum* extent takes place in September. Until then Watts is just spinning.

[banned again]

07:12 PM on 04/07/2010

I have posted where NSIDC own data says that sea ice area shows zero significant changes since w have been trcking it. But of course tha post was thrown into the hamper by H.P.

Also, what happened to the "death spiral"?

[banned again]

10:06 PM on 04/06/2010

This is the face on environmentalism today – publicly issued threats from Greenpeace.

"We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.

The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.
If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.

“…but you be few“

Yeah sure, whatever you say. Newsflash to Green Gene from Greenpeace India who wrote this.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/03/climate-craziness-of-the-week-greenpeace-posts-threats/#more-18149

[DocSkull]

09:47 AM on 04/08/2010

"power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more" is democracy in action.

[banned again]

02:45 PM on 04/08/2010

It was only a misundrstood comment correct? Then WHY did Greenpeace remove it from their website?

Look Ill be the first to admit that it would seem that the crazies on both sides are running rampant these days. But this kind of vitrol can not be tolerated.

[banned again]

09:55 PM on 04/06/2010

MAybe they need the moeny to correct their flawed data.

Senators Demand Explanation of NASA's Flawed Climate Data by Jeremy A. Kaplan

"Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have written a letter to NASA chief Charles Bolden demanding answers to questions surrounding newly uncovered irregularities in the space agency's climate data."

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5466

[MGhamma]

01:10 AM on 04/07/2010

Complete BS banned again.

[ReedYoung]

01:54 AM on 04/07/2010

It should be called "bannedforgoodreason".

[banned again]

07:00 PM on 04/07/2010

Really? They why did the GISS say that the CRU has better data?

http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf

[realpolitic]

01:50 AM on 04/07/2010

Yes, Vitter has all the integrity in the world. These guys are dragging their knuckles on the floor.

[MidRoaderTurnedLeft]

06:09 PM on 04/06/2010

A Fox headline from today:

Top Climate Scientist's Exoneration Won't Be the Last Wordhttp://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/06/climate-gate-michael-mann/

Obviously the "last word" will be from Fox: that climate change is a hoax. Regardless of any data.

And how 'bout those record temps across much of the country today?
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/0406-july-in-april_2010-04-06

Any comment on that at Fox? I know: short-term temp spikes don't mean anything, but winter snowstorms and cold temperatures prove there's no climate change.

[scottyknows]

03:47 PM on 04/06/2010

If billions are handed over to study climate change, what is the probability that more will be given if it is "discovered" that it is not man-made?

What, then, is the incentive for "discovering" that it is not man-made?

Good thing scientists are above--and never swayed by--forces outside their research, such as funding.

[Ardi Ramidus]

05:07 PM on 04/06/2010

Fame, and the gratitude of everyone out there wishing that we didn't have to make a change.

[scottyknows]

07:53 PM on 04/07/2010

You are right on the first count.

[ReedYoung]

02:03 AM on 04/07/2010

97.5% agreement is consensus. The chance that it is discovered that global warming is not man-made is zero. ALL the evidence suggesting the denier position is fabricated.

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

[scottyknows]

07:53 PM on 04/07/2010

"With respect to science, the assumption behind consensus is that science is a source of authority. Rather, it is a particularly effective approach to inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science; consensus is foreign."
MIT professor Richard Lindzen.

I await your reasoned response, which is more than likely to be the very scientifically- minded name calling.

[ocoastperson]

01:35 PM on 04/06/2010

I hope this article means that NASA will be putting the satellites in place, and not that NASA will be doing the investigating.

NOAA is much better positioned from a scientific viewpoint to do climate analysis, as are some research centers in Universities abroad.

To give climate change analysis to NASA is to delay conclusions. And that is what this looks like to me - a delaying effort on the part of the current administration. You know, after we study it, we will do something about it. Meanwhile, .. the planet cooks.

The other thing is that the current administration is canceling the Constellation MARS effort of NASA's. This can be a way of sending funds to NASA to keep away massive layoffs. Which is great, but is not the way to run things if NASA is not the best guys to be doing the studying.

[ReedYoung]

02:57 PM on 04/06/2010

Understandable concern, but not possible while Dr. James Hansen is in charge of NASA.

[GeekMusing]

12:59 PM on 04/06/2010

Don’t need scientist data to tell me the climate is changing - too fast and dangerously. I’ve seen it for myself.

Perhaps it’s just difficult for inner-city dwellers and suburbanites to see the truth. After all they’re surrounded by concrete, exotic landscaping, and shopping malls.

Yet, I’ve spend a greater portion of my life communing with Mother Nature. And I’ve noticed some horrific changes, changes that made me stand tongue-tied in a stupor of despair.

I’ve seen streams dry up. Rivers depleted of fish, water going stagnant blooming with algae. I’ve seen oak trees so stressed that they can’t produce acorns, whole acres of conifers eaten up by bark beetles as they thrive in the warmer climate. I’ve seen glacial icecaps lost and hills with Ponderosa Pine and Incense Cedar transform into Black Oak and Grey Pine. The Yuba is full of water-dogs (salamanders) and hardly a fish. ... whole migrations of birds going by .... at the wrong time of year. ... and so on.

“We the people” are destroying our planet. Too much pavement, too much water use, too much pollution.

[nowwhat2]

12:52 PM on 04/06/2010

Has anyone noticed the billion dollar green industry? Could corporate fat cats who want to see public paranoia about MMGW reach a fever pitch so everyone will continue to buy their "green" products not be a possibility? Or is it because it's for something you believe in so therefore it couldn't possibly be that sinister.

[ReedYoung]

02:58 PM on 04/06/2010

Yes, we have noticed. We have noticed that renewable energy businesses have to succeed with much less assistance from the federal government, or anybody else, than the centuries-old coal and petroleum businesses which claim in their propaganda to be the ones who are "competitive," propaganda which evidently has either duped you, or you are paid to produce.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-22-fossil-fuel-subsidies-dwarf-clean-energy-subsidies-obama-wants

[Bartel5]

04:48 PM on 04/06/2010

Less subsidy ? Like the govt paying people to buy elect golf carts?

[sleeperd]

07:59 PM on 04/06/2010

What people will really notice if you green nutcases ever prevail will be $10 gas, $1,000 per month electric bills and $10,000 per year to heat our homes...

Then they're going to REALLY notice the people who caused all this and you will all be rode out of town on the proverbial rail...

[Donnat]

12:20 PM on 04/06/2010

For years we were told that nuclear weapons in the hands of our enemies were the biggest threat to the planet but it turns out that the planet will be destroyed by irresponsible politicians who deny the obvious purely for ideological reasons.

Good news, rapture Republicans, the four horsemen of the apocolypse - War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death - are real after all, but they'll result from climate changes that will affect water, food, animal/insect populations, not from middle eastern heathens or power mad commies.

[clearwaterclearmind]

12:14 PM on 04/06/2010

"NASA To Receive Billions To Study Earth, Climate Change"

translation:

NASA To Receive Billions To Deliver Conclusions The Government Is Paying For

[Ardi Ramidus]

12:25 PM on 04/06/2010

Explain what that means. If it means that scientists are being paid to lie about methods and results, show evidence.

[Mike McDonough]

12:25 PM on 04/06/2010

I would much rather have government funded research, whose bosses are ultimately held accountable by voters, than Exxon or Koch researchers. I mean we can always trust industry scientists from telling us the truth when their product could be slowly killing us, right? (Council for Tobacco Research, oh wait...)