On January 27, 1986, the night before the Space Shuttle Challenger was to be launched, a phone conference took place between NASA managers and Morton Thiokol, the manufacturer of the shuttle's solid rocket motors. Engineers from the rocket company told NASA that it would be too cold (26ºF) to launch since the previous coldest launch (53ºF) showed burn-through problems with the O-ring seals and therefore there was no data to show that it was safe to launch. The NASA managers asked if they could prove that the rockets would fail at low temperatures and, of course, it could not be proved. NASA then held a private call with the rocket company's managers, with the engineers excluded, and got them to agree to say it was OK to launch. The Challenger exploded the next day, 73 seconds after launch.
Of course, the NASA managers had asked the wrong question given that it was a life and death matter. Rather than asking if there was proof that the launch would fail, they should have asked if there was proof that the launch would succeed.
The discussion of climate change is following a similar course. Climate scientists are telling us that we are headed for catastrophe if we keep emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases. But instead of heeding their warnings, we are asking for proof of the impending disaster. We harp on minor errors in otherwise overwhelming evidence and we rail against scientists when they express their frustration about the ability of deniers to confuse the public.
The fact that increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to warming isn't really debatable... you can measure it in the laboratory. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are good at absorbing infrared radiation (heat) and then re-radiating it in all directions. They act like a blanket around the earth and without it the Earth would be a frozen snowball. But just like adding a second comforter to your bed makes you warmer, adding CO2 to the atmosphere heats up the Earth. And we know where the extra CO2 comes from. Every year, we dig up gigatons of fossil fuels and burn them, releasing CO2. So far, we have increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere by about 38% (from a pre-industrial 280 "parts per million" to 387 ppm today) and we will likely double it this century. CO2 levels haven't been as high as they are today for at least 15 million years. And the CO2 doesn't go away quickly. Some of it stays in the atmosphere for hundreds and even thousands of years.
It is interesting to listen to people who deny that climate change will happen when it is already is happening. The summer Arctic sea ice is already 40% less than it was 30 years ago and it may be all gone in as little as 10 years. And, in a few years, you will be able to sail a regular boat (not an ice breaker) over the North Pole for the first time in human history. Every decade in the last 40 years has been hotter than the previous decade. And 2010 will likely be the hottest year since we started measuring temperature (2005 is the hottest so far and 2009 is tied for second place). Glaciers are melting around the world. Floods, droughts, and extreme weather are increasing every decade. We are in the middle of a mass extinction (species are going extinct at 1000 times the "normal" rate). And worldwide food production has been dropping for the past five years due to climate change. While some people claim these effects are due to "natural cycles", if it wasn't for the greenhouse gases we have put in the atmosphere, the world would actually be cooling slightly (due to subtle changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun).
If after examining an airplane, an aircraft mechanic expressed even a fraction of the concern that climate scientists are expressing, you would never get on that plane and you certainly would not put your children on it. Why do we treat climate change differently?
Like the rocket engineers that told NASA that 53ºF was the lowest safe temperature, climate scientists are telling us 350 ppm is the highest possible safe level of CO2. We are already at 387 ppm, though it is still possible to get back to 350.
But only if we ask the right questions.
Buzz Aldrin: Why We Should Keep Flying the Space Shuttle
"CO2 and other greenhouse gases are good at absorbing infrared radiation (heat) and then re-radiating it in all directions. They act like a blanket around the earth and without it the Earth would be a frozen snowball. But just like adding a second comforter to your bed makes you warmer, adding CO2 to the atmosphere heats up the Earth."
... we explained that the second greenhouse gas "comforter" is more like an electric blanket that keeps radiating heat long after we're warmed up? And we're wrapped up inside it like a straitjacket, so we can't turn it off or get out from under it? So we overheat -- and die of heat stroke?
We have to get across, in our metaphors and analogies, that the global warming / climate change emergency is urgent -- and deadly.
And why don't deniers/skeptics/ignorers/delayers simply talk to the millions of people *in other parts of the world* who are losing their lives and their livelihoods, their food security and water sources, their homes and their entire homelands -- because of the effects of global warming and climate change?
How can one (half of one) nation be so !#%& insular?
A worldwide investment in 10000 mass produce nuclear reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use, eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives, end the global warming/ peak oil problem with a 100% elimination of GHG's within a ten year time frame, is a great investment making the economy more efficient, a wonderful job producing economy boost, requires only a small part of our industrial capacity, and pays for itself in less than three years.
Cons and Deniers and thinking progressives could embrace it. Its politically possible.
The US with an $2500B nominal investment in nuclear power paid for by quickly weaning itself off its $1000B annual fossil fuel bill could it. Unfortunately it is crippled by inefficient private power companies, a biased Nuclear Rejection Commission and corrupt and litigious political and legal systems, quadrupling nuclear costs and time frames. Obama has the authority to order a single nationwide license, replace the Nuclear Rejection Commission, and build nukes replacing coal plants without state or local review using a national public power utility like the TVA
That's a little too much power for one organization. For all their faults, local control is why there are city councils, state legislatures, and congressional representatives.
Nuclear power works by distilling background radiation into concentrated hazardous waste. Of course, its safety history is fairly good - the two most distinguishing accidents being due to flawed design or incompetence.
What happens with all the waste? Can that many more plants be run safely?
Wind, solar, geothermal, bio, and efficiency all have a place.
Everyone knows its a hoax.
As to education in this country, it faces two major obstacles in my opinion. One is that standards and curriculum are fragmented by "States' Rights" instead of being unified at the Federal level. The second is that it is funded largely by local property taxes instead of by federal income tax. The latter would insure everyone pay a share, including commercial institutions. It could easily come from the (gasp!) defense budget with no loss of security. Everyone used to know that Yankee Intelligence won the Revolution, not firepower.
But my opinions are the product of an American education and high CO2 atmosphere, so who knows?
The immediate threat to the population now is the contraction of production, chronic unemployment, foreclosures, homelessness and bankruptcies, brought on by the collapsing operation of the monetary financial crisis. Increasing the populations energy intensity and production per capita is essential.
NASA space exploration programs must be expanded to increase our science driven economic priorities. The technological derivatives will benefit the population for generations. NASA is the source of the nation's strength. It's benefits to the nation are incalculable and must be vigorously defended.
Consider the possibility that triple digit oil prices caused the current economic crisis.
We appear to be headed for them in a matter months once again.
See the article: High Oil Prices May Soon Threaten the Economy at http://www.aesopinstitute.org
Revolutionary science indicates oil can be replaced by ordinary water, one barrel of H2O providing as much energy as 200 barrels of oil.
See the article "Newly Discovered Hydrinos can Provide Cheap Power for the World" at www.american-reporter.com
The story is really about fractional Hydrogen. We are also developing this little known and less believed new source of energy.
Two independent laboratory validations of fractional Hydrogen have taken place. More are needed. National labs would be an excellent venue.
Our goal is fractional Hydrogen as fuel for hybrid cars. A few gallons of water appear likely to provide sufficient fuel for 1,000 miles of driving.
Cars and trucks fueled by water will be able to become power plants when suitably parked, selling electricity to the local utility. No wires needed.
These vehicles might pay for themselves!
It is much easier to see widespread support for rapidly superseding oil.
Since cars as power plants can replace all the fossil fuels, the challenge is to accelerate development and mass production of radically new technologies.
Ron's quote Du-Jour:
"Run Sarah Run - Where Where Where"
As we learn more about the Toyota problem (and you couldn't possibly know enough to draw a credible conclusion at this stage), let's see how probable it is that engineers were able to FORCE management to accept a flawed design, or ignore warnings and resist a recall. Those evil engineers ...
In Toyota's offices meetings are held to discuss quality and production issues. There would have been reports that included these problems along with others. The top issues get addressed - the rest get assigned numbers which subsequently receive little attention. Were someone to bring it up, someone else would compare that to some other issue where the cost / benefit is 1/10 the gas pedal problem. With limited resources, as time goes by problems like this simply don't get elevated.
In manufacturing or engineering meetings there are charts and graphs that cover the cost, how to reduce cost, and how to get it done faster. The people who achieve the cost and deadline results get promoted. It's a replicating system driven by positive feedback. Those who would seek to delay the schedule, spend money on a more expensive alternative, or pursue some obscure line of tests are briefly tolerated, then relegated to the sidelines.
In some ways it's a side-effect of Just-In-Time delivery and standard parts. The same steering rack, brake, pedal, sensor, AC, and other assemblies are used across many models over the course of many years. This makes it vital that they are correct - but it also makes it that much more expensive to address a problem when it comes up.
I think this is one reason why being in management is so popular: It's much more difficult to prove responsibility for systemic failure on those who only supervise the work, rather than doing the work. Naturally, once in management, it's only a short step to explaining to the whole world that you're more valuable because you have "management skills".
I have met and very much appreciated the hard work of several managers I've met in my 35 year career. I have met and despise the lies and fraud of many more of the managers I've met in that same career.
The further a manager is from the actual work, the more likely that manager's responsibility is dissociated from authority: That is the cause of great difficulty in large organizations.
It takes 1 kcal to heat 1kg of water;
----------539 kcal to evaporate 1 kg of water.
Water vapor as lighter than most gases are going up to cloud level, where condensation released energy, but it happen on 2-7 miles close to space, where energy will go to space more easely than from ground level.
In atmosphere we always have water droplets (fog, clouds and partical which mostly responsible for visibillities. Evaporation of these water droplets also cooling the atmosohere.
WHY WE ALWAYS SPEAK ABOUT WATER VAPOR AND FORGET ABOUT WATER DROPLETS AND EVAPORATION OF WATER FROM GROUND LEVEL?
WAKE UP PEOPLE, IT IS DANGEROUS MISTAKES.
Full picture of reason will bring others tools to fight climate change if it is happen.
We also must remember that, that too had a fiscal motivation if you recall Reagan wanted the Shuttle to become a money generating entity that paid for itself and had applied his failed ruinous economics too NASA..!
The financial considerations are also at play in regard to the Global Warming issue and pending catastrophe...
People people who watch Fox News believe the satellites showing Ice vanishing all over the world are some sort of liberal plot and exaggeration...
Extreme Ice...PBS...Nova...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice
Example - Yesterday, I received a letter from the Census Bureau stating that I will soon be receiving a letter containing my census forms from the Census Bureau..
Anyone understand the logic therein?
Problems with authors and your explanation why it is happen?
Both of you absolutely ignore properties of water, which actually could fight climate change and because of poor explanation like these our Government used wrong tools to fight climate change.
This is very dangerous direction, sorry to inform you about that.
Author forget about properties of water which actually cool the atmosphere.
In atmosphere we have also water droplets in form of fog, clouds and particles, which together with pollen, dust, etc, responsible for visibilities.
Their evaporation, the same as evaporation of water on ground level actually cool the earth.
Your site also do not mention, that water vapor as lighter than most gases in atmosphere transport heat to cloud level, where condensation released heat close to space on 2-5 miles.
It heat will go to space more easely, than from ground level.
Now, question: Does the author think that, no matter how dire the climate news, that one single person on this earth is going to park their car, shut off the heat in their homes, cut the breakers off, and stoically try to stand against global warming? Because I don't think that's going to happen. I think instead, we'll see a progressive increase in industry, energy use, and so forth, accompanying population growth. Question is, what fixes carbon, how fast can plants absorb carbon, and what will we do when there's so much that it doesn't do any good to do anything, anymore? Besides pray.