Climate Change and YSSY crosswinds?

[Lookleft]

Now if you're referring to the 2012 letter from 49 former NASA employees including some former astronauts disputing NASA's position on climate change (but conveniently including zero facts or evidence to back up their position), that was easily debunked. There were quite a few spaceflight experts, spacecraft engineers, astronauts, pilots and mission control directors on that list, but absolutely none of them had undertaken one second of climate change research.

Extremists from either end of the spectrum cancel each other out and you are definitely at the extreme end of the CC hysterics spectrum. The letter is suggesting that NASA not go to the extreme end of the spectrum and risk damaging their reputation. It does not suggest that climate science is false but that the extreme predictions are not substantiated. For those who would like to make that judgement for themselves this is the text:

The full text of the letter:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: arse Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight centre

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space centre, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space centre, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, arse.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, arse’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, arse’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

Your ignorance is telling if you think the knowledge these people have about NASA and the way it goes about its business is the equivalent of

.... a letter written by 49 former NASA cleaners and kitchenhands.

BTW when will you answer the question about what you actually do for a living? I can help you frame your answer by stating that lookleft is a Jetstar pilot. dr dre is .a ........

[Willie Nelson]

Originally Posted by George Glass

Fossil fuels are of incomparable economic utility.
Fossil fuels lifted humanity out of the Hobbesian nightmare of 90% of human existence.
China, India and the rest of the developing world know this and are determined to have their moment in the sun. Nothing middle class hand-wringing westerners will change that.
Renewables are nowhere near supplying the majority of base-load power anywhere, and wont for the foreseeable future despite the fantastical non-physical properties advocates dream of.
Until you can come with REAL alternatives to the Jet A1 that powers every jet aircraft, the fuel oil that powers every cargo ship or the diesel that powers every regional diesel electric train, all heavy road transport and farm machinery please spare me your sanctimonious harping.
Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels will be extraordinarily difficult and in some cases not possible at all.
Either way scientists , engineers and entrepreneurs will provide the solutions , not haranguing from Cultural Revolution re-enactors from Extinction Rebellion.

I agree with much of what you have stated, currently there is no viable alternative to jet fuel, worthy evolutionary improvements in efficiency aside, are just that, they are not revolutionary and short of an engineering miracle I can’t see any on the horizon in the next twenty years at least.

That said, it doesn’t follow that continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere isn’t causing significant problems that may become irreversible at some point in the future, I guess that’s why many of us are concerned.

If the free market a viable alternative readily available for jet fuels, my guess is we’d already be heavily invested in it.

Correct me me if I’m wrong, and I often am, you don’t feel concerned about the future direction of the climate and it’s potential impacts on the way we source our food and drinking water? If you don’t, then that’s at least one point at which we part ways.

To be clear, I think myself and my wife will live a long and healthy life but I am also concerned about my children and their ability to stay healthy and free of global conflict surrounding issues such as water and food security.

I ask this as a genuine question not a rhetorical diatribe, perhaps you’re not concerned, if not I’d be genuinely interested in your logic, that’s all. You seem articulate enough to be able to flesh this out.

[Lookleft]

If the free market a viable alternative readily available for jet fuels, my guess is we’d already be heavily invested in it.

Aren't the airlines investing heavily in producing bio-fuels?

[Willie Nelson]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

Aren't the airlines investing heavily in producing bio-fuels?

Yes, I believe there is some debate as to effectiveness given they’re still a carbon based consumable producing of CO2. If for example it takes 10 times (number plucked firmly from my backside) the energy to produce one barrel of biofuels as is contained in said fuel then it may only be addressing supply rather than environmental concerns. It would also be addressing it in a very inefficient way potentially contributing further to the problem.

Of course, the absorption of CO2 in the production of biofuels means their is a direct cycle but I’ll be honest and recognise I’m talking above my pay grade here. Perhaps someone else can shed some light.

My broader point is that the challenges posed to the aviation industry are almost unique in their complexity but that doesn’t dismiss the problems caused by the increasing demand for everyone to fly everywhere with no end in sight for a reduction let alone permanent end to aviation emissions.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

Extremists from either end of the spectrum cancel each other out and you are definitely at the extreme end of the CC hysterics spectrum.

Like I’ve said before, everything I’m posting is from NASA (the actual climate science part), CSIRO, the IPCC, the world’s leading scientific universities and institutes. According to your standards you must accept that they too are on the extreme end of the the climate spectrum too. You must accept a vast majority of climate scientists are, in your words, “extremists”.

The letter is suggesting that NASA not go to the extreme end of the spectrum and risk damaging their reputation. It does not suggest that climate science is false but that the extreme predictions are not substantiated.

There’s zero hard data or evidence in that letter. They reference zero peer reviewed studies. They do not give the name of one credible climate science who backs up their position. The actual climate scientists made their conclusions and those on the letter dispute them, so in fact they are denying climate science, as hard as they want to argue they are not deniers or skeptics.

It’s playing politics actually. No mention of how one of the leading authors of the letter, Harrison Schmitt, was a hardcore Republican politician, a party known for some pretty serious denial of science (if you want to see how much look at a bill Republicans in Ohio are trying to introduce regarding ectopic pregnancies and abortion - beggars belief).

They may be upset that funds going to climate research in their belief should go to space exploration? Whatever it is, it’s not because NASA is on the “extreme” of the climate change debate, there are groups advocating climate action to a greater extent than they are. The extreme position is those who don’t believe in the science, as was posted earlier in this thread 89% of Australians understanding human climate change, only 10% are doubters. Even that last figure in a way isn’t mecessary, all that matters is that 97% of the only experts who matter, climate scientists, support the science.

I hate to sound like a broken record but these are basic facts.

To deny the science you either have to accept all of these scientists and researchers, tens of thousands across the world, are either one of two things:
Grossly incompetent to an extent never seen before in history or
Engaged in a huge, worldwide conspiracy on a scale never seen before in history to promote a fake situation for their own nefarious reasons.

[Lookleft]

I'll leave others to decide if your take on the letter is valid. As to the last part of my post

BTW when will you answer the question about what you actually do for a living? I can help you frame your answer by stating that lookleft is a Jetstar pilot. dr dre is .a ........

you haven't answered it.

[Mk 1]

Lookleft - kudos for your position and revealing it (I'm envious), but how does that make you any more qualified to comment on the worldwide climate than say a retail worker, a banker or a bus driver? Is it therefore relevant what dr dre does for a living?

[The name is Porter]

Didn't lookleft say he/she has a BSc? And a bit of life experience as a Pilot. Maybe he/she is trying to determine if the good doctor is another Greta?

[Lookleft]

Lookleft - kudos for your position and revealing it (I'm envious), but how does that make you any more qualified to comment on the worldwide climate than say a retail worker, a banker or a bus driver? Is it therefore relevant what dr dre does for a living?

Thats my point,it doesn't but the good dr refuses to reveal what he does that makes him any more qualified than anyone else to present what is essentially his opinion and analysis of information that is largely on the web. He casually dismissed the letter from 49 eminent NASA employees and former employees who have a significant scientific background e.g. Harrison Schmidt who is a geologist and became an astronaut. This is a pilot forum after all so I wonder why he doesn't want to state what he does. If he is a pilot and feels that strongly about cc then he should consider resigning his position if he is to have any credibility with his stated position.

BTW no need to be envious Mk1, just be persistent.

[73qanda]

Dr Dre, can you please confirm something for me? I have a suspicion that there is a fair amount of misunderstanding going on on this thread. I am wanting to know if you agree with the following statement because it would help me understand what you think is science and if we disagree at that level.
‘Predictions of future global temperatures produced by climate models at reputable scientific institutes ( such as NASA) are scientific fact’.
Do you think that’s a true statement?
Cheers

[Stickshift3000]

Originally Posted by 73qanda

I am wanting to know if you agree with the following statement because it would help me understand what you think is science and if we disagree at that level.

‘Predictions of future global temperatures produced by climate models at reputable scientific institutes ( such as NASA) are scientific fact’.
Do you think that’s a true statement?

Not exactly sure what you’re asking here. Are you asking whether predictions can inform fundamental scientific principles?

‘Science’ involves asking questions and testing hypotheses to answer these specific questions. Predictions can inform this, however cannot absolutely replace accurate observations.

I’m a qualified scientist, and a qualified pilot. I enjoy the latter more.

[Asturias56]

"Predictions can inform this, however cannot absolutely replace accurate observations."

Observations are real but in the past, predictions are often not accurate (but that is along way from saying they are totally wrong) but help inform future choices - you can't equate the two.

My observation with a lot of the posts on here is that those who oppose the idea of CC fall into 2 main camps - the ones who don't believe its happening at all, and those who think it is happening but there is nothing we can or should do about it.

The vast bulk of the evidence, scientific opinion and personal experience tells me it IS happening. I can also understand why a lot of people feel their way of life, their comfort, their jobs, their hobbies are under threat if we adopt measures to try (and I say try as I doubt they'll work long term) but it looks like kicking the can down the road and leaving it to the future to sort out.

[73qanda]

I am wanting to understand how/what Dr Dre thinks. He or she said

It isn’t the “so-called consensus”, it’s a scientific fact, as I explained to you in my previous post.

I’m trying to understand exactly what Dre thinks is consensus, and what is fact. I suspect I may be misunderstanding some statements that have been posted.
Clearly there is a consensus amongst many that global temperatures are going to rise because of greenhouse gas emissions, but it isn’t a scientific fact. I want to know if Dre thinks the predictions are scientific fact because if that’s the case our minds will never meet.
Cheers

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

Aren't the airlines investing heavily in producing bio-fuels?

Bio-fuels are technically feasible, but commercially not viable.
Australian Airline Qantas purchased many millions of litres of bio- fuel . Admirable and "PR" worthy it may be, but the purchase represented around six weeks of Pacific transits, leaving the other 40 odd weeks powered by hydrocarbon fuel.

The problems are two fold:

1. Consumption of bio-fuel produces CO2.
2. (Peer reviewed research) Found to power just 10% of US ASK would require an area geographically the size of Florida. (The study considered the substitution of staple food crops to create major problems)

As such, with the incremental development in engine efficiency suggestive that we have approached a technological apex and electric aircraft fanciful, the industry is stuck with hydrocarbon based fuel.
Carbon offsets are a nice way of saying "we keep burning hydrocarbon fuel, but plant tress somewhere".

Whether or not the climate change is man made is most certainly not resolved.
That the climate changes is a given.
What it means for the planet and our place on it is difficult to answer.

[De_flieger]

Originally Posted by 73qanda

This is where it gets hairy Dre. You say it’s scientific fact and mention that you have already explained that to us.....
It’s hard to see how the climate model predictions are ‘scientific fact’.
Just to make sure we are not misunderstanding each other, can you answer the following statement with a true or false, it would help my understanding of your position as the discussion continues.
’ Climate Model predictions of future global temperatures are scientific fact’ TRUE/FALSE

"Predictions of future global temperatures are scientific fact - FALSE" (I'm not dr dre, but thanks for your continued efforts dr dre!)

They are predictions, but based on observations. Observations are scientific facts, for example the observations by NOAA that 2016, 2015, 2017 and 2018 were globally the four hottest years in the modern temperature record ( last 139 or so years of accurate direct global measurements). Even if you decide that you want to restrict your era of measurement solely to the timeframe when satellites could measure global temperatures in the last 4 or 5 decades, they're still the 4 hottest years in the recent record. Predictions were made years ago, decades ago, that increasing the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would lead to a greenhouse effect creating an overall warmer planet, and we have continued to increase the CO2 levels, and observed a warming planet roughly in line with the predictions. Theyre not a perfect prediction, and have ranges of probable outcomes, but generally the results observed globally have been in line with what was expected.

How do we know that CO2 is involved? Effectively there's only two very broad ways the planet warms, either by having more solar radiation fall on it due to variations in solar orbit or activity, or by retaining more of the heat that is incident on it. All the historical ice ages and warm periods can be attributed to one of those things, or their effects combined. The planet's orbit is slightly elliptical, but this would result in annual cycles, not the observed decade-scale warming trend.. Similarly, solar activity follows cycles, but this cyclical variation in output is not reflected in the warming that has been observed - not that it isn't present, but the observed warming trend is beyond that cyclical variation, and at times in contradiction to what would be expected if planetary temperature changes were primarily driven by solar (sunspot) activity. The levels of solar radiation falling on the earth are not changing (increasing) rapidly enough to create the observed trend. Those are some scientific facts, based on observations, they dont predict anything in the future at all.

So something is happening to cause the earth to retain more heat. Basic repeatable physics experiments that any science lab or dedicated backyard experimenter can reproduce show that CO2 has a greenhouse effect, and predictions were made in previous decades that an increase in CO2 levels would lead to a warmer planet, which has been borne out by recent observations. Existing climate models predicted the observed warming trend years before it was seen, which gives them some validity. Based on that, with models that predicted changes that were later observed, a large number of climate scientists are predicting due to those models that a further increase in CO2 levels will lead to further warming.

[mjohansen]

Interesting words from a scientist working with climate dynamics and the climate models:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion...-warming-panic

Many of of the things he says other climate scientists have pointed out before (Curry, Lewis, Christy just to name a few).

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by 73qanda

I am wanting to understand how/what Dr Dre thinks. He or she said
I’m trying to understand exactly what Dre thinks is consensus, and what is fact. I suspect I may be misunderstanding some statements that have been posted.
Clearly there is a consensus amongst many that global temperatures are going to rise because of greenhouse gas emissions, but it isn’t a scientific fact. I want to know if Dre thinks the predictions are scientific fact because if that’s the case our minds will never meet.
Cheers

Let's look at the meanings of words:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity

In science, a fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence

Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. It is information that verifies the truth (which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.

Now that we've got that out of the way, we can see that we are looking for empirical evidence to verify the science of climate change. There is mountains of it. All peer reviewed scientific measurements and observations from reputable scientific sources. From height of the tropopause, upper atmosphere changes, ocean changes, infrared radiation, longwave radiation, energy imbalances, changes in ice sheets, sea levels, changes in CO2, spectroscopy evidence of CO2 wavelength capture, energy balances, surface radiation forcing, and so on and so forth. It's overwhelming. Sen Malcolm Roberts would be over the moon at the amount of empirical evidence out there.

It's because of that empirical evidence that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (ie, the consensus) now state that human induced climate change is a fact, like NASA:

“The weight of all of this information taken together points to the single consistent fact that humans and our activity are warming the planet,”

The scientific method and climate change: How scientists know

The IPCC:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers

The US National Academy of Science:

Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions

Climate at the National Academies

And on and on and on...
Just like how hundreds of world wide scientific bodies hold the exact same position - The following are worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:

It isn't just a hypothesis, it isn't just a theory, it isn't just a guess, it's fact, it's empirical, it's proven. After going through the scientific method. I really don't know what else needs to be said.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by mjohansen

Interesting words from a scientist working with climate dynamics and the climate models:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion...-warming-panic

Many of of the things he says other climate scientists have pointed out before (Curry, Lewis, Christy just to name a few).

All those "scientists" have been debunked previously. Many times. Of making basic errors in their work. Curry has been debunked so many times she won't submit her work anymore for peer review, and instead only publishes it on her blog where she can be free from criticism.

As far as Nakamura goes, there isn't much about his book, because it was only published a few weeks ago. Unlike a lot of skeptics/deniers who latch on to something they believe debunks the science straight away, real scientists take time to examine claims. I would guess some scientists are analyzing and validating Nakamura's book (and their own work as well, because scientists should) and this will take time. The other scientists mentioned have been around for decades so plenty of time for their work to be critiqued. But I can already see two areas of his criticism that have previously been addressed, "water vapor " and "aerosols". Other scientists have acknowledged some of his criticism of their climate models as well, although they acknowledge what those criticism are, they state they are not the "magnificent breakthrough" that totally debunks "warmist lies" like a lot of hardcore deniers are waiting in vain for. This book hasn't caused any waves within the scientific community, as it (on first glance) appears to be just a re-hashing of the same criticisms that others like Curry have already made that have already been thoroughly debunked.

And another fact. Nakamura's book is just that. A book, not peer reviewed science, not a peer reviewed study. It wasn't published in a reputable scientific journal. It only gets mentions on the usual whacko denial blogs, including the fundamentalist religious website "Life Site News" you posted a link from that's got a story on it's front page telling readers to petition to stop movie producers featuring gay characters in movies. It isn't an unbiased scientific publication.

Originally Posted by De_flieger

but thanks for your continued efforts

No thanks required, I'm just posting what the tens of thousands of credible climate scientists around the world are saying, after putting probably millions of hours of cumulative work into this topic. Thank them.

[Rated De]

At a bit of a loss...

Is Andrew David right?
Climate change is blowing out his bonus, err OTP?

[73qanda]

It's because of that empirical evidence that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (ie, the consensus) now state that human induced climate change is a fact, like NASA:

Thanks Dre.
I agree that the climate changes.
I agree that humans must have an effect on the climate.
What I’m not sure of is how accurate the predictions of future global warming are and I thought you had said that they weren’t a consensus but scientific fact.
So do we agree that the software predictions aren’t scientific fact?