Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

[DocM]

32 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

Well you don't have to be a scientists even to understand that climate change and humans affect and accelerating it is a thing you just need to be able to read basic data and have working eyes. for anyone having lived more than 30 years as well, it's pretty obvious things are changing, big things that shouldn't change in such time frames. 

In North America there are climate cycles which exhibit wide swings over a roughly 60 year cycle, so if you were born in the trough of that cycle 30 years would put you at its peak. From your view it looks like "WOW!!", but to an old timer not so much. There are also longer period cycles. Much longer.

 

The point is, casual observation isn't that informative, and the further back in time we go as regards what the temperature was at any point in time the less likely we are to be correct. Accurate intrumentation only dates back to 1724; the mercury thermometer created by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit. CO2 levels are used as a substitute, but that response is certainly non-linear and inconsistent over geographies we know by observation - much less those we don't know due to continental drift, sea lane openings and closings etc. Panama for one. 

 

This should make long-term temperature graphs suspect unless the rearcher has a Way Back machine. They don't.

[TPreston]

1 hour ago, PGHammer said:

TPreston - the problem even applies to peer review - and I honestly wished it didn't!

And that is what the creationists say, Thats what the anti-vaxers, Thats what the 9/11 truthers say, Thats what the anti-Wifi people say etc etc etc.

 

You are on the losing end and rather than do the hard work of peer review you do a trump and say "Its Rigged" not just in America no in Japan its rigged to, Ireland its rigged there too all by a massive global conspiracy of scientists.

 

Just for the science that conflicts with my political and religious beliefs, The cool stuff is just fine as is.

 

52 minutes ago, DocM said:

This can't be emphasized enough. 

I agree the intellectual bankruptcy of conservatives on this issue cant be emphasized enough.

 

 

Quote

There is a MAJOR crisis in science right now and it includes peer review; everyone agrees its seriously broken and not just in one field of study.

Papers have been submitted which were pure gibberish as test cases and they passed peer review, and in some areas of study its estimated more than half of findings cannot be reproduced. In some this jumps to 70% or more.

 I agree here and guess who exploits this ? Conservatives and Creationists!

 

Quote

The bottom line is, saying a study of any kind should be accepted because it's peer reviewed isn't the good argument it once was.

But only for the science that conflicts with my religious and political beliefs, All the other stuff is fine.

 

Quote

It's one thing to say it's changing and humans are contributing to the change. It's another to be able to directly link humans to the amount of change they are causing, which we haven't been able to do.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Quote

 

We just measure the amount of greenhouse gas we put into the atmosphere but once that happens we have no way to measure what those gasses actually do or how it translates into warming because it's not that simple. Fluid dynamics are why it's not that simple, and honestly the people who are the best at fluid dynamics are people who do weather (NOAA).

 Like this

 

Then take the 2 billion earth sciences gets and give it to NOAA otherwise its a cut.

 

Quote

In North America there are climate cycles which exhibit wide swings over a roughly 60 year cycle, so if you were born in the trough of that cycle 30 years would put you at its peak. From your view it looks like "WOW!!", but to an old timer not so much. There are also longer period cycles. Much longer.

And all of this means jack **** to determining if earths global average temperature is increasing.

 

Quote

The point is, casual observation isn't that informative, and the further back in time we go as regards what the temperature was at any point in time the less likely we are to be correct. Accurate intrumentation only dates back to 1724; the mercury thermometer created by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit. CO2 levels are used as a substitute, but that response is certainly non-linear and inconsistent over geographies we know by observation - much less those we don't know due to continental drift, sea lane openings and closings etc. Panama for one. 

 

This should make long-term temperature graphs suspect unless the rearcher has a Way Back machine. They don't.

 

Also lol@ the inability of the above to defend the "Its just a restructuring not a cut" narrative.

Edited November 24, 2016 by TPreston

[HawkMan]

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

It's one thing to say it's changing and humans are contributing to the change. It's another to be able to directly link humans to the amount of change they are causing, which we haven't been able to do. We just measure the amount of greenhouse gas we put into the atmosphere but once that happens we have no way to measure what those gasses actually do or how it translates into warming because it's not that simple. Fluid dynamics are why it's not that simple, and honestly the people who are the best at fluid dynamics are people who do weather (NOAA).

Actually we can measure the change by the fact we know where it should be without our contributions and where it's at now. and we're already far ahead of where it should be, on orders of hundred and thousands of year, and it's accelerating. we have both historic data and graph trends from recent history and we have core samples showing past historic changes. 

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Climate research at NASA? For like understanding Venus or something?

[HawkMan]

1 hour ago, DocM said:

In North America there are climate cycles which exhibit wide swings over a roughly 60 year cycle, so if you were born in the trough of that cycle 30 years would put you at its peak. From your view it looks like "WOW!!", but to an old timer not so much. There are also longer period cycles. Much longer.

 

The point is, casual observation isn't that informative, and the further back in time we go as regards what the temperature was at any point in time the less likely we are to be correct. Accurate intrumentation only dates back to 1724; the mercury thermometer created by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit. CO2 levels are used as a substitute, but that response is certainly non-linear and inconsistent over geographies we know by observation - much less those we don't know due to continental drift, sea lane openings and closings etc. Panama for one. 

 

This should make long-term temperature graphs suspect unless the rearcher has a Way Back machine. They don't.

There's less snow in winter here now than it's been for a hundred years, or rather hundreds since the issue of less snow is something that happened in the last 30 and hasn't been like this since recorded history and then some. 

 

and researcher do know how the climate was in past history before recorded time, it's what research, science an core samples is for. as well as geology, it literally shows in our very rocks and ground. 

[HawkMan]

2 minutes ago, J. X. Maxwell said:

Climate research at NASA? For like understanding Venus or something?

might as well put a sticker on your cara saying you don't know what NASA does. 

 

for launching satellites that are used by NASA and several other alphabet soups, including NOAA, and launching satellites for other alphabet soups, you know, like NOAA. they're also a science organization and such research is part of what they do. An it's important that they do it as well, since they can see other correlations than more narrow focus agencies like NOAA can, and they need to quality check NOAA's findings as well. since you guys already have an issue trusting peer reviewed research, you'd think having multiple places doing the research would be good. 

[Emn1ty]

2 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

Actually we can measure the change by the fact we know where it should be without our contributions and where it's at now. and we're already far ahead of where it should be, on orders of hundred and thousands of year, and it's accelerating. we have both historic data and graph trends from recent history and we have core samples showing past historic changes. 

Where it "should be" isn't measurable either, because we don't have a conclusive model. We know we have higher carbon levels, we know we have higher levels of other gases. We however do not actually know what the temperatures would be without those levels, and all our predictions of what our current levels would do to our climate have been drastically wrong. The truth is, we don't exactly know what will happen with more emissions because we can't properly (or I should say accurately) model it. Also, emissions are already on the decline here in the US. The people we really should be looking at to fix their own mess is not ourselves, but China who more than triples our output (and they, too have peaked and will start the decline).

Now lets put some more into perspective. If Trump pushes to open the gates on Nuclear, that will bite into Coal/Fossil/Natural Gas energy. In 50-60 years we might also have viable fusion reactors, in which case we could be looking nearly total elimination of current energy sources (outside geothermal and hydroelectric) within 100 years. To me, that's not enough time to push the planet to the breaking point (even given current emission levels).

We put so much value in what we, as a species, do on this planet. As if we could single handedly destroy it without putting in a concerted effort to do so. CO2 emissions and other green house gasses will change our climate, but not destroy it. The Earth will keep on spinning, humanity will adapt as will life that exists here. Alarmism isn't going to solve anything.

[troysavary]

18 hours ago, TPreston said:

Again ignore the science ignore the scientists and cut funding because it conflicts with my religious i mean economic beliefs.

 

No different than a creationist.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a24031/trump-nasa-earth-science-budget/

Count on tPreston to make an anti-religion rant out of an article that had absolutely nothing to do with religion. Once again showing when the Left talks about "tolerance" they only mean tolerance for there own point of view.

[TPreston]

9 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

We put so much value in what we, as a species, do on this planet. As if we could single handedly destroy it without putting in a concerted effort to do so. CO2 emissions and other green house gasses will change our climate, but not destroy it. The Earth will keep on spinning, humanity will adapt as will life that exists here.

Humanity can adapt but not all of it, There will be deaths. As for life thats a pants on fire claim, The changes in temperature  that animals can adapt to is over a period of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.  Not decades changes of that frequency are usually associated with mass extinctions in earths history.

 

Just look at what the small increase in sea temperatures has done with coral bleaching.

 

Quote

6 minutes ago, troysavary said:

Count on tPreston to make an anti-religion rant out of an article that had absolutely nothing to do with religion. Once again showing when the Left talks about "tolerance" they only mean tolerance for there own point of view.

As ive pointed out many times the tactics used by deniers of evolution and climate change are identical;

Alarmists = Darwinists

[troysavary]

2 minutes ago, TPreston said:

 

As ive pointed out many times the tactics used by deniers of evolution and climate change are identical;

What tactic? Relying on evidence and not ideology?

[Emn1ty]

Just now, TPreston said:

Humanity can adapt but not all of it, There will be deaths. As for life thats a pants on fire claim, The changes in temperature  that animals can adapt to is over a period of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.  Not decades changes of that frequency are usually associated with mass extinctions in earths history.

 

Just look at what the small increase in sea temperatures has done with coral bleaching.

Life was a general term, some life dies other life lives on. That's called nature. Just as there were mass extinctions during the ice age, and more when the ice age ended, new life will take its place in the new habitats those changes bring.
 

But lets also no forget that we've recently discovered a way to repurpose CO2 emissions without putting them in the atmosphere, so add that to Nuclear and Fusion power we have our bases covered.

Life will adapt, as it always has and always will barring a planet destroying event that vaporizes it all or freezes it all out of existence.

[TPreston]

19 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Life was a general term, some life dies other life lives on. That's called nature.

No its not comparable.

 

Quote

Just as there were mass extinctions during the ice age, and more when the ice age ended,

 

You are comparing apples and oranges here, Changes over hundreds of thousands of years are not the same as those over decades;

 

That is a false comparison;

 

Quote

But lets also no forget that we've recently discovered a way to repurpose CO2 emissions without putting them in the atmosphere, so add that to Nuclear and Fusion power we have our bases covered.

But during that time the global average temperature will have risen, Its not going to stop and wait for us.

 

Quote

Life will adapt, as it always has and always will barring a planet destroying event that vaporizes it all or freezes it all out of existence.

And the poor will take the brunt of it, Entire species will go extinct.

 

v Fail;

Edited November 24, 2016 by TPreston

[Emn1ty]

10 minutes ago, TPreston said:

...

 

I'm just going to end this here, there's a topic for this anyways.

[DocM]

58 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

>

Also, emissions are already on the decline here in the US. The people we really should be looking at to fix their own mess is not ourselves, but China who more than triples our output (and they, too have peaked and will start the decline).
>

Yup.

 

 

 

 

[troysavary]

1 hour ago, TPreston said:

No its not comparable.

 

 

You are comparing apples and oranges here, Changes over hundreds of thousands of years are not the same as those over decades;

 

That is a false comparison;

 

But during that time the global average temperature will have risen, Its not going to stop and wait for us.

 

And the poor will take the brunt of it, Entire species will go extinct.

 

v Fail;

The only fail is your fear mongering. Weren't coastal cities already supposed to be underwater by now according to Al Gore? Pro tip. The Earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is now, and there was no rampant industrialization to blame. 500 years ago there was mass starvation from a mini ice age. Read up on "the year with no summer". In the 1800s people skated on the Thames. Temperatures go up and down, following a natural, and predictable, cycle. We have already peaked and are going back down again. The sun, not CO2 levels, has the most dramatic effect on global temperatures. The sun goes through cycles in it's output levels.

[TPreston]

7 minutes ago, troysavary said:

The only fail is your fear mongering. Weren't coastal cities already supposed to be underwater by now according to Al Gore?

Al gore is not a climate scientist. 

 

Quote

Pro tip. The Earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is now

Source ?

 

Quote

,500 years ago there was mass starvation from a mini ice age. Read up on "the year with no summer". In the 1800s people skated on the Thames.

Not a global event.

 

Quote

Temperatures go up and down, following a natural, and predictable, cycle.

Not over a period of decades;

Quote

We have already peaked and are going back down again. The sun, not CO2 levels, has the most dramatic effect on global temperatures. The sun goes through cycles in it's output levels.

And yet the global average temperature keeps rising regardless.

http://climate.nasa.gov

[ctebah]

4 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Al gore is not a climate scientist. 

 

Source ?

 

Not a global event.

 

Not over a period of decades;

And yet the global average temperature keeps rising regardless.

http://climate.nasa.gov

Some people just don't want to listen to hard facts.  

[troysavary]

6 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Al gore is not a climate scientist. 

 

Source ?

 

Not a global event.

 

Not over a period of decades;

And yet the global average temperature keeps rising regardless.

http://climate.nasa.gov

This is what happens when you only learn history starting with the civil rights movement. Public school obviously failed you. Greenland, ever heard of it? It wasn't covered in ice 1000 years ago. That is why the Norsemen were able to settle there. Then the warm cycle ended and they had to abandon the settlements there.

 

The temperature data is skewed by the fact that many of the rural monitoring stations have been closed. Temperatures are higher in urban areas due to the asphalt absorbing heat, then warming the air. Why were the rural stations closed? It couldn't be to promote an agenda, could it?

[ctebah]

2 minutes ago, troysavary said:

This is what happens when you only learn history starting with the civil rights movement. Public school obviously failed you. Greenland, ever heard of it? It wasn't covered in ice 1000 years ago. That is why the Norsemen were able to settle there. Then the warm cycle ended and they had to abandon the settlements there.

 

The temperature data is skewed by the fact that many of the rural monitoring stations have been closed. Temperatures are higher in urban areas due to the asphalt absorbing heat, then warming the air. Why were the rural stations closed? It couldn't be to promote an agenda, could it?

 

 

Wow, I would stop posting if I were you....

 

Quote

Scientists have estimated that the Greenland ice sheet is between 400,000 and 800,000 years old. This means that the island today is unlikely to have been markedly different when Europeans settled there. However, there is evidence that the settled areas were warmer than today, with large birch woodlands providing both timber and fuel. This warmth coincided with the period known as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, also known as the Medieval Warm Period, which we will discuss below.

So how did Greenland get its name? According to the Icelandic sagas, Erik the Red named it Greenland in an attempt to lure settlers in search of land and the promise of a better life. However, the age of the ice sheet, which is more than 3 kilometres thick in places and covers 80% of Greenland, proves that the opportunities to establish communities would have been limited to rather small areas.

 

[ctebah]

An ice sheet that's around half a million years old wasn't there a thousand years ago.  I didn't think I'd ever hear someone say that....

[TPreston]

7 minutes ago, troysavary said:

This is what happens when you only learn history starting with the civil rights movement. Public school obviously failed you. Greenland, ever heard of it? It wasn't covered in ice 1000 years ago. That is why the Norsemen were able to settle there. Then the warm cycle ended and they had to abandon the settlements there.

^ But even if he were correct it this is the same argument as the mini ice age, it does not follow that the global average temperature was warmer or colder because of the weather in Brittan or Greenland at any given point.

 

Quote

The temperature data is skewed by the fact that many of the rural monitoring stations have been closed. Temperatures are higher in urban areas due to the asphalt absorbing heat, then warming the air. Why were the rural stations closed? It couldn't be to promote an agenda, could it?

And the satellite stations ? 

[FloatingFatMan]

14 hours ago, Arachno 1D said:

You should know the BBC is the Fox news of English media 

That's Sky News you're thinking of, not the BBC.

 

[T3X4S]

18 hours ago, neufuse said:

could you imagine science today if politicians interfered with it in the past when the atomic structure was discovered? Say having democrats say there is a small particle we call it an atom it has electrons protons and neutrons.... then republicans say we have no proof atoms exist, have you ever seen one? We shouldn't spend money on atomic research since you can't see them!

...

Well, I am not trying to start a flamewar, but this is exactly what religion has done since its beginning.   One can only imagine where we would be if religion didnt constantly try to stymie progress.  This Family Guy comes to mind:
 

 

[DocM]

No, this is what happens when you move the climate $$ to the actual climate agency: NOAA. That money is not evaporating.

 

http://spacenews.com/what-a-trump-administration-means-for-space/#sthash.Ir3SjHIh.dpuf

 

4. Shifting NASA budgets to “deep space achievements” rather than Earth science and climate research. Walker said that some, unspecified NASA Earth science missions might be better handled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, but

“there would have to be some budget adjustments” to transfer those missions from NASA to NOAA. -

 

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by DocM

[xendrome]

 

SCRAPPED!