Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Quoting Surfcropper:
How much CO2 does a Taurus rocket emit?

Quoting Surfcropper:
How much CO2 does a Taurus rocket emit?

Quoting PrivateIdaho:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion."
— Carl Sagan

Quoting JRRP:

Quoting outrocket:


more than any car you will ever drive in 4 life times...:)

Quoting seflagamma:


Hi Rocket!!! Good to see your smiling face here this afternoon!!!

Hello everyone, been doing a little lurking today and a lot of laughing!

Quoting EYEStoSEA:


A hello back to you :) I believe it is true what they say "Laughter is truly the best medicine."

Quoting HIPPOCRITT:
It is being investigated that the NASA satellite Glory did not make it to orbit today because of Global Warming.  All the CO2 in the atmosphere may have caused a malfunction with the rocket.  Unfortunately, we may have to now rely on postings from Art degree expert JFlorida from the Wunderground blog to determine if in fact, Global Warming was the cause. 

Please, stay tuned.

Quoting Skyepony:
Pat~ i'm not at all surprised.. what happened to Glory. I would have bet against it ever making it to orbit.ote>

The loss of anything that might reveal what might really be going on can only be welcomed by those who know whats really going on!!
quote:-

Oh, sorry to hear that," station commander Scott Kelly replied. "That's unfortunate."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20039222-239.htm l#ixzz1FfSmYyo8

http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20039222-239.ht ml

Quoting NRAamy:
Starving In The Cold

Updated-Original post 2-24-2008
Recently Rosa Compagnucci along with several other Argentine scientist came out in opposition to the alarmist view of anthropological global warming as promoted by the IPCC. Who is Rosa Compagnucci and why is this important? She is the leading researcher at CONICET and a professor in the Department of Atmosphere Sciences at the University of Buenos Aires, as well as a specialist on the "El Niño" phenomenon. Dr. Compagnucci was also a member and author of the IPCC Working Group II on Latin America.

The fact that Dr Compagnucci now disagrees with the IPCC’s conclusions is not unique, a number of scientist involved with the IPCC have been critical of the agency. What caught my attention was a statement she made while explaining her reasons.


With all the emphasis on preparing for global warming, she warned, this could leave man unprepared to deal with the possibility of a new ice age. She noted that South America's Southern Cone just went through a brutal, record-breaking winter, which could be repeated in North America. These concerns were expressed this past December 2nd, prior to the onset of this current brutal winter in much of the Northern Hemisphere.

It is interesting to note that a climate scientist unfettered by the need to defend a political position can make such a prophetic observation based solely on her judgment and intuition of current conditions. As regards to a coming ice age she did explain that this could be hundreds of years in the future, but she did expect a downward temperature swing by 2012.

She is not alone in this concern however, several scientist particularly astrophysicists and astronomers such as Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory have been warning that solar irradiance has begun to fall, which will cause a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The decline in solar irradiance he projects will last well into mid century and beyond putting Earth into an ever increasing deep freeze into the next century.

Since I originally wrote this many more scientist have expressed concerns about a cooling world. Dr. Pal Brekke a senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo put it this way


"We could be in for a surprise," he cautions. "It's possible that the sun
plays an even more central role in global warming than we have suspected. Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a
fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our
time."


and he added:


There is much evidence that the sun's high-activity cycle is levelling off or abating. If it is true that the sun's activity is of great significance in determining the earth's climate, this reduced solar activity could work in the opposite direction to climate change caused by humans. In that case," contends Dr Brekke, "we could find the temperature levelling off or actually falling in the course of a 50-year period" - an assertion that provokes many climate researchers

.
Obviously if this is true and there really is a danger of man made global warming then the sun's reduced activity counteracting it should be welcomed. But as you can tell from the article any mention of the sun having an impact on the climate is frowned upon by the so called mainstream climate community. This is because they do not recognize the sun having anything but a marginal impact on our climate variations. Anything that does not point to greenhouse gasses as the primary driver of the climate is considered sacrilegious. I'll let the reader decide if given millions of years of Earth's existence this makes sense, considering the short history of the automobile industry.

You might also consider that according to these same mainstream climate gurus the warmest year in the industrial age was 1998, and 2008 is the coolest year since then despite atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increasing at an "alarming rate". So why has it cooled? "There is much evidence that the sun's high-activity cycle is levelling off or abating."

In addition to the sun, as if that wasn't big enough, in April it was announced that we transitioned from a warm PDO phase to a cold phase. What does that mean? Well according to Professor Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University :


The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.


I could point to quite a few scientist in several fields who are either predicting or speculating that this will happen, even scientist who agree with the AGW theory. Since I originally wrote this (prior to the PDO shift) more and more scientist are expressing concern and weighing in on the subject. However that is not the main point I wish to make here.

So often in the Global Warming discussion you hear comments like “What difference does it make if the scientist are wrong, it will be good for the world to cut back on CO2 emissions.”

Believe me when I say I’m all for cutting our dependence on and use of fossil fuels for many reasons, but scientist being wrong about man made global warming is not one of them. Let’s look at just one reason why we should not be in favor of taking actions based on possible faulty conclusions.

First, let us suppose that Dr. Abdussamatov is correct and we begin a prolonged period of global cooling sometime next decade. In point of fact we may have already started, since the globe has shown no warming since 1998, let me say that again in case you did not know. 1998 was the warmest year in the past decade, that means there has been no warming since then, 2008 in case you haven’t noticed doesn’t look like it’s going to threaten the trend, but we will see.

Back to Dr. A, if he is correct, how are you going to feel about climate scientist come the end of next decade? The winters will get worse, food prices will rise even more because growing seasons will shorten rather than lengthen as would happen with global warming. Energy prices will skyrocket even more than now because it cost more to heat than to cool. There will be more deaths because cold related deaths exceed heat related. Believe me when I say everyone will be wishing the scientist were right about global warming because global cooling will be far worse for our world.

But it’s worse than just being upset at the scientist and them loosing credibility. Speaking of which my twenty-two year old daughter has lived her entire life under this ever increasing alarm and threat from global warming. What is it going to do to her generations trust in science if we begin… excuse me continue to cool? But as I said it’s worse than that.

Have you ever been on a trip and gotten on a highway going in the opposite direction than you intended. Suddenly you realize it twenty miles down the road. The worst part is not just the miles you went, it’s also the gas you used and the time you lost and that’s still not all. You have to spend just as much time, go just as many miles and use just as much gas again to get back to where you started. In affect you have lost the equivalent of not the twenty miles but sixty, the twenty gone wrong the twenty return and the twenty more you should have been and you can never get the time and gas back, they are lost.

Let’s look at another way in which this whole global warming hysteria has us going in a direction that could be very painful to return from. First, many countries, the United States now included, are mandating that a percentage of there energy use be replaced by bio-fuels. This is already having a dramatic affect on world food prices and stockpiles. So in the coming years we will be increasingly burning our food supply. As the world population and the demand for agricultural products grow we will be using those needed commodities for fuel instead of for sustenance. If we continue this policy which calls for ever increasing ethanol production it will only exacerbate the problem considerably in a colder world with shorter growing seasons.

It is easy to say that we would just switch back to using the crops for food but the real world does not work that way. Despite the fact that global temperatures have leveled over the past decade, the constant drum beat of climate change has been unrelenting causing world wide changes in energy policies, scientific research, economic planning and priorities.

Do you really believe that the scientist, environmental groups and politicians that have invested so much of their credibility on this theory are suddenly going to say “Oh Gee, we got it wrong, never mind” ? Not to mention that tremendous amounts of capital is being invested in research, development and infrastructures to accommodate this growing industry. I would assume that bio-fuel plants are not cheap. There is also the economic, availability and psychological affect if we are suddenly faced with switching back to using more fossil fuel in order to keep the world from starving. Think about that one for a while.

Like going the wrong way and having to turn around on a trip, tremendous resources are being expended in the wrong direction. Will we really give a hoot about wind farms if we are suffering through -50 degF winters as they just did in Maine, a new record low for all of New England.

While new coal plants are being taken off the table and drilling for oil and natural gas has become anathema to the power elite that control our country, how foolish will we look when we are burning forest and buildings for heat?

If some scientists say that the world is going to heat up and others say it is going to cool down what do you do? Perhaps the best course is to watch and see instead of running in the opposite direction from where you need to go. Making policies and taking steps that will only exacerbate future conditions seems to be a bit extreme. Personally I hope the AGW proponents are correct, the benefits of a warmer world out weigh the negatives, though you seldom hear this side of the discussion.

Dr. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov: Russian Academy of Scientists.Comment: RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006:


“Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century – when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland – could start in 2012-2105 and reach its peak in 2055-2060….He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today….”


January 16,2009

And he is getting more and more support for his view because it would be a real shame if we left our children and grandchildren starving in the cold.

From
A Long Road Home Revisited (2-12-2010)

The Global Warming mythology has infected all aspects of society. Not only is every weather event somehow attributable to man made global warming but as important is the lack of preparedness for what in the past would be considered prudent caution in response to what once was considered natural events. Earlier this year when the UK was hammered with heavy snows and cold temperatures which their MET Office had not forecast, they were left unprepared in many respects, not the least of it being salt:

Ministers have ordered highway authorities across the UK to cut their salt usage
by 25% to manage the pressure on salt supplies caused by the most prolonged spell of cold weather in the UK in almost 30 years.


When Washington DC was about to be hit with its third major snow event of the season 25 percent of its plow fleet was down, having trouble getting replacement parts and they too were running short on salt. Why would a city, our nations Capital which is funded by the Federal Government, not have spare parts for such essential equipment? Granted that the snow in the Mid Atlantic region has been historic this winter, but then again based on popular beliefs perpetrated about our climate who would have prepared for historic cold and snow anyway, what a waste right ?

It is one thing for a city such as Dallas to be unprepared for a record breaking foot of snow, the chances are it will be an anomaly in the long run. However the record breaking snow in DC just edged out the previous record (so far) it certainly is not unprecedented.

Indeed governments around the globe have bought so completely into the global warming myth they are afraid of being accused of negligence for not preparing for and establishing policies to meet rising sea levels in the distant future-not snow levels. But it is the snow and ice which we are faced with now isn't it? And governments find themselves unprepared.
***

Quoting JFLORIDA:


The problem with exclusively using quotes to support your scientific position is they are so vague as to invariably be applied to multiple instances in any detailed and complicated situation.

They are narrative observations to be applied to similar circumstance.

The quote is not really science itself, but a narrative of a situation that arose in scientific pursuit.

So again non sequitur. Bad argument.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. An older meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained.

But it was a good quote. Reason is absolute and quite venerable in its use in scientific circles.

Quoting Cochise000:


Sometimes "stupid" can be amusing, though. I believe his post was hyperbolic satire. It's close to the truth about what goes on here. There are several on this blog who preach to each other in their own little world leading kum ba ya choruses against non-existent "global warming." I'm certain they don't practice what they preach, otherwise they'd be ditching their a/c systems and riding bicycles.

Quoting Neapolitan:
I see that, sadly and predictably, the jesters of denialism are back at it again this afternoon. Due to a complete lack of ability to find any credible, peer-reviewed science that refutes the basic tenets of global warming--that the planet is warming rapidly, that that warming is from quickly rising concentrations of CO2, that that CO2 is primarily from man's activities--they're resorting once again to posting the same lame anti-environment jokes, the same many-times-debunked contrarian standards, the same boring anti-science blather, the same churlish and disrespectful comments about the blog's owner/author, the same silly everything. Broken records. Broken records. Broken records. Broken records...

Sigh...

I suppose their whistling past the graveyard is a standard human response when faced with things they don't understand, or when confronted by things that scare them. But while false bravado isn't so great as a long-term coping strategy, I suppose whatever gets one through this day is fine--so long as the one showing that phony bravery and willful ignorance isn't an elected official making decisions that affect all of us--including those of us who tend to, you know, believe the science.

Quoting NRAamy:
"It's getting hot in here..."

Original quote
Nelly

Quoting NRAamy:
"It's getting hot in here..."

Original quote
Nelly

Quoting JFLORIDA:
redundant post.

Quoting JohnTucker:



Do you think consensus in science is agreement outside of facts or reason?

Hopefully your conclusions are reasonable or the strength of your sources is meaningless. ( sorry Im posting in my other blog - its me)

I plussed your Sagan quote. I miss him.

Quoting atmoaggie:
Aren't they all?
Just sayin'