Archive for Tuesday, February 8, 2011

NASA expert to speak at KU about climate change

February 8, 2011

Advertisement

NASA is known for exploring space, but the agency also keeps an eye on earth.

This week a senior executive of NASA will speak at Kansas University about what observations from space can tell us about the planet’s climate change.

Jack Kaye, the associate director for research in NASA’s Earth Science Division, will speak at 3 p.m. Wednesday at the Dole Institute of Politics, 2350 Petefish Drive.

NASA is using space-based remote sensing to gather information on the earth’s land masses, oceans, atmosphere, cryosphere and biosphere. The data gathered can help scientists understand the changing climate, its interaction with life and how human activities affect the environment, according to NASA’s website.

NASA is currently working on a project with KU’s Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets.

The project, known as IceBridge, is a six-year mission that will use airplanes to create a three-dimensional view of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets, ice shelves and sea ice, according to NASA.

In 2009, a satellite gathering information on ice, clouds and land elevation stopped collecting data. Its replacement isn’t expected to launch until 2015.

The information gathered through the IceBridge project will fill the gap.

CReSIS is working on the radar instruments being used by the planes collecting data.

While Kaye will present a talk to CReSIS students and faculty that will be technically oriented, his discussion at the Dole Institute will be geared more toward the general public.

Comments

sr80 4 years, 6 months ago

i currently working on a drinkable form of popcorn with the burn't kernal flavor included,you think you would like cait48???

Crazy_Larry 4 years, 6 months ago

But it will most definitely expand the climate change knowledge base and, therefore, help to eventurally prove or disprove whether or not climate change is anthropgenic or natural. That's how science works. It's not like there's some magical 'climate change' book available where all of these answers are found. There is no spirit in the sky to whisper the answers to us; answers are found using good science.

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

"But it will most definitely expand the climate change knowledge base and, therefore, help to eventurally prove or disprove whether or not climate change is anthropgenic or natural. That's how science works."

The anthropogenic cause of climate change (or lack thereof, as the case may be) is something that can not BE proven. THAT is how science works.

sr80 4 years, 6 months ago

man has not done anything to effect the climate.its all mother nature.

Kirk Larson 4 years, 6 months ago

Billions of tons of carbon that was sequestered under ground is being pumped into the atmosphere in a geologically short amount of time. Nah, that can't effect anything, can it?

sr80 4 years, 6 months ago

what do you think the output of that iceland volcano was?? any guesses Cappy???

Kirk Larson 4 years, 6 months ago

Less CO2 than the European aviation industry:

http://gizmodo.com/#!5519809/eyjafjallajokull-daily-co2-output-utterly-dwarfed-by-european-aviation-industry

You have to remember that volcano output world wide is relatively constant in recent geologic time. Human output is on top of the normal carbon cycle. We're outputting carbon that was tucked away over a hundred million years ago. In just a couple hundred years we're putting a lot of that back in the atmosphere. It's not going to make the planet uninhabitable, but it will impose some very severe economic hardship if we don't take some minor economic hardship to change our energy behavior.

BigPrune 4 years, 6 months ago

I wonder if he will discuss sun spot activity and the climate?

Chris Golledge 4 years, 6 months ago

What part would you like him to discuss?

The part where solar output has been steady or slightly declining over the last several decades, or the part where this last cycle has been unusually low?

Meanwhile temperatures continue to rise.

raginredhead 4 years, 6 months ago

It's interesting how the phrase "climate change" has taken the place of "global warming".

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 6 months ago

It's interesting how some people think this is about semantics.

JustNoticed 4 years, 6 months ago

Yes, or that it matters whether the change is anthropogenic.

SnakeFist 4 years, 6 months ago

Yes; clearly the whole notion is wrong because, as the phenomenon becomes better understood, the terminology has changed. Its common sense: If global warming/climate change were true (nevermind all the fake temperature data) then the liberal scientists would have understood it perfectly from the beginning. Besides, Rush says its a lie, and he knows everything.

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

"as the phenomenon becomes better understood, the terminology has changed"

How long until you change the terminology again?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

The terminology hasn't changed at all.

cg22165's link explains it well. Not that you really care.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/whats-in-a-name.html

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

Did you even look at this link? (of course not-- it wouldn't facilitate willful ignorance.)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/whats-in-a-name.html

BTW, the same phenomenon that is bringing us cold temperatures, the southward movement of the jet stream, also causes areas further north to experience warmer than usual temperatures.

But again, that's actual information, so of no interest to you, is it?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

Also, take a look at the ten-day forecast and get back with us, if you're going to jump to conclusions by looking at the thermometer.

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

Ignore what you see and feel, there is a link to tell you what to think.

JustNoticed 4 years, 6 months ago

Fool, "what you see and feel" is a too-small sample. Your are disqualified for illogic. Please withdraw from the field.

SandCoAlmanac 4 years, 6 months ago

It hasn't. Global warming, among other things, causes climate change.

Ken Lassman 4 years, 6 months ago

Just as with evolution, the scientific community has looked at the data and overwhelmingly concluded that that facts clearly and unambiguously support the theory that climate change is occurring, and that humans are playing a significant role in that process.

If you disagree with that, you are certainly entitled to do so, just as you are entitled to reject evolution as the driving force behind speciation, just as you are entitled to reject the link between smoking and lung cancer, just as you are entitled to believe that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago and that it is flat.

In the meantime, folks like Dr. Kaye continue to collect the data that increases our understanding about the complexities of our planet,. Money well spent, especially considering how important the arctic and antarctic are to the global picture.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

Climate scientists and oceanographers are also saying that it's most accurate to refer to what's happening as ocean warming, since that's where 90% of the heating is taking place, with increasingly devastating effects on land, in the oceans, and the coastal intersections.

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

"most accurate to refer to what's happening as ocean warming"

Is that going to be the new terminology?

sr80 4 years, 6 months ago

i wonder what kind of crap the space shuttle spews when it takes off. i know that 22 mile trail can't just be moisture.anybody happen to know?

sr80 4 years, 6 months ago

i wonder what kind of crap the space shuttle spews when it takes off. i know that 22 mile trail can't just be moisture.anybody happen to know?

Kirk Larson 4 years, 6 months ago

The fuel is hydrogen and oxygen. Put them together, you get heat and water.

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

Ignore the solid rocket boosters hanging off the sides. Those aren't really there. Maybe bozo can post a link.

Kirk Larson 4 years, 6 months ago

Oops, your right. I was just thinking H2 and LOX. The solid rocket booster propellant is primarily ammonium perchlorate and aluminum.

BrianR 4 years, 6 months ago

We need to save this planet, for Pete's sake, it's the only one with beer.

sr80 4 years, 6 months ago

i wonder what moon dust would do to a human if snorted.its got to be better than bath salts!!!!!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

And yes, I know that you'll now claim that "government" scientists are corrupted by their paychecks.

sr80 4 years, 6 months ago

here we go again folks.keep the blows above the belt gentlemen.let the battle begin!!!!!

Olympics 4 years, 6 months ago

We should trust some of oil funded scientists. Because EVERYONE is biased by the mighty money. Have you seen the parking lots around the science buildings? Filled with high end, luxury cars. Man, those scientists are literally stealing from society with their lies!!!!

Your view of humanity is pretty low and clearly, you really have no understanding of science and how it is done.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

I'm sure that since they have to "steal" money in order to do basic research, they should be starving and homeless.

But they are doing essential research, and we can't rely on the Koch brothers to finance that, since they only do what pumps up their short-term profits. And that's why your and their fantasy world would be such a disaster. For everyone, including you.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

They're just the most obvious poster children for private actors who work the hardest to screw the world up for their private gain.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

"Are you claiming they aren't?"

You're clearly claiming that they are. Got any evidence?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

Given that they really don't produce much in the way of science, and quite a lot in the way of spin and disinformation, the answer is pretty obvious.

But since acknowledging that doesn't support your ideological fantasies, I'm not surprised that you can't or won't.

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

So money doesn't corrupt people? Or does it only corrupt some people... maybe the people you disagree with like maybe the koch brothers?

LOL. What a hypocrite.

sr80 4 years, 6 months ago

10,9,8,7,6,5,4 bozo was rocked by that hard liberal punch to the cerebal cortex.ohhh!!! there's the bell.bozo staggers to his corner,get ready for round #2 folks!!!

sr80 4 years, 6 months ago

you make me cry,bo hooo! hoo!! hoo!!! sniffle sniffle

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

Why? I'm sure I didn't tell you anything you didn't already know.

sr80 4 years, 6 months ago

you be meanie to me! you big bullie.i go tell my buddies!!!

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

Could somebody that goes please ask the expert what the temperature of the earth is supposed to be? If we could get that info, it will make it easier for us to personally monitor whether we climate-change in our day-to-day activities via globally warming whatever it is we are warming at the moment. We really need to regulate our oceans/radiators better to get rid of some of this snow. We certainly don't need another glacier looming over Lawrence because it would certainly make it harder to fish at the Leavenworth fishing lake. You can catch some pretty nice bluegill there.

Thank you!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

If you're a human, or a member of millions of other species, the "right temperature" is the one that allows continued survival. And for humans, especially, that means temperature patterns that are pretty much the same that they've been over at least the last several thousand years.

If you really don't care if our agricultural systems, developed over many thousands of years, continue to produce enough food for everyone, or if you really don't care if the coastal areas where 50% of the human population currently lives don't become submerged and uninhabitable, then there really isn't a "right" temperature. We can very easily go back to a climate that was great for dinosaurs, fish and insects, but not so great for us.

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

humans routinely survive between -50f and 130f. Think you can be a little more specific? Try a number this time.

devobrun 4 years, 6 months ago

Marshall Sahlins would disagree, bozo. The good life is the life of the hunter-gatherer (h-g). It is the only sustainable life that is both balanced and pious. It takes what it needs and leaves the rest.

According to new-age hunter-gatherers, the single most destructive activity in the existence of humans was the advent of agriculture. It allowed humans to achieve unsustainable numbers and the side bars like CO2, or limited water, or lost habitat are all just an understandable outcome from our proliferation.

This of course ignores the good side of civilization, but sustainable and harmony with nature is clearly a result of hunter-gatherer societies over agrarian ones. H-g folks die from disease, but they don't worry about nuclear holocaust. H-gs simply pick up and move when the resources are diminished. Wars that result of this mobility are quick and decisive. There are no prisoners, except women and slaves. Balance is kept.

Knowledge is limited so that agriculture and weapons and people don't proliferate. The world is saved and people are too.....only at about 1/10,000 their current numbers.

Concepts like democracy are useless as well. Power and might are limited, but strict. You live by the sword and you die by many different things. But you limit your numbers. This is the ultimate rejection of modernity. It is romantic and sustainable.

Get with the program, bozo. Humanity is the problem. Our days are numbered, whether it is by weather, or lack of water, or nukes, or whatever.....we have given up. CO2 is just one of the many ways we are doomed in this world of lost souls. Engineers only create problems, bozo. Solving them only creates more. Time to stop the insanity of knowledge and mastery of the world. Give up. Go back to the sustainable life of the h-g.

Michael Rowland 4 years, 6 months ago

Most scientists aren't "government" scientists, but academics. True most of the money is from federal grants, but those are awarded to the most promising investigators and projects.

Oh, and I'd love to find out where all these big paycheck scientists work, because most academic scientists don't get the big bucks. Those paychecks go to the athletics dept.

devobrun 4 years, 6 months ago

Gadhelyn, the scramble for bucks isn't for the big bucks. It is for modest money, prestige, tenure and a solid existence by a person who wishes to live a life free from the pressures associated with profits.

All striving, accomplished people are driven by the exigencies of money. Some look for personal wealth, but many just look for a comfortable life and a successful career. Nothing nefarious to it.

But that doesn't negate the possibility of bias. Scientists who wish to move ahead fast are tempted to tow the climate change line and add to it. Old guard who have tenure don't want to rock the boat so they don't question it.

It is "The Emperor's New Clothes". It isn't new, it isn't especially right wing or left.....it is bad science by a bunch of people who would rather believe a computer program than any traditional experimentation.

It is easier to model the climate than to spend a lot of money on stations that have to be monitored by strapping on the skis, or slogging through the muck. We'll just put that hut next to our station here by the parking lot and....errors will average out, right?

It is biased, Gad. It is bad science.

Chris Golledge 4 years, 6 months ago

From where do you get your information?

FYI, the best evidence of what is to come does not come from models; it comes from ice and sediment cores, corals, etc. and unless you think that ice and sediment cores spring from the earth spontaneously, there is a lot of the donning of winter gear, slogging through muck, etc. in the collection of data. I'm not saying that models are not useful, just that you are delusional if you think that's all there is.

Oh right, if you tell yourself it's just made-up numbers fed into a made-up computer program, you can feel better. Nevermind the rising sea levels, increased heat content of the oceans, earlier springs, climate zones shifting northward, decreasing mass of the ice sheets, general glacial retreats worldwide, and decline of polar ice. Nevermind that there are fundamental properties of physics that have to be wrong in order for more CO2 not to have an effect.

Nevermind that anyone with 1st-year chemistry behind them (successfully) understands that more CO2 in the air means a more acidic ocean. Nevermind that it has already been demonstrated that significant parts of the ocean food chain loose the ability to grow shells in a BAU ocean by about 2050; nevermind that there is already a decline in shell weight of these same creatures.

You have some competence; let's see something more than an ad hominem attack.

devobrun 4 years, 6 months ago

Sediment data is not raw data. Ice core data is not temperature data. It is all run through a model.

Paleo-data is modeled data. It is data that cannot be replicated nor checked. It is waste product from a vast sea of interaction that has occurred on the planet over extreme time periods. Data that is simply found but that cannot be tested. It is garbage. It is untestable and therefore not science.


As for "rising sea levels, increased heat content of the oceans, earlier springs, climate zones shifting northward, decreasing mass of the ice sheets, general glacial retreats worldwide, and decline of polar ice. "

Cherry-picking. Effect whose cause is not testable. Lousy data. Why CO2? Why not deforestation? Why not a whole host of things that are not testable?

It ain't science, cg. It is political fodder. It is sustenance for political agenda seekers. Political rent-seekers. The problem at the present is that AGW is losing popularity. AGW has been moved to the way-back burner. In Europe, in the U.S. and everywhere else it is losing favor. You are witnessing the last gasp of a dead issue.

But what needs to remain is the notion that AGW is a symptom of a bigger problem, lousy science. Science that is untestable, except by way of computer modeling. Science that is so far removed from that which underpins the great technologies of today that it looks like virtual science.

Virtual science, cg. Created reality. That which cannot be tested. The populace is restless, cg. They want better from modern science. They aren't getting it. Gee Mable, I thought that genetic stuff would have solved cancer by now.....not. Gosh Hilda, that new investment based on the latest from the Wharten School simulation didn't keep us from going TU. I wonder if there was a bug in the program?

It is frigging endless, cg. People are getting skeptical about crazy ideas. Doom and gloom scenarios are wearing thin.

You're losing, cg. You're losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the populace. One too many environmental scares. One too many end-of-world predictions.

Scientific prediction has overstepped its ability to test or demonstrate. It has become only narrative. There are lots of stories in the world, cg. This AGW story is getting old.

And it is cold outside.

Michael Rowland 4 years, 6 months ago

This comes back to an argument I make often: do you have a PhD in anything related to Climatology? Do you understand in extreme detail how the data collection works? Have you done it yourself? Then you cannot comment on the validity of the data collecting.

I will listen to those with the big degree and tenure because they truly are the experts in the field. Don't think that tenure means you've got it cushy. My previous boss has a fancy professorship title, tenure, many years experience, yet he still got stressed out when he felt the lab wasn't publishing enough high-quality papers. Once you win a grant the next fight is to get another when that one runs out. When the grant money runs out it means your lab gets dissolved and you're stuck teaching until you decide to retire or pursue a different profession. So tenured professors will still "rock the boat" because being on the cutting edge increases the chances of more grant money.

booyalab 4 years, 6 months ago

Ok, I'll entertain the idea that global warming is occurring and that it's man-made.

Why does that mean that the government should try to do something about it? Especially when it's so utterly incompetent at everything else.

jhawkinsf 4 years, 6 months ago

The solution is simple. Five billion people into voluntary euthanasia chambers. I'll be waiting, at the back of the line.

bad_dog 4 years, 6 months ago

No need to fret, everyone in line will be admitted.

Chris Golledge 4 years, 6 months ago

In what way is this a kicker? Please explain how the lack of change or decline in solar output is the cause of a general warming trend. The sun and the heat content of the earth are diverging. Here, pick a skill level

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Chris Golledge 4 years, 6 months ago

BloodBot,

"Temperatures have been falling for the last 15 years..."

Where did you hear that, from WUWT?

Here, pick a record set, any set, and run the statistics that show a cooling trend. Please give confidence intervals and p-values.

Example

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:180/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:180/plot/gistemp/mean:180/plot/uah/mean:180

I used 15-year smoothing to be consistent with your claim. I can't seem to get a negative trend out of those numbers.

Chris Golledge 4 years, 6 months ago

All the NASA data is freely available. Here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

feel free to download the data and run your own analysis. Of course, my guess is that there are deniers who are better than you at math and they haven't been able to show a statistical decline; so, good luck.

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

you have access to the data they want you to see, not all of it.

Bruce Rist 4 years, 6 months ago

It is never good when science and activism get too cozy

notaubermime 4 years, 6 months ago

Such statements usually depend on which side's activists you support.

There is inevitably a difference between what the scientists talk about and what the general populace is able to understand. This difference seems to filter through the tinted glass of what people want to be true and emerge as often dramatically different views of the issue. The different sides circle their wagons and refer to their opponent in unflattering terms, each thinking that true science is on their side.

Bruce Rist 4 years, 6 months ago

It is never good when science and activism get too cozy

Commenting has been disabled for this item.