Climate change is real, NASA expert says

By Christine Metz · February 9, 2011 · Comment on this

Based on data, climate change is real, NASA official Jack Kaye says. But part of the difficulty is discerning how much of the change is caused by nature and how much from humans.

Comments

Ken Lassman 4 years, 4 months ago

typo alert: it's aerosols, not aresoles

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

"i have decided to leave the forum. goodbye. i am signing out. SVEN January 29, 2011"

BruceWayne 4 years, 4 months ago

Allowing a banned user, and current city commission candidate, to return to LJWorld.com As we said earlier - I tried the forum to post when appropriate. It lasted about 6 hours and then the wingnuts - Jerry Springer show crowd took over and took it up to 290+ posts.

GOOD BYE

It is more like the Jerry Springer show than anything rational, in part due to the moderator's policy interpretations. we ARE NOT posting again - sorry.

KSWingman 4 years, 4 months ago

Sven,

You took your entire post from Orr's website, with the publisher's summary of his book: http://www.davidworr.com/books.html. You did not attribute or source the material. That is called "plagiarism", and shows a lack of integrity.

How can the voters of Lawrence trust you, when you shamelessly steal someone else's words and work?

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

If you would honor your word, you would no longer be part of the problems on this forum.

BruceWayne 4 years, 4 months ago

Svens "word" will be the hot topic at breakfast this Saturday morning. Time to put up or shut up Sven.

KSWingman 4 years, 4 months ago

You do understand that you stole the words and work of someone else, right?

There's right, and there's wrong. Plagiarism is wrong. And now you are trying to weasel out of your responsibility to make it right.

Shows a lack of integrity.

JustNoticed 4 years, 4 months ago

"So writes David Orr in Down to the Wire" Plagiarism? Are you insane?

KSWingman 4 years, 4 months ago

Me? Very sane, at least I think so.

The phrase "so writes David Orr in Down to the Wire" is part of the publisher's summary, which you can read at Orr's website, http://www.davidworr.com/books.html. Sven used the entire summary without attribution, which is plagiarism.

If he was giving a presentation as a city council member, or submitting a paper at KU, it would be a very serious thing. Here, it's a sign that he is willing to steal something small- which leads to the question, "If he'll steal something small, how can we trust him with something big?"

Since Sven is a candidate for public office, he should be held to a higher standard than an anonymous poster who is not using the local media to support his candidacy. Don't you agree?

JustNoticed 4 years, 4 months ago

You can't be serious. The attribution is in the citation and you are bandying it about as if it weren't there. Find something real to spew about.

KSWingman 4 years, 4 months ago

You're mistaken. The contents of Sven's post do not identify or link to its source, which is the website URL, or the name of the actual writer, which he was not.

I have twice provided the actual source of the contents of Sven's post, so I definitely did not "bandy about" the attribution. I provided it when Sven did not.

Sven lifted the summary from Orr's website, and did not give a citation or attribution to the source. Sven plagiarized the material. If he was a student and did that in a paper, his instructor would give him a "0".

JustNoticed 4 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

KSWingman 4 years, 4 months ago

I've explained it to you twice. You have shown willful ignorance and unnecessary rudeness. You may withdraw from the discussion.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

"i have decided to leave the forum. goodbye. i am signing out. SVEN January 29, 2011"

As we said earlier - I tried the forum to post when appropriate. It lasted about 6 hours and then the wingnuts - Jerry Springer show crowd took over and took it up to 290+ posts. GOOD BYE It is more like the Jerry Springer show than anything rational, in part due to the moderator's policy interpretations. we ARE NOT posting again - sorry. February 8, 2011

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

There's no paper over here. Would somebody pass me a carbon credit?

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 4 months ago

This is where you've decided to direct your energies? Semantics?

Shows a tremendous depth of insight. Well done.

sr80 4 years, 4 months ago

can you imagine living on a desolate island,do you think you would be concerned or even notice/care about climate change?? its for people who like to stir up controversy!!

verity 4 years, 4 months ago

If the ocean level was creeping up and covering the island, yes, I think I would notice and be concerned.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

In fact, there are people living on islands, who see their islands disappearing, and they're quite upset about it.

verity 4 years, 4 months ago

Exactly. The post I was replying to seems to have disappeared without a trace. What's up with that? It was something about people living on islands (apparently people on small islands don't know what's going on in the rest of the world) not being concerned about climate change.

Did somebody get disappearededed?

tomatogrower 4 years, 4 months ago

Of course politicians are experts in everything. They tell scientists what is reality and they tell teachers how to teach.

*Warning: please make sure your sarcasm meter is turned on before posting how stupid I am. The management thanks you.

sr80 4 years, 4 months ago

what if what is actually happening is the erosion of the island and not the sea level change.think about alantis and other islands in the mediterranean sea.

Daniel Kennamore 4 years, 4 months ago

Erosion on a scale to actually lower the elevation of an entire island takes centuries, not decades.

In some cases of the volcanic islands in the south Pacific, the island's elevation is actually still rising, but still losing land area to oceans. The fact that ocean levels are actually rising is not debatable.

notorious_agenda 4 years, 4 months ago

When land ice melts and runs off sea level Does Not necessarily rise. There are too many factors involved to make such a baseless claim. Water is not immune to the effects of gravity, and water has its own physical properties involving using chemical bonds to appear to defy gravity to a certain point(ie. put a one end of a paper towel in a glass of water and watch the water climb). Those are facts. Water uses low energy bonds to bind to water, remember studying the meniscus of water in test tubes in science class.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"Based on data, climate change is real, NASA official Jack Kaye says. But part of the difficulty is discerning how much of the change is caused by nature and how much from humans."

And that pretty sums up the debate, doesn't it?

The chicken-little crowd will crow about how zJack Kaye, NASA expert, said climate change was real. Those who don't believe the sky is falling will point out he also said it's not proven how much of that is caused by humans. Both sides are correct based on the statement above. Imagine that.

Nobody disputes that the climate is changing. It has done so for eons. But the liberals seem incapable of seeing the issue in pieces. If you say man is not causing the climate to change, you must be ignoring the scientific evidence that the climate is changing at all.

Hey, guys - I have just computer-modeled that mankind is responsible for the sun rising in the east! It's true! I can prove it! For Pete's sake, folks, how can you deny what I'm saying? Are you too blind to see that the sun comes up in the east? Sheez.

llama726 4 years, 4 months ago

No one, and I mean no one, seems willing to address some reasonable points. One, if we are having an impact - even a slight one - why wouldn't we try to mitigate that? Two, Climate change is a nice summary word. But in reality, we need to worry about damage to the environment. Even the most minor examples can be lethal: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100622112704.htm

By creating an environment where the plants that survive also happen to be prone to massive wildfires, we're not exactly helping the environment.

I've always found a hint of insanity in the idea that we should simply pillage the environment because we can. You complain about people blindly believing that man-made climate change is real. There is a more distinct possibility that we're impacting it than that we are not. On that grounds alone, it would be reasonable to mitigate that risk.

So, why can't you just be reasonable?

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"One, if we are having an impact - even a slight one - why wouldn't we try to mitigate that?"

Well, for a start, mostly because the "if" is not a given.

But okay, how about this: As we don't even know IF we're having an impact, it is the absolute epitome of insanity to think we know HOW we are impacting it. Which would mean that all the climate scientists and their wonderful spiffy computer models would be wrong, which in turn would mean we had an fundamental lack of understanding of the dynamics of the system, and any interventions we undertook in an attempt to 'mitigate' our potentially non-existent impact might just royally *#%@ things up even worse? Other than that, I can't really think of anything ...

"I've always found a hint of insanity in the idea that we should simply pillage the environment because we can."

A lion eats a zebra because it can. (Which, incidentally, is the same reason the zebra eats the grass.) It's not 'pillaging'. First, it's survival. And second, if the lions weren't eating the zebras, the zebras would overpopulate. Then both the lions and the zebras would starve to death.

"So, why can't you just be reasonable?"

You're the one who's advocating that every person on the planet make changes to their lifestyle - because YOU believe that "There is a more distinct possibility that we're impacting it than that we are not" - and I'M the one who's not being reasonable?

Mmmm, okay.

llama726 4 years, 4 months ago

A lion is not a human. A lion eating a single zebra (or even the collective sum of all lions on Earth eating zebras) doesn't render the planet uninhabitable for other creatures, or even for other lions.

Your point that reducing carbon fuel consumption would somehow make things worse is intriguing. It is entirely irrational, but it is interesting. I'm curious how reducing carbon fuel consumption would make things worse for the climate. Wait, it's probably a guess, and not one based upon the scientific method. If we haven't burned carbon-based fuels for almost all of human history, how would it be worse to reduce burning of those fuels now?

You disregarded a major component of my post because you cannot win a debate when we frame it on the environment as a whole. I don't care about winning the debate as much as making sure we, as a society, are making the right decision. You focus on climate change because it has to rely on projections rather than hard evidence, unlike ocean acidification, unlike pollution-related breathing problems, unlike studies on vegetation and correlation with wildfires.

I'm not advocating that every person on the planet makes changes to their lifestyles. I also do not think you understand the difference between an animal hunting in the wild and a human being burning carbon-based fuels.

Please do not attempt to draw a caricature of my words. My words are right above yours, and everyone can read exactly what I wrote. Do not read more into them than is there. It is possible that you got a little too angry over a comment thread on an online newspaper. Take it easy.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Sorry, llama, lost most of your post from laughing when you used the words "scientific method". Like the "science" of climatology, you mean? Computer models and consensus?

Tell me something, llama, if/when the majority of scientists decide the same evidence they're using today is not convincing, are you still going to keep your blind faith in the "scientific method"?

BTW, not too sure how you get 'anger' from laughter ...

llama726 4 years, 4 months ago

It COULD be the WAY you type. My mistake. Tell ME something, my old friend - do you think you've won this because you landed a lame jab on the scientific method? Science isn't perfect and doesn't claim to be. Maybe you ought to take a general biology or chemistry course. Hell, even Psych classes iterate to their students that scientific hypotheses are falsifiable by evidence, so don't cast it in the same light as religion. I'm not saying something is infallible. I think the scientific approach is a lot more rational than a faith-based approach, but scientists are humans and have motives (look at the guy with the autism vaccine). But I have the intellect and the ability to do research on my own and to understand data that is presented from others' research. I don't have access to climate change equipment. I have seen data on vegetation. On ocean acidification. On respiratory issues in areas of higher carbon emission pollutants.

Now, why don't you respond to any of the other points I made?. Why do you have to keep this argument in a context where you can attempt to marginalize my views, then poke fun at talking points and little clips? You can't handle the whole point. You're being lazy, or you're incapable. One or the other. Doesn't matter which, I think you're better than that.

And you call liberals elitists - you're laughing at me for talking about the scientific method as though it were automatically inferior to the nonscientific approach to problems. I don't believe in absolutes. You're clinging to yours. Enjoy that.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

" do you think you've won this because you landed a lame jab on the scientific method?"

1) Sorry, 'friend', I didn't know this was a competition you were trying to 'win'.

2) What "jab" are you referring to? I took a jab at climatology, not the scientific method. You're the one who seems to be confusing the two. Since you seem unfamiliar with the concept:

"scientific method (noun) : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." [Merriam-Webster]

Musta' missed the part about "consensus" in there.

"Now, why don't you respond to any of the other points I made?"

What were they, again? Oh, yeah - you're not advocating that people change their lifestyles - just cut down on their carbon emissions. Without changing their lifestyles. Which we should do just to be on the safe side, because "There is a more distinct possibility that we're impacting it than that we are not."

Did you think that really required a response?

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

[continued]

"But I have the intellect and the ability to do research on my own and to understand data that is presented from others' research."

Do you have the intellect to understand the concept that correlation does not prove causation? Nobody disputes the climate is undergoing changes. Nobody - including the NASA expert cited in the above story - or you - can demonstrate conclusively what the cause(s) of those changes is(are). And similar (or bigger) changes have been going on on this planet since long before mankind was burning fossil fuels - actually, since long before we wered even rubbing two sticks together to burn anything. Maybe before we spend trillions of dollars on making changes (that are likely to be insignificant anyway if we can't get the rest of the world to follow along) we should know these things.

"And you call liberals elitists - you're laughing at me for talking about the scientific method as though it were automatically inferior to the nonscientific approach to problems. I don't believe in absolutes. You're clinging to yours."

Um, wow. That's really the way you interpret this little exchange, isn't it? Again, wow. Luckily, as you pointed out earlier, "My words are right above yours, and everyone can read exactly what I wrote." What makes you an elitist, llama, is little comments like "Maybe you ought to take a general biology or chemistry course." If I don't agree with you, then by golly, I just must not be able to understand the issue. Not that you're anyone whose opinion I give a fig about, but my first go-around in college was as an analytical chemistry major. I understand the issues in question quite well, thank you, and I can recognize that we have a different opinion as to what conclusions should be drawn .

And my opinion happens to be that the evidence is inconclusive. YOU are the absolutist. I didn't say anthropogenic climate change is an impossibility, I said the available evidence does not justify the changes being asked. YOU are the one who has already made up your mind - because, after all, being the genius that you are, if anyone (including a significant number of reputable scientists) don't agree with you, then, well, heck, they just need to go back and take a basic chemistry course so they can be as smart as you are.

llama726 4 years, 4 months ago

And you again failed to address the other environmental issues that I mentioned aside from climate change which are linked definitively to increased carbon emissions. Bravo.

Don't act like I'm calling myself a genius. I'm not. You're not. No one who wastes their time on this comment board is a genius, trust me.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

The fact that you disagreed, or didn't like, or perhaps even didn't understand my response, doesn't mean I didn't address your point.

Since you appear to have entirely failed to grasp the point of the lion-zebra-grass reference:

Virtually every organism on this planet affects their environment, llama. Some of those effects are beneficial, some not so much. When a beaver builds himself a lodge for shelter and to dam up a pool so he can catch fish, it kills the trees he used for building materials, and can have a somewhat deleterious effect on the downstream flora and fauna. But he does it anyway, mostly because, as you so eloquently put it, he can. And there's no reason he should apologize, any more than the lion should apologize for eating the zebra, or the zebra should apologize to the grass. Or, for that matter, than the hunter should apologize to the lion for killing it when the lion developed a taste for the local livestock.

You seem to be laboring under the guilt-ridden belief that for some reason, humans should not have the same right to affect their environment. Why? Because of our intelligence? That's actually one measure of the relative intelligence of the creatures that inhabit our world: The higher the intelligence, the greater the capacity for manipulation of the environment.

The only question in play is whether or not the environment can adapt to and absorb those changes. Which, of course, is where the whole climate change deal ties in. Have I made light of your post? Yep. Want to know why? Because you claim your beliefs are based in science, and mine are based on faith. Yet you have admitted openly - a few times at least that I can recall - that you don't have the evidence. Belief without evidence, llama, is the very definition of faith. It's not science.

Oh, BTW - Please speak for yourself.My own IQ actually has been measured at more than the required number of standard deviations above the mean to have earned that label.

llama726 4 years, 4 months ago

Well, good for you (elitist :P ). I've never bothered to get an actual IQ test, so maybe I am a genius. It's largely irrelevant to me, though.

I admitted that I don't have the climate change data. I don't study climate data. I do study health science, biological sciences, and chemistry, along with public health topics.

So, then, we've reached our impasse: you see no reason why we should take steps to reduce pollution, despite the increased costs to society (see: wildfires which are fueled by vegetation which favors the environmental factors that we're influencing). I'd quantify it for you, but I get the feeling that the only thing you are capable of doing is condescending to me, as though I do not have any understanding at all of the world around me. If we are starting on this level of disrespect, there is no need for me to waste my time, for you will not be persuaded to consider my argument since (in your superior genius-ness) there is no reason to even consider it.

Regardless. My beliefs on climate change from what I have read into it would make it seem plausible that we are impacting our environment. My understanding of the other three things I've mentioned, all of which are causes for increased costs to humanity (wildfires, respiratory problems, and ocean acidification for people who depend on fishing. These are three examples among many more that I don't have as much experience in) are rooted in a lot more data that I've actually gotten to see, and work with.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

Share this video
E-mail to a friend

URL Paste this into an e-mail or IM