• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Global Warming & Climate Change: The Phenomenon

These are the only recent temperature values I can see that have been released by the Met Office and UEA.

I don't see how the DM reporter arrived at their conclusion if they're working from these, but then I'm not a meteorologist and I suspect neither are they.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releas ... e-forecast
 
Scunnerlugzzz said:
...

Please see the original quote from the Met Office.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.

the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide

No it is not.
Except, it's not an original quote from the Met Office. It's a redaction made by a Daily Mail journalist, from something written in a Met Office paper. What that something was, would be the original quote.

I suspect it has something to do with the expected Solar Cycle, variability. A different thing, altogether.

Still nothing like jumping to conclusions, based on quotes from Daily Mail articles, I say.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Scunnerlugzzz said:
...

Please see the original quote from the Met Office.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.

the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide

No it is not.
Except, it's not an original quote from the Met Office. It's a redaction made by a Daily Mail journalist, from something written in a Met Office paper. What that something was, would be the original quote.

I suspect it has something to do with the expected Solar Cycle, variability. A different thing, altogether.

Still nothing like jumping to conclusions, based on quotes from Daily Mail articles, I say.

Which is why I said.
Perhaps the most mind bending quote the Met Office has ever come out with, if they have indeed said that.
 
A modest proposal

I would suggest that those who take "comfort" from the reporting of the Daily Mail do two things.

The first is to check Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog where he destroys the scientific stupidity of the Mail by quoting the opening paragraphs of the original Met Office press release as follows:
2012 is expected to be around 0.48 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a predicted likely range of between 0.34 °C and 0.62 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.

The middle of this range would place 2012 within the top 10 warmest years in a series which goes back to 1850.

Mr Plait actually gives you a twofer because is eviscerates a Wall Street Journal article as well.

Oh, the second thing people who believe the Daily Mail article can do is listen to the wisdom of Dan and Dan The Daily Mail Song
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/[/url]

Hard to find on the Met Office site.

Just because you posted last doesnt mean you win.


omg remember the wee island nations...that should be sunk by now.Especially as you shower and keep that tap on.
 
I meant to put a :D on, soz. I didnt mean to be SHOUTY! about it,...but hey...name that island that sank 10 years ago.
 
Linking Human Evolution and Climate Change
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 145757.htm

ScienceDaily (Feb. 17, 2012) — It's not a take on climate change we often hear about. But Mark Collard, a Simon Fraser University Canada Research Chair and professor of archaeology, will talk about how climate change impacts human evolution at the world's largest science fair.

The 2012 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference runs Feb. 16 to 20 at the Vancouver Convention Centre in downtown Vancouver.

Collard will give a talk called Environmental drivers of technological evolution in small-scale populations during a seminar called Climate Change and Human Evolution: Problems and Prospects.

Collard will argue, "we need to better understand the ways that climate and related environmental variables have affected historically-documented small-scale societies before we can accurately track the impact of climate change on human evolution."

The director of SFU's Human Evolutionary Studies program, Collard will also present data that his research team is analyzing. Their research suggests environmental variation significantly influenced the number and intricacy of food-gathering tools that historical hunter-gatherers made.

"The basic pattern," explains Collard, "is that people living in harsh, risky environments, such as the Arctic, produced and used many more complex tools than people living in less harsh and risky environments, such as tropical rainforests. Food gathering tools make up a large part of known early archaeological records. So our findings are providing us with a way to track the impact of climate change on human evolution."

Collard can relate his findings to current thinking about the impact of climate change on the dispersal of modern humans globally and the evolution of their cultures during the last couple of hundred thousand years. Our species, Homo sapiens, evolved during that time period.

As a discussant in another seminar, Constructing a Human World Fit for Nature, Collard will look for common themes in six speakers' presentations. They will flesh out the research behind an evolutionary conundrum that is the central theme of this seminar.

The conundrum -- while evolution has enabled ancestral hominins (humans) to adapt well to diverse ecological niches, modern humans are now transforming local ecosystems and the global climate at the peril of their own existence.

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Simon Fraser University.
 
Saw a PBS special that involved "blue hole" diving, and the ability to use the stalactites buried in the dead oxygen-less zones there to show climate over a long time... and an interesting early conclusion of the scientist working with them seemed to indicate naturally occurring rapid climate change in the past, rapid like the modern era, at least 5 previous times in the years covered on the stalactite.

The episode:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/extreme-cave-diving.html

Here (from the official transcript on the site) shows a little what they were talking about:
PETER SWART: We don't worry too much about climate change, because it's something that's going to happen "after I'm dead." But, in actual fact, some of the records that we've been looking at, we see tremendous changes in a matter of decades. And so, when climate changes that fast, obviously it would have tremendous implications for the present-day society.

NARRATOR: Swart's findings are preliminary, but they do suggest that climate change in the past happened faster than anyone imagined. If such change occurred today, immediate concern would be for the millions of people in areas most affected by sea level rise—island nations and coastal regions throughout the world.
 
Ancient Arabic writings help scientists piece together past climate
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-anc ... imate.html
February 26th, 2012 in Space & Earth / Earth Sciences

Ancient manuscripts written by Arabic scholars can provide valuable

meteorological information to help modern scientists reconstruct the climate of the past, a new study has revealed. The research, published in Weather, analyses the writings of scholars, historians and diarists in Iraq during the Islamic Golden Age between 816-1009 AD for evidence of abnormal weather patterns.
Reconstructing climates from the past provides historical comparison to modern weather events and valuable context for climate change. In the natural world trees, ice cores and coral provide evidence of past weather, but from human sources scientists are limited by the historical information available. Until now researchers have relied on official records detailing weather patterns including air force reports during WW2 and 18th century ship's logs.
Now a team of Spanish scientists from the Universidad de Extremadura have turned to Arabic documentary sources from the 9th and 10th centuries (3rd and 4th in the Islamic calendar). The sources, from historians and political commentators of the era, focus on the social and religious events of the time, but do refer to abnormal weather events.
"Climate information recovered from these ancient sources mainly refers to extreme events which impacted wider society such as droughts and floods," said lead author Dr Fernando Domínguez-Castro. "However, they also document conditions which were rarely experienced in ancient Baghdad such as hailstorms, the freezing of rivers or even cases of snow."
Baghdad was a centre for trade, commerce and science in the ancient Islamic world. In 891 AD Berber geographer al-Ya'qubi wrote that the city had no rival in the world, with hot summers and cold winters, climatic conditions which favored strong agriculture.
While Baghdad was a cultural and scientific hub many ancient documents have been lost to a history of invasions and civil strife. However, from the surviving works of writers including al-Tabari (913 AD), Ibn al-Athir (1233 AD) and al-Suyuti (1505 AD) some meteorological information can be rescued.
When collated and analysed the manuscripts revealed an increase of cold events in the first half of the 10th century. This included a significant drop of temperatures during July 920 AD and three separate recordings of snowfall in 908, 944 and 1007. In comparison the only record of snow in modern Baghdad was in 2008, a unique experience in the living memories of Iraqis.
"These signs of a sudden cold period confirm suggestions of a temperature drop during the tenth century, immediately before the Medieval Warm Period," said Domínguez-Castro. "We believe the drop in July 920 AD may have been linked to a great volcanic eruption but more work would be necessary to confirm this idea."
The team believes the sources show Iraq to have experienced a greater frequency of significant climate events and severe cold weather than today. While this study focused on Iraq it demonstrates the wider potential for reconstructing the climate from an era before meteorological instruments and formal records.
"Ancient Arabic documentary sources are a very useful tool for finding eye witness descriptions which support the theories made by climate models," said Domínguez-Castro. "The ability to reconstruct past climates provides us with useful historical context for understanding our own climate. We hope this potential will encourage Arabic historians and climatologists to work together to increase the climate data rescued from across the Islamic world."

More information: F. Dominguez-Castro, J. M. Vaquero, M. Marin, M. C. Gallego, R. Garcia-Herrera, “How useful could Arabic documentary sources be for reconstructing past climate,” Weather, Wiley-Blackwell, DOI: 10.1002/wea.835
 
Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters
By Richard Black, Environment correspondent, BBC News

The progressive shrinking of Arctic sea ice is bringing colder, snowier winters to the UK and other areas of Europe, North America and China, a study shows.

As global temperatures have risen, the area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice in summer and autumn has been falling.
Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a US/China-based team show this affects the jet stream and brings cold, snowy weather.
Whether conditions will get colder still as ice melts further is unclear.

There was a marked deterioration in ice cover between the summers of 2006 and 2007, which still holds the record for the lowest extent on record; and it has not recovered since.

The current winter is roughly tracking the graph of 2007, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

The new study is not the first to propose a causal relationship between low Arctic ice in autumn and Europe's winter weather.
But it has gone further than others in assessing the strength of the link.

Through observations and computer modelling, the team headed by Jiping Liu from Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, US, and the Insitute of Atmospheric Physics in Beijing has also elucidated the mechanisms involved.
"For the past four winters, for much of the northern US, east Asia and Europe, we had this persistent above-normal snow cover," Dr Liu told BBC News.
"We don't see a predictive relationship with any of the other factors that have been proposed, such as El Nino; but for sea ice, we do see a predictive relationship."

How it happens
If less of the ocean is ice-covered in autumn, it releases more heat, warming the atmosphere.
This reduces the air temperature difference between the Arctic and latitudes further south, over the Atlantic Ocean.
In turn, this reduces the strength of the northern jet stream, which usually brings milder, wetter weather to Europe from the west.
It is these "blocking" conditions that keep the UK and the other affected regions supplied with cold air.

The researchers also found that the extra evaporation from the Arctic Ocean makes the air more humid, with some of the additional water content falling out as snow.
"I agree with the study - I have no beef with the case that declining Arctic sea ice can drive easterly winds and produce colder winters over Europe," commented Adam Scaife, head of monthly to decadal prediction at the UK Met Office.
Research in other institutions, including the Met Office, confirmed the argument, he said.

Dr Scaife was involved with another study published last year that showed how small, natural changes in the Sun's output can also affect winter weather.
And he emphasised that the declining Arctic ice cover was just one of several factors that could increase blocking.
"You can hit a bell with anything, and you still produce the same note," he told BBC News.
"This is no bigger than the solar effect or the El Nino effect. But they vary, whereas Arctic ice is on a pretty consistent downward trend."

The picture is further complicated by the involvement of the Arctic Oscillation, a natural variation of air pressure that also changes northern weather.
The oscillation is not understood well enough to predict - and even if it were, any pattern it has may be changing due to escalating greenhouse gas concentrations.

Nevertheless, the research suggests that on average, winters in the UK and the rest of the affected region will be colder in years to come than they have been in recent decades.

Various computer simulations have generated a range of dates by which the Arctic might be completely ice-free in summer and autumn, ranging from 2016 to about 2060.
A few years ago, one projection even showed 2013 was possible, though this now appears unlikely.

So a related question is whether UK winters will get colder and snowier still as the melting progresses,
"It's possible that future winters will be colder and snowier, but there are some uncertainties," cautioned Dr Liu.

His team's next research project is to feed Arctic ice projections and the mechanisms they have deciphered into various computer models of climate, and see whether they do forecast a growing winter chill.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17143269
 
Hi guys, I haven't been posting here much, because viewpoints seem largely immune to reason, but I have to at least ask what people make of articles like these?

Effective World Government Will Still Be Needed to Stave off Climate Catastrophe

A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”

The report summarized 10 years of research evaluating the capability of international institutions to deal with climate and other environmental issues, an assessment that found existing capabilities to effect change sorely lacking. The authors called for a “constitutional moment” at the upcoming 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June to reform world politics and government. Among the proposals: a call to replace the largely ineffective U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging issues related to water, climate, energy and food security. The report advocates a similar revamping of other international environmental institutions.

Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

Behavioral economics and other forward-looking disciplines in the social sciences try to grapple with weighty questions. But they have never taken on a challenge of this scale, recruiting all seven billion of us to act in unison. The ability to sustain change globally across the entire human population over periods far beyond anything ever attempted would appear to push the relevant objectives well beyond the realm of the attainable. If we are ever to cope with climate change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are where we must focus, though. The relative efficiency of the next generation of solar cells is trivial by comparison.

'Effective World Government'? 'Permanent Crisis Mentality'? These are phrases you'd expect to find in some crazed Neocon policy document. Isn't it reasonable to ask what the hell is up when they start being tossed around as possible responses to an as yet unproven and possibly entirely imaginary climate problem?
 
AngelAlice said:
'Effective World Government'? 'Permanent Crisis Mentality'? These are phrases you'd expect to find in some crazed Neocon policy document. Isn't it reasonable to ask what the hell is up when they start being tossed around as possible responses to an as yet unproven and possibly entirely imaginary climate problem?
"yet unproven and possibly entirely imaginary climate problem"?

Seems to me it's accepted by most in the field that this is a real problem, which is impacting the whole planet, so it's very sensible to ask what we should do about it.

As the article points out, this will not be easy - up to know the world has gone along with each region subdivided into areas that govern themselves and interact with each other as best they can. But even democracies don't usually think beyond the next election, so yes, we do need to address the human side of the problem, ie, not just our overuse of carbon fuels but the human attitudes that are resistant to change.
 
Is the price of a solution to global warming the removal of democracy?
It's a scary thought.
 
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Sir Winston Churchill

Perhaps this is why we've never encountered alien civilizations - none have ever been able to create a form of government that can handle global issues like climate change or overpopulation, and so they all go extinct in geologically short times because of problems they turned a blind eye to.

And if we can't change the animal instincts which are part of our evolutionary make-up, we could be going the same way.
 
Meanwhile, back to the data:

Update for world temperature data
By Mark Kinver, Environment reporter, BBC News

Researchers have updated HadCRUT - one of the main global temperate records, which dates back to 1850.
One of the main changes is the inclusion of more data from the Arctic region, which has experienced one of the greatest levels of warming.
The amendments do not change the long-term trend, but the data now lists 2010, rather than 1998, as the warmest year on record.

The update is reported in the published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
HadCRUT is compiled by the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (Cru) at the University of East Anglia, and is one of three global records used extensively by climatologists.
The other two are produced by US-based researchers at Nasa and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa).

Cru's director, Phil Jones, explained why it was necessary to revise the UK record.
"HadCRUT is underpinned by observations and we've previously been clear it may not be fully capturing changes in the Arctic because we have had so little data from the area," he said.
"For the latest version, we have included observations from more than 400 (observation) stations across the Arctic, Russia and Canada."
Prof Jones added: "This has led to better representation of what's going on in the large geographical region."

Despite the revisions, the overall warming signal has not changed. The scientists say it has remained at about 0.75C (1.4F) since 1900.

Another change adopted in the HadCRUT dataset is the way sea surface temperature (SST) is recorded, allowing scientists to revisit and recalibrate past calculations.
With advances in technology in recent years, ships now have electronic sensors that can accurately record SST.

This development has highlighted a systematic anomaly in traditional methods of collating the data in the past.
This included differences in the buckets used to collect sea water for measurement, and the locations where those measurements were recorded.
Improvements in the way SST is collected has now allowed scientists to recalculate data, making amendments to the data collected in previous years.

"An example of this is the rapid change in the kinds of measurements we see in the digital archives around the Second World War," explained Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office.
"Research has shown readings from buckets were generally cooler so when the database changes from one source to another, you see artifical jumps in the temperature.
"We have quantified these effects and corrected them, providing a clearer view of the evolution of global temperatures."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17432194
 
An interesting development in business attitudes:

General Motors pulls funding from climate sceptic thinktank Heartland
Car giant breaks off 20-year relationship with Heartland Institute in ongoing row over its role in questioning global warming
Ed Pilkington in New York
guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 March 2012 21.00 BST

General Motors, the world's largest carmaker, has confirmed that it is pulling funding from the Heartland Institute, an ultra-conservative thinktank known for its scepticism about climate change.

The decision by the GM Foundation to halt its support for Heartland after 20 years underlines the new image the carmaker is seeking to project as part of its social responsibility programme. In the past GM has itself been associated with efforts to discredit climate change science, but in recent years it has been investing heavily in green technologies and cars including the electric/petrol hybrid, the Chevy Volt.

In a statement, GM said that it now runs its business "as if climate change is real and believe we have a role to play in developing new cars, trucks and technologies that can make a difference".

The funding cut – just $15,000 a year – is small beer for the institute, which has a multi-million dollar turnover, largely from a single anonymous donor. But it is a blow to the standing of the thinktank and to the leading role it plays as an advocate of climate change scepticism.

The thinktank has long been an incubator of ideas casting doubt that the world is warming as a result of man-made pollution. In 2009 it held a conference in New York under the title "Global warming: was it ever really a crisis?"

Kert Davies, head of research for Greenpeace US that tracks the Heartland Institute, lauded the GM move. "It is a further indication that the Heartland Institute's misinformation about climate change is not something that corporations want to have anything to do with. It has become toxic."

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -institute
 
In a statement, GM said that it now runs its business "as if climate change is real and believe we have a role to play in developing new cars, trucks and technologies that can make a good return for shareholders. :D
 
Apparently "49 former NASA scientists and astronauts"wrote to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week criticising the agency for asserting a 'high degree of certainty" that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change, while disregarding evidence that calls the theory into question. Hmmm...Has anyone seen much about this in the mainstream media? (I got this from a 'skeptic' site)

This is the text of their letter:

  • 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,

    /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 Center, 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 Center, 24 years

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

    /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

    /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’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, Ass’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
 
AngelAlice said:
Apparently "49 former NASA scientists and astronauts"wrote to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week criticising the agency for asserting a 'high degree of certainty" that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change, while disregarding evidence that calls the theory into question. Hmmm...Has anyone seen much about this in the mainstream media? (I got this from a 'skeptic' site)
Oh, Jack Schmitt; what have you been up to? The only geologist to go to the Moon, getting involved in this sticky debate at your time of life?
from here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_S ... ASA_career
in a 2009 interview with conservative talk-radio host Alex Jones, Schmitt asserted a link between Soviet Communism and the American environmental movement: "I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement...
My respect for the guy has gone down a notch or two...
 
Here's an utterly bonkers
(and marvellous)
idea from Liao, Sandberg and Roache; genetically engineer humans to withstand climate change...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... philosophy
Liao explained how his paper – entitled, "Human Engineering and Climate Change" – explored the so-far-ignored subject of how "biomedical modifications of humans" could be used to "mitigate and/or adapt to climate change". The modifications discussed included: giving people drugs to make them have an adverse reaction to eating meat; making humans smaller via gene imprinting and "preimplantation genetic diagnosis"; lowering birth-rates through "cognitive enhancement"; genetically engineering eyesight to work better in the dark to help reduce the need for lighting; and the "pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy" to engender a better "correlation" with environmental problems.
Anders Sandberg is a futurologist and ethical philosopher among other things, and (incidentally) has writtern much of the science fiction that forms the basis for Orion's Arm (which I'm involved in) and Eclipse Phase. He says that these ideas shouldn't be taken too seriously.
When I wrote the paper I felt I was to some extent trolling - I admit I was delighted when some of my normally rather bio-radical colleagues protested against the idea after a presentation we gave here in Oxford. I was a bit more surprised that the blogosphere and popular press took notice of the paper.
The problem with arousing emotions is that most people then become very stimulus-response driven. They don't think very deeply about the issue, they react instead. We hoped the paper would be exciting enough to stimulate discussion but not to preclude thinking.
You could claim this paper is a reductio ad absurdum of the idea that we should aim for upstream solutions to environmental problems rather than downstream solutions.
...
People are unused to ethical analysis. In philosophy we take ideas and test them to destruction. This means that we often bring up concepts or lines of thought we do not personally believe in and then argue them as strongly as possible to see where they go and what we can learn. This is very different from everyday life where most people who state an idea or belief also believe in it - and it makes people misunderstand this kind of thinking. To make matters worse most people debating it will not read the paper and see how we discuss the ethical problems or why even we think it is a preposterous idea... they will just think some eggheads blithely promote eugenics.

If global warming does become too extreme then genetic engineering may be necessary; other genetic strategies may be necessary too, such as the establishment of gene banks and so on. But for the most part the public are far from ready to consider such options.
 
Surely we will just adapt anyway? Apart from a 'runaway' greenhouse effect that turns us into Venus (and few people support even on the warmist side), the projections I've seen from the believers are more scary from a geo-political and economic point of view rather than implying the direct extermination of the human race. There will still be plenty of land mass left to live on, but it will be in different places and modern politics is not geared up to whole populations upping sticks and moving somewhere nicer.

After all, there will be plenty of food, since the extra CO2 will drastically increase vegetable and cereal productivity and no doubt millions will die in the wars while the politicians sort themselves out.
 
Yes, we will adapt; but if we rely on the 'survival of the fittest' form of natural evolution. there will probably be severe stress on the population; translation; billions may die. By attempting to adapt to the new environment proactively, some of those deaths may be avoided.

Alternately there may be a reaction against any kind of proactive technofix; after all science and technology got us into this mess, why should we trust it to get us out of it?
 
eburacum said:
Alternately there may be a reaction against any kind of proactive technofix; after all science and technology got us into this mess, why should we trust it to get us out of it?

Cane toads.
 
SHAYBARSABE said:
eburacum said:
Alternately there may be a reaction against any kind of proactive technofix; after all science and technology got us into this mess, why should we trust it to get us out of it?

Cane toads.

How can they solve the problem? :)
 
Mythopoeika said:
SHAYBARSABE said:
eburacum said:
Alternately there may be a reaction against any kind of proactive technofix; after all science and technology got us into this mess, why should we trust it to get us out of it?

Cane toads.

How can they solve the problem? :)

Ah, you don't know the reference. "Cane toads" is what we say whenever someone suggests that we should trust solely in science and technology. From Wikiopedia:

Cane Toads were introduced to Australia with the aim of controlling a sugar cane pest, but they over-multiplied and became a serious problem in the Australian ecosystem.
 
Back
Top