This will be a top sticky post for a day or two, new stories will appear below this one.
At the Heartland Conference in Chicago this morning, four of the forty-nine signers of the March letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden (discussed at WUWT here, here, and here) appeared to discuss their reasons for signing that letter and to announce a second letter responding to NASA’s response.
The text of that letter is reproduced below:
May 11, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie:
In our letter of March 28, 2012, we, the undersigned, respectfully requested that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites.
On April 11th, Dr. Waleed Abdalati responded, holding that: “As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings.”
Eight days later, at a senate hearing, Dr. Abdalati, did just that, concluding that Sea-Level rise within the next 87 years projects within a range of 0.2 meters to 2 meters, with lower ranges less likely while “the highest values are based on warmest of the temperature scenarios commonly considered for the remainder of the 21st century.” Abdalati added: “The consequences of a 1 meter rise in sea level by the end of this century would be very significant in terms of human well-being and economics, and potentially global socio-political stability.”
The range and imprecision of this conclusion is astounding!
“Commonly considered?” Is this science by poll? If hard data points to a provable rise, it should be stated with its probability. Can you imagine one of your predecessors, Dr. Thomas Paine, declaring, “Our Apollo 11 Lunar Lander’s target is the Sea of Tranquility, but we may make final descent within a range that includes Crater Clavius”?
We are not trying to stifle discourse, but undisciplined commentary, lacking in precision, is wholly inappropriate when NASA’s name and reputation is attached.
This letter should end the discussion, as a protracted discourse on this topic is not in NASA’s interest, but a commitment from you to equal or exceed the agency’s reputation for careful reliance upon rigorous science and accurate data most certainly is!
Join us, please, in encouraging your colleagues to achieve the level of excellence the world has come to expect from America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration!
Waiting to do so is not an option!
[signed 41]
PS Waiting to send was not an option either –we have fewer signatures than the first, as not everyone was reachable and only one opted out.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Cargo Engineering, Crew Syst. Div. 32 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Director of Mission Support, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Div., 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/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald D. 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/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. PE – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 14 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 Div., 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/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Div., 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/ Richard McFarland – ARC, Mgr. Tech development VMS & Motion Simulators, 28 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/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Alex Pope – JSC, Aerospace Engineer, Engr. Directorate, 44 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 Div., Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC, Sim. Dev. Branch Chief, Systems Dev. Div., Mission Support Dir., 26 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 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.– Dir. Expendable Equipment (Ext. Tank, Solid Boosters, & Shuttle Upper Stages), 20 years
/s/ James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – ARC, GSFC, Hdq. – Meteorologist, 5 years
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
just came off a train from San Jose to Sacramento. The UP tracks in the SF area follow the bay induced tidal action. The tracks have been there for over a century. There is no tidal encroachment concern. Their tracks are literally 3 feet above the water line and have been so for a century.
What’s the problem?? If sea level rise were a problem, don’t you think the railroads would have raised it by now???
The melt occurred over 7000 years ago. Sea level rose over 350 feet. Get over it AGW proponents, It happened 7000 years ago. Where are you?????
Incidentally, for those that know the northern CA coast will appreciate that 10,000 years ago the California coast extended past the Farralonnes or at least 20 miles off shore. There was no SF Bay. See the computer monitor at the Lawrence Hall of Science (lower level) if you have questions about this point.
All of the recent adherents to to the Michael Mann CAGW would benefit by looking at AGU paleoclimatic papers. The AGU did a good job in this department, until its board drank the AGW cool aid. Now it is worthless as a scientific paper. Apparently, its been lost to the concensus.
What a loss to scientific credibility. I have not renewed my membership.
“2016” – The Must See Movie Coming This Summer
The fact that this is coming from Hollywood insiders says a lot.
The speaker here is Dinesh D’Souza, a college president in New York and an author of many New York Times best sellers.
The movie is from Gerald R. Molen, producer of Academy Award winning Schindler’s List, Jurassic Park, Brave Heart…..
It explains in plain language who Barack Obama really is, what he stands for, and the dangers of him being re-elected for another four years.
Watch the preview of this movie:
http://www.youtube.com/v/Z6QOs…
After you see the preview, listen to what Dinesh has to say about Obama.
I never would have guessed that misson creep from their goal of space exploration would end up with them preoccupied with climate change. I love NASA but it may be time to completely pull the plug on them. To bad that government agencies are only born but never die. That needs to change soon.
Sorry, the link seems broken in the last post. Here’s one last try:
and a great two-pager from Larry Bell, telling it like it is:
22 May: Forbes: Larry Bell: How Big Oil Benefits From Global Warming Alarmism
EPA has actually been an ally of Big Oil & Gas against Big Coal for some time, originally with no better friend then Enron…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/22/how-big-oil-benefits-from-global-warming-alarmism/
It matters not one whit, as long as there are massive taxes to be gathered you are pissing into a gale.
Policy Guy says:
May 22, 2012 at 8:51 pm
What’s the problem?? If sea level rise were a problem, don’t you think the railroads would have raised it by now???
==========
Exact same situation with British Admiralty naval charts. 200-300 year old charts show the tidal range exactly the same as it is today.
If sea levels are changing, it is minor and it is cyclical. Human lifespans are too short to notice. Like insects than only live a few hours, we have seen the tide coming in and believe it will flood the world. Unaware that our ancestors saw the tide going out and believed the oceans were drying up.
10 thousand years ago the oceans rose at the end on the ice ages. The civilization of Atlantis was lost to memory. 5 thousand years ago the Black Sea basin flooded and the story of Noah grew from a farmer that saved his family and livestock by taking refuge in a boat. This was real flooding.
Today we are talking about what, maybe 1/8 of an inch a year. Maybe. Probably a lot less based on the Tasman mark and the BA charts. And this is only a global average which is meaningless for the most part, because the ground itself is not static and the ocean basins are themselves porous.
The liquid water we see in the oceans is only the tip of the iceberg as compared to the water in the mantle and below, where it supplies the hydrogen necessary to turn carbon rich rocks (limestone) into natural gas.
heated metal + steam ==> metal oxide + hydrogen
hydrogen + carbon ==> hydrocarbons
Clay Marley says:
May 22, 2012 at 7:51 pm
In this environment, you do what makes the politicians happy. And that means promote AGW. When that changes, Hansen will be out faster than you can say, what was up with that?
========
Tex was a family friend. Grew up on the border and spoke fluent Spanish. Election time he could always be counted on to hire a crew, rent a bunch of trucks, buy a lot of beer and bring in the Mexican vote. Rest of the time he could be found in a comfy chair with his feet up. Made a good living at it.
Günther Kirschbaum says:
May 22, 2012 at 10:07 am
“If you’d want this analogy to work, the team responsible of the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander would have to describe the exact location of the landing spot, with type of terrain, slope, amount of
protruding rocks, etc.
_______________
To quote the Foo… “One of these things is not like the other”.
You are employing a false analogy. Your logic fails on this point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“If the average sea level rise since satellite measurements continues until the end of the century, there will be a SLR of at least 32 cm.”
_______________
Sea level has been increasing at nearly the same rate for millenia.
Do you not know this?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Certain things cannot be excluded, and that’s what it’s about: risk.”
________________
A meteorite may crash through your house tomorrow. Are you going to build a deep underground bunker?
Certain things can be excluded.
Error bands are useful tools.
Many people missed the message of the fable “Chicken Little”.
Günther Kirschbaum says:
May 22, 2012 at 10:07 am
In the days of Apollo, those working on all aspects of the mission would have had to back up any results produced with all the data used and the methods used in order that someone else could check the results. That is how you make true progress. The risks weren’t known precisely (Neil Armstrong famously stated that he thought the chances of Apollo 11 being successful were about 50:50) but what was known was how the results were obtained making them the best answer available. Now, contrast that approach with the ‘please believe us but we won’t show you our data or explain our methods’ approach of the climate crooks. Why isn’t it obvious to everyone what is going on here?
Clay Marley:
Thankyou for your post at May 22, 2012 at 7:51 pm.
A few years ago I fulfilled an ambition by walking the length of the last remaining Saturn V. I still remember my joy following Apollo 8 ‘round the Moon for Christmas’ and following each of the subsequent lunar landings. To see the ‘real thing’ with my own eyes brought me back to that joy.
In my opinion, the Apollo project was humankind’s second greatest achievement (eradication of smallpox being the greatest). We owe NASA and its people for that.
And I was shocked when – on the day I saw the Saturn V – I saw the lack of care for the Memorial to those who died during the projects to get to the Moon and subsequent ‘space projects’. I could not understand how the American people, and especially NASA, would lack that care. But having read your post I think I now do understand it.
The decline of NASA which you describe gives me great sadness. Thankyou for explaining how it has happened.
Richard
hen says:
May 22, 2012 at 4:51 pm
amazing about those signatories, not one climate scientist! Do any of these people study climatology?
Why is that a problem? Very few people who lay claim to being climatologists study the climate — their fields of expertise are usually in astronomy, statistics, or computer modeling.
Well done chaps, keep up the pressure.
Dave Worley says: May 22, 2012 at 5:29 pm
We need a base on the moon. A real one, not a virtual one.
— — —
If China sets up a base on the moon, would that fulfill your requirements?
Has Charlie replied yet? Falcon does what NASA doesn’t.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18154937
I just hope whoever receives it, reads it! A similar thing was done to the IPCC & the UN, they just simply ignored it, that is the calibre of person who heads up these orgaisations. It doesn’t say what they want to hear, so they ignore it!
hen says:
May 22, 2012 at 4:51 pm
amazing about those signatories, not one climate scientist! Do any of these people study climatology?
As has been posted before, the clown in charge of the IPCC whose aim appears to be to send mankind back to the stone age is a railway engineer. Now, what was your point again?
Retired dudes. They don’t exist.
Until someone who has actual control of funds changes his mind, nothing exists.
You’re still operating on the assumption that moral suasion will have an effect. It won’t, because you’re not dealing with moral people. You’re dealing with lunatic inbred cretinous aristocrats who have a MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE-al sense instead of a moral sense.
PM Harper in Canada is showing us what works. He’s actually shutting off the money to all Green nonsense.
Back in the day, NASA had a profound sense of duty to extend and expand mankinds’ range both in a terrestrial and ex-planetary sphere, call it altruistic and ambitious and oh yes in competition with the ‘others’ but the scientists were mathematicians, phyicists and astronomers of ‘salt’, repute and of strident rigour, there was no other way, sometimes you had to ‘think on your feet’ and if you didn’t have the background and necessary knowledge – you were found out pretty quickly.
Then came the politics of funding and advocacy and it all went pear shaped when the big dollars went towards research into a supposition named: man made global warming and everybody piled in and suddenly ‘science’ was all about ‘statistics, computer modelling and divination’.
Even NASA lost ‘her knickers’ – well not quite everybody.
Athelstan. says:
May 23, 2012 at 4:59 am
I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say,’the scientists were mathematicians, phyicists and astronomers of ‘salt’, repute and of strident rigour, there was no other way, sometimes you had to ‘think on your feet’ and if you didn’t have the background and necessary knowledge – you were found out pretty quickly.’ It is only when the politicians and media are prepared to accept, and publicise, that the the cAGW team has been ‘found out’ that progress will be made.
That’s not what they are saying at all, and you know it. They are saying that the second letter they have sent needs to be an end to the matter of NASA making vague statements about unproven science with large error ranges that are not based on hard evidence and facts.
It is NOT in NASA’s interest to carry on making statements such as this, nor to prolong a debate as to whether they should even be doing so in the first place, as the singatories quite rightly point out.
It’s really not very hard to understand, do try to keep up.
This is completely Off Topic so cut it if you want.
ferd berple says:
May 23, 2012 at 12:02 am
I agree with what you say for most of your post. However this statement has always made me think something doesn’t add up
5 thousand years ago the Black Sea basin flooded and the story of Noah grew from a farmer that saved his family and livestock by taking refuge in a boat. This was real flooding.
As I understand it the Black Sea has
1. a net out flow of water of about 300 cubic Km per year.
2. There is only one out flow – through the Bosphorus , which allows an inflow of salty water from the Mediterranean making the Black Sea salty, and layered with less salty water at the surface.
3. The depth of the Bosphorus varies but is about 40 metres at the shallowest.
So if we assume that the Don, Dneiper, Dniester and Danube have always flowed to a greater or lesser degree then due to points 1 and 2 there would, except in periods of exceptional dryness, water in the Black Sea basin would be to a level no less than about 40 metres (3 above) below the current sea level. Even if the global sea level was less than today there would be a cataract out of the Black Sea into the Mediterranean basin, thereby maintaining the depth.
During the Iceage if one assumes lower precipitation and therefore the possibility of a Dead/Caspian Sea scenario, the cooler temperatures lead to lower evaporation and to the probability of there still being a Black Sea outflow.
Now when the ice melted and retreated and sea levels rose there would also be an increased flow into the Black Sea also, so assuming there was water already in the basin I cannot see anything but a slow rise in level as the outflow through the Bosphorus increased to balance the in flow, as now.
So major changes in climate (Younger Dryas) may well have seen changes in the level and salinity of the Black Sea I cannot imagine the scenario of a rapid flood, as per the biblical story.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me?
Sandy
Greenland, for starters. If the entire Greenland ice sheet was to melt, that would produce a sea level rise of about 7m/23ft. It is not inconceivable that if we keep burning fossil fuels at the present rate, that we could melt 1/7 of the Greenland ice sheet (or more) by the end of this century.
Günther Kirschbaum says:
May 22, 2012 at 10:07 am
If the average sea level rise since satellite measurements continues until the end of the century, there will be a SLR of at least 32 cm. This would be more than problematic for coasts all around the world. But 0.5/1/2 m cannot be excluded either, and that would definitely be much more costly.
I highlighted the only valuable point in your statement.
Likewise, IF it doesn’t continue to rise then it will rise less than 32cm.
Once you start pushing the “IF”s as actionable items you have left science in favor of advocacy.
Cmon guys lets be realistic. These astronaut guys are “the right stuff”. They sit at the top a bomb made of several hundred tons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen and say “no worries”. Someone gets hysterical and claims that cold o-rings leak and they say “no worries”.
If these guys say “no worries” I am going to bet its extremely dangerous.