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.
Lazy,
I suggest reading RACookPE1978’s post above, since your reply indicates that you never read it in the first place.
Many commentators are missing the point.
The NASA letter writers are achievers. They had a task to do and they delivered the goods. It can be confirmed that they delivered the goods.
This is a rather different exercise to that faced by a theorist who can hypothesise without solution, or without adequate solution. That is a far easier task. If your efforts are remembered in 100 years you are dead, so you have less care in delivering the goods.
In the mineral exploration and mining world that I inhabited, the equations were simple. If you did not continue to deliver the goods you were out on the street looking for a new occupation, for there was no money to pay you. If you incorporated data into resource estimates like that famous Russian tree, you were also in trouble because you should have known about the nugget effect from literature going back 50 years. If you failed to record and archive data for keeping by the government, as was required, you were also out on the street.
The argument is not about whether training in certain professions or the gaining of certain degrees makes one competent to comment on climate matters.
The argument is that non-achievers should treasure advice from those who delivered the goods and try to learn better personal standards.
At May 23, 2012 at 9:31 pm Geoff Sherrington wrote
Hear! Hear!
Richard
richardscourtney says:
Because moulins are part of the AGW hoax? You can rationalise anything if you choose to ignore the reality of what is happening to the world around us.
Geoff Sherrington says:
May 23, 2012 at 9:31 pm
“Many commentators are missing the point.
The NASA letter writers are achievers. They had a task to do and they delivered the goods. It can be confirmed that they delivered the goods.
This is a rather different exercise to that faced by a theorist who can hypothesise without solution, or without adequate solution. That is a far easier task. If your efforts are remembered in 100 years you are dead, so you have less care in delivering the goods.
In the mineral exploration and mining world that I inhabited, the equations were simple. If you did not continue to deliver the goods you were out on the street looking for a new occupation, for there was no money to pay you. If you incorporated data into resource estimates like that famous Russian tree, you were also in trouble because you should have known about the nugget effect from literature going back 50 years. If you failed to record and archive data for keeping by the government, as was required, you were also out on the street.
The argument is not about whether training in certain professions or the gaining of certain degrees makes one competent to comment on climate matters.
The argument is that non-achievers should treasure advice from those who delivered the goods and try to learn better personal standards.”
Achievers versus non achievers is not the correct way to look at this.
The real point is that there is a cultural gap here between the mind set required for successful space flight, and the study of a chaotic science like climate science. The level of precision possible is very different. It is unrealistic to demand the same level of precision and certainty from climate science research as one does for the analysis of the trajectory of a space vehicle.
That is the reason the astronaut’s letter is off base. There is also a bit of hubris involved.
Eric Adler:
At May 24, 2012 at 6:07 am you say;
At last you have said something I agree!
A scientific mind set is required to achieve a successful space flight.
But
A pseudoscientific mind set is required to participate in so-called ‘climate science’.
Richard
metzomagic:
I will not bite.
You made a silly comment. I pointed out how silly it is. You have responded with an irrelevance.
You were wrong. I will not bother to debate anything else you say about your error. Live with it.
Richard
Eric Adler says:
May 24, 2012 at 6:07 am
The real point is that there is a cultural gap here between the mind set required for successful space flight, and the study of a chaotic science like climate science. The level of precision possible is very different. It is unrealistic to demand the same level of precision and certainty from climate science research as one does for the analysis of the trajectory of a space vehicle.
Then why do “climate scientists” claim they can, indeed, measure something fifty years in the future to that level of precision using only computer models?
That is the reason the astronaut’s letter is off base. There is also a bit of hubris involved.
The astronauts hit a bases-loaded homer. And the hubris involved resides in the chair behind Waleed Abdalati’s desk.
REPLY: I agree, and Adler is only here too poo poo anything anyone says, his arguments are mostly merit-less rantings of a person who has no ability to see beyond news headlines. He seems to have no other purpose. Given his history, I have long suspected he is a paid shill of some group, but he of course denies such charges. – Anthony
Obviously, people accused of being paid shills always deny it … whether they are paid shills or not. And that is why unsupported “shill!” accusations are fruitless.
Much better is to evaluate works strictly on mathematical and/or scientific and/or engineering merit … because failing this test is highly specific in diagnosing shillerly and/or ideology and/or incompetence.
By this diagnostic criterion, Eric Adler stands “innocent”, on the grounds that NASA has a long and distinguished history of studying chaotic dynamical systems from a mathematical point-of-view (stability of systems of dynamical equations), from a scientific point-of-view (dynamical stability of the solar system), and from an engineering point-of-view (combustion instability-versus-instability).
There is therefore no basis to assert that planetary heat balance (for example) is a subject outside of NASA’s purview.
Therefore, based strictly upon this objective criterion, Eric Adler’s analysis is more nearly correct than the (former) NASA signatories.
REPLY: Speaking of shills, I note your IP address is associated with several names that have posted here. Changing screen names around is a policy violation. – Anthony
higley7 says:
Do they really thing that we cannot keep ahead of a 1 m sea level rise in 100 years? 1 centimeter a year is nothing.
Especially for a coral island. Any sea level changes are unlikely to make much difference in the case of cliffs being eroded by wave action (especially a change several orders of magnitude less than that produced by tides.)
Sea level change appear to be very much a local thing. There are places where sea level is rising (or the land is sinking); there are places where sea level is falling (or the land is rising) and there are places where there has been no apparent change at all.
I wonder if there are any harbors built of stone or concrete which have been in use for several hundred years.
richardscourtney says:
Only in your strange worldview is what I have said an ‘error’. I was responding to Latitude, who incredulously wondered where 1m of water could come from. 87 years is a very short period of time in geologic terms, but a very long time considering the way we are abusing the ecosphere.
We are causing temperatures to rise, more dramatically in the arctic than elsewhere. As a result, Greenland ice melts, and some of that meltwater finds its way to the sea. As a result, Greenland glaciers calve into the sea, at a faster rate than they would if temperatures were stable.
Basic physics. Live with it.
metzomagic says:
“We are causing temperatures to rise, more dramatically in the arctic than elsewhere. As a result, Greenland ice melts, and some of that meltwater finds its way to the sea. As a result, Greenland glaciers calve into the sea, at a faster rate than they would if temperatures were stable.
“
Basic physicsBaseless opinion. Live with it.”There. Fixed it for you.
Smokey:
Thankyou. I trust that you noticed metzomagic has not addressed his error of fact which I pointed out; viz.
Greenland ice sheets are in a natural bowl so in the implausible scenario that 1/7 of them were to melt then that water would remain in the bowl capped by the remaining ice.
Instead, as you point out, he/she/it/they adds further implausible hypotheses. This is typical ‘warmist’ troll behaviour. Therefore, when I noticed the refusal to address the point of fact I had presented (i.e. the existence of the ‘bowl’) I knew what would come if I were to engage in further discussion. So, I bluntly stated that I would not engage in further discussion.
But the cascade of additional implausible hypotheses started although I had refused to engage.
I thank you for pointing out that the implausible hypotheses are twaddle.
Richard
metzomagic says:
May 24, 2012 at 2:28 pm
We are causing temperatures to rise,
We are? Have you seen
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/no_global_warming_for_15_years/
“Apr 07, 2012
No Global Warming For 15 Years
New UK Met Office global temperature data confirms that the world has not warmed in the past 15 years.
Analysis by the GWPF of the newly released HadCRUT4 global temperature database shows that there has been no global warming in the past 15 years – a timescale that challenges current models of global warming.”
Courage then, Courage now.
These engineers and career military officers are entitled to their opinion, but the VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists, the experts in the field, believe we have a real problem on our hands. Ask the folks who live in Norfolk, VA. I’m an engineer, a Metrologist, but that does not qualify me to issue anything more than a casual opinion on the subject. BTW, there is a big difference between a geologist and a “paleoclimatologist”, as this blog’s author claims for himself. Or is the published curriculum vitae incorrect?? This website would not be so suspect if it were not funded by the oil and coal industry…
Dr. William Wilkinson says: May 24, 2012 at 7:21 pm
So, an engineer is of the opinion that engineers have nothing to contribute to this discussion. Fascinating. Because you are ignorant, does not mean that others are. You start off with two fallacies: the appeal to authority (…the VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists…) and an implied ad hominem (…engineers and career military officers…) … and you obviously have a reading disability: please show us where Anthony Watts, the “blog’s author” has ever claimed to be a “paleoclimatologist”. Oh…. and where is your evidence that this blog is funded by the oil and coal industry?
What you may have missed is that ALL of the NASA retirees are scientists. What they told us at the conference is that they have a very strong retirees network that holds monthly meetings and that a significant sub-group has gotten interested in climate and has invited both skeptic and consensus scientists to give them briefings. Both have accepted. Guess which they have found more persuasive?
If you think you have an argument which will change their minds, they will be more than happy to listen to you… Uhhhh.. they may require you to do it in person. If you want to do it, ask a moderator to forward your e-mail address to them.
metzomagic says:
May 24, 2012 at 2:28 pm
We are causing temperatures to rise, more dramatically in the arctic than elsewhere. As a result, Greenland ice melts, and some of that meltwater finds its way to the sea. As a result, Greenland glaciers calve into the sea, at a faster rate than they would if temperatures were stable.
Glaciers don’t calve faster because they’re melting — they *retreat* when they’re melting. Glaciers calve faster when they’re *growing*, which means there’s more snow falling in the accumulation zone.
Basic physics. Live with it.
Take your own advice.
Dr. William Wilkinson says:
May 24, 2012 at 7:21 pm
These engineers and career military officers are entitled to their opinion, but the VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists, the experts in the field, believe we have a real problem on our hands. Ask the folks who live in Norfolk, VA.
I know several people who live in Norfolk. They are of the opinion that you’re blowing smoke.
I’m an engineer, a Metrologist, but that does not qualify me to issue anything more than a casual opinion on the subject…. This website would not be so suspect if it were not funded by the oil and coal industry…
Your casual opinion on WUWT’s funding, much as your casual opinion of the scientists who signed the letter, seems based on the usual warmie propaganda rather than on any empirical observation. Are you sure you’re an engineer?
A fan of *MORE* discourse says:
May 24, 2012 at 11:39 am
By this diagnostic criterion, Eric Adler stands “innocent”, on the grounds that NASA has a long and distinguished history of studying chaotic dynamical systems from a mathematical point-of-view (stability of systems of dynamical equations), from a scientific point-of-view (dynamical stability of the solar system), and from an engineering point-of-view (combustion instability-versus-instability).
Here’s the flaw in your argument — Adler wasn’t trying to make that case. In fact, he said just the opposite: “The real point is that there is a cultural gap here between the mind set required for successful space flight, and the study of a chaotic science like climate science. The level of precision possible is very different.”