Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The NASA Transition Act 2017 has just been passed by the Federal Senate.
In the words of Congressman Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Science Committee, this act refocusses NASA away from climate, towards space science.
Lawmakers eye shifting climate research from NASA
Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter
Climatewire: Friday, February 17, 2017
Lawmakers are remaking NASA in order to leave parts of the agency’s earth science program untouched but remove its climate change research.
It’s still unclear exactly how lawmakers plan to transform NASA’s mission, but Republicans and Trump administration officials have said they want the agency to focus on deep-space missions and away from climate change research, which is a part of its Earth Sciences Division. That has created uncertainty about the fate of the Earth Sciences Division, which accounts for about $2 billion of NASA’s $20 billion budget.
At a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing yesterday, Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said he wants a “rebalancing” of NASA’s mission. The lawmaker told E&E News he wants the agency to reprioritize its mission because the Obama administration cut space exploration funds.
Specifically, that could mean NASA’s work on climate change would go to another agency, with or without funding, or possibly would get cut. Smith and other Republicans avoided laying out specifics but acknowledged that earth science at NASA would likely face some significant changes in the near future.
“By rebalancing, I’d like for more funds to go into space exploration; we’re not going to zero out earth sciences,” he said. “Our weather satellites have been an immense help, for example, and that’s from NASA, but I’d like for us to remember what our priorities are, and there are another dozen agencies that study earth science and climate change, and they can continue to do that. Meanwhile, we only have one agency that engages in space exploration, and they need every dollar they can muster for space exploration.”
…
Read more: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060050245
The text of the bill passed by the Senate is below. The bill is very long, and I haven’t read it all in detail. But one point which stood out in my mind is the need for America to have its own space transport capability, rather than having to rely on foreign space services to transport crew to and from the International Space Station.
What does this new bill mean for climate science?
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith is clear that he expects NASA to continue to support other agencies with space based Earth Science services, but he doesn’t expect NASA to conduct climate science.
I suspect maintenance of the NASA GISS temperature series, NASA’s best known climate product, will be transferred to NOAA.
The NASA GISS series has long been a favourite of climate alarmists, because the way it handles temperature measurements produces the most exaggerated official warming trend.
The issue is the way the GISS series handles geographically sparse temperature readings.
Some areas of the world are not well covered by temperature monitoring stations. There are two ways of handling this, either you ignore those regions when computing the whole, or you use infilling – you attempt to infer the temperature in regions which aren’t covered by using readings from the nearest stations (nearest being defined sometimes as 100s of kilometres away).
Neither approach is a good solution – both have their disadvantages.
NASA GISS uses infilling, but this likely produces some serious temperature artefacts. Poor quality readings from a handful of badly sited temperature stations in a geographically sparse region, such as airport or urban temperature monitoring stations in the Arctic, can be amplified through infilling to have a grossly disproportionate impact on estimated global average temperature.
The WUWT post GISS Swiss Cheese is an excellent discussion of some of the problems with the GISS approach. There is strong evidence of a substantial difference between temperature readings from urban Arctic stations, and isolated Arctic stations.
Despite the problems, I hope the GISS series is maintained in its current form, though possibly by a new agency. The GISS temperature series is of historical interest, and deleting it would simply feed hysterical accusations of climate coverups.
But to provide some balance, I would like to see more effort to reconcile GISS with other series, maybe new series published alongside GISS, based on better data or methodology. I would like to know why GISS and the satellite measurements have diverged so badly. Satellite measurements theoretically address the problem of sparse coverage by sampling atmospheric temperature readings from most of the Earth, so the divergence between satellite measurements and GISS is a serious problem which should be investigated.
If the main culprit turns out to be a few rogue urbanised temperature stations running too hot in the Arctic, skewing GISS temperatures upwards, it would be fascinating to see an open discussion by government agencies of how to handle this, and the production of better quality global temperature estimates.
[UPDATE] I trust Eric won’t mind that I downloaded the PDF of the NASA Authorization he linked to above … then I OCR’d it to make it searchable. The link is below:
Searches for “CO2”, “Earth Sciences” and “climate” didn’t find anything …
Regards to all,
w.
NASA (for the other important space reasons) has unrivalled expertise in the solar related matters. If anyone can prove existence of a critical link between solar activity and climate change, via whatever route it takes be it the TSI, UV, magnetic interaction, etc, NASA could do it, provided they are released from the suffocating AGW bondage. For that simple but a very important reason the NASA’s access to and independent reanalysis of all existing climate data, instrumental or proxies, should be maintained and financially supported by the Federal authority.
Vukcevic
NASA has other, higher priorities, that have been neglected: like a US launch vehicle that gets astronauts to space & back without killing them; NASA might even be expected to define & manage the balance between manned & unmanned space efforts.
All the highly speculative climate science crap can be given to NOAA, and they (under appropriate management) can figure out what to keep, merge or dump.
NASA isn’t some man and his dog outfit, it is a huge organisation, there is room for both space and honest climate research. Yes, the space is important, so is what might be the sun’s effect on the climate. Since solar activity is slowing to a possible standstill in the next decade or two, if the N. Hemisphere responds by a degree or more of cooling then many millions of people in the higher latitudes would be severely affected. Some prior knowledge of such possibility might allow authorities and even individuals to take at least some precautions to ameliorate what might be a serious situation.
NASA has engineers that can and do things that work, NOAA has keyboard operators, there is more than a bit of difference between two.
Vukcevic
I think NASA’s performance over the last 10-12 years demonstrates there is NOT room for both space science and the highly political “climate science” crap (Hansen & Gavin Schmidt as exhibits #1 & #2)..
Hypothetically, once NOAA identifies a material impact on earth’s climate from space weather, perhaps NASA could be engaged to further the (space based) analysis.
In the mean time, NASA has important space-based work it has been neglecting.
there is room for both space and honest climate research.
===========
nope. a mixed mission leads to budget infighting. make NASA’s mission clear. S=SPACE. Leave climate to the NACA.
“I think NASA’s performance over the last 10-12 years demonstrates there is NOT room for both space science and the highly political “climate science” crap (Hansen & Gavin Schmidt as exhibits #1 & #2)..”
To be fair, it is not NASA per se, that has caused this problem, rather it is a few NASA employees like the ones you named, who have made climate science highly political using NASA’s prestige as their vehicle.
There are thousands of good people who work at NASA and a few bad apples. We should always keep this in mind.
I agree vuk. The various satellites that NASA ( and others) have put around the Sun in ( and not so) recent years have proven their value. The early detection of CMEs for instance for the safety of astronauts and our weather, communication satellites and our grid have proven themselves a number of times. And those are not the only benefits.
Indeed. 99% of energy controlling weather of our planet comes from space, any excess not absorbed it is re-emitted to the space. It should be the reformed NASA’s responsibility to collect such data at every spatio-temporal stage and wherever possible to postulate physics that define it.
Of course all data with the associated narrative (methods, instrumentation, tolerances, various compensation factors etc. etc.) should be made available to NOAA or to any institution or individual, to re-analyse, question or use for whatever purpose.
Simply dismissing solar variability as the next to irrelevant has allowed the AGW zealots to run riot and finally discredit science, put heavy financial burden on the ordinary hard working taxpayer, and if allowed in future implementation of the geo-engineering crackpot ideas.
A good first start of many needed over the next 8-years.
The next step for NASA is to begin “cleaning house” of “certain” employees. Zeroing-out pensions will gain a lot. This too will take a lot of effort over the next 8-years.
Now the reason for the AAAS “science” protests in Boston today is clear.
Another focus should be re-alignment of NIH and the “cozy” relationship with Big Pharma, and Big Pharma’s “cozy” relationship with AAAS! Ha ha.
Cheers
One easy way to embarrass GISS would be to document how much time Gavin spent blogging on RC, which presumably wasn’t within the organization’s remit.
From the article: “If the main culprit turns out to be a few rogue urbanised temperature stations running too hot in the Arctic . . .”
Don’t forget the artificially low readings from Siberia in the Soviet era (in order to obtain more fuel supplies from the government). That probably contributed greatly to the rising temperature trend since 1990. If GISS had been honest and diligent, it (or NOAA) would have interrogated weather station employees there in the 1990s to determine the extent of this fiddling.
One unmentioned (AFAIK) reason for preferring satellite data to ground-based data is that weather stations in “developing” (per IGPOCC) countries have an incentive to bias their temperatures high, since they stand to be beneficiaries of transfer payments from the developed world if their is perceived to be a climate crisis. I think contrarian bigshots should make more of this weakness in the reliability of ground-temperature data.
“One unmentioned (AFAIK) reason for preferring satellite data to ground-based data is that weather stations in “developing” (per IGPOCC) countries have an incentive to bias their temperatures high, since they stand to be beneficiaries of transfer payments from the developed world if their is perceived to be a climate crisis.”
That’s an interesting thought, which had not occurred to me.
I can’t believe no one is going to be held accountable and simply get this funding cut. This is pure fr@ud plane and simple.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/
what most people don’t realize is that NASA does not really care about climate monitoring anyway. They have had no mandate, or particular interest, in launching copies of the same instruments in succession to provide a long-term record. They are interested in new science, new technology. It’s been that way forever. NOAA is probably a little more interested in it, but they don’t get funding targeted to make it happen. Basically, It’s weather forecasting support, and if the data can be used for long-term monitoring, so much the better.
Gone are the days when human curiosity of our world dogged us, driving us, to “know why”. Anymore it’s whatever proposal can get funding, and natural science just isn’t sexy anymore, even though the world is ladened with natural climate mystery. Maybe the Pres needs to appoint a toddler. Now that is a curious creature!
Dr Spencer
Hansen & Schmidt might disagree with “…NASA does not really care about climate monitoring anyway…”.
their little GISS thermometer dataset really doesn’t add much value to what NOAA and the Hadley Center is doing anyway. It’s been more of an internal effeort whcih NASA funds simply because the optics would be bad if they stopped. I know in the WUWT world it seems like a major NASA effort, but it isn’t. Money-wise, it’s trivial. Most of the money is spent on a variety of new satellite instruments, each mission costing hundreds of millions of dollars with bus, instruments, launch, sat ops, data archival, and scientists analyzing the data. The GISS temperature monitoring effort is almost rogue, and could probably be done out of petty cash.
So what you are saying Roy (and my interpretation is laced with some really good red wine) is that there are a couple folks at NOAA who want to make us think they drive a really big 4-wheel drive monster gigga-big “Who’s da man!” pick-up but in truth they are just a wee little thing? OMG that is funny!
Pamela, I don’t really know how to respond to that. But I appreciate the wine angle. 😉
Dr Spencer
It’s unclear to even my senior NASA friends (I live 30 miles away from Cape Canaveral) how much is spent on “climate science”.
With all due respect, your comment amounts to “the fox can be put in charge of the hen house as long as it promises not to eat too many chickens”.
NASA has other, more important, scientific jobs to do than waste credibility on pseudo climate science (for one, I’d like to see the Hubble restored – that school-bus sized gizmo has been a scientific gold mine).
Chip, traditionally most of the U.S. climate change budget has gone to NASA because the earth observation satellites are so expensive. NASA has done a good job, in my view, but I suspect they are going to have to emphasize their contribution for weather forecasting or some such thing to stay alive in the current administration. In my opinion, though, nothing beats seeing an astronaut floating in space. 🙂
Dr Spencer
IMHO, the Hubble does.
Javert, I doubt that the Hubble will receive any upgrades. First they cannot get at it because there is no shuttle to service it and second every penny is going to the James Webb Telescope, infinitely more powerful. I tell you we should all pray they can succeed in that!
NASA does not really care about climate monitoring … . They are interested in new science, new technology. It’s been that way forever.
Roy Spencer
History of Space Exploration (focus on NASA)
(youtube)
Make NASA Great Again.
Make America Proud Again.
******************************************************
This comment is dedicated to the astronauts and all the others who laid down their careers, their health, and, for some, their lives to make NASA great. They are watching. Let’s not let them down.
Yea, NASA had a great past. It earned strong presidential support & leadership.
The past 10 years – not so much.
I’d love to see NASA get back to it’s science and engineering “can do” roots (leave the climate science dumpster fire to NOAA) – that would make America proud again.
Yes, Mr. Javert. That is why I wrote: “Make NASA great again.” I meant that it should get back to real science. (I guess you missed other the comment where I said that was what I thought NASA should do)
Janice
Nope, we’re in strong agreement
I think that’s right, NASA is much more focused on doing “cutting edge” developments. That’s why they junked a perfectly good space shuttle launch system so they can build a new, cutting edge launch vehicle that won’t be any more capable than the space shuttle launch system.
“Meanwhile we only have one agency that engages in space exploration, and they need every dollar they can muster for space exploration.”
It’s another Great Day for America and all who love Her!
Mars here we come. Jupiter’s moon? Oh yah, with the next rover. And maybe we can put a satellite down in the ocean! Now that would be cool! Put it in the overturning circulation highway. Would it not be cool to be the guy with the joystick driving it along.
Nuclear drive rockets…. Refuel reaction mass on Ganymede and do a little ‘ice fishing’ with underwater remotes while we’re there! Yes! Way cool!
Asteroid harvesting! Imagine a group of unmanned craft towing a small one in and safely bringing it down to Earth (much more practical than mining in space, theoretically). And not just mineral. The outer rings of Saturn offer a nigh inexhaustible supply of water ice, if we just hurry up and figure out how to go get it. The towing crafts could also double as defense against rogue asteroid impacts.
J Mac
Strongly agree.
In the 8 years between JFK’s 1961 “man on the moon” speech and the 1969 moon landing, NASA went thru the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.
It’s now been 5 years since the last shuttle flight, and we’re still have no man-rated launch vehicle & we’re paying Russia to take our astronauts into space.
Time for NASA to get back to being NASA.
I completely agree, with one additional point, let the scientists do the core research (Big-R) and let free enterprise build the objects (Big-D) that NASA needs.
LOL. So obvious, yet so hard to do.
Here in Fla among my retired NASA friends there’s lots of bruised egos about SpaceX: “those guys stole our stuff”, “we could have done it better”, “they couldn’t have done it without us”, and my favorite “we were gonna do it like that…”.
Corporate types get beat up, reorganized or laid-off by the market all the time – no participation medals for just showing up. Government bureaucratic lifers – not so much. NASA’s average age during Apollo 11 (1st moon landing) was 28; in 2009 it was 47…
Not for long….
Go Space-X!
(Yes they built on others work, but at least they’ve moved forward!)
Successful today! Supply ship to ISS on it’s way . AS you said oxo, go SaceX! And all the others.
Ladies and Gents,
I don’t care how it gets done or who does it! I want to see humans on Mars… and Ganymede before I die!
Get. On. With. IT!
https://youtu.be/oCW9Hey6IVY
Somewhere someone made a comment that some of the US weather stations were of a reasonable standard.
The problem here, is that whilst I know American think they are the world, in actual fact, the US represent a tiny fraction of the world surface. So the problem of a Global temperature is ensuring that every single station throughout the planet is up to the best standards in the US.
Anthony did a great job auditing the US stations, but I’m absolutely convinced that if he went to some out of the way place in Africa or Asia, it would be far far worse than anything he found in the US.
And that has been the problem with this whole thing since the beginning: it’s all too parochial. There’s no control over the instrumentation which is run by I guess hundreds of different organisations.
And if we realise that many countries are quite corrupt, and that they stood to gain handsomely from “global warming”, it’s almost certain that there will have been intentional financial fraud (rather than “thumb on the scale” type fraud).
And unfortunately, the US isn’t welcomed enthusiastically throughout the world. So, what is really needed is an international organisation, which purchases the right sites and then employed people to maintain and calibrate them. Then when you realise that some of these sites need to be in the middle of the Amazon, the Sahara, Antarctica, middle of Greenland, on remote islands, etc, etc, the costs are absolutely vast.
That then means a big budget organisation, probably under the UN — and realistically I don’t think Trump or any Republicans would welcome any further money going that direction.
So, getting the US stations right, is a necessary condition to a valid worldwide temperature network, but it is frankly trivial compared to the huge problems elsewhere.
That’s why the only viable way to get a truly global temperature appears to be to finally fill in the gap at the poles with satellites.
“the only viable way to get a truly global temperature” is to forget the whole thing. What do you do with a value that has no physical meaning, exact or not?
It would also be the cheapest solution.
argh. NASA wasted an incredible opportunity with the space shuttle program. we could have had an immense space station in high earth orbit. instead the idiots just kept shooting overtrained monkeys into space for no net gain. I want to scream so loud they’d hear it a hundred astronomical units out.
Jack, They could have used the empty fuel tanks with the modifications pre build in, tethered them and voila. Okay not my idea and would have taken mega bucks but seeing what a waste “Global Warming” has been. Like Kennedy, you gotta think big and get the whole country behind you! Before that they also tried it first by using the second stage of a Saturn V and that could have worked as well. Just look at how much the Shuttle program cost. At the time they had all the systems in place to do it! If they would have put the funding for the shuttle into using second stage Saturn V tanks ?? where could we be now???
“Before that they also tried it first by using the second stage of a Saturn V and that could have worked as well. Just look at how much the Shuttle program cost. At the time they had all the systems in place to do it! If they would have put the funding for the shuttle into using second stage Saturn V tanks ?? where could we be now???”
Good comment, asybot.
Yes, the Saturn 5 second stage could have been used in orbit just like the Space Shuttle External Tank could have been used. Huge volumns, which is just what is needed in orbit for space development.
Skylab, the U.S.’s first space station, was a retrofitted second stage of the Saturn 5 rocket.
The new heavy-lift vehicle NASA is building also has a second stage. 🙂
However, the space shuttle configuration was better than either the Saturn 5 or NASA’s new launch vehicle because you can put your habitation modules on the bottom of the External Tank, before launch, but you can’t do that with the other two, which means you have to do much less outfitting in space using the space shuttle configuration than using the other two. Much less.
The space shuttle launch system made it much easier to use a heavy-lift vehicle for space develpment, and would have been about an order of magnitude cheaper. That’s why it is such a shame that those running NASA were so shortsighted, during the shuttle era, when they frittered away this valuable resource, and with finally killing the shuttle era. A crying shame. Stupid. No Vision.
Note I’m not saying NASA interested in Earth Science. I’ve been part of Mission to Planet Earth since the beginning. But MTPE was sold to congress by claiming the new satellites would tell us in a couple years what’s going on with global warming (yeah, you read that right). The satellites themselves are intended to investigate specific aspects of the Earth system for a few years..NOT do long term monitoring.
not saying NASA ISN’T interested in Earth science…
Like I said, send a NASA satellite into the ocean’s overturning pathway. The oceans are Earth’s energy storage unit and we know next to nothing about how that works to store it or cough it up.
Roy, I hope you have an opportunity to go to the Soo sometime and give another presentation at the Bayliss Library. I’ll do my best to come home from New York to listen
Roy, then if the satellites aren’t up t the job of long term monitoring, then almost nothing is up to the job.
And if you are suggesting ground based monitoring can’t be replaced, then whilst it’s not a glamorous job setting up a temperature monitoring station, and no one seems to understand the huge footprint you need for each station to get the extremely high precision readings you need for long term monitoring – we need to twist the arms of politicians to get millions or likely billions for a proper bespoke global network.
Please, do NOT send “We the biggest muther &%@ur momisugly#er” NASA climate researchers to NOAA. They can go back to universities, fine with me, but bias is not what we need right now. It speaks volumes that what we need right now are researchers who believe in the utility of basic research, not “pet theory” research.
Oh, they will stay at NASA. Other things to do there…if only to get a paycheck every 2 weeks. 😉
That begs the question!!!! But I will not go there. Dignity likely must be preserved. Damn it.
Pamela
I beg to differ.
Getting these guys out of NASA to cleanse the real scientific & engineering environment is a must. These witch doctors are a cancer on the organization and NASA’s public image.
The fastest way (you can’t just fire these guys because they engaged in fraudulent science for 20 years) is an inter-governmental transfer, so – BOOM – off to NOAA you and 80% of your “NASA climate science” budget go.
NOAA will be expected to rationalize & down-size the transferred “NASA climate science” budget a further 80% within 2 budget years (or 100% if programs cannot be justified to Congress).
Javert – the only problem with your approach is that when the Democrats come back, they just re-employ the same people, they start using the same tricks and as most of the data doesn’t come from the US, they just use the data they would have done to produce more fake graphs showing:
“LOOK HOW MUCH GLOBAL WARMING TRUMP WAS HIDING”.
Unless or until we completely upgrade the monitoring system so that the raw data is good for use as is, and no one can justify massive manipulations, someone like Schmidt can just come back and create warming out of the data again.
“Javert – the only problem with your approach is that when the Democrats come back”
The Democrats aren’t coming back. At least for the next 16 years, would be my guess. My hope.
And Janice, life is GOOD! My great-white-hunter-best-friend-raising-his-grandkids-love-of-my-life and I are designing an elk ivory set with a NE Oregon jewelry designer. On top of that I work for a first-rate charter district and we now have an advocate in the White House cabinet! So life is VERY good!
Pamela great to hear! have followed ( for awhile) and your “liberated by a great red wine comments” tonight as well. good to hear things are doing well
PAMELA! Well, I’m just so happy when anyone (esp. you) “talks” (in a “Hi, there!” mode) to me!
That is SO great. Smiling and smiling for you. 🙂
Yes, hooray for Ms. DeVos!
Now — please let me know when the wedding is, OKAY?? 🙂 I would SO love to be there. You really have become special to me.
And do NOT just elope — this amazing 12-year, paths finally converging, of two very special people is something to CELEBRATE royally! (thus saith your bossy sister, heh)
Bye for now and THANKS FOR THE GREAT UPDATE!
#(:))
Does this mean Gavin is Schmidt?
LOL. Took me a while, but I got it.
Call me stupid, but I still don’t get it.
Full of Schmidt
Don’t feel stupid, Pamela. I did not get it either. (until clipe helped us out 🙂 )
Ffffttttthththth! Well damn. Now it’s Canadian 9 yr aged whiskey all over my mini iPad!!!!
[The mods request you decide on one beverage to spew upon the screen, and declare the subsequent spew per evening per screen limit be maintained at a replacement rate of gigglegallons per forthnight… .mod]
“Pamela Gray February 19, 2017 at 8:32 pm
Ffffttttthththth! Well damn. Now it’s Canadian 9 yr aged whiskey all over my mini iPad!!!!
[The mods request you decide on one beverage to spew upon the screen, and declare the subsequent spew per evening per screen limit be maintained at a replacement rate of gigglegallons per forthnight… .mod]”
No way mod, has to be girlie giggles (Thumbwars, google it for a…giggle lol).
I’m so proud I got it before Pam & Janice. I’m just a savant on this stuff.
Please…no humans to Mars. Send HAL. More bang for the buck.
I like to see humans up there. It makes the rest of us down here do more than we thought we were capable of.
+!, optimism is a great motivator and since Jan 20 there is lots of that!
It always good to get more bang for the buck. Had a good fall deer hunt – got more buck for the bang!
Start by making them provide all unadjusted data and give reason for all adjustments and fill in for no data. If they can’t then the adjusted and fill in data has to not be used and removed from science use or distribution.
If you will review the literature, you will find that the “reason” and methodology for data adjustments are supplied with the adjusted data.
I have done research and published. Have you? Do you know that much research into anything these days will be shown to be worthless in short order at best or eventually at worst?
Slipstick
Surely you can’t be claiming the oft-repeated current practice is a credible process?
If it was credible, why does previously adjusted data require multiple future adjustments? This is absurd.
Sure, the “””reasons””” and methodology are supplied. Much like what is supplied with a baby’s diaper change.
The average of adjusted data tracks above average of raw data. Showing a Warming bias was added to raw data to create Faux adjusted data. Given UHI effect on Weather Stations, an increasing cooling bias, over time, should have been added to correct for urban sprawl around originally properly located Weather Stations.
Its all there. been there since 2007-08 when folks like me and mcintrye demanded that all the code and data be released
not that any clowns here remember
You can’t just not in-fill the data because the locations of the thermometers isn’t uniform and you’re trying to compute an average of the planet’s temperature, the only way to do that is to infill and arrive at a synthetic data grid that is equally spaced. If you just added up the temperatures and divided by the number of thermometers, you would have an average of the thermometers readings, not an average of the planet.
Personally I prefer satellite data because the data is richer both spatially and temporally.
“You can’t just not in-fill the data because the locations of the thermometers isn’t uniform and you’re trying to compute an average of the planet’s temperature”
You’ll never make a “climate scientist”, Paul. You’re too honest.
If you were one, you would realise that not only can you in-fill (AKA “make stuff up”) to compensate for your measuring stations covering less than a quarter of the World and in some cases being over 2,000 miles apart, but you would realise that by using the magic of “pairwise homogenisation” (or whatever real “climate scientists” call it) you can use the
made-up“homogenised” data to alter the values of real data – even data that was decades old – to change that real data so as to cool the past and achieve the correct temperature trend to “prove” that the climate was warming in a catastrophic manner, so as to “prove” climate apocalypse could only be prevented by their paymasters the politicians massively increasing taxation on fossil fuels and giving vast quantities of other peoples’ money as subsidies to their generous friends in the “Unreliables” industry.Some “climate scientists” (mentioning no names but we all know very well who they are) have made a very good living doing that for some time now, and they never in their worst nightmares imagined that one day a new regime would take over and their cosy little careers would all of a sudden come under threat, and they would be held responsible for their malfeasance.
But hey, they were doing it “for our own good”, I mean, anything goes when you’re “Saving the World™” (and incidentally lining your pockets), right?
Yes, we need to focus on deep space, since we are going to need to find a new home for our species as we destroy this one in order to protect the profits of corporations selling 19th century fuels, while hiding the fact of the damage by legislating ignorance. (Note that the preceding is sarcasm through gross exaggeration, but there is more than a kernel of truth to it).
We improve Earth by lessening our footprint upon it. And we do that best through cheap energy.
Doesn’t that invoke Jevon’s paradox?
Had to look that one up. Nonsense. Yet another model gone nuts. The only consumers that increase their use are folks like southern Californians and Alabama liberals who depend on air conditioning in-between protests to keep from getting heat stroke.
Jevon’s paradox
=============
makes perfect sense to me, because increased efficiency reduces cost, which leads to increased demand. So, unless demand is inelastic, increased efficiency may be self-defeating as a means of conservation.
For example, someone invents a low cost additive that makes the gasoline engine 2x as efficient. On the surface this will cut gasoline consumption by a factor of 2. But in practice, the gasoline engine would quickly replace the diesel engine, leading to an increase of much more than a factor of 2 in gasoline consumption.
So in effect, making the gasoline engine 2x as efficient will reduce the consumption of competitors to gasoline. So if you want to truly preserve resource X, you should mandate efficiency standards for its competitors, but not for the resource itself.
corporations selling 19th century fuels
=================
now if we could just ban the sale of alcohol, there would be no more alcoholics. we could call it Prohibition. what could possibly go wrong.
You could get one very pissed off red headed Irish Leprechaun up in yo face! That’s what.
the definitive word on red-heads and the Danger Zone
That is funny! Red headed concealed carry, good shot, Irish leprechaun! You will have to recalibrate your axis scales.
Slipstick
Unclear about “legislating ignorance” – sure seems like US public schools are doing a bang-up job on CAGW, even though you & Al gore can’t quite come up with either accurate data or accurate WE’RE-ALL-GONNA-DIE climate model forecasts.
On the flip side, you have managed to convince the 80% of the population that could never do high school algebra II that they now fully understand thermal dynamics & atmospheric physics (not to mention the ins & outs of computer modeling).
My prediction is that the Next Generation Science Standards will be re-written in short order. It will become the flagship of the court cases brought against the gate keepers.
Please, won’t someone think of the outreach programs? /Sarc off
Damn it! Good wine splattered all over my puter screen! What a waste!
Our children won’t know what NASA outreach programs are!
Mandate scarf tying classes. Would have happened if it wasn’t for our patriotic election outcome!
You are correct MJD: one should always sunset existing programs. Maybe they can put them on the first launch to Jupiter’s moon.
Point of order:
Where’s Griffy? I assumed he would be all over a thread about funding for junk science. Kinda like a polar bear on a ringed seal…
It’s the new “end of term” atmosphere at NASA. What else do you have to do if your program’s getting cut?
Maybe he got fired for “No Call, No Show” on “A day without immigrants” and can’t buy a refill card on his burner-phone.
Put John McCain in charge of NASA and ship the two faced loser out with the next one way rocket .
Has this raging squirrel ever done anything but huff and puff ? He and Bernie should run together … into the sunset .
What was NASA ever doing in global warming propaganda business anyways ? They have just unraveled all the decades of good work on a carny act clown side show and destroyed NASA ‘s reputation for a pump and dump scheme . By all means keep the BS fudged climate data NASA and take your talents some place else like North Korea to live in your fantasy world . EPA management will be joining you soon .
Uh….no. Just…no.
“Put John McCain in charge of NASA and ship the two faced loser out with the next one way rocket .”
Senator McCain is a vindictive fellow, isn’t he.
I heard McCain say yesterday that the U.S. needs free press in order to function as a nation. He was being critical of Trump’s calling the MSM “the enemy of the American people”, and saying that shutting down the press was the first stage to dictatorship. Btw, Trump has not suggested that the MSM be shut down, John. He just wants them to stop telling lies. Don’t be so dramatic.
The disconnect with Senator McCain is Trump is not saying a free press is a danger to the American people, he is saying a Lying press is a danger to the American people, and he is exactly right. At present, we have a MSM that is constantly lying to the American people for partisan political reasons, and is creating a false picture of reality, which confuses a lot of people, inclucing maybe John McCain.
McCain is acting this way with Trump because he hasn’t gotten over Trump’s slights during the election campaign, plus McCain knows taking this anti-Trump position will get him lots of interviews on all the MSM news programs. He likes seeing himself on tv. He wants the MSM to love him.
I honor Senator McCain’s Vietnam service, but his behavior lately is doing a disservice to the United States. He is confusing the issues for political/personal gain, or he is confused himself. Either way, he is misleading the American public by taking the positions he does.
It’s pretty sad when the biggest political obstacle we face are a few Republicans like McCain. We have the Democrats over a barrel, and have to contend with a few rogue Republicans. At any rate, I don’t think McCain, or any of the other rogue Republicans, are going to slow Trump down very much.
Trump has been in Office one month today. He still doesn’t have all his cabinet in place, thanks to the Democrats stalling tactics. But, that’s about over, too, and Trump can shake off these little impediments and move forward with his agenda.
Amen!
At the risk of inputting a little awareness into Mr. McCain, the ‘first stage to dictatorship’ is CONTROL of the press. Trump has done nothing of the kind. Obama did that. Progressives do that. The collusion of the press – even without WikiLeaks – is currently on display for all to see.
Trump has not ‘suppressed’ anything – he’s defended himself and called BS on open and even prideful propaganda – specifically and quite correctly calling out the most egregious offenders – who have abused their positions and their rights.
I giggled my a$$ off when CNN was turned away from CPAC.
I started to compare the 2010 NASA Authorization Act with the 2017 NASA Transition Act. Important to do so to try to unravel what a new NASA Administrator might be able to do. First off, Earth Sciences is described in Section 701 (Title VII) of the 2010 Act. No mention of it, or its subjects, are mentioned in the 2017 Act. The 2017 Act does mention that congress finds (now), via Section 202, that the 2010 Act does “reflect a broad, bipartisan agreement on the path forward for NASA’s core missions in Science….”etc, etc. The 2010 Section 701 mostly emphasizes data collection (ie satellites) and cooperation with both domestic and international science (including climate science). It won’t take much for the new Administrator to take the “reflect a broad..” statement to ease out some specific climate work. The major purpose of the 2017 Act is to emphasize that the ISS needs to transition from primarily a NASA responsibility to being a more junior partner (assuming the ISS is funded at all past 2024). The purpose being to redirect NASA to Mars, hence the name of the 2017 Act. By being silent on Section 701 of the 2010 Act, the Trump Administration will have a lot of leeway going forward, absent even more legislation, as everyone seems to agree that regaining manned space flight capability, and trying for Mars are NASA’s clear going forward objectives.
“as everyone seems to agree that regaining manned space flight capability, and trying for Mars are NASA’s clear going forward objectives.”
Mars is only practical goal, if we can come up with propulsion system that will cut flight time down to a month vs. 9-months. Along with setting up at least two Stop-n-Gos along flight path, and a MacyDees at half-way point. 😉
“Mars is only practical goal,”
To get to that goal we should:
1. Develop an orbital transfer vehicle that can range from low-Earth orbit to Lunar orbit.
2. Establish a base on the Moon to produce rocket propellant.
3. Build artificial gravity (centrifugal force) space stations in the Earth/Moon system to gain experience.
4. Build artificial-gravity cycling space stations that would be placed in orbits that cycle between the Earth and Mars. See:
https://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/advocacy/cycling-pathways-to-occupy-mars/
5. Establish an artificial-gravity space station around Mars.
6. Look for water ice on Phobos to fuel a Mars exploration program.
7. Land humans on Mars.
We must have the ability to operate in the entire Earth/Moon system, and we must to have artificial gravity in space (and radiation protection), before humans can safely explore the great beyond.
The first step is to get proficient at operating between low-Earth orbit and the Moon. We need a work vehicle that can do lots of things in orbit. How about building an orbital tranfer vehicle and sending it to Hubble to upgrade it.
One step at a time. Start with the basics.
Here’s how you build an artificial-gravity space station: Take two space station modules and put one at each end of a cable a mile long; then cause the modules to orbit the common center at one revolution per minute, which creates one Earth-equivalent “gravity” (centrifugal force) inside each of the modules.
“Mars is only practical goal,”
To get to that goal we should:
1. Develop an orbital transfer vehicle that can range from low-Earth orbit to Lunar orbit.
2. Establish a base on the Moon to produce rocket propellant.
3. Build artificial gravity (centrifugal force) space stations in the Earth/Moon system to gain experience.
4. Build artificial-gravity cycling space stations that would be placed in orbits that cycle between the Earth and Mars. See:
https://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/advocacy/cycling-pathways-to-occupy-mars/
5. Establish an artificial-gravity space station around Mars.
6. Look for water ice on Phobos to fuel a Mars exploration program.
7. Land humans on Mars.
We must have the ability to operate in the entire Earth/Moon system, and we must to have artificial gravity in space (and radiation protection), before humans can safely explore the great beyond.
The first step is to get proficient at operating between low-Earth orbit and the Moon. We need a work vehicle that can do lots of things in orbit. How about building an orbital tranfer vehicle and sending it to Hubble to upgrade it.
One step at a time. Start with the basics.
Here’s how you build an artificial-gravity space station: Take two space station modules and put one at each end of a cable a mile long; then cause the modules to orbit the common center at one revolution per minute, which creates one Earth-equivalent “gravity” (centrifugal force) inside each of the modules.
I forgot to add my artificial gravity formula for a space station:
1+1=1
one mile in diameter, plus one revolution per minute, equals one Earth-equivalent gravity.
Imagine the wheel-shaped space station in the photo is one mile in diameter. If we spin the wheel at one revolution per minute, then artificial gravity (centrifugal force) will be created on the outside edge of the wheel that is equivalent to one Earth gravity.
Imagine the wheel-shaped space station is an analog clock seen faceon. You would be moving at the same speed as the second hand on a clock moves around the clockface. A rather leisurely pace. If you want to go slower, increase the diameter. Two miles in diameter requires half that rotation rate to produce one Earth-equivalent gravity.
The cheap version of the wheel-shaped space station is to use two habitation modules separated by a mile-long cable. You get the same results in the habitation area: One Earth-equivalent gravity.
This should be a priority for our space program because as the evidence mounts, it is becoming clear that weightlessness is very detrimental to human health. Humans won’t be able to move far into space without artificial gravity.
Btw, it would have reqired about 100 space shuttle External Tanks to create a one-mile-diameter, wheel-shaped space station like the one seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey. NASA launched 135 space shuttle External Tanks before retiring the shuttle. And threw every one of the External Tanks away. What a waste!
NASA needs to explore the oceans with international agreements to launch oceanic satellites geared towards measuring how the oceans cough up or absorb solar energy so that we can mitigate Stadial periods. The entire world suffers when that happens and governments are rearranged.
I bet we’ll have some interesting comments if not outright whistle blowers from NASA personnel about their forced involvement in AGW.
Ethan: Interesting post. The last sentence would be improved by avoiding the meaningless phrase “going forward”, which is totally redundant when using the future tense (or discussing objectives, which of course can only refer to the future). Time to haul out now.
Thanks! Was trying to finish before bedtime (yawn)…mouse battery died….poor QA!
One important addendum to my prior post. The Senate passed 2017 by “Unanimous Consent” (hence my optimistic last statement), but due to vagaries of legislative process, the bill now goes to the House (the bill originally came from the House, but died at year end…the Senate decided to rename and pass to keep it moving). The Senate added no amendments. If the House decides to add further language with respect to the 2010 Section 701 Earth Science, then I expect a few more fire works. But I really think the new Administrator has enough wiggle room with the weak language between the two bills (2010, 2017) wrt Earth Science that they can accomplish much of what they want without getting the contentious Senate involved. Trump seems to be generally pretty good with strategy at to when to fight in public and when to just get things done behind the scenes. I think of it as a really good game of “where’s the ball” under three cups.
Eric Swanson has that dug-in attitude of all frauds. How do we know, -that he knows, -he’s arguing angels dancing on pins?
He knows of Climategate, and Phil Jones admitting to John Christy, about faking all warming past 1998.
He knows of Climategate’s immediate aftermath of him demoted and nearly going to jail: telling the truth again, to the BBC, whose reporter’s career Jones was seen trying to REALLY WRECK for TELLING the TRUTH – about that very thing. See BBC Feb 2010 Phil Jones interview for Jones’ dazed and confused, continued lying and squirming even as he admitted that – in fact, as far as he knew, it hadn’t warmed any since 1995.
He knows of the FEROCIOUS destruction of multiple scientific credibilities’ journals, and scientific adminstrators who tried to protect the journals’ integrity.
He knows of Hansen being caught claiming there is a 33 degree green house effect: and of it simply being the specific artifact of calculating the temperature of a compressible gas volume, as though it were a solid or liquid: incompressible. He can’t say he doesn’t know, he’s been in and out of here for y.e.a.r.s. with the same, – FAKE -pseudo-scientific spaghetti swirls of worthless so-called ‘data’.
Data so corrupted that the insiders to the scheme lamented the lack of ability of anyone – anywhere, anyhow, to know the true global temperature – at all – much less to hundredths of a degree far in excess of the actual measuring equipment’s capabilities.
This is called fake research, when someone goes into an argument of something where – there never was,
there never will be,
and never can be,
any knowing of the actual global temperature to within more than a degree C. It doesn’t take much more than the time it would take for a parent to help their kid doing a paper on distribution of thermal sensors on the earth.
Everyone in real sensing scientists knows it’s fake to even PRETEND to discuss global tempere somewhere within a degree C. – even more.
And Eric is pure and simple approaching the bar of discourse with the presumption people are fooled by his bullsh**.
The surface and sea record aren’t capable of measuring the temperature of the surface anywhere near what is claimed with these hundredths and thousandths of degrees C global temperature variation.
It’s Bullsh** with a capital Fraudulent intent by someone who obviously has the sense to know if the data are capable or anywhere near it, of approximating real, average global temperature.
There’s the many many people who have brought out the persistent fraudulent alteration of U.S. data by Cooling the Past, Warming the Present. Then simply tying that directly to CO2.
There’s no science to that, however much money Eric Swansen has taken in grants for ‘studies’ and ‘research.’
People still aren’t in awe, nor are the remotely fooled – and never were. We – the public who run this U.S. and the European nations, states, -empires – we know how to recognize the twiddling of fraudulent claims and Eric is simply pretending GISS and for that matter nearly all surface/sea data are accurate.
It’s despicable and it shouldn’t be allowed, and there still are standards for printing crap, it’s just that the climateers have wiped out standards for anything they’ll print and try to use to manipulate a crowd.
Although climateers seem like children and have reduced the quality of discourse in the pseudo-science of climate – it’s a grownup world.
People who are grownups aren’t required to clap our hands when we see fraud. We’re disgusted by it and that’s what any paper on earth is, that claims to assume the average global temperature within a degree C.
I really mean that and like I said: you don’t have to own a college degree in statistics to tell it’s fake data.
Fake is, fake. Period. Talking about it is simply barking lies to see who comes to address and discuss them as if they’re real.
Endorsing it as “scientific” debate is fraudulent if there’s no one checking all the papers for known errors making the discussion far beyond the realm of reality based scientific intercourse.
The records of the global temperatures are faked. The stations have been culled until they’re shadows of the real temperature aggregation network started by serious men in the 20th century.
Your wrong.
Tony, both sides see fairies dancing on pinheads (double entendres). Which part (to steal a line from Independence Day).
Nope, *you’re* wrong, Ol’Tony.
And that wrong is your wrong alone.
Please Tony, enlighten us, tell us what is wrong about this?
“He knows of Hansen being caught claiming there is a 33 degree green house effect: and of it simply being the specific artifact of calculating the temperature of a compressible gas volume, as though it were a solid or liquid: incompressible.”
Please tell us all exactly what is wrong with what E Becker posted on February 19, 2017 at 8:47 pm? I would suggest that you be careful with your reply or you will make a fool of yourself, again.
Difference is I can be wrong in 25 words or less.
For heavens sake Patrick it was a joke to burst his bubble. Anyone splurting out that much vehement, internet froth could do with it. He was wrong about eighteen times I reckon but I can’t be bothered debating someone who froths.
Btw, I am flattered but I don’t actually need a personal minder.
“tony mcleod February 20, 2017 at 1:43 am
He was wrong about eighteen times I reckon but I can’t be bothered debating someone who froths.”
Well, please support your claim by identifying those 18 or so wrongs. And then correcting just one, the one I picked out for instance, or any other of your choice. You claim to support the scientific method, so please demonstrate it here. Present information that shows the “18” points wrong. Here’s your chance to prove you have some idea what you are talking about. Simple answer is, you can’t and we know you won’t, you would be wrong and said postie would be very VERY right!
Geez Patrick, don’t make me bring out what E Becker got. You wont like it.
“tony mcleod February 20, 2017 at 2:19 am
Geez Patrick, don’t make me bring out what E Becker got. You wont like it.”
I am sure E Becker will revel in responding, so go for it.
So not only pig ignorant, but illiterate with it.
You’re a joke, McClod.
“tony mcleod February 20, 2017 at 2:19 am
Geez Patrick, don’t make me bring out what E Becker got. You wont like it.”
Yeah, I didn’t think you had the testicular fortitude to backup your “18” points of wrong.
This is the bill from Library of Congress.
S.442 – A bill to authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for other purposes.
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s442/BILLS-115s442es.pdf
No OCR needed.
I can’t see anything to do with climate.