Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: NASA: Global Warming caused Mostly by Humans

  1. #1

    NASA: Global Warming caused Mostly by Humans

    science!

    [quote]
    A new NASA study tries to lay to rest the skepticism about climate change, especially vocal this year on the GOP presidential campaign trail. It finds, like other major scientific research, that greenhouse gases generated by human activities -- not changes in solar activity -- are the primary cause of global warming.

    NASA researchers updated calculations of the Earth's energy imbalance, which is the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by the Earth's surface and the amount returned to space as heat. They found that despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy (half a watt more per square meter) than it returned to space during that time period.

    "This provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming," said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who led the research released Monday.

    [url]http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-global-warming-caused-mostly-by-humans/1[/url]
    [/quote]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Reading comprehension!

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,061
    Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
    Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
    By DAVID ROSE
    Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012
    Comments (702)
    Share

    The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
    The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
    Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.


    Read more: [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1l4UwNUVH[/url]

  4. #4
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,287
    Nasa landed dudes on the Moon 43 years ago...then proceeded to turn their talents towards crashing space shuttles. Perhaps they should STFU and concentrate on building good spaceships again.

    wtf

    -

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=gunnails;4353613]Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
    Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
    By DAVID ROSE
    Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012
    Comments (702)
    Share

    The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
    The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
    Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.


    Read more: [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1l4UwNUVH[/url][/QUOTE]

    Science!!! :eek:

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,061
    Studying climate is part of what NASA does, they were the first to ldevelop and launch a weather satellite.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4353586]science![/QUOTE]

    Well.

    [QUOTE]This provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming[/QUOTE]

    =/=

    [QUOTE]NASA: Global Warming caused Mostly by Humans[/QUOTE]

    As it is, they remain unable to model long-term or short-term climate accurately, nor can they factor and account for all the variables involved, and as such, they cannot say their evidence is "unequivocal", nor should they. Science should always be asking questions, not mandating or-else complainace with religious-like set-in-stone doctrine. Hell, science doesn't even say gravity is "unequivocal" as X ffs.

    I remain unimpressed, Climate Change is 95% Politics, 5% Science.
    Last edited by Warfish; 01-31-2012 at 04:16 PM.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,027
    In other news, running a generator inside your home is completely safe...just as long as you have a spider plant.

    Also...the Shroud of Turin is real.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4353657]In other news, running a generator inside your home is completely safe...just as long as you have a spider plant.

    Also...the Shroud of Turin is real.[/QUOTE]

    In other news, the inside of your 1000 sq. ft. cape cod is =/= the entire planetary environment. The planet has just a little bit more going on that the inside of your house does.

    Also....all the vocals in modern metal, totally not electronicly modified, 100% real. Just like pro wrastl'in.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,027
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4353709]In other news, the inside of your 1000 sq. ft. cape cod is =/= the entire planetary environment. The planet has just a little bit more going on that the inside of your house does.[/QUOTE]

    lol...

    There's more than just a few generators pumping noxious fumes into the atmosphere, Fish. A closed environment is a closed environment.

    Science shows that our planets environment is a direct result of our proximity to our star, our axial tilt and the chemistry of our atmosphere. To say that changing that chemistry has little or no effect is a bit silly.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4353719]To say that changing that chemistry has little or no effect is a bit silly.[/QUOTE]

    Except thats never been what I've said, and I am willing to bet I've donated more and doen more for the Environment (generic) than any other poster on this forum.

    My issue remains what it's always been, a politially-minded rush-to-judgement intended to further a specific ideology and socio-economic shift, specificly to subsidize "green" technology companies friendly to collectivists that cannot themselves compete in the marketplace, to penalize hydrocarbon busiensses and users, raise prices for consumers due to added costs/taxation, and to facilitate "prepaid reparation" style global redistribution of wealth from the "rich, dirty" U.S. to the "poor, innocent" third world, to help them for climate change damage we (the U.S.) supposedly have caused.

    I'm all for clean domestic air regulations, clean water regulations, and other industrial limitations designed solely to facilitate reduced emissions. I'm an environmentalist of the old school variety, as a Fisherman and naturist. But it's clear thats there is more than pure ecological conservation at play here.

  12. #12
    the denier "science" is funded by XOM and BP. Publically traded multi-national corporations. the humans cause climate change is funded by universities, nasa etc. Academics.

    who do you think has more of a profit motive?

    that link from the daily mail is laughable. it's like getting your science from the NY post.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,061
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4353807]the denier "science" is funded by XOM and BP. Publically traded multi-national corporations. the humans cause climate change is funded by universities, nasa etc. Academics.

    who do you think has more of a profit motive?

    [B]that link from the daily mail is laughable. it's like getting your science from the NY post.[/B][/QUOTE]

    ======================================

    Or USA Today?

    I don't deny global warming, or cooling.

    I believe in reducing our impact on the environment to what extent we can in a prudent fashion.

    I think the disagreement most have is over what is a prudent fashion.

    On aside, I have found that locally where I live my life, the air is cleaner as is the water and the overall littering/dumping is less then it was in my youth.

    Point is there are steps in place to protect the environment, and IMHO things have gotten better then they were 40 years ago.

  14. #14
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,287
    [QUOTE=gunnails;4353648]Studying climate is part of what NASA does, they were the first to ldevelop and launch a weather satellite.[/QUOTE]

    And Tang.

    :D

  15. #15
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,619
    [QUOTE=32green;4353625]Nasa landed dudes on the Moon 43 years ago...then proceeded to turn their talents towards crashing space shuttles. Perhaps they should STFU and concentrate on building good spaceships again.

    wtf

    -[/QUOTE]

    Do you have any idea how many greenhouse gasses are spewed into the air during ONE launch?

    [IMG]http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/space-shuttle-launch3a.jpg[/IMG]

    Hypocrites. EAD, NASA.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,027
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4353905]Do you have any idea how many greenhouse gasses are spewed into the air during ONE launch?
    [/QUOTE]

    None.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4353807]the denier "science" is funded by XOM and BP.[/quote]

    And most of the Research Labs at Univ. are funded by Govt., specificly funded by (D) Big Govt. Spender types (you know the kind, who fund shrimp-****ing-under-stress trials to the tune of 25 mil) who choose who gets funded, and how much.

    Like anything else, the Researches know what will and what won't get funded, and what those who make funding decisions want to hear and on what topics.

    To imply there is no bias, no fiscal motives, no external factors at all in public/Govt. funded research.....lol, right.

    [QUOTE]who do you think has more of a profit motive?[/QUOTE]

    The Researchers.

    Exxon may make less profit. An out of work climate scientist makes nothing, and has no job prospects otherwise.

  18. #18
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,287
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4353905]Do you have any idea how many greenhouse gasses are spewed into the air during ONE launch?

    [IMG]http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/space-shuttle-launch3a.jpg[/IMG]

    Hypocrites. EAD, NASA.[/QUOTE]

    I'll tell you how many.

    Went out to my garage to get my golf clubs and there was a shadow where I usually didnt see one.

    Turned left.

    A green house.

    On my lawn.

    F U NASER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    F U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  19. #19
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4353905]Do you have any idea how many greenhouse gasses are spewed into the air during ONE launch?

    [IMG]http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/space-shuttle-launch3a.jpg[/IMG]

    Hypocrites. EAD, NASA.[/QUOTE]

    lol

    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4353972]None.[/QUOTE]

    Well, technically, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so I guess he isn't a complete idiot in a blind-squirrel/nut kind of way.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4353603]I love being an azzhole![/QUOTE]

    +1000

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us