Gosh.. who would have thought about testing it before it was destroyed? Certainly no an idiot like gfm.
Who told you that chatGPT was leftist? ChatGPT?
When is CO2 long range IR wavelengths maxed out in the atmosphere
- Thread starter serendipity
- Start date
serendipity
Verified User
You do know what the Heartland Institute is correct? And who funds them?
And it is always humorous how the Flat Earthers upend some obscure individual, I’ve seen everything from weatherman to contrarians, and yes, Linnea Lueken is obscure, and then echo their “findings” as game changers in the Climate change debate. It is all a weak attempt to establish a false paradigm, as if the other overwhelming majority of scientists are lying and conspiratorially hiding data
And no, I don’t want to waste my time debating particulars I’d have to research to argue, I’ll just go with NASA, if they can do what they do and have done over the last sixty years I’ll go with their opinion over “Linnea Lueken’s”
Climate Change - NASA Science
NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.science.nasa.gov
Evidence - NASA Science
Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of
Effects - NASA Science
Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already
Causes - NASA Science
Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities
Extreme Weather - NASA Science
As Earth’s climate changes, it is impacting extreme weather across the planet. Record-breaking heat waves on land and in the ocean, drenching rains, severeCarbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.climate.nasa.gov
I despair at ignorant arseholes like you. This isn't really NASA per se but GISS aka the Goddard Institute for Space Studies run by Gavin Schmidt, whose expertise is in climate models. I frankly have never understood why GISS became part of NASA in the first place. Finally its offices in New York are being sold off, good is all I can say hopefully they will all be packed off to somewhere like Alaska.
Last edited:
serendipity
Verified User
Trump Administration Shutters New York City–Based NASA Institute
Since 1966 NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has been at the forefront of Earth and planetary science from its location in upper Manhattan. Now a Trump administration directive is ejecting its scientists to parts unknown
Last edited:
Typical MAGA response
So now NASA isn’t really NASA, guess all NASA’s recent accomplishments were “fake News”(https://spaceanddefense.io/nasa-ticks-off-its-2024-achievements/). Quite noticeable though you offered nothing to invalidate NASA’s views
As I said, attempts, usually funded by some fossil fuel entity, to create a false paradigm
serendipity
Verified User
Judging by the comments and claims here, none of you have a clue about optical energy coupling, black body radiation curves, absorption lines, scattering, scintillation, electron shell excitation and re-emission, or conservation of angular momentum.
Its like listening to a group of young teen boys arguing about Superman's powers, and how Kryptonite interferes with them.
-
Its like listening to a group of young teen boys arguing about Superman's powers, and how Kryptonite interferes with them.
-
serendipity
Verified User
Typical Arsecheese response, t'was always so.
Disagreement with NASA's Climate Change Messaging:
A group of 49 former NASA scientists sent a letter to NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) requesting they refrain from including unproven remarks about man-made carbon dioxide's impact on climate change in public releases.
They stated that the science is not settled and that NASA's advocacy for CO2 as the primary driver of climate change is inappropriate.
Disagreement with NASA's Climate Change Messaging:
A group of 49 former NASA scientists sent a letter to NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) requesting they refrain from including unproven remarks about man-made carbon dioxide's impact on climate change in public releases.
They stated that the science is not settled and that NASA's advocacy for CO2 as the primary driver of climate change is inappropriate.
serendipity
Verified User
Holy fuck you're so predictable, next comes the usual diatribes about the Koch brothers et al. I have no.intention to discuss anything with you as you're one of the obstreperous people I've ever encountered
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Physics violation. Thermal energy cannot be trapped or captured or contained or imprisoned or sequestered. Only matter can have thermal energy, and thus only matter can have temperature. All bodies of matter convert thermal energy to thermal radiation which radiates away per Stefan-Boltzmann, the rate being determined entirely by Temperature and being proportional to the absolute temperature to the fourth power. This cannot be altered, i.e. nothing can prevent the free-flow of thermal radiation per Stefan-Boltzmann, much less "trap" or "contain" thermal energy.
Atmospheric CO2 doesn't make any difference. Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't have any "atmospheric composition" parameter.
When a molecule vibrates more intensely, it registers to vote, not as a Republican or a Democrat, but as an independent increase in temperature?
The atmosphere has no ability to "capture" energy. Stefan-Boltzmann determines the emission, i.e. absolute temperature to the 4th power.
This is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. A temperature increase is necessarily an increse in thermal energy, but energy cannot be created out of nothing. Read my signature.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Holy fuck you're so predictable, next you will use whatever lame excuse you can conjer to escape the debate you are losing horrifically.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
There is no presumption that they are somehow scientists. You have to prove that they are scientists. Otherwise, your assertion is summarily rejected. NASA hires bureaucrats who manage contracts. Scientists work for Defense contractors.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Of course you don't; you would get raked over the coals in short order. Your religion is stupid and it's WACKY physics violations are obviously not supported by physics. You are yourself scientifically illiterate and have no option but to believe what your thought-masters order you to believe.
If you were to debate any part of your religious faith, you would quickly find yourself totally unprepared.
So you go with whatever Trump orders you to believe? Too funny! Do you OBEY HUD as well?
serendipity
Verified User
Holy fuck I've published the list many times in the past, but then you're not very bright or indeed clued up.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.
H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
Select excerpts from the letter:
“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
The full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
Advertisement
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
Advertisement
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
serendipity
Verified User
You do know what the Heartland Institute is correct? And who funds them?
And it is always humorous how the Flat Earthers upend some obscure individual, I’ve seen everything from weatherman to contrarians, and yes, Linnea Lueken is obscure, and then echo their “findings” as game changers in the Climate change debate. It is all a weak attempt to establish a false paradigm, as if the other overwhelming majority of scientists are lying and conspiratorially hiding data
And no, I don’t want to waste my time debating particulars I’d have to research to argue, I’ll just go with NASA, if they can do what they do and have done over the last sixty years I’ll go with their opinion over “Linnea Lueken’s”
Climate Change - NASA Science
NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.Evidence - NASA Science
Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end ofEffects - NASA Science
Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are alreadyCauses - NASA Science
Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that resultsScientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activitiesExtreme Weather - NASA Science
As Earth’s climate changes, it is impacting extreme weather across the planet. Record-breaking heat waves on land and in the ocean, drenching rains, severeCarbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.
Seriously go fuck yourself you were only here on sufferance, bye!!
Predictable, they just can’t stand anything that challenges what they want to believe
But I did, as I said, I’ll go with NASA’s argument, which I amply provided, and certainly negates Linnea Lueken’s presentation
The rest of your post is the usual AM radio rhetoric
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You are scientifically illiterate. You have no business commenting on this topic. You should learn how to learn.
Until you provide your unambiguous, formal definition of Climate Change that does not violate physics, math or logic, no rational adult should waste any time entertaining your religious crap.
Don't worry when you discover that you cannot; no human ever has. Religions never amount to science; religions don't ever unambiguously define their terms.
Who gives a shit what government bureaucrats have to say about their religion? How about you write "The group, which includes seven electricians and two former HUD directors ...".
Please notice that your blathering is completely devoid of any science and only echoes what your religious clergy has to say. You are a naive, scientifically illiterate member of your church and you fell for the scam.
This announces your stupidity and your gullibility.
1. There is no Climate Change in the first place. Your religion is stupid.
2. There is no "The Data" on Climate Change
3. Only stupid people equate data with science (data is not science)
Only gullible, stupid people believe that there are Climate Change "models" or that Bigfoot actually exists. There are just as many models of Climate Change as there are of Christianity.
Who is claiming that nonexistent models are "incorrect"? Better question, who isn't calling booooolsch't ? Would that be you? Yes, I think it would be.
NASA doesn't employ scientists. NASA employs bureaucrats who manage contracts. Look who never calls booooolsch't.
Your religion is stupid. Your clergy is stupid. Ditch your stupid religion.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You fall into that category as well. Your Global Warming religion is stupid.
Well according to NASA, and the majority of other’s whose focus is understanding climate, anything but a religion, even the US Military understands the reality (https://www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/dod-2024-cap.pdf)
You have to change the dial every now and then
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I'm listening to what you have to say about HUD. Talk to me about HUD.
... and the majority of other's who worship the Climate religion ...
This world is full of stupid people, to include scientifically illiterate morons who do not even know what science is, who cannot even recognize a religion that they themselves are worshiping, and who have been instructed to believe by their clergy that their religion is thettled thienth.
You are one of those amazingly stupid people. Notice that once again you resorted to pointing to people, i.e. members of your congregation, and steered completely clear of discussing any science so that you don't get instantly picked apart and ridiculed.
You don't speak for the US military. There is no such thing as a global climate for anyone to "understand." Your religion is stupid and egregiously violates physics. You are an undereducated leftist moron.