Slashdot Mirror

Agreed! Also, volcanoes on Charon that erupt with water-based lavas! https://www.nasa.gov/feature/pluto-s-big-moon-charon-reveals-a-colorful-and-violent-history/

An impossible task since there wasn't any one paper that convinced me AGW is real. It's a subject I've been following since the late 1980s. At first I was skeptical but over time the pieces started fitting together into a coherent whole so overwhelming evidence works for me.

You might try Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" for starters. I also recommend the papers cited in the IPCC WG1 report (look for the "All Citations" link). If you're worried about computer models you can download the GISS ModelE code and tell me how it's "cooked". There is code for other models available as well.

>> the real misinformation would be continuing to spread the lie that CO2 will have a significant impact on temperature increase,

Is this some attempt at humour that I'm just not getting, or do you _actually_ believe that CO2 is having no significant impact?

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes...
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...

The source
NASA Releases New WISE Mission Catalog of Entire Infrared Sky
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...
WISE Home Page
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/wise/n...

The source
NASA Releases New WISE Mission Catalog of Entire Infrared Sky
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...
WISE Home Page
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/wise/n...

This is illogical and not a worthwhile use of resources. While asteroid impacts clearly have occurred in the past, they are extremely rare on the timescale of human civilization. The prior probability of such an event occurring in the next 100 or 200 years is very low. Not only can we base this on prior probabilities but observational evidence. Lots of near objects are tracked and their orbits are extrapolated. Due to measurement uncertainty, the lack of data on recently discovered objects, and variability in the orbits of objects, these predictions become less accurate as the extrapolation moves farther into the future. Nonetheless, we have enough data to effectively rule out an impact from any known near Earth objects in the next century or two. The link I presented shows as much since all of the objects are rated zero on the Torino scale and the likelihood of an impact from any of those objects is extremely low.

While it's worth scanning for more near Earth objects, there is little value in preparing for danger presented by any of them. It's likely that, by the time there would be a threat from any such object, technology will have advanced to the point that our current plans would be worthless. However, we do face severe threats from our own activities and the resulting climate change, extinctions, and resource scarcity. Both the severity and urgency of these threats are much greater than those posed by an impact. It would be illogical to devote any resources to diverting near Earth objects beyond simply looking for them.

1951-1980 is just the period that NASA uses for their baseline. The reason it it 30 years long is that is the classical climatological period as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. It is not cherry picking. You could use any 30 year period for your baseline and it would be just as meaningful. All a different baseline would do is shift the graph up or down without changing the shape of the curve at all.

The data used for this particular story is here.

Oh FFS! Two clicks (the link in the story then the link to the first hyperlink on that page) take you to this page that is the source data you were too damn lazy to seek out. It would take more work and probably reading several scientific papers to understand the methodology used to produce it but it's out there if you're not too lazy to look it up on your own. You can't get everything delivered to you on a silver platter (unless you're wealthy enough to pay someone to do it for you). Sometimes you have to work for it.

nice argument, but it then puts the 29/30 year baseline into the same category!!.

So, use the whole data set. Temperature is rising, and the rise is higher than the error bars.

Data is here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...

What it says is "the record for the hottest month in recorded history has been shattered" and then later "warmer than the global average of 1951-1980." And if you check the linked charts as mentioned before (this one being the most data intensive) you can see that the data goes back to 1880.

Reading comprehension is good. So is logic. If you apply both you can see that if the reference period of 1951-1980 is (on average) warmer than the years before 1951 (which is the case, -0.001 avg vs -0.235 avg) and 2016 is warmer than the reference period of 1951-1980 (+1.13 vs -0.001 avg,) then by the simple application of the transitive property you can determine that 2016 is warmer than the years before 1951.

This post really ought to be marked as redundant since i'm just details of the facts that i already pointed out in the first post, but unfortunately you still appear not to get it. Which means either you're a troll or... well, i don't want to get this marked as flamebait instead.

So what is 18 years of global temperature? I've been told its also weather since 18 years is far too short of a time to count for climate. But now 1 month counts as climate?

lols

Now, that's very peculiar. Why did you pick eighteen exactly, no more and no less? Why not, say, twenty? Why eighteen?

We should always be suspicious when some very unusual number like that gets thrown up as baseline to compare against. Some blog somewhere told you to say eighteen years. Why?

Here's the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...

OK, now we can see. Yes, eighteen years ago-- 1998-- was indeed a high point-- more than one standard deviation above the trend line. (Note that anthropogenic warming isn't instead of random variation-- it is in addition to random variation.) But, if you pick 1998 exactly as the starting point-- no more, no less-- up until 2013 you could kind of squint, and say "look, no warming since 1998". Pick the year before 1998 to start the graph, and the warming trend is clear. Pick the year after 1998 to start the graph, and the warming trend is clear. But if you picked 1998 exactly, no more, no less, up until 2013 you could draw the graph and make it almost look flat.

Except, that was then. As of now, even with the high point at 1998... the overall warming trend is very obviously clear.

Look, I'm not arguing that NASA shouldn't be given more money but it's a hard sell when the only reason appears to be "I want it to be bigger".

Be gentle, action often begins with people sensing that something is wrong. When you're grasping in the air you think, maybe things could start happening if they just had more. But how much more? NASA is GO for what?

How about GO for a Hypervelocity Asteroid Intercept Vehicle (HAIV): An Innovative Solution to NASA's NEO Impact Threat Mitigation Grand Challenge and Flight Validation Mission Architecture Development?

Everything about self-sustaining colonies is (regrettably) some years away.
Exploration is nice, but it is also an unaffordable luxury *IF* there is an unaddressed existential threat.
Statisticians who attempt to marginalize existential threats by fronting casino odds should be ignored (or worse).
Every time someone suggests we have found almost all potentially hazardous objects, ask about the others.
Dinosaurs Are Proof We Need A Space Program. S,M,L,X,2X
We are now 50 years into the space age, 40 years since impactor dinosaur extinction reached consensus.
There is on this day no viable mission to address this threat, and little interest.
Is this evolution in action?
It's about buying more time for the human race, and Gaia as we know her today.
PRIORITY ONE: HAIVs on the ground or in orbit, ready to deploy on short notice.
PRIORITY TWO: Missions to complete our sky survey, especially 'dark' objects.
PRIORITY THREE: Everything else, since we (may have) bought some more time.

I recently started a thread about this.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Here is the data from four groups on three different continents: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... temperatures have not been "remarkably steady for the past 19 years or so" - they have been rising.

Notice from your graph that temperatures are about the same as they were 19 years ago? That's what people call "the Pause".

what, in the graph I linked? That's very clearly a single high data point in 1998. Tell me true, do you really look at that graph and think it's not rising? Or are you just pretending to think that?

the Pause wasn't predicted by any of them (but it's within the error bars, just as it's within the error bars of the null hypothesis).

Huh? It's not even close to the error bars of the null hypothesis-- the null hypothesis would be that the temperature rise is a statistical fluke, and it will drop back down to the baseline. The error bars are 0.1C, and it needs to drop by 0.6C to make the null hypothesis plausible.

Data from before the models were created means nothing when it comes to verifying the models.

Data from before the models were created is unnecessary to comparing the model to the actual results.

Mars is of course getting a lot of attention lately, so the Mars section on NASA.gov is pretty good. Most of it in the Mars is pretty straight, without arguing about global warming, adding adjustments to make the data fit the model or whatever.

I'm sure you can find your way around mars.jpl.nasa.gov, but here's one page to start with. Many people are rightfully concerned about measuring the polar ice caps on earth. When reductions were measured in the north* that was considered major evidence of global warming. Here NASA talks about the same thing happening at a much faster rate on Mars. NASA measured the reduction at 3 meters per Mars year.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...

Note again I'm not saying this effect accounts for ALL or even MOST of the warming on earth. It seems to account for between 15%-60% of it, probably close to 30%. The majority is very likely carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, with deforestation being a problem we should keep in mind.

* Some say we should ignore the 30% INCREASE in polar ice on the south pole. Polar ice only matters when it fits your campaign pitch, perhaps.

Except that "verifying models" step. None of the climate models are making better predictions than the null hypothesis,

About all I can say to that is "sorry, but you are wrong.".

or for that matter than the "lgw blindly asserting it's getting colder" model. Global temperatures have been remarkably steady for the past 19 years or so,

Sorry, but you are wrong. Here is the data from four groups on three different continents: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... temperatures have not been "remarkably steady for the past 19 years or so" - they have been rising. and while that's within the error bars for most of these models, it's better predicted by the null hypothesis, and within the error bars if you take any of these models and put a "-" in front on their predicted temperature change. So, yeah, the negative of the models predicts as well as the models right now.

Not an argument that they're all wrong, but an argument that there's no reason to think any particular one is right, either. The "science" part is ongoing, but hasn't verified any of the models.

Here's some information from NASA. (Nasa.gov link below.) Many people are rightfully concerned about measuring the polar ice caps on earth. When reductions were measured in the north* that was considered major evidence of global warming. Here NASA talks about the same thing happening at a much faster rate on Mars. NASA measured the reduction at 3 meters per Mars year.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...

Again, because I think peoples passions make it hard for them to actually pay attention to what they read: this solar-system-wide phenomenon seems to account for perhaps 30% of the warming on earth, not all of it. You can still feel good about recycling paper bags.

* on the other hand, 30% MORE ice at the south pole means nothing at all, some say. Pay attention only to the one that supports your team's politics. ;)

The article seems to discuss a number of different ideas for a Lunar South Pole telescope with different purposes and limitations.

The liquid mirror idea seems to come from http://science.nasa.gov/scienc.... They talk about a non-metallic liquid with a very thin layer of silver leaf (actually solid, but so thin and flexible that it follows the curve of the liquid) as the mirror.

Since it's at the pole and pointing straight up, tracking isn't really a concern. You can rotate the camera once per month, either phyically or electronically to keep the image steady. It can only basically do one job, which is to take ultra-deep field photographs of areas of the sky close to the pole and spectra of objects in that field, but that would be enough to do a lot of interesting science.

NASA has been researching electric aircraft for quite a while. They do have some advantages, although they're not ready to commercialize yet.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ar...

  http://www.nasa.gov/aero/testi...

  http://aero.larc.nasa.gov/file...

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...

NASA has been researching electric aircraft for quite a while. They do have some advantages, although they're not ready to commercialize yet.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ar...

  http://www.nasa.gov/aero/testi...

  http://aero.larc.nasa.gov/file...

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...

NASA has been researching electric aircraft for quite a while. They do have some advantages, although they're not ready to commercialize yet.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ar...

  http://www.nasa.gov/aero/testi...

  http://aero.larc.nasa.gov/file...

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...

NASA has been researching electric aircraft for quite a while. They do have some advantages, although they're not ready to commercialize yet.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ar...

  http://www.nasa.gov/aero/testi...

  http://aero.larc.nasa.gov/file...

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...

NASA has been researching electric aircraft for quite a while. They do have some advantages, although they're not ready to commercialize yet.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ar...

  http://www.nasa.gov/aero/testi...

  http://aero.larc.nasa.gov/file...

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...

No, weight matters in flight.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k...

Actually, NASA used the term "float" to describe it because the water ice is less dense than the ice dominated by nitrogen. So, yes, the icebergs are floating.

Why can't we link to the original NASA article?

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/pluto-s-mysterious-floating-hills

and a REALLY BIG dust problem.

Is that much of a problem? Doesn't it just stay on the ground?

No, it doesn't..

Republicans rule all three branches of our government so that doesn't matter.

So, and? Looks like people who can vote need to learn a lesson, just a question how long it takes and what gets destroyed in the meantime.

Can't milk a hungry cow and the Elysium implementations possible now still are on this planets surface. Not the first time a population gets decimated by some cause - climate change (ice age 70 k years ago), overuse in connection with lack of knowledge etc. Maya sure may not had the knowledge which is available now:

http://science.nasa.gov/scienc...

"We modeled the worst and best case scenarios: 100 percent deforestation in the Maya area and no deforestation," says Sever. "The results were eye opening. Loss of all the trees caused a 3-5 degree rise in temperature and a 20-30 percent decrease in rainfall."

One would think something has changed by then....

Our probes have established that blowing sand is basically a non-issue on Mars.

Martian dust? You mean the stuff that is believed to have killed Mars 3 through coronal discharge? That may have led to Pathfinder's battery failure? That did this to Curiosity's coin?

Nasa says:

Mars’ dust storms aren’t totally innocuous, however. Individual dust particles on Mars are very small and slightly electrostatic, so they stick to the surfaces they contact like Styrofoam packing peanuts.

“If you’ve seen pictures of Curiosity after driving, it’s just filthy,” Smith said. “The dust coats everything and it’s gritty; it gets into mechanical things that move, like gears.”

The possibility of dust settling on and in machinery is a challenge for engineers designing equipment for Mars.

This dust is an especially big problem for solar panels. Even dust devils of only a few feet across -- which are much smaller than traditional storms -- can move enough dust to cover the equipment and decrease the amount of sunlight hitting the panels. Less sunlight means less energy created.

In “The Martian,” Watney spends part of every day sweeping dust off his solar panels to ensure maximum efficiency, which could represent a real challenge faced by future astronauts on Mars. ...

“We really worry about power with the rovers; it’s a big deal,” Smith said. “The Spirit and Opportunity rovers landed in 2004, so they’ve only had one global dust storm to go through (in 2007) and they basically shut down operations and went into survival mode for a few weeks.

And the thing is, Rovers are a far kinder target than anything that humans will be working with. There are such big gaps between every little deliberate movement that they undertake, it's a very light workload.

There's no dust on Venus. There is some variation in clouds, but sunlight is constantly abundant. You even get almost as much power on the undersides of your panels as the topsides, due to reflection.

It seems somewhat unlikely considering that the atmosphere is 150ppm sulfur dioxide and only 20ppm water vapor

That's because the vast majority of the gas is present in the form of SO2 and to a lesser extent SO3 and H2S, not H2SO4. H2SO4 is only stable within a relatively narrow temperature range; it is not stable anywhere near Venus's surface (vaporizing at about 40km) far above where the vast majority of Venus's atmosphere's mass is. That said, the concentration is higher than I remember it. But:

it will almost certainly break down whenever a droplet collides with a solid object.

From the link above: "Below about 57 km, the vapor pressure of sulfuric acid and water over the cloud particles is relatively high, and therefore sulfuric acid clouds can evaporate in a relatively short period of time." So you're not going to end up with the surface sitting around with a layer of wet acid on it. And the mass loading is just so low, like 8 milligrams per cubic meter of air. That's just not much acid, that's like the concentration you find in volcanic fogs on Earth (like the one I was breathing a year ago :P). It's nothing like dunking an object in a vat of sulfuric acid. And again, most plastics are immune or at least highly resistant to sulfuric acid damage.

The biggest killer of plastics in general is UV radiation. On Mars, there's no protection from it. On Venus, there is.

My understanding is that the Vega probe died while it's battery should have still had an operational

Great. We will use the UAH version 5.6 since you do not trust the surface station record. (6.x is currently in beta and changing too often to make any predictions with). The data can be found here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/pu... - see the "Globe" column. In the event that UAH5.6 is no longer available we will need to defer to the RSS satellite reconstruction. The data for rss can be found here: http://woodfortrees.org/data/r...

What's all this? Either it is or it's not. If it is, I'm sure it'll be all over the news. This isn't that hard. Let's not make it hard. Heard me laugh? Well you'd be right. I think this is the first time someone has used something from Alabama to prove their point. While I don't want to belittle them or anything, they aren't exactly known for being at the forefront. Woodfortrees.org? Now if I used a site like these I'd have a feeling it would be a conspiracy site or something.

I think I have an advantage in that you appear to get your science reporting from conspiracy websites. I could be wrong, but based on previous comments I believe it to be the case.

Ok, apparently I flew right over you like a 747 at altitude. Maybe Jim's article will enlighten you - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... ? Here he admits the 1930s was warmer. While I'm sure if you read it you'll be like - eh? What's the big deal, this really was a big deal. Note that he was also wrong in his prediction about the 2000s.

Conspiracy web sites? That just doesn't even make sense why you would say that. This is to be expected in my case, I've been doing science, numbers and such for over 30 years. I have a feeling you're new to this. Look back, say over the past couple of hundred thousand years. Look back over the past 10,000 years. You'll understand why Man isn't responsible if you do. You'll understand how they're lying to you. Understand this isn't a 5 or 10 minute thing. You'll be looking at this stuff for a while.

Maybe you meant something like this, with those crazy Astronaughts and scientists?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...

I know, I know, pay no attention to them (there is no man behind the curtain), right?

Time will tell :)

Heh, certainly will. However understand that even if there is an increase, a year doesn't prove the point. Right now they're trying to explain away the previous 15 years. Often by questionable means, such as the sea is much warmer - gee, where have we heard that before? Ever deal with liars and confidence men? I've run across men that can make people so confident that they can convince everyone that they're an attractive woman. Men that can lie with such a straight face and no feeling that they can say anything. They'll think nothing about cleaning out your bank account if you you give them a chance.

Never the less, I think I should reiterate that I think things are warming up. It's not due to man and that's clear. Clear to me at least.

Well, there may be no NASA employees at exactly the south pole, there are certainly NASA
employees and contractors in Antarctica flying balloons...
http://www.csbf.nasa.gov/antar...

How can "the belief that climate change is a fraud" a conspiracy theory when climate change has yet to be proven? Climate change can be proven to be false just by going threw all the research, we already know there are many things that are wrong and edited data to make it look real

*Citation needed*

I'll admit that I haven't gone through ALL the research, but the research I have seen is pretty compelling that climate change exists. NASA has some good and well cited evidence in support of it here but if you're one of those people who refuse to change your mind even in the face of overwhelming evidence, I doubt there's much I can do to change your mind on the subject.

OK - so how about http://www.genchem.net/thermo/... or http://www.physlink.com/Educat... or https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k...

None of them are talking only about heat engines - they carefully point out that historically, thermodynamics was all about steam engines. But nowadays, it's realized that the laws are far more universal than that.

Not one of them talks about "the triple of volume, pressure and temperature" - that stuff is a tiny, tiny subset of what modern thermodynamics covers. You're still back in the Victorian era of steam engines.

Anyway - I'm done arguing with you. I guess that 99% of other people here agree with me.

No one ever cherry picked 1998. The comments I have always seen use 1997 as the start of the pause, with the El Nino year of 1998 the anomaly that it was.

Ha ha ha ha! Oh lord, tell me another one. 1998 was used all the time until enough people understood that it was an exceptionally warm year and that anyone using it as the start for trend was obvious lying. So instead, the fraudsters of the denial clique moved to using 1997 which was also unusually warm because the El Nino actually peaks in 1997.

So are you saying that the claim by the AC about people cherry picking 1998 today is false because no one cherry picks 1998 anymore?

Again, I always saw people start at 1997. Maybe I missed ones on sites you posted one. If so, I stand corrected. People who were quickly shown to be obviously lying said "1998!!!!!!", and everyone else with a valid argument used 1997.

Such as this graph I just pulled from some random site.

Ha. You just happened to pull a graph from a random site, and it just happens to be a guest blogger for What's Up with That? Maybe not so random after all?

I googled for "temperature graph 1997", clicked the link for images, and it was the first graph on the results page. It had the range I was looking for, and a couple notes on it, so I used it. Whatever conspiracy theory you want to make of that is fine by me.

Also that graph is hilarious. There's no global warming because April 2013 is no warming than June 1997. What's next will you declare that because January 2016 is colder than August 1997 that global warming doesn't exist?

I am not the one that made the graph.I agree it is a stupid comparison, but you will have to ask the site why they chose to use temps from different months for that point. I used the graph because it started in 1997, not in 1998 as the AC claimed was the cherry picked starting point for all anti-agw arguments.

You don't even mention that the graph does show a warming trend. Why ignore that nugget? You must have some diabolical reason for ignoring it.

No one ever said we are not warming because "1998!!!!!!!".

On the contrary, it was literally the most popular argument against global warming for years. In recent years it's fallen to 9th most popular argument according to Skeptical Science, because so many people can instantly recognize the argument as bullshit, but that's still pretty far from "nobody".

The article on that site is 8 years old. Notice the first comment at the bottom is from 2007. So, eight years ago one person was shown to use 1998 as the starting point.

Except, wait a second. The claim being disputed is specifically warming for the years 1998 to 2005. It seems there was some significance for those dates. Since 1998 was a strong El Nino year, I wonder if 2005 was another. Looking around the net, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., it seems almost every year from 2002 to 2010 was either going into or coming out of El Nino conditions. Let's look further.

Here's a link, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/ear..., that says those two years were tied for the warmest up until then. So, hey, a valid reason to compare temperate in 2005 with 1998. The conclusions of the comparison may be wrong, or the refutations of those conclusions may be faulty. But it turns out it isn't really a case of "1998!!!!!!!!!" after all.

Now, I am quite sure you can find references from The Usual Suspects which disagree with some of these points, but I can dig up references too. And that would just make it pretty much a matter of he-said, she-said, and won't get us anywhere, so I won't likely bother to respond if you do. I've seen them all.

Does Carl Mears, VP of RSS count as one of the "usual suspects"?

A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).

-- Carl Mears

Not many years ago (just before the AGW hysteria began, in fact), the satellites were widely hailed as "the best instruments we have".

Yes: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

Just how accurate are space-based measurements of the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere? In a recent edition of Nature, scientists Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA/Marshall describe in detail just how reliable these measurements are.

This was just before it was found that Christy and Spencer had got the sign wrong in their manipulation of the data.

Brook trout are very tasty. I love catching and eating them.

If you're looking for climate model code one of the main climate models, the NASA/GISS ModelE code is freely available here.

NASA officially had a policy not to list female contributors to papers as co-authors?

This seems to be a blatant lie in the Gutenberg article. According to this NASA page http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/hist..., Ms. Johnson co-authored 26 articles, all of which can be found on this NASA site:http://ntrs.nasa.gov. However, you will only find one that lists her full name as an author. The others only list her as "K.G Johnson", which happens to be the standard author attribution that went for both MEN AND WOMEN. Her contributions weren't left off of the papers, she was listed just like the men were.

How did they even justify such an unscientific discriminatory policy?

Here's how:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...

It's called "white male privilege", and it takes a damn long time to change:

http://edyoucatives.com/wp-con...

The article was written by someone who has no connection to NASA and it does not say that NASA has made plans to return to the moon. Here's a list of NASA's future missions. "Moon" is not on the list.

So still no chance of reading the article before opening your mouth then AC?

Is Mars really red?

More importantly, is it really angry?

Neutrinos are actually considered to be one component of dark matter, since they oscillate and thus have mass. This is under a MDM or Mixed Dark Matter model, where these neutrinos moving near the speed of light are Hot Dark Matter and the theorized WIMPs are the Cold Dark Matter.

My apologies, this ended up being way longer than I anticipated it would be. However I think it's all important.

First let me start of by saying - yes, things are getting warmer. They've been getting warmer for over thousands of years with some brief cold spells. Check out sea water rise here - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... . So this is far and beyond man if you look at the scale in years. Another sign they're wrong - put people in jail - http://www.newsweek.com/should... . Some might call this typical leftist fascism. I was a bit surprised, I googled - "global warming skeptics in jail". No free speech, other than what they want. Where have we heard that before?

Bullshit. There is a mountain of proof - even though because you can't even begin to understand it you are suspicious.

Mountain of proof. So you should have no trouble showing me this mountain. Science isn't hard. There's the scientific method. I have no doubt you're familiar with it, I'll include it here for other people just as my comment before about moding me down was to other people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
Here are recent co2 levels - http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...
Here we have them trying to explain a decade of problems - https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
Then we have the hottest decade in the 20th century - the 1930s. This was embarrassing to Mr. Hansen (Mr. MMGW himself) as he had to admit he lied, of course he blamed it on a y2k error (it was a mistake, not a lie!) - when he claimed the 1990s where the hottest decade of the 20th century. I called full BULSHIT on that. I don't understand how a y2k bug could change his data and I'm a guy that used to fix those problems.

Don't say I don't understand it, it's likely you don't understand it. The above concerns break the scientific method, therefore it's almost certain it's not CO2 causing it. Not with a big rise in CO2 and when temperatures stop rising. Remember Algore's prediction that we'd be roasting in Washington DC in 2015 with desert like temperatures? Yea, not so much. Same old hot summers we've always had. Remember his predictions about more and stronger hurricanes after Katrina? Yea, not so much either. I bet he would be howling if Hog Island happened today - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Remember "Super Storm Sandy", yea, what crap. It was just a run of the mill hurricane. Nothing super about sandy.

As for the scientists - good luck conducting a study that disproves MMGW. Right now you're about as likely to get a grant proving that as say (not that I believe this, to illustrate the point - ) white people are superior to black people. That is, forget about it and don't come back. Only people that look at the data and say - hey, wait a minute. The bitch is, I may convince you and I've convinced hundreds over the years. They are making true believers every day in schools.

We do, for example, know that CO2 is a gas which does cause heat to be trapped in our atmosphere. As far as I know, aside from you and a small group of moronic skeptics, no one is saying otherwise.

A lot of people conclude when you resort to name calling, you've lost the argument. Otherwise, you'd state your case instead of calling someone names. Just so you know. Did you know there are definitions of what a moron, idiot, imbecile are? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

It's not a small group, otherwise Kyoto, Paris, etc would have proceeded a whole lo

Here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist... Add a constant to each year if you fear anomalies.

Carbon-Carbon was used on the leading edges of the wings and the nose cone, the TILES were made of high purity silica. And while during normal operations they didn't actually have to survive being plunged into water it was apparently done to demonstrate their resilience.

Extract from http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/
"For example, an HRSI tile taken from a 2,300 F oven can be immersed in cold water without damage. Surface heat dissipates so quickly that an uncoated tile can be held by its edges with an ungloved hand seconds after removal from the oven while its interior still glows red."

Does Forbes pay for clicks? The ISS HD Earth-pointed, real-time, HD camera system: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/HDEV/

The model has worked poorly in what regard? SpaceX is actively delivering cargo to ISS for about 40% the per launch cost of ULA (without reuse) and has meet certification to deliver crew. A whole Dragon launch is going to cost NASA about as much as a single seat on Soyuz, and the whole COTS program, yielding two launch vehicles and two automated transfer vehicles cost about the same as a single Shuttle flight. The NASA final report on the program basically goes through every combination of phrases meaning "unqualified success" in the English language in describing the results of the program.

...another half-degree is already in the pipeline, 'hidden away in the oceans,' as Schellnhuber put it.

To the contrary.

At least he cited a source. Do you have a link to nasa.gov which explains the difference?

Sure. Not hard to find. Took me about 30 seconds with Google.

Now how about you supply some evidence of your own for the massive ad hominem conspiracy theory you regurgitated into the thread? Things like documents from the world wide alarmist conspiracy? Protip: if you don't see my name in the transcript, it's fake.

The Sun has a magnetic field, and we are orbiting inside of it.

Citation provided. Huh, seems obvious in hindsight but I guess I never thought about it very much. More info (update to that link: solar maximum was 2014).

The Sun has a magnetic field, and we are orbiting inside of it.

Citation provided. Huh, seems obvious in hindsight but I guess I never thought about it very much. More info (update to that link: solar maximum was 2014).

http://mars.nasa.gov/images/13... That's not a "ramp up"???

Such timelines have been around for 30 years - we are no closer to meeting the timelines than we were 30 years ago.