no. The astronaut is.

Try


Prof. Allen's calculations are correct in the attachment, given his suppositions. I have checked them myself.

http://my.fit.edu/~jbrenner/globalwarmin...

Your statement is true, Thoritsu, but I have done these calculations myself. It is a relatively easy calculation for anyone who has ever taken heat transfer.

Prof. Allen's calculations are correct in the attachment, given his suppositions. I have checked them myself. Right click on the link below.

http://my.fit.edu/~jbrenner/globalwarmin...

CFC's form free radicals, all of which react quite readily with ozone. It is not only an important part of atmospheric chemistry, but the starting point for most polymerizations. I have checked my premise on this one, Hiraghm.

I guess I'm struggling to find the relevance of an astronaut from the 50's & 60's that used to be a fighter pilot and has a college degree (if even science-based at that), from the 40's...

Until around the 1990's.. the most common educational background for a fighter pilot was art history... the GPA was competitive, but the content of the GPA didn't matter.

From a practical point of view the effects of climate change are pretty undeniable... what the causes are, etc., are the source of debate, but the effects are real and here. Tried drilling a well lately in the west? You used to go to about 40 feet and hit water, now with the extreme over-pumping of ground water because of growing population, the Central Valley of California has both "sank" about 6 feet below where it used to be, and you have drill several hundred feet to reach water. In northern Arizona, it can be a long way down there...

Each coal-fired power plant will consume 150 to 200 rail cars of coal PER DAY to operate at a standard-candle of 1000 MW. There isn't much residue, so we are throwing at least 150 rail cars per day into the atmosphere per power plant... there are thousands of power plants... does that have "zero" effect? Of course not. Does that do a major effect? I don't know. Neither does anyone here. Do we see gases and pollution building up in the atmosphere? Yes we do. We can measure that with certainty.

In the US with our Clean Water & Clean Air acts... you don't see it as much... go to China and take a look, it is incredible what unrestricted burning of coal has done to their environment. Just google some images of Beijing... not much of that is "fog"... fog isn't black or brown, and it doesn't linger well into the late afternoon / evening / night either...

A build-up of sea ice in Antarctica is expected with less salinity in the ocean. You can do this experiment yourself, and it's a handy trick for super-chilling a can of soda. Take 2 mixing bowls, put cold water in each, add about 2 tablespoons of regular old salt to one of them, put ice in both, and throw a can of soda in both. Check it in about 10 or 15 minutes. The one with salt will be much colder, below 32 degrees if the tap water is cold enough to start with. Salt water has a lower freezing point than freshwater. If you take the southern ocean, temperatures being the same, say 30-32 degrees of ocean temp, higher levels of salt in the water will prevent ice build-up. Lower the salinity to be more fresh water, and more surface ice will form. That is what we are seeing right now. Here's the trick with the soda can, when its fully chilled, take the can out of the salt-water bath, and you will see the outside of the can instantly turn frosty and be a much-colder refreshing drink than you can do otherwise. I do this all the time when I'm hosting parties, works great for bottles of beer.

In California, we used to have "droughts" and "fire seasons" when I was younger. Now, drought is just the new norm, the lakes and reservoirs are about 200 feet below the water levels they used to have - at Folsom Lake where I live, we walk down to the beach, then walk about a mile across the sand to get to where the water is now. "Fire season" is just year-round, we don't have part-time wildfire fighting anymore. I'm in favor of more logging to clean out the dead-stand, but you also introduce more fire risk with more people in the wild areas (cutting trees).

Oklahoma had over 200 earthquakes this year, and is probably caused by hydraulic fracturing of the bedrock to get at the oil remaining. We can probably expect to see this everywhere. Does it hurt anything, doubtful, but we are having an impact on our environment that we don't really understand, for sure.

Is there really anything wrong with exploring new sources of energy? I have a Chevy Volt EV because I wanted one, drives awesome, and is the second-highest customer satisfaction on record for a car (Tesla is #1.). Electric cars simply drive better, perform better, and don't have a tailpipe. The "battery argument" is non-sense, they are recyclable and getting much better each year. You don't "get there" all at once, you refine technology in evolutions, we have to start somewhere. I also have a solar system on the house, I financed it for zero down, and "locked in" my electric cost for the next 20 years at about half-monthly what I was paying to a utility company. There is a perceivable upside there. Can you accommodate base-load requirements of an industrialized society with renewables? no, not really, the physics and the math doesn't support it. Not enough density (or reliability) in wind, ocean tidal stuff is just weird and inefficient, and solar's only advantage is that it produces a lot of power for cheap when you need it the most - high noon on a hot day, but it does nothing at night and pretty unrealistic financially in the midwest or areas that tend to be stormy or cloudy. Hydro is great, but most of it is in the west, and we're running out of water...

Our only option is nuclear power for base-load generation, and we can power 5 cities the size of San Francisco with very little or no waste on about 6 ounces of fuel for a month.

Where you lack water and resources, conflict inevitably erupts. If we take our immigration problems with the Mexican border, add something like 50% less water in the region and another 40 million or so people, we're going to have real problems in the southwest...insurrection, etc.

I'm an advocate of "sustainability", but defining that as probably something like an "all of the above" strategy to start fixing the effects of global warming (which I really call the over-extraction of natural resources). Desperation drives conflict, and we're starting to see the beginnings of that around the globe.

You have hit on one of my greatest “social regrets”, for a world that could have been if not for the numerous costly, destructive, time wasting collectivist mumbo-jumbo setbacks.

The "Climate Disruption" plot is about to boil over.

It makes me wonder what wonderful inventions we are missing because of the great minds that are being wasted on junk science. If it were essential to there survival to find something useful to build, develop, sell and earn their daily bread with what wonderful things would exist or be understood that are not today?

Listen to the first part of the video and you will hear that they do.

Makes you wonder how much higher the official unemployment rate would be if these “scientists” and support staffs were all unemployed? Also how much more productivity would we gain from this?

The part of philosophy called epistemology can help us here. "How do we know what we think we know?"

The claims of the warmists rest on data that they provide. They point to hockey-stick-shaped charts, but they usually cannot give us the raw numbers from which the charts were made. Instead they provide, if anything, averages, or averages of averages, and those themselves are often adjusted in obscure ways. Even the historic temperature records get adjusted to eliminate "outlier" data points that don't advance the "cause".

See this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/no...

Look at this, and especially scroll down to the charts of temperatures for the state of Maine:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/th...

Looking at the actual process of measuring temperature we ought to think immediately of several questions: "When were these thermometers calibrated? By what standard and by what method? What method is used for recording the data? What is done with missing data points? What is done with data points that are later found to be from broken equipment? Does the data pass statistical tests for 'fabricated' data?"

The following article suggests that national economic decisions of grave consequence rely on temperature data that is good only to plus or minus 5 degrees Celsius:
http://pugshoes.blogspot.se/2010/10/metr...

I've known this since November 19, 2009. that's when someone sent me the link to the Climate-gate archive and I put it out on my particular outlet for all to see. Google News picked it up, and it went viral. 35,000 page views in 24 hours. After that, the second-guessing began.

Climate change, (nee global warming): the left's latest religion substitute.

it is unfortunate when a man of intelligence as the Col. is presents factual information it is not even considered by those who control the dollars in wash.dc because they are actually stupid and have no interest in removing them selves from the state of stupidity that they occupy. so all of his effort will not be heard since the stupid ones in wash.dc can't hear anything since their heads are stuck where the sun does not shine.