tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post3548684429415226246..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: The Ozone Hole -- 25 yearseduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-87528450781713197262010-05-11T10:44:24.743+02:002010-05-11T10:44:24.743+02:00@Tobias
Obama wants to INCREASE the NASA budget.....@Tobias<br /><br />Obama wants to INCREASE the NASA budget... the focus switches to science, which includes many science directions, incl. exploration of the Mars. <br /><br />I do not know, having a manned space flight to Mars is great, sexy. In the 60s Kennedy and the Apollo program inspired many people. it still causes goose bumps ;). Is this the case today? Jr is not JFK, and the halfhearted, underfunded Constellation program is, was, not Apollo. Of course, there are also other opinions.<br /><br />My point actually was: is Farmans "feeling" right: too much money for modeling causing too few observations. Or: are there other constraints, too? Maybe. Can you even divide observation and modeling?ghostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17706665393962496352010-05-10T16:25:05.032+02:002010-05-10T16:25:05.032+02:00ghost:
The budget was also at it's highest du...ghost:<br /><br />The budget was also at it's highest during 2004, the year when Pres. Bush was re-elected. Then it slumped from 2005 until today. Do you perhaps think this might have something to do with the fact that they've had a worsening economic situation during this period, or is it that Mr. Bushy was all evily...?<br /><br />And if you look att NASAs budget could you perhaps run up the numbers for their space program? I think, but I don't know, that Obama has actually decreased the entire budget for NASA and taken money from their space program to go to this "new" climate change program. In other words; screw our actual mission, Space, the Obamanites want's us to go hunting CO2 instead of aliens!Tobiasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-15889625643646531252010-05-08T22:11:37.295+02:002010-05-08T22:11:37.295+02:00some PS:
this table shows the cuts quite clearly:...some PS:<br /><br />this table shows the cuts quite clearly:<br /><br />NASA Budget History for Earth Observations<br /><br />________________________________________________________________<br /><br />Fiscal Year…...... Actual $ millions…... Constant 2008 $ millions<br /> <br />_______________________________________________________<br /> <br />FY 2001…................$919.0 ...................$1,102.3<br /><br />FY 2002…................$847.3 ..................$1,000.5<br /><br />FY 2003…................$903.1…................$1,042.6<br /><br />FY 2004…...............$1010.4…...............$1,136.2<br /><br />FY 2005…............... $722.1…..................$785.4<br /><br />FY 2006…................$492.9…..................$519.4<br /><br />FY 2007…................$673.6…..................$690.1<br /><br />FY 2008 est…..........$666.2…..................$666.2<br /><br />FY 2009 request…...$768.2<br /><br />http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/stimulus_bill_climate_science/<br /><br />hope the layout is okay.ghostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-2230821736789177752010-05-08T22:02:54.293+02:002010-05-08T22:02:54.293+02:00" Clearly, he wants to see more funding for o..." Clearly, he wants to see more funding for observations."<br /><br />Looking into the plans of the NASA, it is underway after the cuts under the Bush Jr administration (e.g. http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/nasa-budget-cutback/). How ironic, not the evil alarmist and modelling community is guilty, but deniers like Bush Jr.. The NASA tries to increase the earth observation budget massively now. Obama approved a lot of it in the last year. <br /><br />I think, the critic was right, but at least in the case of the NASA it addressed the wrong people.ghostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-284604682525394472010-05-08T17:07:57.902+02:002010-05-08T17:07:57.902+02:00I think Shanklin's conclusion is kind of lazy....I think Shanklin's conclusion is kind of lazy. Is really the 'average person' the problem, and the diffuse fears of 'the people'? I would suggest that instead greenhouse gases are the problem. While it was possible to take CFCs out of the economy, we cannot eliminate all greenhouse gases in ever more energy-intensive societies. Obviously, climate is a much more complex problem, and there are no easy solutions at hand. <br />Sure, Shanklin's sequence 'planet - humanity - precautionary principle - holistic approach' sounds nice. <br />But it means nothing. Instead, it only shows Shanklin's environmentalist arrogance and negativism. Sure, overpopulation. Amen. And now Lovejoy's apocalyptic fantasies. This is pretty reactionary, isn't it? Out of time, ahistorical, from a real Elfenbeinturm-perspective. In love with 'Weltuntergang'.<br /><br />Why does he not make any suggestions how to proceed after Copenhagen? This is exactly where we are. The failure of Copenhagen also wasn't a failure of 'the people', but one of wrong strategies and maybe wrong scientific advice. So the challenge is to find new ways how to deal with the problem. It's a challenge not only for 'the average person', but even more for the scientist and the politician - in short, for everyone. To lean back in the armchair and fantasize about 'the people' and 'holistic approaches' and 'overpopulation' is of no help. <br /><br />I think this generalizing attitude is a real problem in climate discourse, and this is true for alarmists and skeptics alike. As if Oswald Spengler were still alive...Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-81521064850972638012010-05-07T11:48:28.414+02:002010-05-07T11:48:28.414+02:00Joe Farman, co-author of the 1985 Nature paper by ...Joe Farman, co-author of the 1985 Nature paper by the BAS, was interviewed by the BBC. You can read it <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8664000/8664313.stm" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Two comments stand out:<br />1 His disdain for huge resources for computer modelling. Clearly, he wants to see more funding for observations. "There are so many variables that computers can't possibly forecast what will happen exactly with the Earth's climate," he says. <br />2 His crticism of the climate science establisment for brushing aside the skeptics. "Lord Oxburgh's review (which cleared researchers at the Climatic Research Unit of any wrong-doing) was not convincing" <br /><br />Roger Harrabin from the BBC concludes: "Dr Farman's comments may sound a warning to the scientific establishment, though. If the review teams cannot command the full support of maverick eco-heroes like the discoverer of the ozone hole, they may struggle to command broad public support. And that could be far more damaging to the future of climate science."@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.com