2014 Midterm Election Catch-All

Yonder wrote:

Another way to explain this that you may have more luck with is pointing out that human activities aren't super energy intensive, the biggest thing that governs Earth's heat is--obviously--the sun. HOWEVER the impact that the sun has on the Earth is in turn strongly regulated by something that we obviously can affect a lot, CO2 levels.

You have to be careful with this. Earth gets energy from it's own warmth as well as the sun, but variance in solar irradiance is only a small part of climate change forcings (influences). Human activities influence the climate by a factor of about 8x more than solar irradiance variations.

Even if the sun dropped to Maunder Minimum levels, we'd still have plenty of forcings driving up surface and atmospheric temperatures. So natural variation won't turn this ship around.

I'm sticking with my example: Go in your garage, close all the doors, and start your car. Now explain to me how human aren't responsible for impacting the climate through their actions. What's that? It's warmer and you're having trouble breathing?

Robear wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Another way to explain this that you may have more luck with is pointing out that human activities aren't super energy intensive, the biggest thing that governs Earth's heat is--obviously--the sun. HOWEVER the impact that the sun has on the Earth is in turn strongly regulated by something that we obviously can affect a lot, CO2 levels.

You have to be careful with this. Earth gets energy from it's own warmth as well as the sun, but variance in solar irradiance is only a small part of climate change forcings (influences). Human activities influence the climate by a factor of about 8x more than solar irradiance variations.

Even if the sun dropped to Maunder Minimum levels, we'd still have plenty of forcings driving up surface and atmospheric temperatures. So natural variation won't turn this ship around.

Right, I'm not talking about natural solar variations, I'm talking about the pure, 100% solar energy we get every day. Doubling the CO2 content (which we have almost done) does a huge amount to affect how hot things get.

The fact that the sun wobbles in it's output by about 0.2% is an entirely separate issue.

In that context, though, the sun's output (and to a much lesser extent, the Earth's) are fixed backgrounds with little variation. It's the greenhouse gasses which dominate the range of temperatures we see. I guess that's another way of putting it, but bringing up the sun brings out the "it's all down to solar irradiance" crowd...

Robear wrote:

In that context, though, the sun's output (and to a much lesser extent, the Earth's) are fixed backgrounds with little variation. It's the greenhouse gasses which dominate the range of temperatures we see. I guess that's another way of putting it, but bringing up the sun brings out the "it's all down to solar irradiance" crowd...

The sun's fixed output is the point though. The fixed output, not the variation, but the enormous ongoing barrage of fusion explosions, are the biggest thing that affects Earth. So the fact that we have a hand on the lever of how much those big fusion explosions impact our climate is why we're having such an big effect.

billt721 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
billt721 wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

The same people that put Ted Cruz in charge of NASA.

That one is at least interesting given that he represents Texas and politicians are almost always complete hypocrites when it comes to taking money for their state even if that money is going to something they would normally refer to as a waste of money.

You're forgetting that NASA spends about 10% of its budget on earth sciences. Most of that goes to launching and maintaining a network of satellites that monitor everything from pollution levels to the size of the polar ice caps. Cruz doesn't believe that climate change is real so all those missions are in jeopardy.

I guess we'll see. I mean, sure, I'd rather he never be put in that position to begin with, but it's not automatically the end of NASA funding (or even the end of that 10% of their funding). We have plenty of examples of politicians saying one thing and then doing another. I was at a major defense contractor when Obama was elected and there was plenty of planning and speculation about defense cuts resulting in program disbandment and mass layoffs, none of which happened.

I guess we've seen it...

Ted Cruz Tells NASA to Stop Worrying About Climate Change and Focus on Space[/url]]"I'd like to start by asking a general question," said Cruz on Thursday during a subcommittee hearing on the president's $18.5 billion budget request for NASA for fiscal 2016, which allocates considerable funding for Earth- and ocean-science projects. "In your judgment, what is the core mission of NASA?"

Bolden said he'd been contemplating that mission over the past few days, and had read over the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created the agency. "Our core mission from the very beginning has been to investigate, explore space and the Earth environment, and to help us make this place a better place," he said, adding that the study of aeronautics is important as well.

Cruz didn't seem pleased with the "Earth environment" part of Bolden's answer. "Almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space," he said. "That's what inspires little boys and little girls across this country ... and you know that I am concerned that NASA in the current environment has lost its full focus on that core mission."

Cruz then pointed to a chart behind him titled "Focus Inward or Focus Outward? Refocusing NASA's Core Priorities" that compared NASA's budget in 2009 with the current request. He said that since 2009, funding for Earth sciences has seen a 41 percent increase, while funding for exploration and space operations, what Cruz "would consider the core function of NASA," has seen a 7.6 percent decrease.

"In my judgment, this does not represent a fair or appropriate allocation of resources, that it is shifting resources away from the core functions of NASA to other functions," Cruz said. "Do you share that assessment?"

Cruz didn't seem pleased with the "Earth environment" part of Bolden's answer. "Almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space," he said.

Yeah, and a lot of Americans think you're a smart cookie, Cruz. That doesn't make either statement from the American people true.

"Why are we spending so much money on space when we have so many problems here on Earth?"
"Why is NASA investigating problems on Earth when it's supposed to explore space?"

"NASA should be spending all of it's money developing a space lazer for shooting gay-married couples and abortionists."

Demosthenes wrote:
Cruz didn't seem pleased with the "Earth environment" part of Bolden's answer. "Almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space," he said.

Yeah, and a lot of Americans think you're a smart cookie, Cruz. That doesn't make either statement from the American people true.

A lot of Americans probably don't even know what NASA stands for. Maybe Cruz wants to take that first A out and then you've got... oh god his plan is clear. He wants to be able to spy on Americans--in space!

Jonman wrote:

"NASA should be spending all of it's money developing a space lazer for shooting gay-married couples and abortionists."

Why would we use space lasers when mounting them on sharks would be so much easier?

Jayhawker wrote:
Jonman wrote:

"NASA should be spending all of it's money developing a space lazer for shooting gay-married couples and abortionists."

Why would we use space lasers when mounting them on sharks would be so much easier?

Shark-mounted gay couples?

I like the way you think.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/WRE1JHx.jpg)