Another fun climate change thread

You said:

You never said that it had to be NASA research that was mentioned on the site, you said any mention. Everyone of the links I provided mentions the Arctic.

I don't know why you think NASA doesn't do climate research, just because they reference other researchers doesn't mean they don't do their own research. They have programs in:

• Aerosol Remote Sensing and Modeling
• Cloud Remote Sensing and Modeling
• Water Cycle and Precipitation
• Solar Radiation
• Surface Properties
• Climate Analysis
• Radiative Transfer
  Mesoscale Atmospheric Processes
  Atmospheric Chemistry & Dynamics

• Wallops GPM Precipitation Research Facility
• PMM Ground Validation
• Operation IceBridge
• GPM Ground Validation Data Archive

As to why I brought up photographs. I brought them up because you did. You asked for photographs of the Arctic region. Images were provided and then you pointed out that they looked different. You didn't take into account how the images were attained or processed.
I am telling you that in all likely hood you won't get current photographs of the Arctic region from space as film isn't used anymore to take those images. So what? You said that two images from approximately the same time period don't look the same. I told you that could be because if they were using film, different film types will record a scene differently. Even going so far as to record things outside of our visible range in one instance and not outside the visible range in an other.

Further, as current images are digital, the data can be manipulated to make the resulting images look differently. Two or more different looking images can be produced from the same data. In addition, as with film, data can be attained that is outside of the normal range of human vision. So I can make a digital image using visible light and it will look one way. I can record the same area with say, microwaves, and it will look differently from the first image.

As to your insistence that all images be produced from the visible light spectrum...why? You do realize that images are produced all the time from the non visible spectrum as they can provide data not possible to attain from visible light. One common example is when a pregnant women gets a sonogram image of her baby.

 

I don't think you understand how NASA works. They routinely outsource to private companies, contractors, or schools.
The Jet Propulsion Lab, NASA's primary planetary spacecraft center, is owned by NASA but run by the California Institute of Technology, and has been since 1958 the year NASA was created.
Here's a list of the top 100 contractors at NASA facilities, not counting off site contractors.

The Grace Mission (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment), is operated in conjunction with Germany's Deutsches Zentrum für Luftund Raumfahrt and others such as the private company Space Systems Loral, the University of Texas Center for Space Research, Astrium, and the German Space Operations Center.

The individual who I know at Goddard who sets up satellites is a private contractor, i.e. outsourced.

I'm not trying to be condescending. I merely pointed out the fact that imagining is a complicated matter.
All the images are manipulated, that's how the raw data is turned into images. They may manipulated them one way to reveal certain facts and another to review other facts.

 

Interesting video, but he hasn't convinced me that we need to go total nuclear. Or that natural gas and coal are more environmentally friendly then solar and wind.

Having played in coal mine shafts and strip mines and having lived through Three Mile Island and having seen what fracking and gas transmission lines do, I'm a bit skeptical.
Right now my father has 5 major 42 inch gas lines about 100 yards from his home, and another on the way. Pennsylvania has at least 44,000 miles of gas lines that run only to private homes. Nobody really knows as there are no official records. When I lived in Southern Pa we reported a gas leak bubbling up out of a stream and of the three gas companies that showed up, none of them knew of the line or who owned it as there were no maps showing that line. Frackers were dumping waste into abandoned coal mines and streams and removing entire mountain tops.
In addition Pa has 55,000 miles of interstate lines. Pa will get an additional 10,000 to 23,000 miles of lines to handle the transportation of Marcellus field gas. That's not counting feeder lines. Transmission lines require a perpetual clear cut 70 to 130 feet wide. Theses lines carry 200 to 1500 psi and require pumping stations every 40 to 100 miles.

​

His comments about wind or solar farms hurting wildlife seem to be simple to address...move the farms to another local. They don't need a river. Some areas may have less wind or sunshine...but it is everywhere.
Additionally he is talking about current green technology, not what we can develop in the future. The sun will always shine, the wind will always blow.

Nuclear waste from power reactors amounted to 250,000 tons in 2010 not counting leakage. A 1000 mega watt nuclear power plant produces about 27 tons a year. Cesium 137 and strontium 90 have half lives of 30 years. Plutonium has a half life as long as 24,000 years.