Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years: study

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The study's authors said there was "no going back" after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped". NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon said the study, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, showed that current human choices on carbon dioxide emissions are set to "irreversibly change the planet."

NOTE! That this article only mentions that the accumulation of (CO2's) greenhouse gases over 1,000 years is irreversible and will not stop global warming. As I have stated in my book on numerous occasions, the reason for global warming is not CO2 emissions but space launches that are now averaging every 2.7 days from the world's 46 Space Agencies. These frequent launchings have opened the ozone hole to a current 16.2 million square miles. This large hole enables large solar flares and winds to enter without any resistance and play havoc on the world's jet stream. This is what causes cold fronts to encounter warm fronts and develop into climatic weather disasters being experienced throughout the world. Reduce/Stop the launches for a period of one year and watch the ozone hole close and global warming can be slowed down considerably.

ABC NEWS: Biodiesel rocket fuel offers advantages

California-based Flometrics said commercial biodiesel fuel delivered nearly the same amount of thrust as conventional RP-1 fuel in test involving a RocketDyne LR-101 engine. The results are promising because biodiesel fuel is denser and less flammable than kerosene, but questions still remain whether it would have a positive impact on greenhouse gases.

Note! Nothing is mentioned or compared about the temperature of heat that the biodiesel would produce versus the temperatures from each of the two current rocket boosters that are 6,400 degrees F. , 12,800 degrees F total. That temperature is what the current liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen fuels emit on every launch. The 50 foot wide by 100 feet long flames from the two booster rockets on the shuttle are the reason why the ozone layer is being demolished.
Reduce the amount of launchings from NASA and the other 45 Space Agencies and that would surely have a positive effect on greenhouse gases being reduced significantly.

Opinion: Time for NASA to focus on environment.

With 21 satellites observing the Earth and the world's largest civilian supercomputer, scientists say NASA could be a major player in the fight to control climate change. Writing in Scientific American, two of those scientists outline nine steps NASA could take, including partnering with "green tech" companies; launching inexpensive spacecraft to monitor Earth's climate; and spearheading efforts to make civil avation carbon-neutral.

Do these scientists actually believe NASA is going to monitor the Earth's climate when NASA and 45 other space agencies are the culprits that are responsible for climate change, ozone depletion and global warming? I don't think so. Also mentioned today in the St Petersburg Times newspaper an article on page 4A read: "Study: Bottom of globe warming too". Ozone depletion is at a record size of 16 million square miles. Does anyone believe NASA is going to conduct a study to expose themselves and the other space agencies to their destructive measures? Also why did NASA remove the past monthly launches from their website, 2009 in spaceflight-Wikipedia the free encyclopedia? Is it probable that my book contained the references between launch dates,
locations and climatic weather disasters? I personally think that was the reason the past monthly launch dates were removed, so no one could track them and correlate any current or past weather disasters!

For Future Manned space flights, every option has pros, con.

Current plans to replace the space shuttle with Ares 1 rocket provide both safety and flexibility, though it would leave U. S. astronauts dependent on Russian rockets for five years, according to an analysis by Todd Halvorson, a 20-year veteran space journalist. Halvorson also examines the pros and cons of three other options, including extending the shuttle mission to 2015 and using military rockets to launch astronauts into space. This article came from Florida Today (Melbourne)

Hopefully NASA will put the safety of the astronauts first as well as emergency evacuation plans, if they should decide to extend the shuttles missions another six years or decide to use other military rockets to launch astronats into space. Did NASA not learn anything from the Challenger and Columbia tragedies?

NASA puts price tag on extending shuttle's life.

An Associated Press article stated that if the incoming administration wants to keep the shuttle flying beyond 2010, the price tag will be about $3 billion a year, NASA Administator Michael Griffin said Thursday. Scheduling 10 additional missions, as some have suggested, would come with another cost as well: "We would have a one-in-eight chance of losing the crew in one of the 10 flights," Griffin said.
The 5 year total cost would be $15 billion along with the risk of losing another shuttle as well as the 7 astronauts. Michael Griffin is the same NASA Administrator that submitted his resignation that becomes effective next Friday, January 16. How can this individual even contemplate extending the life of the 3 shuttles as well as the safety of the astronauts when he has no clue as to the circumstances that will be involved when he departs? As usual NASA and everyone involved with their future space flights need to be retrained. Hopefully president-elect Barack Obama seems to be leaning toward selecting Charles Kennel as the new NASA chief. Kennel is a distinguished scientest. I believe we also need a distinguished aerospace engineer to work along side Michael Kennel in order to provide safety measures to the crew and its craft.

Top 10 space stories to watch for in 2009.

With president-elect Barack Obama poised to take the oath of office in just two weeks, the future of NASA's human spaceflight program will soon take shape. Obama has pledged to reduce the five-year gap between the retirement of the current shuttle program and the first launch of the shuttle's replacement. "The exact course the new president charts will be the biggest space news story in 2009," says Florida Today (Newspaper in Melbourne, FL), which goes on to list nine more stories to watch in the upcoming year.
Let us hope that that the new President-elect will investigate all areas and aspects of NASA's programs. Number one should be the safety of the astronauts and the spacecrafts that they pilot. Number two should be a new fuel that will not emit the emence heat and flames that continue to destroy the ozone layer. Number three should be a consolidation of all forty six space programs throughout the world to mandate an order to reduce the number of space flights. Number four should be that the forty six countries deplore more satellites on fewer launches so as not to enlarge the areas of depleated ozone already damaged and possibly subside the current size of the ozone layer.