The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · Next

AuthorMessage
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1179984 - Posted: 22 Dec 2011, 15:59:18 UTC
Last modified: 22 Dec 2011, 16:00:18 UTC

This is the thing that the Warmist's refuse to admit. To reduce the amount that they say is necessary, the extinction of humans is required. If you are calling for the extinction of Humans, extraordinary proof is required.


Good. at least we can all agree then than mans extinctions is not in question here.
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1179984 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11171
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1181195 - Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 21:40:52 UTC - in response to Message 1181146.  

Guy, if I understand your post, you are advocating anarchy?
ID: 1181195 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17070
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1196124 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 22:40:02 UTC

This sequence of articles shows a little of the maths of CO2 pollution:


Climate sceptics – who gets paid what?

Leaked documents show US thinktank the Heartland Institute has been making payments to experts and scientists to cast doubt on climate science. Here, we profile some of the figures...


Climate science attack machine took donations from major corporations

... Much of Heartland's work to discredit climate change is funded by a single anonymous donor, the papers reveal. However, a 2012 fundraising plan also indicated that Heartland has in the past received funds from a host of major corporations for other projects – including companies that publicly support action on climate change.

Along with tobacco giants Altria and Reynolds America, and drug firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilley, major corporations have given over $1.1m in the past two years to the institute...



Heartland Institute 'fights back' over publication of confidential documents

Thinktank behind efforts to discredit climate change launches fundraising drive on back of row over documents posted online


Heartland Institute claims fraud after leak of climate change documents

... The free-market Heartland Institute has moved to contain the damage from explosive revelations about its efforts to discredit climate change and alter the teaching of science in schools, claiming on Wednesday it was the victim of theft and forgery.

In its first detailed response to Tuesday's leak of documents purporting to show a well-organised campaign to cast doubt on climate change, the institute warned in a statement posted on its website: "Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered."

However, the statement from Heartland communications director, Jim Lakely, identifies only one of the eight documents posted online on Tuesday night by the DeSmogBlog website as a "total fake". That document, two pages headlined "Confidential Memo: Heartland Climate Strategy", largely duplicates information contained in the other documents. ...



Revealed: How fossil fuel reserves match UN climate negotiating positions

New figures calculate how much CO2 each country could emit in the future and asks how their fuel reserves affect their position at the UN climate negotiations


Desmond Tutu tells David Cameron tar sands threaten health of the planet

Eight Nobel laureates urge the prime minister to support EU moves to classify tar sands oil as highly polluting...

...Tutu wrote that "oil from the tar sands of Alberta is the dirtiest in the world". ...



Obama revives green agenda with push to end oil industry tax breaks

Barack Obama knew a budget proposal to end $40bn in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry would get him into an election-year fight with Republicans over his energy agenda.

It's at least the fourth time the president has called for rolling back the subsidies.

And, predictably, Republicans and the oil industry were spoiling for a fight. ...



So... No surprises there at the "grass roots" FUD campaigns by the "Heartland Institute" and the source of their funding. I guess no surprise either at their brazen launch of a funding campaign on the back of all the (negative) publicity they're suffering. Also a good giggle at their lame attempt to defend themselves with yet more FUD and confusion!

Meanwhile, will the dirty oil lobbying overcome the politics to end their unfair advantages to wantonly pollute our world to hell? And be subsidized for doing it!


All on our only planet,
Martin


See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1196124 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17070
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1199088 - Posted: 24 Feb 2012, 1:14:11 UTC

Here's some simple maths:

10 points...

Yes, Global Warming is Real AND Caused by Humans

... Here are the “fingerprints” proving the case (some of the images are for items listed, some are additional points): ...


All on our only planet,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1199088 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17070
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1200789 - Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 1:28:54 UTC - in response to Message 1199088.  
Last modified: 29 Feb 2012, 1:31:02 UTC

Here's some simple maths:

10 points...

Yes, Global Warming is Real AND Caused by Humans

... Here are the “fingerprints” proving the case (some of the images are for items listed, some are additional points): ...


And here's two simple results:


Melting [the] Arctic leads to snowy winters

That missing iceberg is 12" deep on your driveway

Georgia Tech has lobbed a small grenade into the climate change debate, with a study suggesting a correlation between melting Arctic pack ice and snowy winters in the Northern Hemisphere. ...



'Jacuzzi vents' model CO2 future

... These vents have naturally acidified waters that hint at how our seas might change if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise.

They are conditions that would make it harder for corals and similar organisms to make the hard parts in their bodies.

Dr Jason Hall-Spencer's work suggests our oceans could lose perhaps 30% of their biodiversity this century. ...

... "What we see as you swim along a gradient of carbon dioxide, up to levels we expect for the end of this century, is diversity loss.

"As you go along that gradient, species drop out of the system," he told BBC News.

"It's not all calcified species - ones with hard shells or skeletons - which drop out; there are other organisms with soft bodies which drop out as well. ...

[Image: Shells, like this Hexaplex trunculus, dissolve at CO2 levels predicted for later this century]





Does that add up? The real world looks like it does...

All on our only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1200789 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1200808 - Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 2:46:13 UTC - in response to Message 1200789.  

it's been "stated" for decades that humans cause global warming. I don't think that it's been "Known" or even verified.

Besides haven't we actually been cooling ??

I am enjoying a warmish winter here in the Mid-South and wish that it would warm up more this time of year. It means my furnace produces less CO-2
ID: 1200808 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17070
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1200881 - Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 7:05:18 UTC - in response to Message 1200808.  
Last modified: 29 Feb 2012, 7:05:53 UTC

it's been "stated" for decades that humans cause global warming. I don't think that it's been "Known" or even verified.

Besides haven't we actually been cooling ??

I am enjoying a warmish winter here in the Mid-South and wish that it would warm up more this time of year. It means my furnace produces less CO-2

I think that clearly shows that you're on some other planet...

So you completely deny the three posts immediately before yours on this thread?


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1200881 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1200965 - Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 15:03:23 UTC - in response to Message 1200881.  

So you completely deny the three posts immediately before yours on this thread?


Yes indeed;

In the absence of incontrovertible evidence I deny that:

Mankind is causing the planet to warm in any worrisome manner
That CO-2 could ever be more than a minuscule trace cause of any warming of the atmosphere.
There is any way in the near or far future that we could do anything about it anyway.
There is sufficient capital and political will to undertake a precipitous transfer of the world's energy production methods.

If the Earth is warming I wold look to:

Sun Spot and ejecta Cycles
Climate Chaos theory
Orbital Variances
Earth tilt precession
Abnormal Cloud cover cause by weather patterns

ID: 1200965 · Report as offensive
Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4548
Credit: 35,667,570
RAC: 4
Canada
Message 1201507 - Posted: 1 Mar 2012, 22:42:39 UTC

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

The skeptic argument ...

The skeptic say there's no empirical evidence such as the following ...

The skeptic say there is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. That computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence.

What the science says ...

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat.

The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

We're raising CO2 levels

Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.



Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.

CO2 traps heat

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).



Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."



Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The planet is accumulating heat

When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.



Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.

From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.



Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.

So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements.

For more evidence that humans are causing global warming, check out The human fingerprint in global warming.
ID: 1201507 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17070
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1201538 - Posted: 1 Mar 2012, 23:52:22 UTC - in response to Message 1200965.  
Last modified: 1 Mar 2012, 23:54:17 UTC

So you completely deny the three posts immediately before yours on this thread?

Yes indeed;

Have you even looked at them or are they too 'scary'?

So do you believe that there is carbon in coal and oil and gas and that burning those materials takes oxygen from the atmosphere and produces carbon dioxide that is usually dumped back to the atmosphere?


In the absence of incontrovertible evidence I deny that:

Mankind is causing the planet to warm in any worrisome manner
That CO-2 could ever be more than a minuscule trace cause of any warming of the atmosphere.
There is any way in the near or far future that we could do anything about it anyway.
There is sufficient capital and political will to undertake a precipitous transfer of the world's energy production methods.

There is direct evidence and hard facts that show the first two to be very much true, and your other two points are very possible if we do something positive immediately.

Hence all the heat generated by the subject and the desperate FUD from the coal, oil and gas suppliers...


If the Earth is warming I wold look to:

Sun Spot and ejecta Cycles
Climate Chaos theory
Orbital Variances
Earth tilt precession
Abnormal Cloud cover cause by weather patterns

Already looked at in great detail. They have an effect, but a very small effect when compared to what Mankind is forcing.



Just to show how far the Global Warming argument has come, I've been greatly surprised by one of the "far from intellectual" populist press newspapers running this article:


Rising carbon emissions could wipeout marine species with oceans acidifying at fastest rate

By Daily Mail Reporter

Carbon emissions are acidifying oceans at a faster rate than at any time in the past 300 million years, raising the prospect of ecological catastrophe in decades to come.

When seawater becomes too acid, corals and shrimp-like plankton at the bottom of the food chain cannot survive.

The knock-on effects can lead to widespread mass extinction of marine species...



Even though that is a surprisingly accurate summary considering the newspaper for that article, the whole thing is tempered with the "not fast" and "geologic timescale" fob-off at the end.

At least that article is a start...

Byron has kindly posted the more detailed stuff to save you a wander around the internet. If you care to comprehend.


If your denial is to just dismiss anything you "don't like", then I guess you'll be arguing your same old story regardless of the changes you see around you. Or at least until far far too late...


Still our only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1201538 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1201578 - Posted: 2 Mar 2012, 3:35:22 UTC - in response to Message 1201538.  

So do you believe that there is carbon in coal and oil and gas and that burning those materials takes oxygen from the atmosphere and produces carbon dioxide that is usually dumped back to the atmosphere?


So I am wondering how you heat your home, heat your bathwater and what kind of car do you drive?
ID: 1201578 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17070
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1201716 - Posted: 2 Mar 2012, 14:53:55 UTC - in response to Message 1201578.  
Last modified: 2 Mar 2012, 14:55:37 UTC

So do you believe that there is carbon in coal and oil and gas and that burning those materials takes oxygen from the atmosphere and produces carbon dioxide that is usually dumped back to the atmosphere?

So I am wondering how you heat your home, heat your bathwater and what kind of car do you drive?

Ahhh... Now we get closer to your denial...

It's not that you do not believe we are polluting our planet to an early Hell... It's more that you selfishly do not want to give up burning coal/oil/gas for pollutingly cheap.


Even if you yourself can't see other ways other than burning coal/oil/gas, you can even continue to burn them but without allowing the release of the CO2 pollution, now.

There's also the issue that oil is too valuable in itself to just simply burn... But that's another thread.


The issue looks to be more political and managerial rather than real.

Still our only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1201716 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1201721 - Posted: 2 Mar 2012, 15:09:17 UTC - in response to Message 1201716.  
Last modified: 2 Mar 2012, 15:11:48 UTC

So I am wondering how you heat your home, heat your bathwater and what kind of car do you drive?


I missed the answer to these questions.

What is your preferred method of polluting the planet. CO-2?, Nuclear waste, Sulfer dioxide, untreated sewage, ground water contamination,.

Me: I will continue to breathe and drive to work without a shred of guilt. Some day I would like to drive to work in an electric car that I can afford charged by electricity that I can afford derived entirely from safely managed nuclear fuel. Hope I live long enough to see this day.

Best Regards,

Daddio
ID: 1201721 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17070
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1201834 - Posted: 2 Mar 2012, 19:56:11 UTC - in response to Message 1201721.  
Last modified: 2 Mar 2012, 19:57:02 UTC

So I am wondering how you heat your home, heat your bathwater and what kind of car do you drive?


I missed the answer to these questions.

What is your preferred method of polluting the planet. CO-2?, Nuclear waste, Sulfer dioxide, untreated sewage, ground water contamination,.

Me: I will continue to breathe and drive to work without a shred of guilt. Some day I would like to drive to work in an electric car that I can afford charged by electricity that I can afford derived entirely from safely managed nuclear fuel. Hope I live long enough to see this day.

Just playing your game...

So your denial has nothing to do with ignoring reality and everything to do with your desperation to carry on regardless.

As already answered, this issue has long been a political and lobbying game whilst the planet is sent to Hell.


With the appropriate politics and impetus, you should see some of your "day" sooner rather than too late... The hard part is to ensure the soon is soon enough.

All on our one and only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1201834 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1201847 - Posted: 2 Mar 2012, 20:56:08 UTC - in response to Message 1201834.  
Last modified: 2 Mar 2012, 20:57:33 UTC

So I am wondering how you heat your home, heat your bathwater and what kind of car do you drive?


Do you eat meat or cereal grains, Do you have lighting of any kind in your home. Do you breathe through a scrubber or a monsom lung ?

I am fascinated to see how you might be avoiding the production and Emissions of CO-2.

Kind of silly isn't it ??
ID: 1201847 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17070
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1201958 - Posted: 3 Mar 2012, 2:47:17 UTC - in response to Message 1201847.  
Last modified: 3 Mar 2012, 2:49:50 UTC

Do you eat meat or cereal grains, Do you have lighting of any kind in your home. Do you breathe through a scrubber or a monsom lung ?

I am fascinated to see how you might be avoiding the production and Emissions of CO-2.

Kind of silly isn't it ??

Your line of argument to distract from reality is kind of silly is it not?

Noone is saying that the entire human world has got to come to a stop. However, there is an awful lot that we can do to stop the rot of pollution, and to make a good start on that now.


On a sinking ship, a good strategy to save the day is to target the biggest holes first so that you can gain greatest positive effect as soon as possible. For example for your glib list, reducing the number of farm cattle and the amount of meat eaten would be an easy and quick first step to help the world.

That would also bring another highly financed lobbying machine into the play...


This is where we do indeed need a change in viewpoint and political solutions to match what is already possible on the ground.

All on our one only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1201958 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1201985 - Posted: 3 Mar 2012, 4:22:11 UTC - in response to Message 1201958.  

Your line of argument to distract from reality is kind of silly is it not?


The reality is that combustion, transportation, energy, food production production and digestion all produce Carbon Dioxide as a byproduct. Without carbon oxidation there is no life.
ID: 1201985 · Report as offensive
Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4548
Credit: 35,667,570
RAC: 4
Canada
Message 1202022 - Posted: 3 Mar 2012, 10:54:24 UTC

Dear fellow citizens of planet Earth, Hello _

I think .....

I think the most important task we humans face on planet earth is

preserving he future habitability of the planet.

and preserving the lives and well-being of all citizens of planet earth.



I think A new consciousness is developing on planet Earth

which sees the Earth as a single organism

and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed.

we humans must protect the only home we have ...

we must protect the habitat that sustains us.

we Humans just have to figure out a way to do it. we humans can do it :-)

Best Wishes to all
Byron Leigh Hatch
3 March 2012

Earth Flag


ID: 1202022 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.