How Will Climate Change Denial Affect NASA?
EPA now requires political aide’s sign-off for agency awards, grant applications, Washington Post
“The Environmental Protection Agency has taken the unusual step of putting a political operative in charge of vetting the hundreds of millions of dollars in grants the EPA distributes annually, assigning final funding decisions to a former Trump campaign aide with little environmental policy experience. In this role, John Konkus reviews every award the agency gives out, along with every grant solicitation before it is issued. According to both career and political employees, Konkus has told staff that he is on the lookout for “the double C-word” — climate change — and repeatedly has instructed grant officers to eliminate references to the subject in solicitations.”
“BRIDENSTINE: Mr. Speaker, global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago. Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with Sun output and ocean cycles. During the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D. –long before cars, power plants, or the Industrial Revolution–temperatures were warmer than today. During the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1900 A.D., temperatures were cooler. Neither of these periods were caused by any human activity. Even climate change alarmists admit that the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years. But here’s what we absolutely know. We know that Oklahoma will have tornadoes when the cold jet stream meets the warm gulf air. And we also know that this President spends 30 times as much money on global warming research as he does on weather forecasting and warning. For this gross misallocation, the people of Oklahoma are ready to accept the President’s apology, and I intend to submit legislation to fix this.”
How Jonathan Dimock Auditioned To Be NASA White House Liaison, earlier post
“All of that to say, in science, we know nothing. We can only do the best we can with what we know and if we are so hard pressed on believing that the earth is warming because of my Buick, then we can find evidence to prove that theory correct. But we can also find evidence that the earth has gone through cycles on hot and cold and gee…..that means that our carbon dating and light speeds change too. This is the same with all types of science. We can prove that oil fracking can rejuvenate the crust and make the surface flourish if we look for that evidence instead of pointing fingers at the oil companies. But of course this all comes down to what makes sensational news or if you are taking a position of defending your business model or political policies.”
– Trump Eliminates National Climate Assessment Panel, earlier post
– Will Saying “Climate Change” Be Banned At All Government Agencies Or Just Some Of Them?, earlier post
One definitive way we’ll know is if https://climate.nasa.gov gets shut down or is significantly altered.
(Another one to watch is NOAA’s https://climate.gov.)
It’s a huge blow for a lot of vital research.
anyone thinking the EPA was never about politics has their head in the sand, this agency has ALWAYS been about politics.
While true, there are some people in Cleveland who would remind you what would happen on a wide scale if things like the Clean Water Act were completely obliterated.
I’ll see your Cleveland and raise you a Love Canal…
Let’s see: an Administration wants to be sure that actions taken by an agency are consistent with the policies that elected the Administration.
Exactly why is this surprising? Or, indeed, wrong?
I really should stop being surprised, but it really is disturbing how many people are willing to accept that denying reality and scientific facts is just fine and should be considered normal behaviour by politicians.
Spencer, nature does not care about your politics.
Politics will always be involved when you ask the government to fund you. You see government is all about politics.
But don’t worry, private industry is on the problem. The same private industry that will out government help, solved prevented Malthusian doom days twice in the 19th Century and in the 20th Century while government just ignored the issues or politicians made endless speeches that had no effect.
http://evanmills.lbl.gov/pu…
Is your point that the eggheads predicted doom but the free market saved us all (again)?
Many make the argument that Malthus was sorely lacking basic data from which to make his claims; and that his primary points remain as true today as they were when written. I’d assign data collection, agronomy, soil science and genetics as the chief enablers.
You misunderstand. This appointment is a straw man.
While the policies of the current Administration are dangerously puerile, and indeed hard-hearted, why shouldn’t we expect elections to have consequences?
Perhaps you take issue with the installation of a political review officer in the EPA offices. I do as well. And I’m not sure why, exactly. Comparisons to the Soviets? Maybe. But all this move does is make the whole policy more transparent.
In case anyone missed it, this Administration is anti-EPA and it does not accept climate change.
People elected this Administration because they agreed with the policies. The exact point of review is pretty much irrelevant.
No, it is not so simple that Trump voters want all of Trump policies. First, our society has a bad case of “Celebrity culture”. Second, there is the RUSH Limbaugh/Fox News propaganda machine. Last, there is tribal politics at play. If you polled people, they generally support the EPA and its work.
Trump voters I have met reject any view that contradicts him as false and accept anything he says as true. This is a psychological phenomenon called “confirmation bias”.
We need to teach American children to learn the facts, question all viewpoints (including their own), and make their own decisions objectively and with an open mind. This is a philosophical approach sometimes called “critical thinking”.
I don’t like what it does to the review process. Under President Obama, there was additional funding for climate change, but it was (at least in the NASA research and analysis world) by changing or adding programs. For example, ROSES A.8, “Supporting UN Sustainable Development Goals 14 and 15 in the Context of Climate Variability and Change”. If the new administration doesn’t want to fund that sort of thing, they can remove that program as easily as the previous administration created it. I assume the situation for EPA grant proposals is similar.
But adding a higher level of review based on what words a proposal used? I’d rather see them change the text of an AO, adding a rule, “No proposal considering change over greater than a 20 year time period is responsive to this AO.” Or something similar, and then letting the reviewers say, “Great proposal but it doesn’t belong in this program.” That’s more up-front about the intention, clear to the proposers (so the know what they’re getting into) and preserves selection based on peer review.
Oh, so you want them to be more up-front?
But isn’t that exactly what’s going on? This move is ham-handed, to be sure, but expecting any sort of discreet or circumspect move would be inconsistent. This move is brazen. There’s no chary sensibility here. No sensibility other the “we are in charge”.
I wouldn’t mind them being more up-front, but that isn’t what I was thinking of.
As it stands, the review process for scientific research is set up to work in a particular way. The government specifies what sort of research they are (or are not) interested in, people write proposals about what work they want to do along those lines (and how much it costs), and the technical merits and relevance of that proposal are reviewed by people competent to understand the details. If the administration wants to stop funding climate change research, they can do it within that framework.
If I don’t like it, well, that’s my problem, since he did get elected. (Objecting to the President doing something within his legal powers is, actually, exactly the sort of disfunction and obstructionism people objected to in the previous Congress.)
But look what they are trying to do to the process. I (well someone) could write a proposal to study climate change, and just avoid using those words. This newly appointed censor wouldn’t know the difference; he’s just doing a word search for things he doesn’t like. At the same time someone (perhaps not too brightly) might write a proposal that has nothing to do with climate change, but just mention it, in a throw-away sentence in the proposal’s introduction. That would get the proposal rejected regardless of its technical merits.
This is one of the few areas where the system is set up to, as best as possible, make judgements based on content and technical quality. I don’t like changing that to proposal selection based on using or not using particular words.
Quoting science to people who believe more in superstition is probably a waste of time, but I have to try.
Climate Change and results already being felt are not a matter for
controversy among the overwhelming majority of published credentialed
scientists in the field. The danger is if we reach certain tipping
points then we will not be able to recover. This will be disastrous for
future generations. Climate Change is a matter of weather and physics.
Politicians, rich people, the failure of people to believe, or
government charades pretending to do something will have no effect. If
we fail then future generations will likely judge us by this issue more
than any other.
See references 10, 17, 32, 64, 78, 79, 81, 85, 88, 93 – 95, 102, 105,
107, 110, 113, 119, 122, 127, 128, 130, 144, 146, 152, 164, 170 – 172,
176, 177, 182, 185, 186, 204 – 206, 208 – 210, 221, 225, 228, 234, 246,
255, 272, 297, 311, 312, 317, 318, 322, 333, 335, 336, 343, 349, 357,
362, 368, 387, 391, 392, 394, 399, 400, 403, 413, 415, 417 – 419, 426,
440, 441 – 444, 455, 460, 464 – 467, 499, 502, 503, 505, 509, 511, 527,
532, 537, 550, 577, 578, 581, 592, 594, 600, 601, 634, 635, 650 – 652,
653 – 664, 666, 667, 690, 707 – 710, 750 – 760, 776, 801 – 808, 829, 840
– 842, 883 – 899, 1009 – 1023, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125 – 1155, 1174,
1198, 1199, 1200 – 1202, 1213, 1215, 1238 – 1290, 1472-1524, 1652,
1664-1665, 1671-1682, 1715-1721, 1746-1771, 1851-1896, 2015, 2043-2089,
2123, 2152-2154, 2177, 2193, 2205-2223, 2250, 2267, 2302, 2325-2381,
2419, 2224-2539, 2574, 2598, 2626, 2636-2700, 2741, 2998-3142, 3179,
3210, 3274, 3350-3359, 3378-3435, 3450, 3451, 3516-3519 of this article: http://www.newprogs.org/the…
“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders” and temp. jobs.
Sea level rise is now 3 to 8 ft by 2100, with the greatest uncertainty with land ice melt. Nuisance flood level of 27″ above mean high water level at Boston is the norm by 2050.
“Under Scenario 1, Ray predicted 43 flood events in Boston by 2030. That is, 43 times the predicted high water will exceed the nuisance flood level. For Scenario 2 he predicted 87 flood events in Boston by 2030. By 2050 there would be 213 and 743 events respectively, for the two scenarios.” This is just Boston.
Add that to more and more storm seasons like the one we are in as sea temperatures rise and things are going to get interesting. This is a great environmental experiment we are running, for the scientists. Not so much for everything else.
Trillions of dollars is not interesting, nor is the affects of climate change on national security abroad and at home. It all starts by omitting the full suite of facts and focussing on a few tidbits that mislead the public, where the public is ‘successfully’ misled into believing incorrect facts and that a factually incorrect position is true– feelings about that “truth” are more important than facts–‘out of the mouths of babes’.
This nomination rewards deceptive and costly behavior–achieved with weaponized fake news–rather than investigate the carbon industry, the political parrots, and climate denying Scientists Spencer and Christie who manipulated the satellite data to incorrectly show no warming by using the wrong sign in the satellite drift rate with the night time temperatures warmer than the days violating all the physics to feed climate change denial–‘the pause’ and ‘even atmospheric cooling’. No good policies will result.
The basic problem is scientists have been hollering doomsday since Thomas Malthus. Indeed, in the last few decades alone nuclear bombs were going to destroy the world, then biowarfare, then running out of resources, and now global warming because we have too many resources to use…
Like the boy who cried wolf too many times no one listens anymore. That is the basic problem scientists have to face, credibility, after making so many bad predictions on doomsday. Yes, this time the wolf may be real, but no one is running when the boy calls out…
The basic problem is the propaganda spread by the carbon industry, which includes the 100M+ by the Koch Brothers, because they do not want trillions in liability, and the climate denying politicians, fueled by the pathetic legacy of John Christie and Roy Spencer.
“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” DJT
Here is a detailed look at James Hansen’s 1988 Predictions, which are basically correct for the B scenario. Yet, other sites compare to the A scenario, which assumed exponential growth in CO2 and say Hansen is 150% wrong and try to discredit 1988 predictions in 2012.
They probably don’t need to waste the money as I suspect the majority of the public just tunes out both sides having become tired of it.
Since beliefs are more important than facts, compare the 2014 to 2016 opinions with ~5-8 point increases in Beliefs and Risks. We all realize you are trying to tell folks to “become tired of it” and its “wasteful”. In 2017:
o Americans worrying a great deal up eight percentage points to 45%
o New high of 62% says effects of global warming are happening now
o Belief that global warming poses a serious threat stretches to 42%
Many more are angry they were duped by the carbon/ Party of Red’s propaganda.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/…
http://climatecommunication…
http://climatecommunication…
Those are good example of push polls that deliver exactly the results the sponsors pay for. Thanks! I will show them to the students in the graduate research class I teach as example of how polls are used to manipulate opinion.
Also you are the one trying to use this website to sell your group’s beliefs, I am merely pointing that the voting public is getting tired of the hard sell on social media groups like the one you belong to do. And yes, your posts have all the earmarks of a social media campaign being done by a group.
Folks do not want to hear they have the wrong belief or worse duped–it takes longer for them to change their minds. The hard sell simply does not work, so you are sadly mistaken.
Perhaps the Party of Red uses polls to manipulate, but this poll simply reflects that real data and lies by carbon/politicos are being conveyed: More and more folks realize the Party of Red works on propaganda and weaponized fake news. They have now demonstrated that they lack sound policies (the last thing a health care provided needs is ‘competition’ when a single provider cannot make it work in a rural community; 100B barrels of oil from Canada is equivalent to 100ppm of CO2, matching the previous 300 to now over 400ppm rise over the past decades for a 7 year world supply (absurd), ‘trickle down economics’, …). The Great Pretenders.
The legacy of all the false prophets will be written in the history books, perhaps even ThomasLMatula. In God We Trust, all others bring data– not Russian active measures to weaponize false news. SLS- a complete joke.
Over 200ft of Sea Level Rise is at stake, and the Party of Red says, “Burn Baby Burn”, Bring back coal, pretending is only a disco inferno…
The opportunity for those of differing views to discuss the matter on this blog is more important than “proving” any individual point. We should try to keep the discussion polite, factual, and informative and eschew any personal criticism.
Yes, it would be nice to have a rational talk on actual consequences and mitigations instead of all the doom and gloom hand waving.
For example in this report on Nebraska of the potential impacts of global warming.
http://snr.unl.edu/download…
It appears the impact will be a longer growing season with less water. This means it will be important to switch to plants that require less water, either from genetic engineering or just selecting a difference mix. Communities probably should adopt strategies from more arid regions in water use and management. Not the end of the world, but something that merely takes some planning for.
I’ve seen noticeable changes in marginal plant species: I’ve observed several plants that historically do not do well here in Zone 10b, for instance, are actually thriving.
There are lots of qualifications for this sort of statement, of course: the skills of the observer (that would be me), for one, but primarily the issue is weighing the naturally idiosyncratic nature of plant material. Add the characteristics of the planting site, and include variable maintenance and fertilizer.
Throw in several years of weather or water that is above or below the mean, and you’ve got a lot of data that is damn hard to interpret.
I’ve sufficiently observed so many tens of thousands of plants that I’m — convinced? No. Too many variables, as I said. And it’s difficult to formulate an hypothesis that fractions of a degree Fahrenheit could make a difference.
I can go into much more detail, including example species (and I will if anyone is interested). But at this point I interpret the changes I see in the plant communities like this: climate change is my working explanatory hypothesis until I see evidence to the contrary.
You also forget that evolution is an on going process, not just history. As research in past has show strong selection pressure may reshape a species much more quickly then folks imagined. That is why many islands species emerged when few or even one individual arrived by accident.
But in terms of climate, species have been moving north for decades. The march north is documented well in many bird species. When I lived here in South Texas 20 years ago Mexican Eagles (Northern Crested Caracara) were rare, maybe one or two a year. Now they are everywhere. You may see dozens in a single day driving along the highways.
So yes, climate change is happening, and yes, animals have been adapting as they have since the dawn of time. And don’t count them out based on the speed of the change. We now know the speed of climate change was fairly quick at the end of the Ice Age.
That’s pretty much how it’s been here during the years I’ve participated, and in fact about the only reason I stay active. Disagreements aren’t disagreeable, in the main.
Both parties use the same tactics, as do environmentalists, which is why everyone is sick of them.
But once again you dodge the issue with a data dump trying to prove what I already recognized in the 1970’s, the C02 Induced Global Warming has been going on since the 1800’s. BTW you wouldn’t even have those numbers if the AEC had started collecting them in the 1950’s to make its case for nuclear power.
The key is what is the SOLUTION your group is proposing? Does your group have a script for that or is it simply everyone should stop using energy?
I have been looking at solutions since the 1970’s. Nuclear power will be part of the answer. So will PVC Solar, but Solar Thermal and Wind Turbines are too destructive to the ecology, killing millions of birds and bats, to be allowed to be used. Wind power needs to turn from the big turbines to more environmentally friending wind towers to be considered as part of the solution.
Another part of the solution is civil engineering. Cities survived the sea rising the last 200 years by using land fill to build out into the ocean. That will continue to work, but we need to start doing it. As for wetlands, although the current ones will be lost new ones will be created. We need to map and plan for them.
Studies show California will benefit from global warming by getting more rain, but they will need to upgrade their water management systems to take advantage of it.
http://www.sandiegouniontri…
Solar roadways are another element of the solution, making driving safer in all weather year round.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/…
Maybe if you stop trying to scare folks with gloom and doom instead focusing on solutions fewer folks will tune you out.
What “Party of Red” do you mean? Marx or Lenin or the revolutions of 1848? Since when are the Reds conservatives?
Although I wouldn’t mind using some of Senator McCarthy’s rhetoric against the modern “red” party. Reds under the beds? Reds conspiring against America’s long-term interests? Reds taking over the State Department and other government agencies? That does sound like something of current relevance.
I understood the referent to be the Republican Party.
Then it’s time to educate Americans in critical thinking. It’s not a question of choosing sides, but of learning facts. Blindly following a leader who claims global warming in a “chinese hoax” will lead us off the cliff.
Global Warming has been around, and recognized, for decades, but the solutions environmentalists offer, basically adopting a lower standard of living, just don’t appeal to most folks. The environmentalists need to move beyond the gloom and doom and present solutions folks will accept.
Great News! Renewables are now lower in costs than carbon (without a carbon tax). Support a carbon tax today to help pay for the trillions of unpaid climate change costs induced by the carbon industry as well as the IPCC agreement today so ALL nations must take the high road to protect future generations. Doom and gloom are sadly what is at stake with the status quo.
Forget coal, solar and wind will soon be cheaper than natural gas power
Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal
A Texas Utility Offers a Nighttime Special: Free Electricity so charge those clean EVs at night
Yes, and they are killing millions of birds and bats. Most migratory species are in decline because of the wind turbines being built along mitgration routes.
Yes, there are bird deaths. It is a huge issue.
But on your point about migratory species decline? That’s a serious charge. I don’t think I’ve seen anything on that issue? Maybe you have a source?
It is bigger than you think due to out dated voluntary regulations for counting them. Here are some numbers and insights.
http://savetheeaglesinterna…
“In 2012, breaking the European omerta on wind farm mortality, the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/Birdlife) reviewed actual carcass counts from 136 monitoring studies. They concluded that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines are killing 6-18 million birds and bats yearly.
Extrapolating that and similar (little publicized) German and Swedish studies, 39,000 U.S. wind turbines would not be killing “only” 440,000 birds (USFWS, 2009) or “just” 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats (Smallwood, 2013), but 13-39 million birds and bats every year.”
“Wildlife expert Jim Wiegand has documented how areas searched under wind turbines are still confined to 200-foot radiuses, even though modern monster turbines catapult 80% of bird and bat carcasses much further. Windfarm owners, operating under voluntary (!) USFWS guidelines, commission studies that search much-too-small areas, look only once every 30-90 days, ensuring that scavengers remove most carcasses, and ignore wounded birds that happen to be found within search perimeters.”
No comparisons, just fearing mongering.
With high-range estimates for renewables compared to low-range estimates for fossil fuels, fossil fuels are responsible for far more bird fatalities than solar or wind. Offshore wind is even more benign as birds count decreases with distance from the shore.
Wind Farm Bird Deaths vs Carbon:
Wind farms kill roughly 0.27 birds per GWh.
Nuclear:0.6 birds per GWh. (2.2x wind)
Fossil-fuels 9.4 birds per GWh. (34.8x wind).
The next weaponized false news attack will be on character: “your figures are based on a faculty accepted paper in a integrated studies journal by a lawyer, not a wildlife biologist.”
Benjamin K. Sovacool is director of the Danish Center for Energy Technology and the Sussex Energy Group as well as a professor.
Sovacool was a visiting professor at Vermont Law School when he authored The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power which includes 3 pages of references-a credible source.
The US now has 10s of GWs of onshore wind, but not much offshore wind, so take a glance at offshore wind maps, where costs are projected at 10 and 7 cents/kWHr by 2020 and 2030, and offshore has 3X the potential US requirements.
The next focus will be on eagles, for dramatic effect. Here is what the FWS says: “Eagles appear to be particularly susceptible” to colliding with wind turbines, compared with other birds. Why? “Many of the areas that are promising sources of wind energy also overlap with eagle habitats. Eagles are at risk because their senses tend to be focused upon the ground as they look for prey, rather than staring ahead to see spinning blades”.
Fact Check: Trump’s Hot Air on Wind Energy and Birds. The best estimate is about 100 golden eagles die each year in California from blade collisions. Larger turbines will kill less eagles and will be more cost effective as well. Having spoke to many FWS folks, they have many low cost concepts under study to reduce kill rates as well. In the midwest, one low cost practice has exceed expectations, but like drug trials, requires more data. No low cost ideas exist for carbon based energy solutions.
The US has 10s of GWs of onshore wind installed, but little offshore wind.
The dead birds from wind turbines may be counted. The numbers from fossil fuel are based on an estimate on its effect on climate, then an estimate on its effect on climate change on birds. That is why the paper was rejected by various science journals, it failed to meet their standards.
So tell me, why do you reject peer-review science when you claim its the basis of good climate research? The old double-standard again?
Also no one really knows the impact of offshore turbines as it is hard to count dead birds that drop into the ocean.
BTW it is the insane defense of wind turbines by so-called environmentalists that show me they are not really interested in science or the environment but in a social agenda. If they were they would push for wind turbines to be designed to be less dangerous to birds. But since wind energy is part of their social based mantra they refuse to see the damage it does to the environment.
Weaponized fake news: the scientists cannot see past their ‘own biases’ and fudge the data, just like John Christie and Roy Spencer ‘altered the data’ to incorrectly show no warming. Are politicians biased by their donors? If so, 90% of all carbon industry, and 96% of the coal industry contributions are directed to the Party of Red. Wonder why?
Here is the ‘wiki’ page on bird kill rates and all the references. Again offshore will be less impact than land. Here is the data from the Lake Erie Study: no birds after 2.5 mi offshore..
and yet another bird kill rate comparison from a peer reviewed journal.
You could provide links of journals rejecting the papers and the evidence to support your claims.
Thanks.
Nothing like the numbers killed by cars…
or cats, but added to that it may be the tipping point for some species. Especially as the migrating species are hit more heavily by putting wind turbines in the pass they funnel through on the way north to breed.
And all for just 3 percent of the nation’s energy. Imagine the kill rates if it reaches 30% or 40% as some folks advocate for.
Denmark currently gets over 35% of the electric power from wind. I think that’s the highest in the world, but I don’t think I’ve seen any reports of mass bird killings.
Come on. Really? That is the same load of crap that was offered back in the 1970s, before the EPA and the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act started cleaning up the environment. Guess what happened? Just as today, people figured out how to make money. And now we see that wind energy is cheaper than just about any other form of energy – even without governmental support.
We do not need to [deleted] in our own beds to have a healthy and prosperous country.
Yes, the good old 1970’s when environmental groups were the ones arguing that global warm was a myth being used to sell nuclear energy.
Sorry, I was around in the 70’s and I don’t remember that. Environmentalists were mainly concerned about nuclear waste. I’m all for nuclear power, but only if we build a functioning waste processing facility. Calsbad is superior to Yucca Mountain for this as the salt bed is self-healing.
Yes, so thanks to them the spent nuclear fuel rods are being stored at the plants rather than in a nice underground facility. And their lawsuits put a stop to nuclear power plants being built resulting in the the current rise of CO2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com…
I’m with you on this one. Those lawsuits are misguided. It’s true that we could do a better design job on those plants. It’s also true that we need a lot more of them. Germany and France caved.
(BTW: Anthony Watts?)
#yuccamountainnow!
It was the best chart I could find that showed how much less CO2 there would be IF we had gone nuclear then. Climate scientists and environmentalists tend to avoid taking about how nuclear power would help prevent the current CO2 levels, or reduce future ones, for some reason.
While it’s true that nearly all of my Green Friends recoil from nuclear, it is also true that they are completely wrong.
As are you, I think, in linking environmental activism in the 70’s as you do? I just don’t recall that argument. Mostly, as Dr. Woodard points out, folks were worried about waste products. Rightly worried, as it turns out.
And, as much as I like nuclear power, radioactive waste doesn’t seem to be the biggest problem. I think it is human nature and carelessness. In one way or another, almost all the serious accidents involved someone doing something stupid when they should have known better. And nuclear power is not an industry which can safely neglect maintenance and infrastructure.
Why? Nuclear waste is easy to deal with when politicians and environmentalists are not involved. You just store it in a stable environment for a 100 years or so while investing more in transmutation technology. The 10,000 year requirement that environmentalists pushed for was insane and created most of our problems with it.
And speaking of nuclear waste, you know many of the dinosaurs on display at museums qualify as radioactive “waste”? That is why they are covered in lead (toxic!) paint. The radioactive nature of dinosaurs has actually be used as a tool to find them.
https://www.newscientist.co…
“Their technique, which relies on the fact that fossils accumulate the radioactive element uranium, is just one of several remote-sensing methods being studied by researchers from Los Alamos with the help of volunteers who are part of the laboratory’s Paleo/Archeo Research Team (PART). Such methods could be particularly useful where palaeontologists want to avoid bulldozing and digging up large swaths of land in environmentally sensitive areas.”
“wind energy is cheaper than just about any other form of energy” In Chicago perhaps, but here in Florida solar is cheaper than wind or coal, even without subsidies, and is competitive with natural gas.
Thanks for the correction. Yes, as another Floridian I too benefit from the 11 cent power, among the lost in the country.
My claim- which you quoted- derived from a piece I read in Wired or Ars a few days ago, as I recall. You correctly point out that the claim won’t stand close scrutiny. Nonetheless it is close enough to be emblematic of just where things stand now: wind is becoming the new coal; endemic issues like variability appear to be nicely ameliorated with, dare I say it, fossil fuel sources or, in our case, with those lovely nukes we have in our state.
A few sources from around the world:
http://bit.ly/2eTxKkf
http://bit.ly/2eLGsx3
And especially this, from oilprice.com:
http://bit.ly/2eLGsx3
There is only one side to this discussion.
Yes, the one based on the history of CO2 induced Global Warming. I accepted global warming in the 1970’s and watched as environmentalists killed any chance to prevent it by stopping nuclear power and hydroelectric projects. They were the ones arguing then it was a AEC myth to sell nuclear power. Now 40 years later it is the crisis that was predicted then and environmentalists want drastic solutions, solutions that would have not been needed if we had acted then. Even worst, no one has yet to working on real solutions but as environmentalists usually do they just scream that the only solution is to go back to nature…
Partly true, Dr. Matula. Could I point out that we (I mean the collective “we”) work with the best evidence available at any point in time?
It is hard to see how regaling faulty thinking from >40 years ago is useful; those individuals are long gone. The arguments have not only fallen away; they have failed to inform a new group of thinkers who, like those earlier folks, do what they can with what they have and what they are able to foresee.
I’d also take issue with the characterization of environmentalists. While latitude for argumentative hyperbole must be given, it’s not really accurate to picture the movement as anything other than what they are: sober and informed individuals, in the main, passionate about particular issues.
The movement may, from time to time, appear to be too extreme. And sometimes passion becomes, as you say, “screaming”. I would argue that policies favored by the movement appear extreme only because we have, collectively, veered so far off course.
As to solutions: the ideas put forward from the environmental movement are legion, fair, and far from backyard camping.
The evidence for global warming was pretty solid in the 1970’s if you go to the old paper journals. Folks were even talking about the visible decline in Arctic sea ice. But finding linkable sources from that era is difficult because most are buried in library journals.
The problem with the post 1970 environmental movement was that it took an anti-technology direction from veterans of the antiwar movement. If you read histories, or just the magazines from before 1970 you will find both the Sierra Club and Audubon Society were pro-nuke. It was only after 1970 they flipped.
Here is a link to an academic article that discusses some of it.
http://www.marcuse.org/haro…
The importance is to avoid the errors made then by rushing into actions, as the 1970’s environmentalists did with their emotion reaction against nuclear power, that will harm the nation in the future.
On the issue of “rushing”: do you think that the climate change discussion has been sufficiently complete? Can we trust any new policy?
Depends what you mean on the “discussion”. If you mean is it happening the answer is yes.
But if its about its impact and solutions, well there is the problem with it. The potential impact based on peer reviewed studies just fail to match the gloom and doom statements of many environmentalists. And engineering/land use solutions to the most probable impacts are well within available resources as I have noted.
One the one hand, warm sea temperatures are quite lovely.
August and September temperatures in the Gulf in my part of the world frequently exceed 90°. This is what we call “walking in water”- just jump in. No need to pre-slash yourself! Just grab your noodle and hang out. The water is warm and usually very calm.
And all of you people screaming “I want the water to be refreshing!”— you folks can drive up to Chicago. Thence, jump in Lake Michigan 🙂 It’s refreshing!
On the other hand: TWO major hurricanes inside a fortnight?
I’m in SW Florida. The very worst hurricanes for us would be approaching from the southwest, exposing us to the storms northeast quadrant and to the wall of water these critters push ahead of themselves.
This explains why everyone is all of a sudden a meteorologist. Anyone on the beach can expound on the merits of GFS compared to ECMWF. Neither of these models is telling us (yet) exactly who in Florida will be hit. Even if the eye is in the near Atlantic, though, it will be a hell of a blow over here.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Over there? What about over here on the east coast?
I would say that, as of 3:00 PM Thursday as I write this, you guys are in for a hell of a blow.
Boston sea level over the last 100 years or so: https://tidesandcurrents.no…
Satellite data:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu
Don’t see much of a trend.
I know the University is involved in all sorts of research, but am I the only one who finds it slightly ironic to see sealevel and colorado in the same URL?
The rate is now increasing, not remaining linear due to the oceans absorbing CO2/heat in the past. By providing the past data, is this to reaffirm your confirmation bias or to deceive the general public? BTW, follow your second link to 10 things you should know about sea level rise and how bad it could be: “1. There is enough water stored as ice to raise sea level 230 feet.”
The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. The oceans were absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity, destroying the reefs and food chain, but will not hide the sins of parts of Congress/oil for the next century.
“An important uncertainty relates to whether discharge of ice from the ice sheets will continue to increase as a consequence of accelerated ice flow, as has been observed in recent years.”
If high levels of greenhouse gas emissions continue, oceans could rise by close to two meters in total (more than six feet) by the end of the century because of Antarctica. “The melting of ice on Antarctica alone could cause seas to rise more than 15 meters (49 feet).” That’s meters, not mm.
It’s neither bias or an attempt at deception. I look at the data and don’t see an increasing rate. Simple as that. You may have a different view of the data.
The NOAA states Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate
Zoom out on the Colorado data (about 2 min into video) in the discussion of the University of Colorado’s plot and it will show that both the satellite data and tide gauges show the rise is accelerating 🙂 Do not use Cherry Picking e.g. A) picking out a very short term of say 10 or so years or B) using the dip in 2010 due to rains that did not drain back into the oceans right way.
In the past, scientists have found it hard to detect whether the rate has picked up, is flat or has fallen since 1990. Recent studies found that early satellite data had exaggerated the rate of sea level rise in the 1990s, masking the recent acceleration.
“A combined analysis of altimeter data and specially designed climate model simulations shows the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo to likely have masked the acceleration that would have otherwise occurred. This masking arose largely from a recovery in ocean heat content through the mid to late 1990 s subsequent to major heat content reductions in the years following the eruption. A consequence of this finding is that barring another major volcanic eruption, a detectable acceleration is likely to emerge from the noise of internal climate variability in the coming decade”
The rate of sea level rise increased 50% in the last two decades, new study finds
Its a myth that sea level rise is exaggerated
Yes, based on your own NOAA link, a whole 2.64 inches in 21 years. At that rate it will rise a whole foot in a hundred years.
This illustrates exactly the problem with folks like you screaming gloom and doom. The consequence don’t match the hype. The Washington Post article is a good example, talking about how sea level has risen hundreds of feet in the past, but neglecting to say it was over a period of thousands of years following the last Ice Age. It offers no real data on how high it might actually rise in the next century or two.
I’m not clear exactly on what you two are debating. Sea level predictions are all over the map (like hurricanes, I suppose), but 2.5+ inches in two decades is a LOT.
Not really, just a bit higher compared to historical records. Note, the measure is in millimeters otherwise it would look flat.
https://www.climate.gov/new…
Well, as the last dinosaur said, nothing lasts for ever.
…”We shouldn’t spend money on a space program when we have so many problems here on Earth.”
And that was exactly why they did not see the big rock hurling towards them, and have a plan in place to try and save them.
The best cartoon I’ve seen on the subject showed two dinosaurs talking while smoking, with a volcano going off in the background and a comet passing overhead. One was saying, “Don’t worry, we’re too big to fail.”
Wow, how Orwellian (1984). Or now we have политический руководитель (political officers/commissars). Where is the ethical and moral future of this country going?
Unfortunately the US, as the largest per capita user of fossil fuel in the world, has to take a leadership role. Right now we have a Cat 5 hurricane approaching, the first time in nearly a century that the US has been hit by two C4 or 5 hurricanes in the same year, and we have a president who thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax.
I have discussed this with a few Trump supporters. Thier faith in him is unshaken. They demonstrate what in psychology is called confirmation bias. They accept anything that agrees with thier existing beliefs, no matter how improbable. They reject completely anything that does not agree with their existing beliefs, no matter how well substantiated. This characteristic may have an evolutionary explanation. It encourages tribal unity at times when it may be the only way for the group to survive.
The opposite of confirmation bias is critical thinking, the philosophy that we should examine any question from all points of view, fearlessly questioning even our own core beliefs, objectively and with an open mind.
Clipper chip thing again….
Set aside the truth of climate change for a moment. Imagine if you will that the roll out of mandatory electric only vehicles continues in all other countries bar the US. How is that going to affect US automotives? Or if the global insurance market is closed to US resellers due to environmental exposure… who will cover the risk of another gulf city inundation? Somewhat comforting that in the face of a quasi libertarian administration the market may indeed act as a corrective to their excesses.
I’m afraid “funding” and “policies” can and probably should be used in the same sentence. That applies to science funding.
Truth or not, real or fake? Is the underlying theme of many discussions and climate change/global warming has no shortage of this debate. This weekend on CSPAN2 had re-run of this May 2017 interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, he had some interesting comments (that I agree with).
About 50:00 into interview (can also read transcript):
“I just said, we live in a time where people have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not. You want to call the pre-election era part of the Trump era, okay. But if you’re looking at something on the internet and you think it’s true and do not have the capacity to judge whether it’s not true, that another element, another ingredient in the recipe for disaster.
[snip]
I would claim those seeds — those seeds were germinating long before, and it has to do with what people think is true after they read it on the internet.”
About 53:00 into interview:
“That’s a political conversation. Go right ahead. And then the law that comes out will have political flavor it to. I don’t have a problem with that. But if your law somehow pivots on something that is not scientifically true, you’re building a house of cards where the first two floors look stable but they’re completely hollow and empty and by the time you put on a third floor the whole thing collapses. Nature is the ultimate judge, jury and executioner of what is true.”
watch this 3-hour interview at
https://www.c-span.org/vide…