When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

elderflower · 2018-01-22 13:47:35

The weather forecast that helps you decide whether to have a day out is also based on a computer simulation. It's the best we can do and for the short term (a few days) its pretty reliable. Climate forecasts are also based on computer simulations and these are the best we can do. No doubt they will get better as time goes on but in the meantime it isn't sensible just to rubbish the results. Its the best advice available at this time.

Terraformer · 2018-01-22 14:18:59

Regardless of the reality of AGW, we have to move away from fossil fuels at some point in the near future due to depletion. Coal *could* last us for the next few centuries - but we'd end up with an atmosphere that's 1% CO2. Global warming certainly would be a problem if that happened.

Nuclear has the downside that we'd either quickly reach peak uranium, or we'd use breeder reactors that would give every country in the world the capacity to acquire nuclear weapons.

kbd512 · 2018-01-22 14:43:17

Elderflower,

I've previously stated that I take no issue whatsoever with spending more money to figure out what's going on, but when climate computer models produce results that entirely disagree with observed data and the people making alarmist claims are touting those models as "proof" that governments around the world must spend trillions of dollars to completely change the world's energy production infrastructure overnight, I'm going to call BS on that until someone can actually prove something, one way or the other, with a high degree of certainty.

If we were going to spend trillions of dollars to produce an interception vehicle to deflect giant incoming asteroids, I would also demand that we test such a system using a smaller and less expensive test vehicle on smaller asteroids to prove that the system functions as intended before we go off and spend trillions of dollars without producing the desired result. A wild guess isn't good enough. A reasonably educated guess isn't good enough. I'm not willing to take trillions of dollars from my children, since I won't be alive to pay it all back if we're wrong, on a hunch that may later turn out to be completely wrong.

Assuming that everything our 97% of climate scientists have said about climate change is true, which probably isn't based upon the dearth of available evidence, the data's disagreement with computer climate model results, and all past experience regarding things scientists later "discovered" that ran contrary to what they thought they knew, I have not seen any realistic proposals that would have any meaningful impact on global temperatures.

A reasonable person would then conclude that this is some sort of scam to get people to spend money on solar panels and electric cars so they can feel good about "saving the planet". The planet doesn't need us to save it from anything. The planet's fine. If the sea is one, ten, or even a hundred meters above or below where it is today, the planet will still be fine. Human stupidity, as it pertains to building structures too close to large bodies of water, may become a problem but the planet will still be just as livable as it ever was.

If the climate change scam doesn't convince people to blow money without result, then rest assured there will be another wealth and power transfer scam waiting to take its place the very next day.

GW Johnson · 2018-01-22 17:24:03

The trend of this conversation certainly demonstrates the truth of this thread title. The argument is vitriolic, and has focused only on what can be politicized.

I suggest you all go back to page 1 and re-read post #9. There is way more to this than proxy temperatures and climate modeling on computers.

GW

SpaceNut · 2018-01-22 18:31:32

yes indeed a very long post but to the point using in you next post "chasing the ice" is the key as its disappearing....what was green is becoming more desert like ect.. ignoring these as if these are meaningless is the issue for the climate denigners....

kbd512 · 2018-01-22 20:47:54

GW,

What is the accuracy of temperature measurements made from 1900 to present day?

Tom Skilling, Chief Meteorologist at WGN-TV writes for the Chicago Tribune:

"Temperature readings taken from precise mercury thermometers in use by the U.S. Weather Bureau in the late 1800s were more accurate than readings provided by today's electronic thermometers.

Once properly calibrated, a mercury-in-glass thermometer requires no additional adjustment to its readings, so long as the glass bulb that contains the mercury reservoir and its attached expansion tube are undisturbed. Temperature measurements in the late 1800s were accurate to one- or two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit.

However, readings from those thermometers had to be obtained manually, whereas digital readouts from today's electronic thermometers are continuously available and can be remoted. The tradeoff for this convenience is accuracy. Most electronic thermometers are considered accurate within plus or minus 2 degrees F., and require maintenance because they gradually go out of calibration."

Are all of our electronic thermometers properly calibrated?

Are they located away from heating or cooling sources?

I wouldn't put a thermometer in a refrigerator or atop an active volcano to determine the temperature outside, nor would I measure the temperature of sea water being pumped into a ship. How many thermometers are properly sited, in accordance with our own standards for emplacement?

Are the thermometers sited at even intervals such that we could integrate the surface temperature data without a bunch of processing techniques which could produce errors, or are they bunched together on land with just a handful of thermometers recording temperature in far flung places like Antarctica or the Pacific Ocean?

If the thermometers in common use today are only accurate to within 4 degrees F, how are we detecting .1C temperature fluctuations over the span of a decade without using a lot more inference than actual measurement?

How many stations are there on land, in the oceans, and how many satellites do we have recording temperatures from space?

How many temperature measurements are made per day?

Are readings adjusted upwards or downwards to account for anomalies? If so, by how much?

How many errors are there in the computer climate model code that have yet to be peer reviewed?

There are way, way, way too many potential sources for errors for anyone to say anything definitively from looking at temperature readings over the past 30 years. That period of time is not even a split-second blip on the radar screen within the context of Earth’s history.

I’ve seen way too many instances of people who believe that they are more intelligent than others making gross errors that the next intelligent passerby will find in an instant.

I know for damn sure that burning double the amount of natural gas instead of coal to provide electricity when these obscenely expensive low-output solar and wind farms fail to produce will not reverse CO2 emissions at all on a time scale that actually matters if global warming is real and the proof is in the quantities of fuels consumed and the gigawatt hours of electricity produced.

GW Johnson · 2018-01-23 09:22:23

Kbd512:

My entire point is that you do NOT need temperature data and climate models to recognize that a problem exists, and what is the right thing to do about it. Your entire dismissal rests almost solely on the use of said temperatures and models.

The shift from coal to natural gas for electricity production really has reduced emissions of all kinds. Coal is inherently a very dirty fuel to use. We are better off, including financially, now that gas fracking has worked out. Not that there aren't side effects to clean up, but they will be. Doing it right is always cheaper, and always has been. Fracking is no different.

Whether any of this is effective at staving off or preventing the polar ice melt/ sea level rise disaster, who knows? But is it not wiser to try than not to?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-01-23 09:24:39)

SpaceNut · 2018-01-23 12:09:23

Why would you want to burn twice as much propane versus coal.....that says you ave a problem if you are...

How much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned?

Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline (without ethanol) 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0

Combustion of Fuels - Carbon Dioxide Emission

Problem is thats not the only emission from the burning process....

EdwardHeisler · 2018-01-23 12:25:01

kbd512:

Please list your scientific credentials and your published papers disputing the findings of the 200 plus scientific organizations together with web links to your papers.

kbd512 · 2018-01-23 14:14:13

GW Johnson wrote:

Kbd512:
My entire point is that you do NOT need temperature data and climate models to recognize that a problem exists, and what is the right thing to do about it. Your entire dismissal rests almost solely on the use of said temperatures and models.

GW,

If the premise of this entire "climate change" phenomenon, which has been going on long before scientists say that humans existed, is based on imprecise temperature observations or adjustments to / adulteration of data, then that is entirely relevant to accurately portraying any climate changes that actually exist. These incessant attempts to blame humans for things that our scientists clearly don't understand is counterproductive and unnecessary. Earth is not some delicate flower that will wither and die if we fart in the wrong direction.

We've been accurately observing temperature changes for about the past century, but the precision of current electronic temperature measurements clearly isn't good enough to accurately detect such changes. If our electronic temperature measurement precision is +/- 2 degrees F, presuming accurate calibration is maintained, then that is not precise enough to say that the temperature has changed by .1C per decade. That's like claiming I know the stall speed of my aircraft when my ASI is only accurate to within +/- 10 km/h by observing what my ASI indicates. It's a ridiculous assertion. I can feel the buffeting on the airframe when the flow starts to separate, but my ASI is obviously just a rough guide for airspeed changes with that kind of precision.

You and I would both be greasy red smears on the runway by now if we were relying on such an instrument to tell us when we were about to stall. Since we're both still alive, I'm guessing we both check our instruments, among other things, before we take off. Even if my instruments tell me I have half a tank left, I still check my fuel level by sight before I go flying.

GW Johnson wrote:

The shift from coal to natural gas for electricity production really has reduced emissions of all kinds. Coal is inherently a very dirty fuel to use. We are better off, including financially, now that gas fracking has worked out. Not that there aren't side effects to clean up, but they will be. Doing it right is always cheaper, and always has been. Fracking is no different.

If natural gas is 50% cleaner burning than coal, but we're burning twice as much natural gas because the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, then I want you to tell our audience here what the net change in CO2 emissions would be. Germany has more installed solar capacity than any other country, but energy usage keeps going up faster than available renewable capacity can service the demand.

GW Johnson wrote:

Whether any of this is effective at staving off or preventing the polar ice melt/ sea level rise disaster, who knows? But is it not wiser to try than not to?
GW

Of course we should make every attempt to limit our reliance on fossil fuels. I never argued that we shouldn't. The stuff won't last forever and making fuels from scratch is expensive and energy intensive. Anyone who says reserves will last indefinitely hasn't been paying attention to how many new oil wells come up dry.

I will argue that solar / wind / batteries are laughably poor substitutes for sustainable nuclear power. The enviro-wackos, in all their absurd wackiness, caused the very issue they're trying to beat everyone over the head with, once again assuming the issue is real. The US government offered sustainable nuclear power. These would be molten salt fission reactors that burned up more than 95% of the fuel, versus the 2% or less typical of LWR's. I'm talking about Uranium molten salt breeders, not Thorium. Those reactors were real workable substitutes for fossil fuels and the enviro-wackos started losing their minds over the "voodoo" of nuclear power.

Void · 2018-01-23 15:23:41

If a fool is allowed to interupt...
Actually, I choose to reserve my judgement as to what magnitude the human race is alterning climate. By atmospheric chemicals.
What I do believe is that the climate wavers, and I would like to have tools to deal with that.
One thing possible is that humans or some other factor might have helped to kill off the Mamoths, and would then perhaps have set into course a process where, productive grasslands of the Mammoth Stepps were replaced by less productive Tiaga-Conifer forests, and the high arctic converted from grasslands to soggy acid mosses. Just guessing.
The point being, that since 10,000 years ago or so, the Conifer forests have been marching northward. This is a bad thing because they serve as solar collectors in the wintertime, unlike how a dried out grassland with snow on it would refelect sunlight into space.
One thing that has not been considered is that by adding Carbon to the air, it makes it more possible for a plant to get its Carbon with less water loss.
For the Tiaga-Conifer forest, this might be a tipping agent to promote it's growth, because at times the northern reaches can be dry.
The Carbon that is locked in the premafrost is that which we should want to make an effort to keep locked up. But if the Conifer forrests continue to serve as solar collectors the risk continues that they will march North, and will help to melt the permafrost.
There are two very good ways to keep ground Carbon in place. Boggs, and cold windswept grasslands.
George Church would like to revive the Mamoths and have them do the tree trimming, as they are presumed to have done previously. I am OK with that if it can be done.
http://reviverestore.org/projects/woolly-mammoth/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park
I am aware of reports that say that over a 50 year period of time, photography shows that brush has sharply increased in the lands of Alaska, where previously it was not.
The Mammoth theory seems to hold that Mammoths and other animals, trampled the trees, and also packed the snow down, so that the permafrost would be kept cold. I am not against that, but I also believe it is likely that if you had less trees, then the winds would make snow drifts, and make some relatively elivated areas more bare of snow cover, and make some lower areas more bound with snow drifts.
So, I am guessing that where the wind stripped snow away, an increased aridity of the land would hold which might favor grass over mosses. But where the wind blew heaver snow pack would be ponds, lakes, Marshes, and boggs. Mosses as well. So, it in a bit of a way a Savana of grasslands and wetlands. That is my guess.
While I will be very entertained if the Mammoth is brought back (Actually genetically engineered Asian Elephants), I offer another treatment to augment that.
I feel that perhaps 1/2 of the Conifer forrest should be intentially be trimmed down and attempts should be made to replace it where it is possible with grasslands. I would like there to be grass pathways from north to south, to allow large grazing animals to have easy passage and brousing ability's all the way from the great plains to the Arctic Ocean shoreline.
The wood harvested will have to be converted into something useful and rather permanent for Carbon storage, not burned, building materials perhaps.
This may cool off the planet a bit.

Last edited by Void (2018-01-23 15:27:36)

kbd512 · 2018-01-23 20:26:46

The claim that there is a 97.1% consensus amongst climate scientists comes from this research study of climate research publications made by climate scientists between 1991 and 2011:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

32.6% of the publications endorsed the idea that global warming is real. There's a 97.1% consensus amongst scientists who stated that global warming is real that it is also man made. 66.4% of the abstracts taken from the papers published by those climate scientists expressed no position at all on the subject. The study also relied upon self-reporting, which is notoriously unreliable.

This would be a breakdown of the abstracts from Cook et al study's of seven categories of climate research papers used to concoct that magic 97.1% value:

1. 65 - explicit endorse, >50% warming caused by man
2. 934 - explicit endorse
3. 2933 - implicit endorse
4. 8261 - no position
5. 53 - implicit reject
6. 15 - explicit reject
7. 10 - explicit reject, <50% warming caused by man

That looks like an absolute ringing endorsement that global warming is both real and man made, except that anyone who can read and do basic math can easily determine that it's not. There is no certainty in life, except for death and taxes. A real scientist is never absolutely certain about much of anything. Certainty is for religious zealots. Scientists have varying degrees of confidence in the work they do and every experiment is subject to error, irrespective of how many times the experiment is repeated or who is conducting it. Everything else is a question mark awaiting someone with the interest and determination to find the answer. Real discovery starts like so... I don't know. Let's do an experiment and find out.

EdwardHeisler must think the rest of us can't read or do basic math. If not, then maybe it's just a case of garbage in, garbage out. Perhaps he merely regurgitated something that our liberal regressive media fed to him and he lacks the knowledge or understanding required to discern what his 97.1% number actually represents. Maybe he means well, or at least I hope he does, but he lacks the intelligence required to comprehend or is deliberately ignoring things that don't agree with his belief system. I can't know what goes on inside his head. Whatever the case may be, I know nonsense when I see it.

I noticed nobody wants to talk about the precision of the temperature observations. It's a very basic problem, but devilishly difficult to solve.

SpaceNut · 2018-01-23 21:15:04

Temperatures as measured by Nasa are done via ocean bouy, satelite remote sensing... ect.. not the same methods over much of a period of time to which temperature rise has been asserted so its going to need another decade of the same methods to prove that it is.....

Void · 2018-01-23 21:49:47

Probably right Spacenut.

kbd512 I do understand the social agenda about "Global Warming". As always it is the Old World trying to take us captive and squeeze wealth out of us. Nothing new about that.

However, I have trouble not believing that greenhouse gasses will not cause global warming as we expect them to cause global warming on Mars if we use them. But I cannot tell you how significant it is so far.

I frankly am more concerned about a global warming method which may have ended the Ice Age 10,000 years ago, and may be continuing in the same direction.

While CO2 in the atmosphere could be warming the Earth to a significant degree, my greater concern is that it is nourishing the conifer forests beyond what they had before. (New Chicken Little Worry )

But not a false thought. It is said that plants have a compromise to make. If they need Carbon, and they do, then they must open their Stomata to get it in. At the same time by doing this they will loose moisture. But if the CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen, then they can get their Carbon with less of a moisture loss. This could stimulate the growth of the Conifer forests. Oh My!

And if you didn't previously notice, yes that would alter the Earths Albedo in ways we don't want.

Not interested in a Ego slap fight.

Last edited by Void (2018-01-23 21:54:09)

kbd512 · 2018-01-23 23:28:37

SpaceNut and Void,

My only "agenda" is getting at the truth of this matter and coming up with realistic solutions, presuming that there is an actual problem and there are any realistic solutions. Actual scientists have reserved judgement on this matter because they know they don't have nearly enough accurate data to reach such a conclusion. I refuse to make decisions about what to believe based upon emotion or ignorance. I demand accurate data and models that agree with the observed data if those models are to be relied upon to make reasonably accurate predictions regarding what is likely to occur in the future. No such state of affairs exists for climate science.

The error in the temperature observations made in the US Climate Reference Networks was empirically determined to be .2C to 0.33C over a temperature range of -25C to 50C. Someone here tell me again how they "know" that the global average temperature is increasing by .1C over the past decade. Any first year mathematics major should be able to figure this out. The answer is simple. You can't. The reason is equally simple. The precision of the temperature observations is insufficient to measure something so precisely. There are more accurate electronic thermometers available, but that's not what we're using to record the temperature. I'm all in favor of more funding for more accurate thermometers because the technology is readily available. It simply costs more.

Terraformer · 2018-01-24 05:46:24

Not to make an argument from authority, but it does concern me that I seem to have met a lot of very smart people who don't believe in AGW. Or who have told me that the only way to get funding nowadays is to somehow link it into global warming. Given that science as an institution is corrupt, it's no surprise people don't trust the claims about global warming.

That aside, ocean acidification and global dimming might still be problems.

EdwardHeisler · 2018-01-24 11:43:48

kbd512: Since you have apparently joined the anti-science crusade of Trump and his corporate sponsors I assume you oppose this lawsuit against the EPA. Is that correct?

Protect Democracy and Union of Concerned Scientists file suit against EPA over attempt to delegitimize science
January 23, 2018

Independent facts and institutions, and the open exchange of accurate scientific information, are touchstones of a functioning democracy. Anti-democratic regimes often seek to delegitimize and suppress authoritative voices that offer accurate information, especially if it can be used to criticize the government. President Trump and his administration have shown authoritarian tendencies in many ways, including a demonstrated hostility to science and to developing policy based on impartial and balanced scientific evidence. Recent particularly harrowing examples include subjecting traditionally independent EPA grant funding to political review, and EPA scientists being pulled from public events addressing critical national challenges, apparently because of their scientific views.

Today, Protect Democracy and Jenner & Block represented the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and an individual advisory committee member in filing suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), challenging one such attempt by the administration to delegitimize science and scientists: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s Directive removing academic and non-profit scientists who receive EPA grants from EPA advisory committees. In October, Pruitt announced that he would exclude anyone from serving on any of the twenty-three EPA scientific advisory committees if they had received EPA grants to fund any of their research. The Directive is arbitrary, without any factual or legal grounding, and violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires advisory committees to be fairly balanced and protected from inappropriate influence by the appointing authority.

As the suit explains, the Directive is an attack on science itself. By accusing academic and non-profit grant-funded scientists of having a conflict of interest, Pruitt seeks to portray legitimate, independent scientists—who provide accurate, evidence-based information backed by verifiable, peer-reviewed research in order to inform environmental policy—as just another interest group seeking to advance an agenda. But the EPA should have no vested interest in the outcome of EPA grant-funded research; grant recipients perform independent scientific research and are not beholden to the EPA for any particular result. The EPA’s interest is in obtaining accurate information in order to make the best policy; scientists on advisory committees provide just that—whether or not they receive EPA grants. Certainly, academic and non-profit scientists have significantly less to gain from agency action (or inaction) than the private industry representatives with whom they are being replaced.

The ability of ordinary citizens to participate in robust public discourse and to hold government leaders accountable requires a baseline agreement about fundamental facts. Anti-democratic regimes thrive on obfuscating truth—in part, by seeking to delegitimize and suppress authoritative voices that offer accurate information that can be used to inform the public or criticize the government. Scientists are often a target of such efforts. This unprecedented Directive is an attempt to delegitimize and suppress the role of academic scientists advising the agency and, by extension, the results of their research.

American policymakers, businesses, and the American public must be able to trust that the government’s policies are grounded in fact-based analysis. A policy that excludes the nation’s most eminent scientists not only silences key, unbiased voices in EPA policy development, but signals government disapproval of the former committee members’ work—including, for example, critical climate change research. Government suppression and delegitimization of scientists and scientific research is anti-democratic and impedes the American public’s ability to knowledgeably engage with pressing national issues.

https://protectdemocracy.org/update/pd- … ee-member/

January 23, 2018
Scientists Sue EPA Over Advisory Board Changes
Administrator’s Directive Defies the Law, Undermines Science Americans Depend On

Today, a group of scientists filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for changing the makeup of its advisory boards to limit the participation of scientists from academia and nonpartisan non-profit organizations. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced in October that he would exclude anyone from serving on any of the 23 EPA scientific advisory boards if they had received EPA grants to fund any of their research. The directive is arbitrary, without any factual or legal grounding, and violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires advisory committees to be fairly balanced and protected from inappropriate influence by the appointing authority, according to the lawsuit. As the suit explains, the open exchange of accurate scientific information is a touchstone of a functioning democracy.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, and the law firm Jenner & Block, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists and Dr. Elizabeth A. (Lianne) Sheppard, professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health.

“This is an abuse of power and an affront to the scientific integrity of the EPA and the federal government.” said Joshua Goldman, senior legal analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists. “This directive singles out scientists from the nonprofit and academic sector—recognized experts in their field who want to serve the public—and asks them to choose between public service and their scientific work. It’s another example of this administration’s hostility to independent scientific input and basing policy on impartial and balanced scientific evidence. The directive inherently prevents the agency from receiving independent scientific advice, and erects unnecessary barriers to scientists who want to use their expertise to serve the public.

“The EPA hasn’t bothered to make the case for why EPA grants create a conflict of interest. Mr. Pruitt simply can’t justify this decision, especially when there are no such restrictions on scientists who get funding from the industries the EPA oversees.”
The lawsuit is vital because undermining scientific advisory committees weakens an important check on the administration’s decisions.
“Anti-democratic governments thrive on obfuscating truth and seeking to suppress scientists and other authoritative voices that offer accurate information,” said Protect Democracy counsel Jamila Benkato. “The EPA’s directive is one more example of the administration’s assault on facts.”

The directive unfairly excludes scientists from the role they should play in policymaking, according to the plaintiffs.
“I am committed to serving on federal advisory committees because I believe this is one of the most effective ways for me to use my scientific expertise to promote public health,” said Dr. Sheppard. “This directive forces me to choose between my own work and my commitment to the public.”

The lawsuit asks the court to overturn Pruitt’s directive and prevent EPA staff from implementing the directive.
“When we ban America’s top scientists from providing their expertise to the EPA, we all suffer,” said Goldman. “EPA advisory boards examine vital questions, like what makes for unsafe levels of pollution in the air and the amount of chemical exposure that constitutes a health risk. EPA rules need to be based on the best available science. This directive fundamentally undermines the EPA’s ability to carry out its mission of protecting all Americans.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.

https://www.ucsusa.org/news/press-relea … mjCb0xFyUl

UCS Sues to Stop EPA from Kicking Independent Experts Off Advisory Boards
Josh Goldman, senior policy analyst, Clean Vehicles | January 23, 2018

The Union of Concerned Scientists and Protect Democracy – a legal non-profit dedicated to preventing our democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government – have teamed up to challenge EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s directive that would ban anyone from serving on EPA advisory boards if they receive EPA grant funding. Under the guise of improving advisory board balance, Pruitt is using this directive to populate advisory boards with industry-funded scientists and state government officials who have made a career fighting federal regulations. The EPA Science Advisory Board, for example, now includes fourteen new members who consult or work for the fossil fuel or chemical industries, which gave Pruitt nearly $320,000 for his campaigns in Oklahoma as a state senator and attorney general.

Banning EPA grant recipients from EPA advisory boards excludes academic scientists from serving on EPA advisory boards in particular, since academics often rely on outside funding – from EPA or elsewhere – to conduct research, fund graduate students, and work in the public interest. For example, EPA grants have funded research linked with projects that: protect children who are at-risk for lead poisoning in Indiana, restore coastal forests in Connecticut, and maintain clean drinking water in Mississippi. It’s hard to argue why conducting research in support of these types of projects would make someone provide biased advice to EPA, yet that’s the reasoning that Pruitt uses to justify this directive. The reality is that industry-funded science tends to be biased, not science from independent academic institutions.

The scientists that Pruitt has removed from EPA advisory boards also happen to be some of our country’s best. Those already dismissed include a Fulbright Scholar and a member of the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, for example. Pruitt has replaced these leaders with scientists who work for the fossil fuel, tobacco, and chemical industries and have a history of downplaying the health risks of secondary smoke, air pollution, and other public health hazards.

The real reasoning behind this directive is to make it easier for Pruitt to delay, rollback, or dismantle the EPA regulations that are designed to protect clean air, water, and public health. As we begin 2018, EPA is reconsidering rules that would address: the high asthma and cancer rates caused by heavy-duty trucks on busy roadways, the huge amount of global warming emissions from passenger vehicles, and the outdated emergency response requirements for facilities that store explosive or hazardous chemicals. These types of regulations rely on advise from EPA advisory boards, which are now more likely to support Pruitt in loosening rules that cover the industries tied to the new EPA advisory board members.

Our suit challenging the advisory board directive, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleges that the Pruitt directive is arbitrary and capricious (legalese for b.s.), and has no basis in law or EPA precedent. Our complaint also details how this directive violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires all advisory committees to be “fairly balanced,” and not be “inappropriately influenced” by the appointing authority.

I’ll keep you posted on how this suit develops. In the interim, if you have received EPA funding or have served on an EPA advisory committee, send me your story at (jgoldman@ucsusa.org).

Even if you aren’t an EPA-connected expert, check out how you can get more involved in the fight against Pruitt’s anti-science crusade by visiting the UCS action center. This Administration needs to hear from everyone, not just scientists, and UCS provides a platform for you to join the hundreds of thousands of UCS supporters across the country in standing up for independent scientists and an EPA that seeks to protect public health, not industry profits.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/uc … ory-boards

kbd512 · 2018-01-24 13:15:18

Wider Audience,

Observe and learn how regressives think. They're absolutely certain that they know what they believe, all evidence to the contrary being unimportant, much like the religious zealots who murder other people over what name they choose to use for their favorite sky wizard.

A couple posts back, EdwardHeisler claimed that the discussion was over. He's still here posting insults and appeals to authority because his belief system has been challenged by someone who has made no appeals to his beliefs, emotions, or any authority. I don't care what he believes because his beliefs won't change basic math.

The imprecision of the temperature observations alone prevents us from accurately modeling future global average temperature trends over time scales that would matter, assuming that the AGW believer's assertions are true. It's impossible to accurately predict future trends using such imprecise temperature observations when observed or predicted changes are so small, unless the magnitude of the global average temperature changes becomes substantially greater than what it is claimed to be or the precision of the temperature observations improves considerably. Either way, we need more precise measurements for the data to be of any significant utility for climate model predictions.

The actual evidence behind the last false claim that EdwardHeisler made was directly contradicted by the source that his claim was based on, so now he's back to insults and appeals to authority. He may choose to insult me or make appeals to authority until the cows come home, but he's incapable of or unwilling to address the issue I brought up. Any mathematician worth their salt would immediately take issue with using such imprecise temperature data to draw such conclusions, but basic math gets ignored when politics is mixed with science.

Apart from that, nothing much to see here. Anyone who wishes to contradict what I stated is welcome to do so, but show your work so everyone else can benefit from your knowledge. If anyone needs an example to demonstrate the basic concept behind the issue I brought up, then ask and ye shall receive.

EdwardHeisler · 2018-01-24 15:08:40

Once again you have failed to answer a question.

Which part of the following question did you not understand?

kbd512: Since you have apparently joined the anti-science crusade of Trump and his corporate sponsors I assume you oppose this lawsuit against the EPA. Is that correct?

You have the floor. I'm listening. Are you?

GW Johnson · 2018-01-24 16:38:43

OK, the conversation has now gone vitriolic between Kbd512 and EdwardHeisler, and degenerated into political labelling and namecalling. Once again, the title of this thread is demonstrated to be true. For shame.

The point I tried to make has been ignored once again: you DO NOT NEED reconstructed temperature profiles or climate models to know that something about the climate has changed from the trends experienced over the last 10,000 years. You DO NOT NEED to "know" whether humans caused this or not, to know that action may be needed to delay or avert some very threatening changes in land ice volume and sea levels. You DO NOT NEED anything but basic physics and chemistry to understand what form those actions must take.

I follow the ice. It is melting on a broad scale, when it wasn't before. That heat has to come from somewhere. Yes, it is warming.

The scale of glaciation vs warm interglacial is 10-100 times larger than the contrast between the medieval warm period and the little ice age, by any measure one cares to propose. So minor variations in solar output ain't it.

CO2 and H2O absorb significant IR, N2 and O2 do not, so there really is a "greenhouse effect" AT ONE LEVEL OR ANOTHER if you change the composition of the atmosphere, and we have been, per the Keeling curve. Is this a major effect? Who knows? It's the only one we have, other than reflectance changes.

Like Kbd512, I don't trust temperature reconstructions, or climate models, and for exactly the same reasons he quotes, although I am not hard-over against even looking at that stuff the way he is.

I just don't need any of that stuff to know what is going on and what to attempt to do about it.

THAT is where we part company on this issue: his dismissal depends upon the unreliablity of temperature reconstructions and climate models, but he ignores all the "follow the ice" observations and the basic IR transmission effects from fundamental physics and chemistry. Because with them his argument falls apart. Many on the political right do the same thing, so he is not alone in that mistake.

That being said, I do understand why the climate science community uses temperature reconstructions and computer climate modeling. Those have prediction capability at some level or another, while my "follow the ice" and basic science does not. When you actually pin one of the climate scientists down, they do indeed admit their data and their models are incomplete at best. But, they are all we have, that can produce numerical predictions.

Dismissing that enterprise as corrupt is out-of-line, while taking it with a big grain of salt is NOT out-of-line. So the credentials argument is not as compelling as Spacenut and EdwardHeisler would wish, either. Many on the political left make the same mistake, so they are not alone. What gets forgotten here is just how big that grain of salt sometimes needs to be.

My own opinion: because the sea level rise disaster looks to be something we cannot successfully cope with, without major (possibly fatal) damage to our civilization, then it is wisest to attempt "something" to either delay or avert that disaster, even if we cannot know whether our actions will really work. It really is that simple.

The action to take is reduce CO2 emissions "at best possible speed". This is inherently limited, because the renewables are still critically-limited by their intermittency, and by grid transmission losses, while nuclear is afflicted with an unsolved waste disposal problem and a chronic money-outweighs-safety attitude.

You cannot kill yet more people with your overall "solution". That is why I object to geo-engineering the atmosphere with sulphur injections in the stratosphere to increase its reflectance to space. That leads to acid rain and who-knows-what-else, plus it is irreversible. Once done, if it doesn't work or makes things worse, it cannot be undone. Sunshades the size of Texas in orbit are beyond our abilities, but would be reversible.

We have viable solutions for none of these 4 listed items, yet. The smart civilization would be working emergency "Manhattan Projects" on those, because of this shortfall, but I see no evidence that we really are, and must conclude our civilization really is as stupid as it appears. If so, we deserve our fate.

As for the cost of renewables, they are competitive as long as we maintain the incentives. We should, as fossil fuel already has had incentives for many decades, so renewable incentives actually level the playing field. Fair is fair.

Plus, right now, it is solar and wind that are hiring a lot more folks at decent pay than fossil fuel ever has. This is primarily because no one has yet figured out how to automate the installation jobs, but let's take advantage of that while we can.

Just sayin' ......

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-01-24 16:45:12)

SpaceNut · 2018-01-24 18:13:15

So what do we choose to use for what will prove that we are under a climate change or global warming trend to the denier's?
When direct observation does not seem to be what they want.

Void · 2018-01-24 18:57:54

I think that it is fairly obvious by G.W.'s reasoning that the loss of ice is a genuine indicator of what has happened.

We shouldn't want an ice age planet, or one that begins to loose its productivity in supporting out civilization either by cold or heat.

So, if I do understand G.W., it is time to try putting on the breaks, but to try to be creative, and not bust the economy, as most populations will in the end choose to ruin the world instead of go without a decent standard of living. Even if the USA is compelled by the old world to submit to penalizations we know that plenty of other countries will do whatever they like, if it comes to their own national interests.

So I do have two treatments to offer, and so I will mention them again. They are not necessarily in against the interests of the American or North American economies either.

1) I offered this a while ago, but everyone appears to have been asleep.
Basically the idea is to consume Carbon products and make them into building materials.
The building materials are to be used primarily to construct "Solar Cisterns". These are to be associated with other apparatus such as water vapor filled hyperloop (At a low pressure).

******
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7994
******

I suspect that the results ultimately will be food, clean water, and energy. Also the reduction of Carbon emitted into the atmosphere.

2) And this beautiful thing.
This is said to be the last remaining part of the "Mammoth Steppe".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth_steppe

The Mammoth Steppe may or may not have been destroyed when human hunters slaughtered the mega fauna of the Mammoth Steppe, and allowed the Conifer forests and acid mosses to replace the much more productive grasses. But that argument is moot for our purposes.

We know how to alter the Biome to cause it to reflect more light back into space. Further, the segments of land that might be converted back into pseudo Mammoth Steppe, would very likely offer much more productivity to the human race.

One problem that will be hard to overcome with this plan would be "Tree Huggers". The problem will be to convince them that the Mammoth Steppe is the "Natural Biome", and that possibly humans long ago set trouble into motion by killing the Mega Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe.

So yes find creative ways to lock up Carbon, and make building materials, and partially restore the Mammoth Steppe. Keep the permafrost in lockdown if possible.

Green energy sure.... Why not! Make lots of money, save the world. Optimism, but shall we just give up instead?

I'm done.

Last edited by Void (2018-01-24 19:12:38)

EdwardHeisler · 2018-01-24 20:17:00

Humans to Blame for Climate Change, Government Report Says
By Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Contributor | November 3, 2017

Humans are to blame. That's the verdict of an executive-branch government report concluding that Homo sapiens are the dominant cause of planetary warming since the mid-20th century.

The climate report, released today (Nov. 3), paints a dire picture of the present and future effects of global climate change, from sea levels that could rise by as much as 8 feet (2.4 meters) by 2100, to more-frequent heat waves and other extreme weather events. It is also in stark contrast to climate change stances taken by President Donald Trump, who has ranged from calling it a hoax to saying he had an "open mind" about whether human-caused climate change is actually happening.

"Many lines of evidence demonstrate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," the authors wrote. "Over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence." [6 Unexpected Effects of Climate Change]

For instance, the global seas have risen an average of 7 to 8 inches (17.8 to 20.3 centimeters) since 1900, with nearly half of that (3 inches, or 7.6 cm) occurring since 1993, the report said.

"Human-caused climate change has made a substantial contribution to this rise since 1900, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater than during any preceding century in at least 2,800 years," the report said. "Global sea level rise has already affected the United States; the incidence of daily tidal flooding is accelerating in more than 25 Atlantic and Gulf Coast cities." [Photographic Proof of Climate Change: Time-Lapse Images of Retreating Glaciers]

And things are getting hotter, with annual average temperatures over the contiguous United States increasing by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) between 1901 and 2016. And over the next few decades, scientists predict those temperatures will rise by about 2.5 degrees F (1.3 degrees C) relative to the period of 1976 to 2005, the report said.

Assessing the science

The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) is based on an analysis of peer-reviewed research, publicly available resources, and certain models and data sets related to climate change, according to the report's executive summary. The report was overseen by the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program, which itself consists of 13 federal agencies that deal with environmental issues, ranging from NASA to the Department of Energy and the Department of State. The group assesses the current state of climate science as part of the National Climate Assessment (NCA) program. The new report is the first volume of the fourth-ever NCA (NCA4). The first NCA was published in 2000, the second in 2009 and the third in 2014.

Ultimately, the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program is under the oversight of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). President Trump has yet to name a head for his administration's OSTP. Previous presidents have typically filled the role before they've taken office or within a few months of doing so, according to The Washington Post.

The new report's findings conflict with Trump's stated positions on climate change. Over the years, he has called human-caused climate change a "hoax," including in a 2013 tweet that read, "We should be focused on magnificently clean and healthy air and not distracted by the expensive hoax that is global warming!" During the presidential campaign, Trump was vague on his beliefs about climate change, sometimes indicating he did not believe it was a problem, but telling The New York Times editorial board in 2016 that he had an "open mind" on the issue.

In office, Trump said that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, an international agreement that aims to limit global warming to below 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) above preindustrial temperatures. The president also nominated Scott Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who rejects the evidence that human-made carbon dioxide emissions are driving climate change, to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Dire warnings

In addition to documenting changes in temperatures and sea levels, the new report warns that heavy rainfall events are increasing across the United States, as are heat waves and forest fires. Reduced snowpack and early spring melt are driving water scarcity in the western U.S., according to the report, threatening to bring about long-term drought by the end of the century.

Atlantic hurricanes are likely to bring greater amounts of precipitation on shore in a warming world and may increase in intensity, according to the report. Small tidal floods have already increased between five-fold and 10-fold since the 1960s in U.S. coastal cities, and the rate of these floods continues to increase in 25 cities along the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic Coasts.

"Without major reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature relative to preindustrial times could reach 9 degrees F (5 degrees C) or more by the end of this century," the report authors wrote. "With significant reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature could be limited to 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) or less."

Such reductions require a major effort that would need to start rapidly, the report continued.

"After accounting for the temperature effects of non-CO2 species [such as methane], cumulative global CO2 emissions must stay below about 800 GtC [gigatons of carbon] in order to provide a two-thirds likelihood of preventing 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) of warming," the authors wrote. "Given estimated cumulative emissions since 1870, no more than approximately 230 GtC may be emitted in the future in order to remain under this temperature limit."

As is, the authors wrote, emissions are likely to surpass that level within two decades.

https://www.livescience.com/60860-human … eport.html

SpaceNut · 2018-01-24 20:20:29

I think this is also part of that change that is natural...

How about family home sized Sabatier reactors capture co2 from burning of wood, incineration, car exhaust and use dirty water to make clean oxygen, clean water and methane for future use by the owner of the reactor. Recapture any methane that is used for energy needs and start the process all over again as need to for fill the energy needs.

Void · 2018-01-24 21:39:19

Spacenut. Did you even bother to read my materials presented? Why do you not have the grace to at least give a comment about them?

Yes reactors. Well, they would consume energy. But maybe that is a way to go in some cases.

EdwardHeisler. Do not underestimate our kind. The clock of time ticks in our favor in the long run.

If you stand as "Mans Accuser" then you are in a very bad place indeed.

But beyond this I will let you all take whatever unprofitable path you want, except G.W. Kind of like those Texans. Ya.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2018-01-22 13:47:35

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#227 2018-01-22 14:18:59

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#228 2018-01-22 14:43:17

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#229 2018-01-22 17:24:03

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#230 2018-01-22 18:31:32

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#231 2018-01-22 20:47:54

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#232 2018-01-23 09:22:23

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#233 2018-01-23 12:09:23

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#234 2018-01-23 12:25:01

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#235 2018-01-23 14:14:13

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#236 2018-01-23 15:23:41

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#237 2018-01-23 20:26:46

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#238 2018-01-23 21:15:04

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#239 2018-01-23 21:49:47

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#240 2018-01-23 23:28:37

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#241 2018-01-24 05:46:24

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#242 2018-01-24 11:43:48

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#243 2018-01-24 13:15:18

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#244 2018-01-24 15:08:40

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#245 2018-01-24 16:38:43

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#246 2018-01-24 18:13:15

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#247 2018-01-24 18:57:54

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#248 2018-01-24 20:17:00

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#249 2018-01-24 20:20:29

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#250 2018-01-24 21:39:19

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Board footer