Trump, NASA & Climate Science

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Off-topic discussion has been split to the trash.

 

Let's stay focused.

 

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

 

Let's consider these points on the screen, realtive to the "topic," viz., Trump's cutting NASA climate change budget.

 

1. Energy independence - IRRELEVANT

2. Preserve rainforests - IRRELEVANT, and what business is it of ours what other countries do within their borders? Are we the world police force, to order them around?

3. Sustainability - IRRELEVANT, HOWEVER you should know that there is only one country classified as "sustainable." That would be idyllic Cuba.

One wonders why all the climate change faithful don't move there.

4. Green jobs - Good point! Lots of green jobs will be preserved by throwing around many more hundreds of billions of tax dollars. But then again, economic laws cannot be disregarded without consequence. Scholars and academics like all good Democrats seem blissfully unaware of this reality.

5. Livable cities - IRRELEVANT. However let it be known that the most UNLIVABLE cities have long been run by Democrats, who demand obeisance to the climate change religion. We're talking Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago, where murder is high right along with misery and squalor.

6. Clean water, air - IRRELEVANT. NASA has no authority in these areas whatsoever. Completely dismissed is cost/benefit analysis. If "clean water" and "clean air" are so desirable to the exclusion of everything else, then nobody here can ever again urinate into a toilet. You're "polluting" the water supply. Don't ever drive a car again. You're "polluting" the air - certainly not to the extent that hypocrites like Richard Branson, Al Gore, and Barack Obama do, but I digest.

7. Healthy children - IRRELEVANT. But take it to Planned Parenthood, which murders hundreds of thousands of them, every year, especially black ones.

8. Etc, etc. - "A better world" with a crushing debt, foisted upon the shoulders of our children and grandchildren? And nobody in the gimme more sect gives a damn? This is the politics of what is so imperiously called "science."

[DrP]

re your point 2 - no -one is world police (except maybe the UN) - but there was an agreement by many countries that we'd all chip in and try our best to comply for the sake of the world (you know - that place out side of your borders where most of the people live). No-one is policing it, but most are trying to comply and play ball... except for a couple places. Are you saying you just don't care if the rain forests totally go? Although I admit it probably has little to do with NASA.

[iNow]

1. Energy independence - IRRELEVANT

Why?

 

4. Green jobs - Good point! Lots of green jobs will be preserved by throwing around many more hundreds of billions of tax dollars.

What about the trillions of dollars with a T that will need to be thrown around if we do nothing? See also: Hurricane Katrina clean up costs.

 

5. Livable cities - IRRELEVANT.

How?

 

6. Clean water, air - IRRELEVANT.

Yes. Who needs clean air to breathe. You're obviously quite correct. Biological systems and physiological needs can be ignored. Hard to argue against unassailable logic like yours.

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

re your point 2 - no -one is world police (except maybe the UN) - but there was an agreement by many countries that we'd all chip in and try our best to comply for the sake of the world (you know - that place out side of your borders where most of the people live). No-one is policing it, but most are trying to comply and play ball... except for a couple places. Are you saying you just don't care if the rain forests totally go? Although I admit it probably has little to do with NASA.

 

 

LOOK, everyone! A civil response. God Bless you, DrP. It's so very rare around here for someone stepping a millimeter off the Politically Correct Path.

 

Let me answer it and... have a conversation with DrP, my best friend around these parts.

 

1. NO, I am NOT "saying (I) just don't care if the rain forests totally go." YOU said that.

You correctly followed up with the point that rain forests have "little to do with NASA."

 

The bigger point is this: Leftists make these little jokes and cartoons and everybody on the Left nods their collective head, and snickers in perfect agreement. Yes, the "repugs" are SO STUPID and SO POLLUTING and SO UNCARING and SO GREEDY. But when one looks more carefully at the nonsense so eagerly and endlessly repeated, it falls apart like Hillary's and Obama's lies.

 

2. There were EIGHT POINTS! You addressed ONE of them, and even so, asked if I don't care if the rain forests totally go.

 

Should Donald Trump suggest we do something toward their preservation, of course Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Haters would rise up in righteous indigation that we were "interfering" with a sovereign country. HOW DARE HE! they would scream.

 

What about the other seven, which elicited so many knowing giggles from this gathering of scientists?

Edited July 13, 2017 by GeniusIsDisruptive

[iNow]

Has anyone in this forum considered, just considered the possibility that spending trillions of tax dollars to address "climate change" might truly be a colossal waste of money?

Yes, I have.

 

I've also decided that a properly conservative position here is to act now... to take steps which will help prevent or minimize damages... and to do so in a planful thoughtful manner, as opposed to sticking our heads in the sand, acting at the last minute only after a state of emergency arises where costs and expenditures are orders if magnitude higher.

 

https://ir.citi.com/hsq32Jl1m4aIzicMqH8sBkPnbsqfnwy4Jgb1J2kIPYWIw5eM8yD3FY9VbGpK%2Baax

Acting on climate change by investing in low-carbon energy would save the world $1.8 trillion through 2040, as compared to a business-as-usual scenario. In addition, not acting will cost an additional $44 trillion by 2060 from the negative effects of climate change.

(...)

Overall, we find that the incremental costs of action are limited (and indeed ultimately lead to savings), offer reasonable returns on investment, and should not have too detrimental an effect on global growth. The necessary investment, such as adding renewable energy sources and improving efficiency, might actually boost the global economy.

 

The incremental costs of following a low carbon path are in context limited and seem affordable, the return on that investment is acceptable and moreover the likely avoided liabilities are enormous. Given that all things being equal cleaner air has to be preferable to pollution, a very strong ‘Why would you not?’ argument begins to develop.

But yeah... what do those mega banks know about making and saving money. It's not like that's their entire business model or ... oh, wait.

Or, you know... those leftie peacenik treehuggers over at the pentagon. Bunch of idiot hippies they are...

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/

The Pentagon is ordering the top brass to incorporate climate change into virtually everything they do, from testing weapons to training troops to war planning to joint exercises with allies.

(...)

The Department of Defense last issued a broad directive on climate change in July. It declared climate change an “urgent and growing threat to our national security” and blamed it for “increased natural disasters.”

[EdEarl]

The world is betting on whether climate change will adversely affect us or not. Climate deniers say the cost of climate change aversion is too much. The other side says, we must act because the potential consequences are human extinction.

 

Humans release about 40 B tons/year. Permafrost, which is melting, could release around 190 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere by 2200. Permafrost contains methane that is 7.5 to 400 billion tons of carbon-equivalent.

 

WorldOceanReview

Depending on the mathematical model employed, present calculations of their abundance range between 100 and 530,000 gigatons of carbon. Values between 1000 and 5000 gigatons are most likely. That is around 100 to 500 times as much carbon as is released into the atmosphere ­annually by the burning of coal, oil and gas.

A few climate scientists believe climate warming will continue to release carbon into the atmosphere from permafrost and the ocean in increasing amounts until almost all life on earth is extinguished, and it will not cool off for centuries. In other words they believe runaway climate change is inevitable and we are already dead men walking.

 

Most climate scientists, I think, believe we have a chance to avoid the worst, but look at the amount of carbon that might be put into the environment, and know the worst is possible.

 

Some people think taking risks is fun. I don't, and I will oppose those who risk my life.

[Sicarii]

Some people think taking risks is fun. I don't, and I will oppose those who risk my life.

 

This is not risk -- this is suicide. Risk is when you know there is a chance to survive. Doing nothing about climate change ultimately ensures we do not have a chance to survive.

[EdEarl]

 

This is not risk -- this is suicide. Risk is when you know there is a chance to survive. Doing nothing about climate change ultimately ensures we do not have a chance to survive.

I suspect there are some small percent of the population who are delusional and would hasten climate change; perhaps there are a few hundred among the 300M population of the US. They might believe they would survive.

[Airbrush]

 

This is not risk -- this is suicide. Risk is when you know there is a chance to survive. Doing nothing about climate change ultimately ensures we do not have a chance to survive.

 

I am generally in agreement, but the worst case of climate change does NOT "ultimately ensure we do not have a chance to survive".

 

Humanity will "have a chance to survive" climate change (along with many other disasters), but in a weakened condition because of WARS over migration of coastal people moving inland, WARS over water, and WARS over scarce food and other resources.

 

When you have more people trying to occupy less habitable land, that brings conflict.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Airbrush

[Ken Fabian]

GeniusIsDispruptive - Before attempting any reply to any of the multiple points you have made I want to know if you accept the mainstream science based advice on climate change.

 

WHAT IF trillions of dollars of government spending for decades accomplishes nothing worthwhile, except to deprive billions of people worldwide of some semblance of decent living?

 

 

If this possibility is based on you having expectations that the economic costs of a destabilised, warming climate are going to be minimal or non-existent you need to make that clear. Nor have you showed that proposed spending by governments to induce a shift away from high emissions energy choices would be directly causal in depriving billions of people of a decent living - but let's start with the fundamental issue of whether global warming is a consequence of rising GHG in the atmosphere, which in turn is a consequence of unprecedented burning fossil fuels.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Ken Fabian

[Tim88]

GeniusIsDispruptive - Before attempting any reply to any of the multiple points you have made I want to know if you accept the mainstream science based advice on climate change. [..]

Does anyone remember Al Gore's erroneous use of ice core data?

 

Me thinks that even a discussion on scienceforums about "political" issues should be science based - and science is inherently sceptic, as opposed to dogmatic. The topic is very complex and affected by political lobby groups. In fact, respectable articles can be found at either side of the debate, so that there obviously is no true scientific consensus on the question of how much climate change is affected by man - at least, not yet.

 

If there is no other thread where this question is seriously discussed (instead of mud throwing or appeal on either majority or authority), then it would be useful to compare the scientific arguments here.

[iNow]

In fact, respectable articles can be found at either side of the debate, so that there obviously is no true scientific consensus on the question of how much climate change is affected by man

Yeah, obviously.

 

 

 

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

[Tim88]

Yeah, obviously.

 

 

 

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

 

You are here doing exactly what I just called unscientific reasoning: an appeal on majority. Maybe you don't know it, but it is typical for both good and pathological science that at a certain time a majority agrees. But first of all, we should correct for the ratios of financing - if groups on one side of the debate get 1000 times more money, there will be also 1000 times more people active on that side and they may also publish 1000 times more articles in which they promote their hypothesis. Further, there's that thing called confirmation bias.

 

Anyway, I notice that this topic originally was inside a more scientific sub forum, and so I'll check out the -hopefully- more scientific discussion there, instead of this thread.

But before I leave, I think that GeniusIsDisruptive has a good point - and maybe he/she even doesn't fully see it!

 

The political "CO₂ debate" may be based on asking the wrong question. What we should be asking ourselves is what would be the most cost effective way to counter global warming. Maybe that isn't CO₂ reduction but something else (mirrors, whatever). Or maybe something else would be a more sure method (less unknown parameters) to achieve it. Did anyone look??

Edited July 18, 2017 by Tim88

[rangerx]

 

You are here doing exactly what I just called unscientific reasoning: an appeal on majority. Maybe you don't know it, but it is typical for both good and pathological science that at a certain time a majority agrees. But first of all, we should correct for the ratios of financing - if groups on one side of the debate get 1000 times more money, there will be also 1000 times more people active on that side and they may also publish 1000 times more articles in which they promote their hypothesis. Further, there's that thing called confirmation bias.

 

Anyway, I notice that this topic originally was inside a more scientific sub forum, and so I'll check out the -hopefully- more scientific discussion there, instead of this thread.

But before I leave, I think that GeniusIsDisruptive has a good point - and maybe he/she even doesn't fully see it!

 

The political "CO₂ debate" may be based on asking the wrong question. What we should be asking ourselves is what would be the most cost effective way to counter global warming. Maybe that isn't CO₂ reduction but something else (mirrors, whatever). Or maybe something else would be a more sure method (less unknown parameters) to achieve it. Did anyone look??

 

Nonsense. The premise climate change is a gravy train is bogus. They are political assertions from a non-scientists with chips on their shoulders and axes to grind.

 

The problem is C02. I work with shellfish and see the effects of ocean acidification every day and nobody pays me a nickel to say so.

Edited July 18, 2017 by rangerx

[CharonY]

It is just plain silly. Why would anyone get paid to find an effect that is generally assumed to happen? Instead of bemoaning that the majority of scientific findings are in agreement with each other, you could take a look at those studies and figure out whether you could actually criticize the substances. That, however, requires that one obtains some level of expertise. The other interpretation is that the findings are so obvious and non-controversial that no one actually came up with an alternative. And believe, if someone actually manage to get strong evidence that everyone else was wrong, that one would be a star over night (with emphasis on strong evidence). The real strength of the evidence is not only the pure number of studies, but the diversity of findings that point to the same conclusion.

 

Also, yes people have thought about ways to slow global warming. Carbon sequestration is a big thing and some even proposed climate engineering using e.g. sulfate aerosols. However, to date the former are insufficient to offset current production and for the latter risk estimates are difficult. So no, to date there is still no good alternative that does not include curtailing at least part of CO2 production.

[rangerx]

Climate change denial kills jobs. My industry is a fraction of what it used to be, largely because of climate change.

 

Replacing aquaculture with coal mining in the name of jobs is absurd.

[Phi for All]

You are here doing exactly what I just called unscientific reasoning: an appeal on majority.

 

Hold on there. Appeal to Majority is about opinion. In science, professional assessment of evidence by experts is hardly opinion. You might call it Appeal to Authority, but again you'd be wrong, because there are so many authorities saying the exact same thing. This isn't like joining a bandwagon. Using proper methodology to reach inevitable conclusions based on available evidence is the exact opposite of fallacious reasoning.

 

You are waaaay off base here.

[Tim88]

As I recall, not many years ago acidification was universally accepted as caused by acid rain - and the consensus then was that it was from SO₂ and NO_x. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

 

Oh by chance, from reading the science forum about climate change, I stumbled on a Youtube by a physicist who not only agrees with with GeniusIsDisruptive about using money for other things; he actually disagrees with all of us and denies global warming, with data to support his opinion! -

 

But according to professors at my university he is wrong about solar cells, they are near to the break even point already. I can see no excuse for not promoting solar energy.

[rangerx]

As I recall, not many years ago acidification was universally accepted as caused by acid rain

 

 

What part of C02 dissolved in seawater creating carbonic acid don't you understand?

[Carrock]

As I recall, not many years ago acidification was universally accepted as caused by acid rain - and the consensus then was that it was from SO₂ and NO_x. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

That view hasn't changed significantly. The main damage from these pollutants is on land and freshwater lakes.

 

Locally,SO₂ and NO_x pollution swamps the effects of increased CO₂ in the atmosphere. Unlike CO₂ , these pollutants would soon return to preindustrial levels in the atmosphere if the polluting industries were shut down.

 

Note: this is consistent with the previous post.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Carrock

[iNow]

You are here doing exactly what I just called unscientific reasoning: an appeal on majority.

Slow your roll, Timmy. You're the one who introduced the idea of consensus, and then incorrectly asserted there wasn't one. Don't go moving the goalposts after I clearly showed your claim to be remedially false.

[Phi for All]

Oh by chance, from reading the science forum about climate change, I stumbled on a Youtube by a physicist who not only agrees with with GeniusIsDisruptive about using money for other things; he actually disagrees with all of us and denies global warming, with data to support his opinion!

 

But according to professors at my university he is wrong about solar cells, they are near to the break even point already. I can see no excuse for not promoting solar energy.

 

Why is it you see no excuse for not promoting solar, you understand that this guy in the video is wrong about solar cells, and you side with the professors at your university on these points, yet you still think he's right about AGW being a hoax? How can you be a critical thinker and still be swayed by this kind of appeal?!

[Ken Fabian]

GeniusIsDisruptive - you haven't said what you think of climate science - or at least not within this thread. The kinds of points you make are strongly suggestive of rejecting the mainstream science on climate. Any attempts to evaluate the relative costs and benefits of our energy and emissions choices will be skewed if starting with assumptions that the science is wrong and presumptions that there are no serious downsides to releasing gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The impacts of climate change itself - not only the impacts of climate change avoidance policies and choices - on the capability of billions to have a decent living can't be simply set aside.

 

"WHAT IF you are wrong" also applies to the Conservative Right's position - and given the abundance of persistent, clear expert advice supported by every peak science body, all that contradicts it, it's a far more credible case that it's them that are wrong. The contributions of that politicking to the inadequacies and compromises - to lack of emissions reductions and displacement of fossil fuels - of efforts to date shouldn't be underestimated. It prevents the depth of support renewable options need to achieve their full potential, just as it prevents the largest body of ongoing support for use of nuclear for climate (within Right Conservative politics) from being mobilised effectively.

 

I have a lot of trust in science, it's methods, institutions and professional standards. Those have served us well and still do - people like Giaever in the video Tim88 presented above are not prevented from doing any alternative climate science but object that low quality science will be rejected by publishers and subject to strong criticism; it's a conspiracy to maintain high professional standards the climate science deniers face, not a conspiracy to exaggerate the influence of GHG's on climate or exclude science that might show otherwise. When even a layperson like me can see the gaping holes in Giaever's arguments it's no surprise that he gets criticism and even derision from the actual working professionals he disparages and slanders.

 

The climate problem is a global economy-wide one that can't be fixed purely by voluntary emissions reductions efforts of concerned individual - and those extremists that live frugally with zero emissions will get dismissed as loony extremists and ignored, without raising their credibility with people like "Genius" and Tim88 at all. Those favouring strong climate action that aren't so extreme will be accused of hypocrisy instead of lunacy so there will be no satisfying the critics.

 

My household for example, self supplies electricity 95% of the time and exports 4 to 5 times as much low emissions energy to the grid as it imports. I minimise vehicle use and unnecessary travel and look forward to affordable electric vehicles that I can charge at home but that takes organised efforts by others, including at the government policy level; I haven't achieved net zero emissions but I don't think that is hypocrisy, it is recognition of the socio-economic as well as technological constraints within which I live. I don't hate fossil fuels, but the expected, deferred costs of the consequences of their excessive use must be acknowledged and faced squarely.

 

I recognise that it must be a transition away from excessive fossil fuel use, where ongoing emissions must be accepted in order that the transition be orderly, to minimise economic disruption - and that simply ceasing emissions is not appropriate. It is not a transition aimed at stopping people being rich or having vacations or driving vehicles or having prosperity, no matter that there are fringe extremists who appear to have such aims; the extremists aren't driving this or where it looks like they are that is almost certainly a case of lack of direction and competence from those who do hold authoritative positions of trust and responsibility. It's aimed at sustaining prosperity by avoiding irreversible harms from climate instability. It's not about depriving anyone of prosperity, it's about having our cake and eating it too.

[Manticore]

Quote from Giaever.

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned."

 

So half a day (maybe) searching Google appears to be the sum total of his knowledge of climate change.