What does Trump as President mean for Climate Change research??

[Mallow]

9 hours ago, Thunderbomb1982 said:

Thanks for the comment. One thing especially I want to say is thank you for being respectful and to show data.  A good scientist finally and not one that puts me down.  However, I'm one that might disagree a bit...  One year they say it's 10 years coastal cities will be flooded, the next year they say within 20 years, then they say a different time frame from a variety of scientists on the news and where I've read. Then they try to falsify their past incorrect predictions because they think most of America is dumb or naïve to believe this stuff. It's never consistent so I was making a point about what let's the "average" of all global warming activists believe.  Annapolis may be flooding but New York isn't covered in ocean water.  Neither is New Orleans or other cities right near the coast but yet since we are loosing so much ice our oceans should be rising.  I'm talking about oceans rising, not about increase in storms that cause flooding that all global warming activities want to believe.

Global sea level has gradually been on the rise:

 

Sea level rise so far is mostly due to thermal expansion--that is, the increased heat content of the ocean increases the volume of the same mass of water, so the sea level increases.

The melting of sea ice would have no impact on sea level, because sea ice floating in the ocean is already displacing water at the same volume as it adds when it melts. It's the same reason the level of water in a glass of ice water doesn't change even as the ice melts. On the other hand, melting ice caps over land, such as the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, will certainly raise the global sea level. So far, this melting has had relatively little impact on sea level, since the volume of melted land ice has not been sufficient to increase sea level as fast as thermal expansion. However, this rate of ice cap melting is expected to accelerate, and there are signs this has begun over the past decade or so. This would accelerate sea level rise so that impacts would occur exponentially faster. This is the serious scenario many climate scientists fear.

I would add that you are mistaken about past predictions. Perhaps you heard unrealistic worst-case scenarios from media in the past? No credible scientist has ever suggested that NYC would be underwater within one or two decades. However, things like "nuisance flooding" (where high tides alone can cause flooding in areas where they previously didn't) have already begun in such very low-lying cities as Miami Beach. And an increased sea level puts other low-lying cities at greater risk of flooding during storms.

[Thunderbomb1982]

Thank you for the sources!!  I could see how the ocean would have risen a little bit after the mini ice age ended and during times of cooling.  I unfortunately don't have the sources but I can remember watching weather shows/climate shows that all talked about the north pole being free of ice by 2010, cities would be flooded, and what not.  And from opinion, pre 1950 data just seems so uneasy to me to truly believe it.  I know there were forecasters, data collectors, and all that going way back but how accurate were these.  I just don't think anything was nearly as accurate or reliable before 1979 when satellite could record sea ice and or before internet became widely available.

[Mallow]

The reconstruction of sea level data shown above is detailed in this paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024826/full

 

Many other climate variables are reconstructed using other metrics, such as oceanic cores, glacier cores, and tree ring data (among many others). These data provide a complete and consistent picture showing a gradual warming associated with the Milankovich cycles through the industrial period, and then an acceleration of the warming and rising sea levels far beyond that which can be explained by Milankovich cycles since then. This is consistent with our understanding of the radiative properties of CO2. There is no dispute that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would lead to about 1°C of global warming by itself (the physics associated with this warming is basic and well-understood). The uncertainties exist in the feedbacks, such as the ice-albedo, aerosol, and water vapor feedbacks. Historical data and modeling studies suggest a climate sensitivity of somewhere around 1.5°C to 3°C of global warming from a doubling of CO2 when feedbacks are included.

A good summary of this information can be seen at the Wikipedia page for climate sensitivity, where the sources are listed at the bottom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

[pazzo83]

The NASA Climate twitter account is starting to get extremely active...

[NortheastPAWx]

Status of CC research given Trump's appointees:

[donsutherland1]

From The Washington Post:

Alarmed that decades of crucial climate measurements could vanish under a hostile Trump administration, scientists have begun a feverish attempt to copy reams of government data onto independent servers in hopes of safeguarding it from any political interference.

The efforts include a “guerrilla archiving” event in Toronto, where experts will copy irreplaceable public data, meetings at the University of Pennsylvania focused on how to download as much federal data as possible in the coming weeks, and a collaboration of scientists and database experts who are compiling an online site to harbor scientific information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/

[pazzo83]

3 hours ago, NortheastPAWx said:

Status of CC research given Trump's appointees:

LMAO

[Claire]

The  climate change research might have been awarded with too much money in the past but because of these research they were able to create advanced systems and devices that could detect any sever changes in the climate. Even a satellite and radar is used to monitor the weather changes. Some countries are even using automatic tsunami Systems to inform the people before a tsunami approaches. These systems might not be too reliable at the time but it does not mean they are totally useless. I think that they should cut some part of the funds rather than stopping the research.

[HailMan06]

3 hours ago, Claire said:

The  climate change research might have been awarded with too much money in the past but because of these research they were able to create advanced systems and devices that could detect any sever changes in the climate. Even a satellite and radar is used to monitor the weather changes. Some countries are even using automatic tsunami Systems to inform the people before a tsunami approaches. These systems might not be too reliable at the time but it does not mean they are totally useless. I think that they should cut the funds of the climate research department rather than stopping the research.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here.

The bolded sentence seems to be an oxymoron to me. One way to stop research is to cut its funding.

[alwaysready126]

There is no doubt there is man made climate change. The problem is though the the left hijacked climate change and wants to use it to drive their own agenda. It's never just climate change legislation. There are other laws that have nothing to do with climate change that get overlooked because no one is focusing on it. I think they call that pork?  In any case you're not going to fix the problem by taxing the "big bad oil companies."  Who do you think has the money and interest to come up with alternative fuel technologies?  Companies like Solyndra sure as hell aren't going to fix the problem. If you tax and penalize them, well... there goes that idea.  Besides we all pay more at the pump as a result anyway. 

[Brewbeer]

On 12/23/2016 at 8:01 PM, alwaysready126 said:

There is no doubt there is man made climate change. The problem is though the the left hijacked climate change and wants to use it to drive their own agenda. 

And what agenda might that be?  Working on technologies and solutions to slow down and reverse man made climate change?

[pazzo83]

On 12/26/2016 at 9:05 AM, Brewbeer said:

And what agenda might that be?  Working on technologies and solutions to slow down and reverse man made climate change?

Dude - don't you know all those climate scientists are driving Ferraris and living in ocean front multi-million dollar estates??  Gotta protect that real estate - hello!

[blizzard1024]

Maybe Trump will appoint Dr. Judith Curry as director of NOAA... That would be awesome for NOAA. She's very reasonable when it

comes to climate change. 

[JBG]

On 12/23/2016 at 8:01 PM, alwaysready126 said:

On 12/26/2016 at 9:05 AM, Brewbeer said:

And what agenda might that be?  Working on technologies and solutions to slow down and reverse man made climate change?

There is no doubt there is man made climate change. The problem is though the the left hijacked climate change and wants to use it to drive their own agenda. It's never just climate change legislation. There are other laws that have nothing to do with climate change that get overlooked because no one is focusing on it. I think they call that pork?  In any case you're not going to fix the problem by taxing the "big bad oil companies."  Who do you think has the money and interest to come up with alternative fuel technologies?  Companies like Solyndra sure as hell aren't going to fix the problem. If you tax and penalize them, well... there goes that idea.  Besides we all pay more at the pump as a result anyway. 

The left's agenda may well be to create a huge fund that is nominally available to help Third World countries adjust to climate change. I somehow doubt that some leader such as Kabila (Democratic Republic of Congo) or the Marshall Island's dictator are going to use the moneys for their citizen's benefit. I'd much rather see openness about the need for increased foreign aid, so we can debate how it's spent.

I dislike huge, uncontrolled slush funds.

 

[chubbs]

8 hours ago, JBG said:

The left's agenda may well be to create a huge fund that is nominally available to help Third World countries adjust to climate change. I somehow doubt that some leader such as Kabila (Democratic Republic of Congo) or the Marshall Island's dictator are going to use the moneys for their citizen's benefit. I'd much rather see openness about the need for increased foreign aid, so we can debate how it's spent.

I dislike huge, uncontrolled slush funds.

 

Its very easy to come up with a conservative free-market solution for climate change.  By substituting simple carbon for complex income taxes you could reduce government involvement in the free market, eliminate tax cheating or shifting of money overseas,  and downsize the IRS. Carbon taxing of imports would force other counties to get on-board.

[Brewbeer]

On January 7, 2017 at 11:04 PM, JBG said:

The left's agenda may well be to create a huge fund that is nominally available to help Third World countries adjust to climate change.

 

Or the lefts's agenda may well be to slow down and stop the deleterious affects of AGW, cause, you know, relocating a billion people living in costal cities is gonna be expensive.

[alwaysready126]

On 1/9/2017 at 0:33 PM, Brewbeer said:

Or the lefts's agenda may well be to slow down and stop the deleterious affects of AGW, cause, you know, relocating a billion people living in costal cities is gonna be expensive.

Lmfao. I'm sure that's what they are thinking about. Smh. 

[pazzo83]

Is anyone seeing this?

 

[JBG]

On 1/8/2017 at 7:53 AM, chubbs said:

Its very easy to come up with a conservative free-market solution for climate change.  By substituting simple carbon for complex income taxes you could reduce government involvement in the free market, eliminate tax cheating or shifting of money overseas,  and downsize the IRS. Carbon taxing of imports would force other counties to get on-board.

 

On 1/9/2017 at 0:33 PM, Brewbeer said:

Or the lefts's agenda may well be to slow down and stop the deleterious affects of AGW, cause, you know, relocating a billion people living in costal cities is gonna be expensive.

I have actually read most of the Paris Climate Accords. If you read them I doubt you'd make those statements. The accords set an almost unmeetable target of 40% below 1990 GHG levels (and other base years for select countries). If those targets aren't met penalties accrue, which fund a climate adjustment fund for Third World countries. Notably missing is any controls on the spending of the moneys. The devil, as always, is in the details.

[BillT]

12 minutes ago, JBG said:

 

I have actually read most of the Paris Climate Accords. If you read them I doubt you'd make those statements. The accords set an almost unmeetable target of 40% below 1990 GHG levels (and other base years for select countries). If those targets aren't met penalties accrue, which fund a climate adjustment fund for Third World countries. Notably missing is any controls on the spending of the moneys. The devil, as always, is in the details.

i find the comment about the "solution for climate change" to be hilarious and expose how little some grasp......we CANT stop climate change, we do NOT control the weather.........

[JBG]

 

1 minute ago, BillT said:

15 minutes ago, JBG said:

 

I have actually read most of the Paris Climate Accords. If you read them I doubt you'd make those statements. The accords set an almost unmeetable target of 40% below 1990 GHG levels (and other base years for select countries). If those targets aren't met penalties accrue, which fund a climate adjustment fund for Third World countries. Notably missing is any controls on the spending of the moneys. The devil, as always, is in the details.

i find the comment about the "solution for climate change" to be hilarious and expose how little some grasp......we CANT stop climate change, we do NOT control the weather.........

I'm assuming you don't find my views hilarious, though. I think we agree, right?

[BillT]

1 minute ago, JBG said:

 

I'm assuming you don't find my views hilarious, though. I think we agree, right?

YES......the comment was included in the quotes you used......yes i appears from your posts you care about truth and science.

[Brewbeer]

2 hours ago, JBG said:

 

I have actually read most of the Paris Climate Accords. If you read them I doubt you'd make those statements.

I haven't read the Paris Climate Accords, and i don't need to agree with the Paris Climate Accords to support individual and national efforts to slow and reverse the deleterious effects of AGW.  

To equate "the lefts" support of measures to slow and reverse the effects of AGW to "the lefts" support of the Paris Climate Accords is such a stretch that it falls into the newly created "alternative facts" category. 

[psv88]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/01/24/trumps-pick-for-head-of-commerce-says-noaa-climate-scientists-can-share-their-research/?utm_term=.12b6425ef239

Perhaps some good news...

[chubbs]

6 hours ago, JBG said:

 

I have actually read most of the Paris Climate Accords. If you read them I doubt you'd make those statements. The accords set an almost unmeetable target of 40% below 1990 GHG levels (and other base years for select countries). If those targets aren't met penalties accrue, which fund a climate adjustment fund for Third World countries. Notably missing is any controls on the spending of the moneys. The devil, as always, is in the details.

Per wikipedia text below, you are creating a strawman. Again there is no reason a conservative, free-market system can't be implemented. Tax GHG - not income.

The contribution that each individual country should make in order to achieve the worldwide goal are determined by all countries individually and called "nationally determined contributions" (NDCs).^[13] Article 3 requires them to be "ambitious", "represent a progression over time" and set "with the view to achieving the purpose of this Agreement". The contributions should be reported every five years and are to be registered by the UNFCCC Secretariat.^[14] Each further ambition should be more ambitious than the previous one, known as the principle of 'progression'.^[15] Countries can cooperate and pool their nationally determined contributions. The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions pledged during the 2015 Climate Change Conference serve—unless provided otherwise—as the initial Nationally determined contribution.

The level of NDCs set by each country^[16] will set that country's targets. However the 'contributions' themselves are not binding as a matter of international law, as they lack the specificity, normative character, or obligatory language necessary to create binding norms.^[17] Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force^[18] a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met.^[16][19] There will be only a "name and shame" system^[20] or as János Pásztor, the U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, told CBS News (US), a "name and encourage" plan.^[21]

[JC-CT]

Enjoy it while it lasts

[BillT]

the climate is NOT a force, it has no power it cant CAUSE any weather and cant be the cause of any of the LUNACY being written by the EPA, this is exactly why that agency needs to be closed........exactly what control do you folks claim the climate has? do you even know what the climate is?

[JC-CT]

Just now, BillT said:

the climate is NOT a force, it has no power it cant CAUSE any weather and cant be the cause of any of the LUNACY being written by the EPA, this is exactly why that agency needs to be closed........exactly what control do you folks claim the climate has? do you even know what the climate is?

[Sugarloaf1989]

2 hours ago, JC-CT said:

Enjoy it while it lasts

I heard that Der Fuhrer put the EPA on more or less a gag order.

[ORH_wxman]

23 hours ago, BillT said:

i find the comment about the "solution for climate change" to be hilarious and expose how little some grasp......we CANT stop climate change, we do NOT control the weather.........

Sure we can stop "climate change"....at least the anthropogenic part. That's silly to say we cannot.

 

But put me on the list that says stuff like the Paris agreement insults the intelligence of the rest of the science community if they think that is the way to do it. It will have a negligible effect on climate change even if you assume everyone obeys the agreement and continues it even after 2030.