It’s sudden!
Trump’s skepticism about climate change is turning scientists into activists
Scientists aren’t generally known for their political protests. But like so many things, that’s all changing under the shadow of a looming Trump presidency.
Dec. 12 marked the start of the four-day American Geophysical Union conference, a gathering of climate scientists that isn’t typically known for its raucous itinerary. But on Dec. 13, in between sessions on nonlinear geophysics, seismology, and the study of the earth’s deep interior, many attendees also took to the streets of San Francisco to protest the incoming administration’s stance on climate change. The rally drew hundreds of participants.
And to highlight that notion of climate scientists being non-partisan, they highlight
When scientists protest, their picket signs have footnotes #standupforscience pic.twitter.com/MmDIw0JzAn
— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) December 13, 2016
At the AGU conference, worries abound over future funding for research, jobs, and, of course, Earth. Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University, told NPR he has heard colleagues express “feelings of rage, anger, confusion, fear—they’re all negative emotions.â€
But, mostly the money.
“This is a frightening moment,†said Harvard history of science professor Naomi Oreskest at the protest. “We have to get out and explain to people why this science matters.â€
Money, jobs, and power.
In fact, a goodly chunk of the “climate scientists” in the public eye have been activists for years if not decades. Many explicitly call for some sort of carbon tax and/or cap and trade scheme (such as Gavin Schmidt, the guy in charge of GISS). They have been caught manipulating data. Many fight tooth and nail to hide their data and methods, which were paid for with taxpayer funds. They show up at protests and rallies, and some of them even get arrested (such as James Hansen, who was director of Goddard at NASA, and who has been arrested while still in the employment of the government).
Yes, there are good people who do good work in a non-partisan way, gathering data, looking at data, publishing data, without getting political. There are more than enough, though, who are partisan hacks, and show that this whole “blame Mankind” schitck is a hustle.
“turning scientists into activists”?
Where has the author BEEN for the last decade or two?
New sheriff coming to town.
AND a lot of “scientists” are going to lose their phony baloney jobs.
RSS is known to run cool because they are still using older satellites that are experiencing decay. Also, the graph doesn’t include the last several years. Here’s an updated graph using surface temperatures.
https://klimaatverandering.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/gavin-schmidt-cmip5.jpg
Zachriel, what science degree do you have? I was hoping a real scientist could explain all this in laymen’s terms. Maybe you can help us out. Every time I read something on Man Made Global Warming somewhere during the discussion it switches to just “climate change”. Seems they can’t explain the link between the man-made part and the actual climate so they skim over it. I’d welcome a real scientist to comment here a nice pithy “provable” correlation between humans and climate that allows for the continued existence of humans, if possible. Perhaps you are that scientist. Albert Einstein said: “If you can’t state it simply, you don’t understand it well enough” or “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself”.
We make no claim to authority, but are happy to support our claims with reference to the evidence and the primary literature.
Global warming and climate change mean different things. Global warming refers to an increase in the Earth’s mean surface temperature. Climate change refers to changes in regional weather pattern, which can vary across the globe due to many factors. Global warming will inevitably cause climate change, and while anthropogenic global warming is strongly supported, exactly how this heat will be redistributed through the climate system is a difficult problem.
Start with global warming. The Earth can only gain or lose heat radiatively. CO2 and H2O are atmospheric greenhouse gases. Because of their physical properties that means they “trap” heat near the Earth’s surface. From first principles (calculate the Earth’s gray body temperature), we know that without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.
If we increase CO2, this results in additional greenhouse warming. Again from first principles, a doubling of CO2 will directly cause an increase of ≈1°C. The amount of H2O that the atmosphere can hold is largely a function of temperature. Increase the temperature, and the H2O in the atmosphere will increase (even if, or especially if relative humidity remains the same). This relationship is called climate sensitivity. There are a variety of ways to estimate climate sensitivity, from reconstructions of past climate, from the effect of volcanoes, and from measurements of the Earth’s energy budget, all of which indicate a climate sensitivity of ≈2-4°C per doubling of CO2.
A key confirmation of this effect is that the surface and lower troposphere will warm while the lower stratosphere will cool. And this is what we see.
Humans will survive climate change. It’s a matter of cost. Desertification, inundation, and other effects of climate change will disrupt agriculture, cause mass human migration with the attendant political frictions, and permanently destroy much of humanity’s ecological inheritance. The sooner humans mitigate the problem, the lower the cost of adaptation, and the less ecological damage will be sustained.
This is an example of evidence free posturing.
The question concerned “the continued existence of humans,” presupposing climate change. Desertification is an observed process often aggravated by climate change.
Sorry Zachriel, By you authoritative comments I was under the impression you were a scientist or at least a degreed science buff. We can all look stuff up but having it explained simply is another matter. The science I see and read on man made global warming is unpersuasive. The degree of hysteria leads me to believe it’s a cult rather than a science. There is no difference talking to a AGW believer about the facts on climate change than there is in talking to a moslem about Mohammad. At least they can prove Mohammad actually existed. But neither will admit inconvenient or detrimental facts about the subject.
The problem you AGW believers face are:
1. There have been so many fake warming’s, cooling’s and ice ages and droughts and the population boom and predictions like this by Algore:
http://anodtothegods.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/366e8633e06ee36ee5b6ef4c637aa4f5.jpg
You have reached the Chicken Little Effect.
2. By politicizing it with public funding the science is compromised.
3. By propagandizing it to children and forbidding honest debate you show yourselves to be either scared or lying.
4. BY calling those who are in reality “doubters” the derogatory moniker “denier” you successfully have alienated many who could be convinced (like me) but who refuse to respond positively to those who call us names and insult our intelligence just because we require more evidence or better explanations. This is where Jeffery is a particularly bad salesman for the left. He can’t help himself but insult everybody an thus drive them away.
5. By coming up with ridiculous demands for “trillions” and the threats of severe lifestyle changes you make helping unattractive to any but the ardent anti capitalist radical insane left.
Finally as Poretto put it:
Rev.Hoagie®,
You asked a question. We answered your question based on fundamental science. You then ignored the answer. Not sure why you would do that.
Try to start with this fundamental: The greenhouse effect results in the Earth’s surface being warmer than it otherwise would be. This can be shown by calculating the gray body temperature of the Earth then comparing it to the actual surface temperature. Are we in agreement thus far?
I am not ignoring the science. I am doubting the accuracy of the causation and the degree of the impact. I am questioning the source and I am skeptical of the inability of models that seem unable to be duplicated at will. IOW, some of the argument makes sense but the outcome and impact as well as how to change it and at what cost alludes. I am not denying climate change. I am questioning man’s role and ability to change the climate, to change it back, and to control it in either case. I’m also skeptical that we or scientists, know what the “perfect” climate is since it has been different all over the planet at different times and different seasons for millennia.
IOW, it all looks to me to be great big fukin’ expensive guess which may or may not be correct and which in the end may do more harm than good.
It’s worse than that, Rev Hoagie.
When Zachriel says “This can be shown by calculating the gray body temperature of the Earth then comparing it to the actual surface temperature,” right then and there he has fallen off the cliff and doesn’t know it.
There is no way to scientifically know what the surface temperature of the earth would be as a “gray body” (actually, to be truly scientific, the determination would be what the temperature would be if the earth was a “black body.”
Either way that cannot be done as the variables, the knowns and the known unknowns are too great and cannot be calculated to any scientific degree of certainty.
We know that the atmosphere (which is made up of greenhouse gases) evolved over time and there is no science that says the atmosphere is still not evolving or changing. We also have no scientific basis for stating the earth has reached any thermodynamic equilibrium in either entropy or enthalpy.
Science is based on experimentation, observation and repeatably.
Despite the fact that the theory of AGW is lacking in all three areas, there are people who want others to accept AGW as “scientific.”
What you had asked concerned “the correlation between humans and climate”. We addressed the question, then instead of asking further questions or raising concerns about the answers, you ignored the answer completely.
Sure you are.
Doubt in an of itself doesn’t constitute a valid argument. To raise an argument, you have to actually address the specifics. Start with this fundamental: The greenhouse effect results in the Earth’s surface being warmer than it otherwise would be.
I’m sorry Zachriel if I am not asking the questions you want me to ask. But you are correct, doubt does not constitute a valid argument and it isn’t meant to. Doubt is the result of not receiving a valid argument. I will tell you one thing that is not a valid argument: telling a person who just stated he is not ignoring the science that he is ignoring the science because you don’t like his observations or questions. Is that going to be your defense against everything? Just say I’m ignoring the science and close down the narrative.
Okay. What temperature is it, and what temperature would it otherwise be without the greenhouse effect?
Is the greenhouse effect the only thing that warms the surface of the earth? Does the sun? How do we know how much warming is attributed to which? Has the earth ever warmed or experienced the greenhouse effect before the industrial revolution or even before humans?
I’ve been following this cnversation of Zachs and as a geologist Im just shaking my head……
what can you say….differing types of substrates absorb and reflect heat and irradiate at differing spectrums…..The earth is so complex that we understand about 1 percent of it………
What you had asked concerned “the correlation between humans and climateâ€.
From first principles (gray body calculation), the Earth’s surface would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that we observe.
The sun is the only significant heating source for the Earth’s surface. Ignoring the greenhouse effect, the surface would be ≈-18°C. If the sun stopped shining, the Earth’s surface temperature would plummet to -225°C within weeks, the only remaining source of warming coming from Earth’s interior (about 0.1 watts per meter squared, about 0.03% of solar power).
The Earth has always had a greenhouse effect. Climate simulations that model the past have to include the greenhouse effect to match the historical record.
If by substrate you mean substance, then yes. Monatomic and homonuclear diatomic molecules are virtually unaffected by infrared energy; consequently, nitrogen, oxygen and argon are not greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases, those that absorb and emit infrared radiation, include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, each with its own thermal footprint. Carbon dioxide constitutes about a fourth of the greenhouse effect.
—
Those were all good questions, by the way.
The last comment should have been attributed to Liam Thomas.
Sure. The wonder of the scientific method, though, is that we can understand some things without understanding everything — like a beacon of light in the dark.
The Earth can only absorb or emit energy radiatively (there is a negligible amount of heat from the Earth’s interior, which can be ignored). We can calculate the Earth’s energy budget to determine its gray body temperature. The difference between this and the Earth’s observed surface temperature is due to the greenhouse effect.
Again Zach your misinformed….you read to much AGW literature….
The net effect of warming is heat retention not radiative effect….the fact that surface tempertaures are rising could be the result of a myraid of things…..
Heat retention is the key and the stratosphere is extremely important not dismissive as your link attempted to do…..Because in the stratosphere is where we are the most likely to measure the real heat retention this planet is undergoing and that has been minimal since the 70’s when the measurements first began…..
But Im not going to debate with you….your not a scientist….your cutting and pasting other peoples ideas……you havent a clue what your even writing….it just sounds good to you so you throw it out there.
If surface warming is due to the greenhouse effect, then the lower stratosphere should be cooling — which is what we observe.
Liam,
Your typings make little sense.
You attack others for not being scientists yet you also ridicule appeals to authority. What are your credentials that make you an expert to be trusted?
Your (sic) not going to debate with a non-scientist, LOL. How about just addressing or refuting a few key points that were made.
By all means list the “myriad of things” that could be causing the surface to warm. Do you consider that atmospheric greenhouse gas accumulation may be one of those things causing increased retention of the Sun’s energy?
Can you explain your concept concerning the stratosphere, as it seems somewhat muddled?
If the troposphere is trapping radiation from escaping to deep dark space, doesn’t it make sense that the stratosphere would be cooler as predicted?
An aside – If a “hotter” Sun is causing the Earth to warm why is the stratosphere cooling? Or are you thinking that the Sunlight doesn’t pass through the stratosphere??
Oh, please… you cannot be that stupid.
On second thought, yes you can.
The statement is very roughly correct, but you have to consider the infrared spectrum of CO2. In the CO2 spectrum, if there is CO2 in the lower atmosphere, then there will be reduced upward radiation in the CO2 spectral range. However, the CO2 in the stratosphere will continue to emit in the CO2 spectral range, much of which heat energy is lost to space. From the stratospheric view in the CO2 spectrum, it is cool looking down, and cold looking up.
@Jeffery
Im done…we won…you lost….the AGW whackos in the government are going into hiding as they fear for their jobs…..
You know Like ive had to do for years now.
Your a janitor why should I impart scientific knowledge to you as if your someone of importance who matters at all…
If you were actually as important as you think you are then you would have better places to be then here….
Me I am no one…I am part of a large staff that works on Environmental issues for various businesses and governments around the world…….
Im just one of many…No buddy Important and I dont pretend to be important….
What I do attempt to be is someone who understands that there are no simple answers and there is no true understanding of why the stratosphere is cooling rather then warming….
You put forth a theory……good for you…..NOW PROVE IT.
The stupid is spreading.
Z: scientific argument
d: you’re stupid!
This is a wonderful opportunity for you to show your knowledge of the issue for our readers.
Liam breathlessly typed:
You’ve typed this before. Who is trying to get you fired?
You’ve typed this before. Who is trying to get you fired?
Oh I don’t know Jeffery. Perhaps its those people that demand that any contract proffered to my company be fulfilled with AGW truthers. In short….Any government contract offered by the Obama Administration would be nixed if we had a parcel full of AGW SKEPTICS on the payroll that were loud and boisterous…
So who is trying to get me fired….that would be my bosses if it ever came to light that me and a dozen other Silencers were critical of AGW movement that prevented our company from landing contracts that were proffered by AGW truthers who would not accept any Deniers writing up or researching the impact studies we do…..These reports would be treated with skepticism and any questions about the impact of environment or Weather would be trashed, the report rejected and the company never again offered contracts to fulfill studies.
Who is trying to fire those DOE guys….and why all of a sudden are they afraid for their jobs now that a non believer in AGW is taking over…..you call me names….such as paranoid….I wonder how these guys are feeling today.