Bridenstine's Climate Record Is Different Than You Thought
House lawmakers back amendment requiring Pentagon climate change report, The Hill
“The House Armed Services Committee’s annual defense policy bill will include a provision requiring a Defense Department report on the effects of climate change on military installations. The amendment – brought up by Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) in the readiness portion of Wednesday’s markup – instructs each military service to come up with a list of the top 10 military installations likely to be affected by climate change over the next 20 years. The report would include a list of possible ways to combat such climate change threats as flooding, droughts and increased wildfires. … Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) backed up Bishop’s line of thinking. “It’s just a report and there are strategic implications that we need to be aware of,” he said.”
House Poised To Approve National Defense Authorization Bill, NPR
“MCEVERS: So the House armed services committee has already approved this bill. Does that mean that Republicans are going along with this amendment?
WELNA: Not only did they go along with it in a clear voice vote. They even talked it up. Here’s Jim Bridenstine, who’s a Navy veteran from Oklahoma.
JIM BRIDENSTINE: There are real changes in the Arctic that do affect the Navy. The Arctic ice is disappearing. There are strategic changes that are being implicated here. And it’s important for the Department of Defense to report to Congress on this. We’re talking about a report here.”
Keith’s note: Bridenstine’s support of this amendment – one that recognizes that climate change is something that needs to be paid attention to – was widely seen as being instrumental in its passage. So its probably not prudent to just dismissively categorize him as a climate denier. He may have said some things that certainly suggest this but he then went and voted in a way that clearly admits that there is something to climate change that warrants serious future study. I suspect we’ll hear more about this at his upcoming confirmation hearing.
The NAVY has been examining climate change for decades, and released one report in 2014 regarding the Artic. Reports in 2008 developed risk assessments on climate change, stating that implications on 100s of ports and air bases, where many become unusable.
Folks that lie to allow the carbon industry to deny liability for trillions in costs or sign no carbon tax pledges are not leaders, nor critical thinkers. No one should be rewarded for costing the world trillions.
All this data and evidence was present during his 12 year reign.
Q: Do you believe human activity causes climate change? (2012)
A: No. There is no credible scientific evidence that greenhouse gas concentrationsincluding carbon dioxide, affect global climate. I oppose regulating greenhouse gases. And folks want this ignorance to speak for scientists and engineers?!
“Global warming should not drive national energy policy without clearer evidence.” 2012
Bridenstine signed a letter to let the wind energy production tax credit to expire (renewables is about 5B /yr), even though the world spends 5 Trillion annually on fossil fuel subsidies, 0.1% of the world total, flowing disproportionately, guess what, to the wealthy.
Not qualified for an entry level position, but if he really did understand the implications and trillions of cost of climate change, the daily Oklahoma earthquakes, then his actions are ………
And what does this data dump have to do with this thread?
THAT: Bridenstine had access to the data (only summarized above) and science for a long time, THEN either incorrectly made ‘executive decisions’ – based on his own analysis, – selected the wrong folks do do the analysis for him, – or lied about the effects which would cost trillions to support his carbon donors.
IOW – not qualified for an entry level position–‘there is no credible evidence that greenhouse gas concentrations including carbon dioxide affect global climate” -2012. ‘Out of the mouth of babes’. QED.
And what is your evidence that he read the report? Or are you just guessing as usual?
Perhaps not qualified for an entry level position. However, historically, people in much more senior positions (e.g. congressmen) have said and done things that are inconsistent with either the facts or their own opinions.
So you have to lie or be inconsistent to become a Republican member of Congress? Let’s add some data to see if ‘everyone does it’.
PolitiFact, run by the Tampa Bay Times, sorts politicians’ claims into one of six categories: true, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false, and pants on fire.
Dems vs POR
True, Mostly True >> 55% vs 18%
Half True-Mostly False, 35% vs 50% <<
False, PonFire 13% vs 32%<<
Its not even close. 18% True or Mostly True!
The top 10 liars of the presidential candidates were all, you guessed it…from the same party. Few will forget HC: “No one will lose coverage. There will be insurance for everybody. Healthcare will be a “lot less expensive” for everyone.” “people will choose not to buy something they don’t like or want”
“everyone else does it” is not ‘leadership’ and as always, the statement is meant to deceive.
Those stories, if you read them, are about why the fact-checking statistics aren’t necessarily accurate. People who are in the news more often or are considered more “interesting” to readers are fact-checked more often than others. That biases the statistics.
When will many of these 100’s of ports and air bases become unusable?
This question is absolutely fantastic!: GW does not ‘magically’ stop– it takes decades to dissipate the effects–it may be too late to recover from past emissions.
The Infographic on the Global Carbon Budget should be periodically viewed by everyone on this planet.
Fortunately, even while Bridenstine was disputing the basic science of greenhouse gases in 2012, parts of Oklahoma in the same year began installing wind farms, and now produce 7,625 megawatts with 2,000 coming online, saving customers $1.2B annually each year-no emissions, clearly showing the parties lack of exec. leadership skills.
When politicians dispute science and one man can try to disrupt wind, or back out of IPCC, due to Citizen’s United and Gerrymandered Districts, the stalemate results in nothing being done, folks buying gas guzzlers which will be on the roads for 20 years, carbon subsidies, … the bridge to nowhere, destroying Mother Earth.
I’m asking a factual question. Is it 10 years or 100 years or 300 years? If it’s not known, that’s a sign that the problem is not well understood.
Technology will likely drastically improve in the next 10 to 50 years and costs decline making it better to use tomorrow’s technology for tomorrow’s problems.
Many or most buildings likely won’t last 50 years. About the only reasonable current planning for ports or bases would be to acquire higher elevation land or evaluate any new construction to verify it will be high enough for the next 50 years or so.
How much loss in capability or increase on operations cost of a navy base is required before either naval capability is sourced from different bases or the base is reconfigured?
The nature of climate change isn’t sudden in time or uniform geographically of course. That is the nature of weather, however, and there is a relation.
https://www.pri.org/stories…
You mentioned – “Many or most buildings likely won’t last 50 years.” That article says that pier was built in the 1940s so that’s a little more. Also, Naval Station Norfolk was first built in 1917 and of course it’s still in the same spot. “In the area around Norfolk, seas are projected to rise between 4.5 and 6.9 feet by the end of this century. Much of the station lies less than 10 feet above sea level.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/globa…
You have some good points including with the technology idea. Who knows, maybe we won’t have (many) navy ships in 100 years. They do seem like easy targets for rockets and such.
Though that is correct, if those 100 or 300 years pass by and you look back, I’d suspect that statement would just seem useless. People and the Navy would have acted and reacted as needed. And that would have happened whether or not the problem was much better understood or not.
If prevailing theory were correct, I imagine some port and base infrastructure will need to be adjusted, reconfigured, rebuilt. Yes, planning for new construction will help a lot. But I’m sure also some overall port and base infrastructure will need to be adjusted, rebuilt – much like the pier in the quote above.
Again looking back from 100 years in the future, I guess the question would be how did that occur? How costly was it?
I suspect for some things, it will be fine (and cheaper) to wait until really pressed up against new conditions force a change. Though again, that change wouldn’t be sudden (except in the case of storms or flooding events). So it will still take a decision at some point.
And I suspect for some other things, it would be better to plan ahead, spend a little more now planning or rebuilding so that it doesn’t cost much more money in the future rebuilding, money in the additional operational costs until that rebuilding, and in loss of capability during that time.
Don’t get your hopes up, it’s a pretty common Denier tactic to occasionally pretend to accept “climate change”, but actually claiming that the current warming is merely a natural “cycle”. It doesn’t mean they don’t still believe in a global leftist scientific conspiracy, nor that they aren’t trying to destroy climate research.
(And then, a little while later, to go back to regurgitate the “there’s no evidence of warming” line again. Consistency is not required.)
And this name calling is exactly why it’s impossible to have a rational discussion on how to address it. It’s either accept my views and solution 100% or you are the (insert current name you use to belittle your opponents here…).
Thanks Keith for pointing out its not black and white as many folks treat politics now.
The problem is that his comments about climate change show no nuance (no gray) and are full of scientific inaccuracies. They pretty much put him on the side of those that deny anthropogenic influences. As I posted, hopefully he was just throwing red meat at the core. But he’ll face tough questioning at his confirmation (as he should).
As are the statements of many folks advocating it’s the most important problem in today’s world. That is the core of the problem, both sides are playing politics with it rather than seeking to address it rationally.
I hope it’s the opposite (ie, his comments are meant to satisfy the climate deniers that constitute the core of the Republican Party while, at the same time, he ends up supporting climate change research because he actually knows it’s happening). As Keith says, his confirmation hearing should be interesting.
The issue is not so much climate change. The earth’s climate has gone through warming and cooling cycles as far back as science can determine. I have never heard of anyone, from either party, deny this.
The issue is whether carbon dioxide from human activities is responsible. On this point, my reading of Bridenstine’s comments is that he does not believe so, and further, does not believe in some of the extreme methods advocated, like the Paris Treaty.
“climate change” refers specifically to anthropogenic (caused by ‘humans) climate change, also known as ‘global warming’.
Scientist subtract out volcanic activity, solar cycles, el ninos (natural events) to arrive at “at how the climate is changing due to human contributions. The toe of the hockey stick is best explained by subtracting out solar, El Nino, and volcanic activity (See Figure 3) to arrive at the human contribution to examine how the “the climate is changing”. You do not ‘believe’ in facts { A) 1+1=2, B) humans increased CO2 from 300 ppm (recorded over 600,000 years) to 400ppm and are warming the earth by trapping heat at the cost of trillion, which was masked by the ocean absorbing CO2 and heat and dimming the sun.}
Politicians and the carbon industry fueled the ‘denial’ propaganda, based on basically two false pieces of data: “the pause” (averaging satellite and not other data over an arbitrary 18 years (not 5, or 10 or 20 years)) and by manipulated data of Roy Spencer or John Christie, who altered the data using the wrong sign in the satellite drift rate to incorrectly show no warming, where comically tragic, the nighttime temperatures were warmer than the day violating all the physics. ‘Skeptics’ or ‘non-believers were duped or lied too, simply stated.
The IPCC agreement basically says if you do not want to cost the world trillions of dollars with more effects of cc, all rich countries must abandon coal by 2030s. Since renewables are now cheaper than coal, its ‘inconceivable’ that the IPCC goals can be considered extreme, but rather fiscally sound. ‘Saying’ coal did however obtain votes with false promises.
Even the Paris agreement does not reach the levels required to address {human induced} climate change.
“Scientist subtract out volcanic activity, solar cycles, el ninos (natural events) to arrive at “at how the climate is changing due to human contributions.”
As a scientist, I’d actually like to know how large the variations from those natural events, how large the uncertainty in that contribution is, and how that compares to the residual, human contribution. That detail never seems to make it to the front page, and I’ve never had a chance to dig through the full papers to extract the answer.
It’s there in the IPCC reports and the National Climate Assessments. Basically you are saying that you want to remain ignorant about an important issue and have the rest of us take your ignorance seriously. Please
No, I see a report which used a statistical technique to remove variability from other (non-man-made) factors. It does remove variability, with an amplitude on par with the ~0.1 degree/decade underlying trend. But the technique is _designed_ to do that, and will do so even if the supposed, external factors aren’t actually relevant. I don’t see any reporting of the error bars, and since the removed signal is on par with the man-made residual, that means the uncertainty in the residual may be much greater than it appears in those nice plots. (And using 12-month running averages is also an old trick to make the data look cleaner and less uncertain than they really are.) This isn’t a political objection. I’d have the same problems if it were work on climate trends on Titan.
Volcanic activity emits some CO2 but the amount is trivial compared to human emissions, while volcanic aerosols block sunlight, so the net effect of major eruptions is temporary global cooling.
That’s a fine, physics-based explanation, and probably why I’m not too comfortable with the study in question. It wasn’t physics-based. It assumed that volcanic activity could have some effect on global temperatures (through an unspecified mechanism), that some measurement (I think the stratospheric optical depth your figure shows) could be used as a proxy for volcanic activity, and that the effect might not be instantaneous. Then they calculated what conversion factor between the volcanic activity index and global temperature, and what time lag, would best remove bumps and wiggles from the global temperature trends. Even if there is no connection, or if the connection is much more complicated than that linear, uncorrelated model, the result will inevitably be an apparently clearer and more obvious residual trend in temperature. The method makes the result a fore-drawn conclusion. It might also be the right conclusion, but the methodology offers no proof of that.
Interesting. It seems like you can’t even notice that there was a large volcanic eruption in the recent CO2 data, at least with these.
Do volcano eruptions show up in some global temperature data with cooling?
Here I found – “Consequently, over the next 15 months, scientists measured a drop in the average global temperature of about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C).”
https://earthobservatory.na…
Why is “skeptic” insufficient?
“Deniers” are going beyond skepticism. They’re cherrypicking evidence and arguments that support their view. It’s what John McCarthy called “lawyer science”. Lawyers are not neutral, but advocates for a particular position, regardless of the validity of that position.
It’s important to recognize that they are doing this, so you aren’t fooled into thinking their position is one of balance or neutrality.
So under that same reasoning environmentals who reject nuclear power, GMOs and planetary engineering should be referred to as technology deniers since they refuse to accept the science on the technologies likely to provide solutions to CO2 induced global warming.
But really, does using labels and identity politics, stereotyping your opponents, serve any purpose beyond making you feel good because you are “better” than them? The thing about labels, once you label someone you tend to disenfranchise them making compromise impossible.
I’m not using identity politics, I’m noting that “denier” refers to a real set of behavioral attributes associated with cognitive failure and/or dishonesty. What name would you prefer for this failure mode, if “denier” makes you sad?
Those are really value laden terms for someone that simply requires a higher level of proof for something than you require. It also shows you have no interest in reaching a compromise on it.
BTW what year did you finally accept the evidence of CO2 induced global warming? I betting like most here it was only in the 1990’s.
Deniers demand a higher standard of proof about global warming in the same way creationists demand a higher standard of proof about evolution.
It’s wishful thinking masquerading as honest skepticism. It’s selectively applied to the theory the denier doesn’t like (based on ideological or other non-scientific grounds). It involves searching for evidence that confirms the denier’s prejudices, rather than taking a balanced approach to all the evidence.
Once you recognize this syndrome you can see examples of it all over. It happened with CFCs and the ozone layer, for example.
No, its not a syndrome (a disease or mental disorder), its a normal part of science as Thomas Kuhn discussed in his classic work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. It serves to drive researchers to develop more support for their theories.
Plate Tectonics is a good example of where such skepticism worked well. And, as Thomas Kuhn discusses in his book, Albert Einstein never accepted Quantum Physics, which by your definition would make him a science denier. Yet his rejection motivated the new generation of physicists to work harder on it.
Tell me, do you consider Dr. Fred Singer a science denier? He was one of the small group of Earth scientists that organized the IGY, and help to found the modern field of climate science from space, but he questions many of the conclusions of current climate researchers.
You’re still pretending that people are objecting to skepticism, when they are drawing a clear distinction between honest skepticism and dishonest denialism.
As for Einstein and Singer, there’s another phenomena I’ve noticed that I’ve taken to calling “Old scientist syndrome”, where a respected but ageing scientist will suddenly go off the rails a bit. Either refusing to accept changes in scientific understanding, or running off with the pixies chasing some fringe science. It happened with Einstein over QM, it happened with a lot of older astronomers over Einstein’s relativity and the Big Bang (Fred Hoyle is a classic example, early on he was a useful skeptic, but over time, he just got weird.) On the flip side, Pauling with cancer and vitamins; any number of paranormal researchers; etc etc.
What makes denialism dishonest? Aren’t folks free to set different standards for accepting an idea?
The dishonesty.
Folks see the world differently, that doesn’t make them dishonest. By calling them dishonest you basically making it impossible to find common ground with them.
The dishonesty makes them deniers, not the other way around.
People who lie about their intent, who fake or misrepresent science, who use objections that have nothing to do with what they actually believe.
I’m not “calling” them dishonest because I disagree with them. I’m noting their dishonesty and calling them deniers.
Einstein might have said God does not play with dice, but he won the Nobel for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, a classic quantum penomenon.
Yes. Or at least “True Believers” in their ideology. Many are full-blown Deniers about any benefits of technology, of modernity; others are more moderate but still not science-based.
That doesn’t mean they are wrong about a particular, specific argument, just that any relationship between lobbyists’ claims and reality are coincidental; so its always important to be aware of that whenever discussing those issues. (Just as advocates of those technologies are also often “True Believers” or paid lobbyists, who won’t accept any counter-evidence.)
The fact that evidence on climate change agrees with the eco-nuts is a coincidence. Neither the Believers, nor the Deniers, are interested in science, except as a way of salting their arguments with “truthiness” in order to trick listeners into thinking that the argument is science-based.
Yes, such people (Believers, Deniers, paid shills), and the need to be aware of such people, makes it hard to have honest discussions about issues. It sucks, but that’s the world we live in.
[Aside: There’s also people who use one controversial issue as a tactical wedge to poison debate on another issue. Here in Australia, whenever climate change legislation gets traction with the public, suddenly people who oppose such legislation will start pushing the idea of nuclear power in Australia as a “solution to climate change”, which they don’t believe in. They have no actually interest in nuclear power (which can be seen by their own policies when they are in government), but they know that it’s a way to poison the debate and potentially turn factions in the climate change lobby against each other. The media loves it and gets completely sidetracked, “Squirrel!” Then the poisoners just sit back and watch the chaos. It’s been quite effective for them. It’s therefore impossible to have an honest public discussion about nuclear power in Australia, because the supposed “advocates” are made up of half liars, and half useful-idiots who don’t realise they are being used by the liars.]
I am curious – why are Australians against nuclear energy?
Because of politics and the associated fear-mongering. As Paul451 points out, it’s almost impossible to have a rational discussion about it because it keeps getting used as a wedge in other debates.
It might be a good idea (eg, low emissions – at least during the operating phase, stable base load generation), or a bad idea (eg, high life-cycle emissions/embodied energy, fuel disposal issues). It may be that some of the purported benefits or disadvantages don’t stand up to scrutiny – unfortunately it’s too hard to maintain a focussed debate for long enough to find out.
Not what I said. Why did you pretend it was?
Because nuclear power is and has been the best science based solution to global warming since the 1950’s. Over 80 percent of Australia’s energy is from fossil fuel giving them one of the highest per capita carbon footprints in the world. A switch to nuclear energy would give them one of the lowest.
Yet they have zero nuclear power plants and only a single research reactor. They don’t even have a nuclear engineering program even though they are one of the largest producers of Uranium in the world.
It looks like there is some very heavy technology denial going on in Australia about nuclear energy and its role in reducing climate change, the same kind of denial that has made CO2 induced global warming such a problem for the world.
At least in the US an attempt was made to go nuclear and prevent global warming before the technology denier environmental movement stopped it. If it wasn’t for them atmospheric carbon would be well below the 400 level now.
And this brings up an example of the dishonesty I’m talking about.
Of the two major parties in Australia, one is “pro-nuclear” and has politicians bring it up from time to time, the other is “anti-nuclear”.
When the supposedly pro-nuclear party is in power, they cut funding for nuclear research, they cut funding for post-graduate nuclear specialisation education, they cut all funding for exchange programs and fellowships where young nuclear scientists and engineers are seconded to friendly-foreign nuclear programs to learn more.
When the anti-nuclear party was in government, they expanded funding for nuclear research, nuclear training and they were the government that created the overseas fellowship program.
Australia’s nuclear engineers and research community is old. Most are beyond retirement age, most have been in advisory positions since the 1970s and haven’t been involved in modern nuclear engineering. We lack the very core knowledge-base to even offer intelligent informed advice to decision makers.
The supposedly pro-nuclear advocates, when in a position to do anything to address that, consistently have made the situation worse. Instead, we depend on the supposedly anti-nuclear party to keep at least a trickle of new blood into the ageing expert-pool.
IMO, it’s just wilful blindness to believe that the supposed nuclear advocates in Australia are anything but rank liars, merely using the issue as a wedge to disrupt discussion of climate-change.
Why should I show anything but contempt for such liars?
Meaningful debate is hard to come by in the US as well.
I agree to an extent. Obviously there are also people in the environmental movement who have views that are unscientific. Personally I feel nuclear power is environmentally acceptable provided the US actually develops a permanent waste processing and storage facility. WIPP at Calsbad NM has much better geology for permanent storage than the congressionally inspired site at Yucca Mountain, but politics may be more critical in deciding what, if anything, happens. Regarding GMO’s, SFAIK FDA evaluation has so far approved virtually all such products in the US, and the demands of those who oppose them are generally limited to labeling, which frankly doesn’t seem onerous. Planetary engineering remains rather speculative.
Same here. Interesting stuff about the political situation with nuclear in Australia.
One thing to note is that I heard that wind power is becoming cheaper than coal or just has become cheaper, and I think it’s already cheaper than nuclear.
Yeah, actually wind and solar are both cheaper than basically everything but hydro. https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Because skeptics are a different thing. Skeptics do exist within climate science, and are extraordinarily useful. They are the reason why warming is accepted by virtually all researchers. They force a field to ensure its foundations are solid.
The key is that they care about the science, about reality, their motivation is to figure out “what is”. They are therefore honest about their problems with particular research, and can be worked with to find ways to either overcome the shortcomings, or show that the proposed finding was wrong.
Deniers aren’t interested in science or reality. Their motivation is to… well, deny. Hence their words, their arguments, don’t have to actually describe what their objections are, as long as it serves the goal of disrupting.
In individual cases, the difference is sometimes not obvious (an especially blunt skeptic might come across as a denier, and a weaselly denier might hide behind legitimate skepticism), but over time and across the field, it becomes obvious that deniers and skeptics are different creatures. Whether we’re talking about climate change, evolution, or the Nazi holocaust.
[Same distinction between genuine scientists and Believers, of course.]
I agree. We use the term “skeptic” to indicate someone who actually reads enough of the science to understand the evidence and the issues, and finds weak points in the theory. The skeptic does not reject science, but instead works to explain the open questions.
For example, there is geologic evidence for a unique period of glaciation in the late Ordovincian before extensive development of land plants, when in general CO2 was higher than it is today. More detailed climate models which include multiple forcing functions show that because of lower solar luminosity at that time, the critical CO2 level below which glaciation occurs was higher than it is today, A vast eruption of basaltic rock occurred at that time. Basalt, unlike granite, absorbs CO2 due to weathering, and the more detailed model shows that this event apparently reduced the atmospheric CO2 level below the threshold for glaciation.
I am not surprised. There is a theory that the current series of Ice Ages are a result of the rise of the Himalayas absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and depositing it in the Indian Ocean as a resulting of weathering.
A good point, although the mountains themselves are mainly granite the region includes a large basaltic outcropping of about 100,000 km^2. However the cyclic nature of the Ice Ages supports the theory that the Milanchovic Cycles of planetary motion are also a critical driver in this period of glaciation.
Yes, but the theory suggests that the Milanchovic Cycles only became a trigger for Ice Ages after the uplifting of the Himalayas lowered atmospheric CO2 levels. Before then the CO2 levels were too high. Here is a paper on it.
https://pubs.geoscienceworl…
Very well said.
This climate thing is less like a science and more like a political pledge everyday. We don’t ask incoming NSF director whether he (or she) believes in String theory or Big Bang cosmology, why do we need to care what NASA administrator thinks about the climate change? It’s like judging Elon’s leadership ability by his alarmist stand on AI or his taste in women.
Yes, it would be nice to return to the good old days (last year) when the only thing the mattered about a potential NASA Administrator was their views on space exploration…
Quite so. The commenters here are unintentionally very funny. They get their knickers in a twist if anyone questions anything about CAGW “theory”. They seem to think it’s on the same level of verification as general relativity or quantum theory. CAGW has to be able to explain the natural variations in climate from the paleoclimate record at least for the Holocene and hopefully for all interglacials. Unfortunately for them, CAGW cannot account for the Holocene optimum, the hotter Eemian, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods and the LIA. They also cannot predict ENSO, PDO or NAO. They don’t properly handle clouds, which means that variations in UV and cosmic rays might totally invalidate their models. On top of all that, none of their climate models are predictive in any meaningful sense and they struggle even to hindcast. The parameters keep shifting, so it’s a massive case of multivariate regression where the parameters keep changing. Nearly useless. I don’t criticize the effort to get useful climate models. I do wish they didn’t sell them as being better than they are. So I don’t judge someone who has an opinion about an issue that is so far from being settled. This is a political issue, not a scientific one. Cut the guy some slack. He may know more about climate variability than you do.
Careful, That is blasphemy to the Climate Change faithful. They may report you to the Inquisition as a climate change denier 🙂
Neither relativity nor the standard model provides a complete or even unified theory. Yet even Newtonian physics allows very useful predictions, provided one understands its limits. Unfortunately climate modeling is currently at the stage where Galleleo was in his conflict with the church. It has become so politicized that normal scientific discussion is difficult.
The greatest need today is for the continued collection of accurate data, both current sensing of the environment and the recovery of additional geological evidence of the evolution of climate throughout the Earth’s history. This is essential to allow models of both weather and climate to improve with time. Unfortunately it is difficult to tell what the attitude of the Administration will be on this.
In a policially charged atmosphere (so to speak) scientists often have difficulty persuading government and the public that it is ultimately to the nation’s benefit to get accurate information, whether or not it returns a profit, boosts the GDP or otherwise benefits our short-range goals.
Sorry. GR, QED and Newtonian physics all provide many, many orders of magnitude more precision than GCMs. They also make testable predictions (what a concept!). They don’t keep moving the goal posts. The problem with data collection in the surface temperature record field deals mostly with the great thermometer die-off. That and the strange pretense that the USA record isn’t “global” and the past keeps having to get mysteriously colder. Well the USA accounts for the majority of the global record. To a first approximation, there is no global surface temperature record. CAGW isn’t about data, it’s about models. Models that don’t work well, when they work at all. I’m all for collecting data, but the really important data is in the field of paleoclimatology, a field where NASA isn’t really much of a player. Get good proxies (e.g. not bristlecone pines), get good global coverage, get good chronologies and find out what natural variability really is. From my perspective, it is MUCH greater than what the alarmists would have you believe. Then when you have good temperature records for this and previous interglacials, see if you can get climate models to match the records, at least in a statistical way. We’re not even at this point yet, so we don’t know what the big control knob of the climate really is. As someone who studied control theory as an engineering student, I kind of doubt it is a noisy input with a massive positive feedback attached to it, but hey, that’s just me. We don’t even know why the YD occurred or ended! I sort of like the impact theory myself. It’s the romantic in me.
Take a look at the curve of atmospheric CO2. Can you predict where it will be next year? That’s a testable theory. Can you predict exactly what the position and velocity of a particle will be after an event in the Large Hadron Collider? No, you can’t, because individual events in physics exibit statistical variability even at the most fundamental level. That doesn’t make the Standard Model less valid. In the case of climate, model precision improves with improved data collection. Unfortunately industries which depend on carbon emission are lobbying to prevent NASA, NOAA, EPA and other agencies from collecting this data.
“From my perspective, it is MUCH greater than what the alarmists would have you believe.”
Interesting hypothesis, though in science we try to avoid perjoratives. Now please present your evidence.
Your analogy is backwards. The climate modelers assume that CO2 is the big control knob in the sky. So they try to say what the climate will be based on the CO2 “forcing” or “input”. Sadly for them, there are many problems with this picture. In fact, it’s possible to do an excellent approximation to all the popular (and extremely complex) models assuming that they are merely leaky integrators of CO2 and volcanic forcing. The fertilization effect of CO2 has been underestimated, as has the capacity of the oceans for carbonic acid. There’s still controversy about the time constant for CO2 in the atmosphere (simple, straightforward vs tortured and arm wavy). But the biggest problem the modelers have is that temperature appears to lead CO2 rather than lagging it. You can check this out at woodfortrees. Try plotting d(CO2)/dt, which is proportional to CO2 flux, vs any SST record you like (that’s not supersonic transport). Great correlation, but on short times scales, temperature “causes” changes in CO2, not the other way around. This temporal relationship also holds over longer time scales in ice cores. It’s a big headache for modelers, who have to squirm mightily to either explain away the time lag (I don’t think people are buying that excuse) or trying to say that in the modern era, CO2 leads T, but not earlier. Yeah, right. It doesn’t help that today, Nature Geoscience released a paper admitting that the climate models have been running too hot. This is something the skeptics have been claiming for quite a while. Translation: atmospheric T is not as sensitive to CO2 as the climate consensus people have been claiming. But I thought the science was settled! I’m shocked! I agree that climate research should continue, but it should be allowed to pursue directions that have been actively discouraged by some of the NASA (and NOAA) people. Time to reward new inquiry, in new directions. The old paradigm that CO2 drives everything is looking pretty shabby these days.
Interesting stuff. I think it was Marcott that used a bunch of proxies like isotopes in ocean sediment and ice cores from many sites (proxy for temp). That looked like a solid study and maybe one of the best we have for looking back that far (though I don’t keep up with this stuff that much). I read up a bit on how it was done, how the cores were dated, what kind of resolution of spikes and valleys was possible, etc. It does seem like it would have caught some spikes like the current one if they had occurred naturally throughout history, but there were none.
But one thing that caught people’s attention was that it showed unexpected global cooling throughout middle and late Holocene before the recent rise. (Retreating ice and more greenhouse gases should increase temp.) There was a response analysis that recognized there must be some bias that needs to be corrected in the models there.
Marcott (A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years): https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-…
The Holocene temperature conundrum
http://www.pnas.org/content…
Anyway I think this shows good progress is being made to a fuller understanding.
I think this is analogy is something worth discussion in relation to climate science funding and climate science skepticism.
You don’t see Peter Woit (a major string theory sceptic) going around saying particle physics and general relativity research should be cut, in fact he advocates for more such research money. You see the same kind of thing for Paul Steinhardt (a major inflation sceptic) on CMB research.
So why would anyone assume that someone who is highly sceptical about global warming would want to cut down on NASA climate research? Unless, of course, they were afraid of the evidence, in who case that would be damaging to their credibility to start with.
Yes, a person put in authority hopefully has good thoughts on what warrants more investigation and study and they go with that regardless of what their personal thought is on it. With your physics and string theory example, that makes sense to advocate for more research since any discoveries would be beneficial to learning more about everything regardless of if the outcome supports or doesn’t support string theory.
But I think we’ve been seeing a lot of cuts and groundwork for cuts to climate science. In some cases there are politicians that think we don’t know much, and for some reason that warrants cutting research. Scientists are usually in favor of learning more. Politicians may have more complex motives.
Bridenstine was a Naval aviator and he knows that, for example, there is a serious sea level flooding issue in Norfolk which affects the navy base there. Navy bases are by definition at sea level (ok, not China Lake) and therefore are built for a roughly constant sea level.
Norfolk is actually a very good example of the problem of multiple causes and attempts by folks to over simplify the issue.
The major cause of flooding in Norfolk, as scientific research shows, is not the sea level rising, but the land sinking.
http://www.chesapeakequarte…
“”This question kept coming up of what was causing this land subsidence,” says Whitney Katchmark. She heads up the Water Resources Department in the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, which advises towns in the region.
The most obvious answer was groundwater withdrawal by municipal water utilities and other users.”
Here is the USGS report on it. The .PDF download is on the right of the website.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/…
So you actually are providing support for Rep. Bridenstine position that its a complex subject if, as you suggest, he is familiar with the flooding at the base.
Yes, rising sea levels are an issue, but only because local subsidence is making it worst. And yes, human behavior is a major factor involved in the subsidence of the land.
Yes, fortunately we have now about 25 years of satellite data which allows untangling of subsidence and rebound. Of course, if NASA can’t look anymore. . .
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/…
Then other nations and private groups will. The cost of satellites is dropping thanks to advances with technology and advances in launch systems. If you don’t want politicans messing with your data collection then don’t go to them for money. It’s that simple.
One on the reasons progress in space is so slow is that folks want NASA to do everything for everyone.
Yes, monitoring the Earth is important, perhaps too important to be left in the hands of politicans and governments.
Also, USGS is scrubbing references to climate change from its web pages
https://twitter.com/PeterGl…