Climate Change: Why aren't more people concerned about it?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 821 - 840 of total 2200 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Jan 14, 2017 - 10:51am PT
With Trump's administration GW Alarmists will soon need to find another worry. They have lost.
I hear there's an large asteroid on it's way here,
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 14, 2017 - 10:53am PT
With Trump's administration GW Alarmists will soon need to find another worry. They have lost.

you can't vote out science, pud, global warming isn't going away because of some election in the USA. And I doubt that research efforts will change very much under the new administration.





rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 14, 2017 - 10:53am PT
I thought Holdren was a tranny. His malthusian hysteria led him to amputate his third member lest he further soil Gaia with toxic spawn. Besides that he's a lost cause, enemy of AK, indeed enemy of mankind. Sorry, no redeeming positive qualities.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 14, 2017 - 10:55am PT
Most science advisors have very limited influence, Happer would be no different. His main challenge in that position would be not steeling the scene from his boss.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 14, 2017 - 11:16am PT
Right and right.You can't vote out science. However, you can starve out wasteful theoretical deadenders and support applications that better the human condition. Increased nuclear energy research and application is a good middle ground to both sides of the debate, of course that excludes the really rabid big Green supporters
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 14, 2017 - 11:35am PT
However, you can starve out wasteful theoretical deadenders and support applications that better the human condition.

You can't tell what is "wasteful" and what is "productive" and neither can Will Happer or anyone else. But it is a distinctly American attitude that posits that there is such a thing as wasted basic research.

Most Americans were unaware of the basic "nuclear science" research that was happening at the turn of the 20th century, and would have considered it "wasteful." American scientists had to travel to Europe to learn the basics of the science, the USA was a backwater of research in most fields, and especially the newly emerging science of quantum mechanics, atomic physics, nuclear physics and chemistry. All of the US physicists who would become prominent in the 1940s and beyond were trained in Europe because they could not obtain that training in the USA.

By and large, you would consider their research to be "wasteful" because it did not have direct application.

However, basic research is the foundation of applied research, and without the basic research you would have no applications.

Two amazing aspects of the Manhattan project were the importance of having European scientists engaged in the project, them having to have escaped from Germany and its territories due to political persecution of the "elite classes" and racial prejudice, AND the construction of a basic research infrastructure to support the application to a weapons program.

It was not a bygone conclusion that the construction of that infrastructure would be completed in time to "beat the Germans" to the atom bomb. The scientific leadership that succeeded for the allies was taken from the "elite class" of scientists who practice basic science, and lead by a theorist, no less, who's work prior to the Manhattan project would earn your scorn as being "wasteful."

The conclusion coming out of the war was that the nation needed a strong basic science infrastructure, concluding that the risk of not having that infrastructure, of laboratory facilities and more importantly, of the trained scientists was too great to not support; that the unknown aspect of the crisis for which we will have to respond to scientifically was unknown, so a broad science base was needed; and finally that the support for the basics science program should not in any way decide what science direction was... that we need to strive for preeminence in the science.

All this planned for the day that, when we faced a crisis, we would not need to depend on the luck of having those scientists from other nations to provide crucial contributions to our need nor wait for the infrastructure required to be built.

That was, in my opinion, a wise policy and program, especially given that we cannot define what is "wasted" in basic research, essentially none of it is when viewed from a much larger perspective than the rather limited opinion of the short term, direct, return-on-investiment for the small fraction of the national economy it represents.

Most economists believe that supporting this research is properly done by the government.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 14, 2017 - 12:10pm PT
Can't define what is wasted in basic research-BS. Keep your eyes open. I believe a definition will be delivered by the new department heads in short order.
monolith

climber
state of being
Jan 14, 2017 - 12:37pm PT
Maybe the donald will cut NSIDC funding to halt the elites from wasteful data gathering.

Global sea ice area reaches new record low, with a month of decline to go.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 14, 2017 - 12:54pm PT
Can't define what is wasted in basic research-BS. Keep your eyes open. I believe a definition will be delivered by the new department heads in short order.

I doubt that they new department heads will do anything in short order. As for what their opinion of "BS" is, it will change, as it always has, when they learn what is going on. Your opinion is based on your very imperfect concept of how federal research is managed, and you will be disappointed when what you expect to happen, based on your erroneous understanding, fails to come to pass.

in response to TGT's post, I don't think that the scientific input to policy is the only input, but I do believe that if you are going to ignore the scientific input, you should say so and give the reasons. Time will tell if that particular input was apt or not (although in some cases we hope that we will never have a chance to demonstrate it).

Fearing the "scientific elite" is a strange boogie-man to put up, especially for TGT who basically holds the scientific elite as incompetent bunglers, at least the ones that he is familiar with, one wonders how they hold the strange powers to convince. The two options appear to be that the system is rigged or that they are competent. TGT's choice is apparently obvious... his opinion may be wrong, of course.

But the nation depends on that elite to provide it preeminence in an area it cannot afford to loose.

An example might be the very atomic science Happer pursues and its application to quantum information research. We don't know whether or not we can build quantum computers with the theoretical performance that has been projected. But if we could, it would revolutionize cryptography, basically providing a means to break all of the current cryptographic tools, which depend on "uncomputability" for their security, that is, the fact that it would take too long for conventional computers to break those codes.

To the extent that we depend on cryptography for our national security in many areas, quantum computing achieving the theoretical limits would be very disruptive.

The research question is: can you build such a computer?

The value of the answer, whether it is positive or negative, is important. Yet if the answer is negative, you might claim that all the basic research leading to that answer, and to no application, is wasted.

This would be a very naive view, of course. Knowing that it cannot be done would relieve us of having to mitigate the eventual practical implementation of such devices. But also the basic research leading to such a conclusion would be available for other applications. And the people who did the research are available to do more should the need arise.

Much of this work is done understanding the quantum behavior of various atomic systems, relatively far removed from any immediate application.

The scientific elite is doing this (an elite that Happer would claim membership to)... if you want them to leave there are many ways of doing that, not so many ways of building back the capability once they do.
perswig

climber
Jan 14, 2017 - 01:12pm PT
Dr. H, a standing ovation for your patience. Truly remarkable.

Dale
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 14, 2017 - 02:31pm PT
Only exceeded by politicians? I beg your pardon TGT, Eddie has consistently argued that scientists shouldn't be accountable for anything, least of all taxpayer largesse they consistently flush down the toilet.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 14, 2017 - 03:27pm PT
Currently as N Division leader (a position he holds since 2002) he oversees the basic and
applied research activities in Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics and Accelerator
Technologies. An important aspect of this activity is to seek alignment between the basic
research goals of the division and the goals of LLNL’s programs in nuclear weapons
stewardship, nonproliferation, homeland security and the National Ignition Facility.

All I can say is that you better hope that Ed is very well funded, and that he does a magnificent job.

You get the sense from the right that they hope for disasters and terrorist events.

Thanks, Ed, for the work you do in protecting all of us, and finding pathways forward.
monolith

climber
state of being
Jan 14, 2017 - 03:45pm PT
Trump debunks the impact of hairspray on the ozone layer.

[Click to View YouTube Video]
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 14, 2017 - 03:59pm PT
I beg your pardon TGT, Eddie has consistently argued that scientists shouldn't be accountable for anything, least of all taxpayer largesse they consistently flush down the toilet.

ignorance again, rick, as you have no idea what accountability we have... while I am no longer N-Division leader, we had to explain how basic research like Lattice-QCD or Dark Matter Searches or the Search for the Higgs particle had to do with the applications we are called on to develop.

This accountability was performed by the programs we were working on as well as external, independent review at many levels. The people doing the reviews were not susceptible to being BS'd by scientists.

In addition, the basic science we did also had to meet the high standards of the research community, and did as evidenced by the publication record of the division, and many other markers of performance.

I have made the choice to go back to research, which is largely applied, on the NIF, but the current scientific management is doing an excellent job maintaining vital activities in both basic and applied research. No tax-payer moneys are misspent in this at the lab. Having sat on reviews at other labs, and participated in research there, I can say that the lab complex delivers important research, applied and basic, to the nation.

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 14, 2017 - 08:40pm PT
You aren't doing climate research; now are you Ed?

I wasn't aiming my criticism of scientists waste directly at you. Rather the morons in CAGW community you continually defend. How you can do that has always been a bit of mystery to me. I just pass it off as deep green indoctrination and watermelon political philosophy. To each his own, live and let live unless ones practice and persuasions infringes upon your neighbors right to a free, natural life. A free life that this CAGW scam, a major component/tactic of a larger front, is hell bent on limiting for the common man.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 14, 2017 - 08:43pm PT
I actually know what they are doing, I go to some seminars and can talk to them when I have a question. I can read the papers with comprehension.

They are doing first rate science at a first rate research institution.

You have no idea what you are talking about, rick, and you don't care to know, or learn, which is sad but not entirely surprising.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Jan 14, 2017 - 09:32pm PT
Another hole in "arguments" put forth by climate change deniers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/04/noaa-challenged-the-global-warming-pause-now-new-research-says-the-agency-was-right/?utm_term=.ca6c0471d8e1

Curt
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 14, 2017 - 10:55pm PT
"They are doing first rate science".

Hundreds,no thousands of scientists disagree with your assessment by varying degrees. A few of the more prominent- Lindzen, Happer, Dyson, Plimer, Curry, Spencer, Humlum, Svenson, Abdussamatov, Christy, Kirkby, Shaviv, Lockwood, Akafuso and on and on. Many of these individuals have spent much more time than you studying it. Why, again are they all wrong?

Never mind. We've all heard it many times before and you haven't convinced a single skeptic, or denier if you prefer, yet.




Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 15, 2017 - 01:58am PT
the vast majority of scientists doing climate science, and those scientists looking at the work disagree with you rick.

from Wikipedia:
"Happer was listed as a signer of the petition of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, no later than 2000,[10] and Cato Institute's 2009 letter.[11] With Fred Singer, Harold Lewis, Robert Austin, Larry Gould, and Roger Cohen, Happer led[12] the 2009 petition[13] to the American Physical Society to change its position statement on climate change. The petition was signed by only a few hundred of the 47,000 members and was rejected.[14]"

a few hundred is less than 1% of the American Physical Society membership.

Your "legion" of skeptics does not form its ranks from US physicists. And world wide, might rise to as much as a Roman legion, if you count medical doctors as "scientists" (which I would not) and "weathermen" (even expanding that to "weatherwoman").





tuolumne_tradster

Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
Jan 15, 2017 - 02:18am PT
Here's the trailer to the 2016 documentary film "The Age of Consequences" on the global security implications of climate change...

[Click to View YouTube Video]

This film assesses the relative contribution of climate change on a broad range of events around the world from a military and global security perspective. It is a very comprehensive and compelling analysis.

Here's the Center for Climate and Security's Risk Assessment report
http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/projects/climate-change-risk-assessment

from the Executive Summary...

DIRECT RISKS: The risks of climate change are non-linear: while average conditions may
change gradually, the risks can increase rapidly. On a high emissions pathway, the probability of
crossing thresholds beyond which the inconvenient may become intolerable will increase over
time.

• For any emissions pathway, a wide range of global temperature increases is possible. On all but
the lowest emissions pathways, a rise of more than 2°C is likely in the latter half of this century. On
a medium-high emissions pathway (RCP61), a rise of more than 4°C appears to be as likely as not by
2150. On the highest emissions pathway (RCP8.5), a rise of 7°C is a very low probability at the end of this century, but appears to become more likely than not during the course of the 22nd century. A rise of more than 10°C over the next few centuries cannot be ruled out.

• Humans have limited tolerance for heat stress. In the current climate, safe climatic conditions for
work are already exceeded frequently for short periods in hot countries, and heat waves already cause fatalities. In future, climatic conditions could exceed potentially lethal limits of heat stress even for individuals resting in the shade. The probability of exposed individuals experiencing such conditions in a given year starts to become significant for a global temperature rise of around 5°C, and could exceed 50% for a global temperature rise of around 7°C, in hot areas such as northern India, southeastern China, and southeastern USA.

• Crops have limited tolerance for high temperatures. When critical thresholds are exceeded, yields may be drastically reduced. The probability of crossing such thresholds in a given year, for studied examples of maize in the Midwestern US and rice in southern China, appears to rise from near zero at present, to become increasingly significant with global temperature rise of more than 2°C, and in the worst cases to reach somewhere in the region of 25% (maize) and 75% (rice) respectively with global temperature rise of around 4-5°C.Biophysical limits on the extent to which such tolerance thresholds can be raised may be an important constraint on adaptation. This is one reason why high degrees of climate change could pose very large risks to global food security.

• Thresholds for water stress are largely arbitrary, but thresholds of ‘moderate’, ‘chronic’ and ‘extreme’ water shortage are widely used, based on per capita availability. The number of people exposed to extreme water shortage is projected to double, globally, by mid century due to population growth alone. Climate change could increase the risk in some regions: for example, on a high emissions pathway, the probability of the Tigris – Euphrates river basin falling into extreme water shortage could rise significantly after 2030, reaching close to 100% by 2070.

• In South and East Asia, climate change may slightly offset otherwise increasing risks of water stress, while increasing the risk of flooding. On a high emissions pathway, what is now a ‘30-year flood’ could become three times more frequent in the Yellow River and Indus basins, and six times more frequent in the Ganges basin, over the course of the century, on a central estimate. In the worst case for those three river basins, such a flood could be in the region of ten times more frequent by the end of the century.

• On a high emissions pathway, the incidence of extreme drought affecting cropland could increase by about 50% in the US and South Asia, double globally, and triple in southern Africa, over the course of the century under central estimates. The uncertainties around these central estimates are large: for the US and South Asia, in the best case, drought incidence could halve; in the worst case, it could increase by three or four times.

• With 1m of global sea level rise, the probability of what is now a ‘100-year flood event’ becomes
about 40 times more likely in Shanghai, 200 times more likely in New York, and 1000 times more likely in Kolkata. Defences can be upgraded to maintain the probability of a flood at a constant level, but this will be expensive, and the losses from flooding will still increase, as the floods that do occur will have greater depth. Thresholds of adaptation beyond which ‘retreat’ from the sea may become more feasible than further increases in flood protection are not well defined, but the most significant limits may be sociopolitical rather than economic or technological.

• Climate models suggest that global sea level rise is unlikely to exceed 1m this century, and that a
plausible worst-case scenario could result in an increase of several metres by the end of the 22nd
century. However, due to inertia in the climate system, with a sustained global temperature rise of 2°C the global sea level may be committed to rise by some 10-15m as ice-sheets gradually melt, but whether this will take hundreds of years or thousands of years is deeply uncertain.

• Many elements of the climate system are capable of abrupt or irreversible change. Changes to
monsoons or to ocean circulation patterns, die-back of tropical forests, and the release of carbon
from permafrost or sub-sea methane hydrates could all cause large-scale disruption of the climate.
The probabilities of such changes are not well known, but they are expected to increase as the global temperature rises.
Messages 821 - 840 of total 2200 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta