ummm, i don't know if I should laugh or cry at this. Scientists are being paid to do climate research????? Do you know how real science actually works these days? It's not funded by politicians let me tell you that. The idea that there is this industry out to stop industry with all this money is ridiculous. First of all, the reason climate science came about was because scientists made a link. Scientists study EVERYTHING for decades and decades. Climate research isn't new, it's been ongoing for nearly a century. The reason it gets funding because the consequences of climate change could potentially be catastrophic in 100-200 years. Not because of some politician and their useless carbon tax plan.
okierock, if interested... 1. Politicians in Congress approve a budget, with different $ designations for different departments. Here is how much they allocate across all programs: it is mostly defense and it has not kept up w' inflation in general. But we do spend a good bit. http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/DefNon_1.jpg 2. People working at agencies like DOD, NIH, and NSF, then accept thousands and thousands of grant proposals and determine which projects will get federal funding. The people making these decisions are NOT politicians, nor do they get paid to care what politicians think overall. Their job is to pick good, sound, scientific projects to ensure the nation gets ROI. These grant officers are scientists who have already done a lot of science, in most cases. 3. The scientists usually have university jobs and often make 90% of their salary with university appointments where they teach, do lots of random crap for the university, and then run a research program. It is TRUE that they get evaluated on their ability to win grants. So there is pressure to submit excellent proposals and get funding. But there is no direct or really even indirect link to what a politician might believe or want. The link is to what the broader scientific community thinks is worthwhile. So in this one area, critics have a point, which is valid for any human endeavor: if the majority start to believe something, they tend to reinforce this something. This leads to "Planck's Principle": a new scientific idea only triumphs when all the people who held the old scientific idea die off. That's dark, but there's some truth to it. The GOOD thing about science is that the data will win out, even if it takes time. In sum, there is no real substantive link between what a politician wants or believes and what a scientist will then do in response. There is definitely a strong link between what a scientist proposes for experiments and what she/he thinks her/his peers will support. (For example, if you propose a bunch of experiments to disprove Einstein's General Relativity, you might have a tough time, since all experiments over the last 100 years have validated Einstein's GR.) I didn't understand the point about AGW not existing, so won't respond to that. In general, I mean to step out of these threads. After more than 10 years of trying to contribute some insight to these climate/warming/whatever threads, I don't think anyone really changes their mind very much. And I don't actually enjoy coming off as preachy and prefer to make bad jokes around here. Cheers!
Don't look now, but Artic sea ice levels are reaching levels not seen since the 1990's: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Thanks B-Bob, I appreciate a bad joke as much as anything. I also appreciate a post from an informed poster that doesn't feel the need to bash or demean or just plain insult people, so thank you for that as well. I couldn't remember the name of Planck's principle and was too lazy to look it up. I appreciate this reference because I think it applies negatively to most people that "discuss" AGW or climate change. The general population, myself included, have very little experience if any actually participating in "science". We also have done very little research reading things written by actual scientists. We have formed opinions based on life experience and world view as much or more than actual data. Adding to that the overall preponderance of media coverage, most of which is somewhat apocalyptic in tenor about climate change, means that there is a large group people with opinions formed from propaganda and not scientific data. Because there is this large group of opinions outside the scientific community this theory is not like General Relativity where the layman is totally uninterested, this theory is impacting people's lives/pocket books and whether it should or not has yet to be determined. So the weight of opinion toward the belief in this theory is far greater than it would be were it something the general public hasn't formed an opinion on because they don't really give a crap. Here is my world view on this topic. The world is run by money and there is far more money in advancing the theory that man is in fact affecting the climate of our planet than there is in trying to oppose that theory. This is simple to comprehend because if you advance that theory there have to be actions taken by man to halt this change. If, on the other hand, man is not affecting the climate, you don't have to DO anything and there is exactly ZERO money in that. So, from that perspective I think there is substantial financial motivation to advance the theory of climate change. I also think there is substantial social pressure to advance the theory of climate change as witnessed on this forum by the demeaning posts of those that pray at the alter of climate change. I don't think Scientists are the ones using the idea of climate change as a bogey man to make money but I do think they are VERY aware that it is happening and it is a very lucrative business. My company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to track CO2 emissions based on a theory that CO2 is bad and to avoid taxation. We do not know what impact, positive, negative or negligible these emissions have on our climate but we are being taxed for it anyway. Everyone on this board is paying that tax because companies don't eat taxes consumers do. I would love to see more study and less taxes.
I love the posters who start by insulting people and then complain when they get it dished back at them. The people who "deny" climate change are the ones who are listening to media outlets and not forming their own opinions based on the data that is readily out there. The body of science that shows man-made warming is incredibly strong. The body that sheds doubt on it is controversial at best. If one looks at both arguments from a POV of analytical thinking it's not hard to see it is true. The people who have the most to gain from defeating AGW as an idea are big oil companies who have far far far more money than all the green freaks in the world combined 1,000 times over. Which is why this whole scientists riding a lucrative wave argument is so Orwellian in nature. A tenured scientist for a university gets paid for doing great work not for politics. Maybe the reason the tenor is apocalyptic from scientists is because they are seeing something that scares them. How do you think this is even possible given a trillion dollar oil industry vs. a billions dollar green energy industry? Unless your profit motive depends on Co2 emissions (oil, cars, airlines, etc). There's a lot more at stake profit wise if people realize that co2 might put 50% of the real estate 40% of the global population is living in underwater in 200 years. One thing any sensible person can agree on - Carbon Taxes will not solve AGW - but at this point we need to start thinking about how we can buy ourselves as much time as possible.
Just want to say I disagree with you on that and agree with okierock. I think very few people have the time (or the proper training TBH) to really delve into big data sets and problems, whether they are scientific, economic, medical, political, etc. It's just a lot of work and most of us develop groups and voices that we trust. I mean, I know what you're saying, and I do think the data are very clear in this case about global temps, but I'm sympathetic to the point in particular that the grandstanding and alarmist, click-obsessed media presentation of each research finding tends to just harden people within their camps. If you're skeptical and then see *another* delighted media article saying "New York *could* be under water in 2027! Like ZOMG what would happen to Zabar's!?!" I can understand people rolling their eyes and saying "give me a ****ing break with this crap."
Yeah, I know everyone can get frustrated, but after seeing how bad my takes are on some things (like basketball, very sadly), I try to just not feel mighty about much of anything anymore. Key word "try" I guess. We agree money runs the world, for sure. But we disagree I think on where most of the monied interest lies in this topic. Seems like you may be ignoring the size and financial resources of the global oil industrial. They have a *huge* stake, collectively, on continued extraction and sale and consumption of carbon-based fuels. No matter how many commercials they run about flowers and solar panels, they know where their bread is buttered. That's interesting and I wish I could know more about that expenditure. I assume the company is bringing in billions if it can spend that much tracking CO2. But in any case, I agree there is an industry springing up, of course, to support this kind of approach. And I really do think we have a pretty solid understanding about what exactly CO2 does once it's airborne. We understand how long it generally stays there, and we *really* know how it interacts with sunlight, and then what radiation it gives off, and so on. You're right that the big models that incorporate that effect get very complicated, but the exact function of CO2 is known. Some just argue (incorrectly in my opinion) that the effect is too minor to make the changes we are seeing. I get that take, arguing that maybe its effect is swamped by other factors. (Sorry to nitpick, but it's an important point.) On Planck, I may send you a msg. "When B-Bob makes his message, look out."
Except that you have to consider that General Relativity at the time was a very controversial theory. It wasn't as though Einstein just said "Hey space and time are curved by gravity" that the scientific community just applauded. It took years of work by many other people to validate it and even now most of physics research is into looking at where it comes up short (quantum mechanics, dark energy and etc.). One also has to consider why a particular viewpoint in science is the majority opinion. It's because it has withstood already many tests and peer reviews. People often like to claim that a minority opinion is correct because it doesn't get as much coverage as a majority opinion be it Intelligent Design or that the World Trade Centers was taken down by thermite. The problem is that by definition those views haven't gone through the same scrutiny that a prevailing theory as. The weight of proof when challenging a prevailing theory is on the counter theory just as the weight of proof was on Einsteins theory otherwise Newtonian physics would still be the prevailing view. When it comes to climate science this is very much true and one reason why the money argument doesn't make sense. 30 years ago the prevailing view as that the planet was headed towards a cooling phase. If that view had prevailed that could've been a boon to the fossil fuel industry since the heat retention ability of Greenhouse gases had long been known and experimentally proved. The scientific consensus though changed and at a time when there wasn't much money in things like non-emitting energy sources the opinion was already changing that the planet was warming. Except that ignores the amount of money that is in fossil fuels and that could be made running a counter campaign. It's like with smoking. If there was no proof that smoking caused cancer that was a boon to the tobacco companies and the tobacco companies did fund studies arguing that. At the same time there wouldn't be much boon to argue the other way if the link didn't exist. Many things cause cancer and certainly cancer researchers and others could've shifted their research to looking at other things instead of just smoking. Your argument amounts to that no other climate research would happen unless they are looking at global warming. I'm just a lay person but my understanding is that there are a lot of issues that out there that could be looked into in the field. So in other words you're looking at this through ideological lenses. There are many studies and many of us have posted evidence for those studies. Further what is wrong with people making money off of this?
I am speaking from personal experience with you. Many times in fact you have lobbed insults my way. I am not going to dig through 7 years of posts to find them. I do remember. Honestly, it doesn't take that much more training that a basic understanding of science to comprehend AGW. You don't have to care for the media to know that 98% of scientists are saying global warming is real even if you don't trust the media and aren't an expert in science. That alone should at the very least make you skeptical of the skeptics, not the other way around. Being alarmist is one thing. And the media does sensationalize. But considering that changes in co2 output today could have a huge impact on the lives of your great great grand children should be enough to take interest in this topic, and not to jump to either side at the very least. Why would you not want to make sure you truly understand if not the side of science, at least include that side in being informed???
I just wish people applied Occam's Razor to this debate. What is more reasonable? A bunch of scientists conspiring to make a living or the multi-trillion dollar industry of carbon based energy having a vested interest in suppressing the notion that their product harms the planet?
The oil industry does not have to defend itself from climate change. This planet and the people on it demand energy and there is no other viable source. Every "clean" source of energy requires petroleum products to implement. The Energy industry is alive and healthy and will continue to be unless we want significant portions of the population to starve to death. FWIW, the people in the oil industry live on this planet and don't want to die, it's bad for business and cheap energy will save a whole lot more lives than a bunch of inaccurate climate models. There have been studies done by scientists funded by oil companies which are a complete waste of time because nobody would trust what they find anyway. Why are studies funded by governments any more trustworthy even though the results of those studies have just as much impact on the ability for governments to tax and create controlling legislation. Is the pursuit of political power in any way more virtuous than the pursuit of financial gain? Enough of the sociopolitical bs, back to the science... B-Bob - I understand the science behind CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Are the affects of CO2 on the atmospheric temperature of our planet logarithmic? If so, how does a trace gas with a logarithmic affect on heating cause the predicted global crisis?
More ad-hominems. Is there an RCP which you find convincing? Which one do you apply occam's razor to?
A simple answer is how did putting a few too many drops of cherry liquor ruin my manhattan last night (still shivering, blech)? How can one pinch of cayenne make or break a soup? I understand the scale (trace gas, big impact) confuses people, but these greenhouse gases are like the perfect little rocks around a campfire that we then move into our tents at night when we sleep. Small rocks, lots of heat. It's all based on the well-measured lab #s. One molecule absorbs heat at this rate and re-radiates heat at this other rate, etc. Here's a plot from 2013. I think the best way scientists talk about this issue is all in Watts per meter squared of the planet. That's the energy received, per each parcel of earth's surface, every second. Then you compare our delicate balance: sun input via solar radiation; what gets reflected from clouds; what gets held (re-radiated in our atmospheric system); and what gets radiated back out to empty space. All these things need to add up to zero if we want a more or less steady temperature for our planet. CO2's carefully computed impact is to drive up the "radiative forcing" on our planet, moving the imbalance by about 1.7 W/m2 in the wrong direction between 1750 and 2013, just based on our record atmospheric levels of CO2 (in last 800,000 years anyway). That data is taken from this IPCC report, and here's a link for it. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf EDIT: And here's a picture of the "budget" where the major players have 100's of W/m^2. You can see the "re-radiation" from greenhouse gases back to the surface. It's already over 200, but 1.7 (though small) is an important part of knocking it all slightly out of whack. Then the effect accumulates as we keep warming up. (via NASA) Cheers, okierock.
Oil companies pour incredible sums of money in media to discredit any climate research. So yes, they clearly do feel threatened by climate science and have a huge incentive to discredit it. Their long term health as an industry depends on increase in demand - if world gov't start to cut back even a little with alternative energy sources or more efficient vehicles - that can be a problem in bringing prices of oil down costing billions and billions in profits. So I am not sure how you can conclude that oil companies are not vested in shaping the discourse here. Do you really believe that?
Except oil companies as publicly traded companies that rely upon working closely with government is interested in maintaining a good public image. The same thing happened with the tobacco companies who could've just ignored the studies tying smoking to lung cancer as long as people want to smoke, and people still do since tobacco is still a profitable product, that they wouldn't need to worry about negative publicity. With fossil fuels though they also have an interest in keeping up consumption and down competition from other sources of energy. It is in their interest to counter anything that might make people reconsider how much they use fossil fuels. First off because those studies go through peer reviews. Second though this argument that the governement(s) support the idea of AGW because they can tax fossil fuels ignores that they can and did without AGW. Further the means to combat AGW undermines the use of fossil fuels which would reduce the profit motive of taxation. Again using the smoking example the government can make a lot of money taxing cigarettes but that cuts down consumption and also since the government is also simultaneously funding anti-smoking efforts further reduces the money they get. The idea that AGW is primarily being driven for tax purposes strikes me as being very strained when it's success would greatly reduce the amount of momeny from fossil fuel / carbon taxes. I'm sure B-Bob will give a very capable answer but just to answer in my own words. CO2 is only a trace gas when you compare to the volume of the whole atmosphere that said we are still talking in the megatonnage. Further the atmosphere is a very dynamic system that where slight changes can get magnified, the butterfly effect. Slight changes in atmospheric composition can lead to profound effects and further those effects aren't evenly distributed throughout the globe. ONe the predictions is that warming in the Arctic would be more pronounced. We are seeing that happening already. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/958/ Since global weather patterns are affected by the Arctic changes in the Arctic won't remain localized and eventually affect the rest of the planet. The problem with climate change is that changes aren't immediately obvious. It's not like we wake up one morning and Miami is underwater. The Earth is huge with redundancy in it. What is happening though is that trends gradually change. Droughts, get longer, flooding gets more common, winters get warmer, etc.. we're already seeing all of those things happening.
I appreciate the article because it confirms my belief that this is all being done for "policymakers". All the language in the report is confirmation biased but if you read all the small print describing the confidence levels you realize that the level of certainty for any of it is pretty low. At the very best it is a document describing what might happen if we change one variable in a 1000 variable equation assuming that none of the other variables change and plot that over the next 100 years. I still don't understand how this accommodates for the fact that CO2 has a logarithmic affect on atmospheric temperature? For the models to predict what they are (none of which have accurately predicted anything) they have to have CO2 having a massive affect on the amount of water vapor(the big boy when it comes to greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. You have to have this feedback loop to overcome the reality that CO2 has a decreasing impact on temperature the higher the levels get or none of the models work(as if they do). Is it working, all this anti global warming propaganda by the oil companies? I know that I have never seen any of it personally. I have seen a LOT of media pushing the global warming click fest. The government still has to pass the public opinion test on taxation and taxing fuel without reason won't fly, but having a nice apocoliptic bogeyman sure helps. Tax and control, the government doesn't believe naively that fossil fuel consumption is going to be driven down by taxation. There are no viable alternatives and the thirst for energy is not going away. The money I have seen companies spend is not through direct taxation it's though regulation and control. The government creates a regulation "quad O" which makes every industry have to meet that regulation. It takes a bunch of money and time and resources to meet and drives up the cost of products. Meanwhile that regulation only exists here and foreign countries don't have it so their products are cheaper. But we have gained a new government agency to monitor the regulation and control industry... yay I'm sorry but all I read here is a bunch of generalizations with no answers to my questions about CO2 having a logarithmic affect on atmospheric temperature. The article is nice but most of what I got out of it is a NASA scientist is building fancy satellites that chase each other around the earth measuring the gravitational affects of ice sheets. His job funding just might be affected by AGW... just maybe. Then there are the NASA scientist flying around the Arctic in small planes measuring ice... their funding might be affected by AGW... all of that information is nicely wrapped in a web site with the header... NASA GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!--- and it's the oil companies with propaganda... NASA used to be about space missions but since our president decided that was silly maybe the NASA guys are looking for a reason to exist and the answer is obvious?
