Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

[KenGordon]

Whoopsie

Did 1.5°C suddenly get easier? - Cicero

The paper: https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html


Obviously, not only do not all scientists agree but those on the "climate change is the real deal" side of things do not have a good handle on the situation. Don't argue with me, read the paper. Read the articles by other scientists about the paper.


Sadly, you are mistaken. There are millions and possibly billions spent on "climate change". Money is spent on science. Money is spent subsidizing alternative energy sources - even when they're not a good choice. Money is spent on PR. Money is spent creating and selling devices to manage carbon output on things like smokestacks. Money is spent creating new ways to scrub the carbon and maybe re-use it.

Not only is there a climate change industry, it's big business - kind of like national defense.

From the paper:

Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible

So, if we try really, really hard and reduce co2 outputs by more than the current pledges then we MIGHT meet the Paris targets.

How is that not agreeing that climate change is the real deal?

 

[Storker]

As a scientist, I sincerely believe that we humans are responsible for most of the warming we're seeing.

Again as a scientist, I don't believe one second that our politicos are going to do the right thing.

As a human, I refuse to give up on humanity and will continue until my dying day to provide my share to alleviate what we humans are doing to our world (however small that contribution might be)

 

[kelemvor]

Cite?

You must have missed my previous citation:

Did 1.5°C suddenly get easier? - Cicero
For politics, the stakes are high. Just ponder these two potential outcomes:

• Suppose the paper is correct, then 1.5°C is a distinct possibility, about the same effort that we previously thought for 2°C. There would be real and tangible hope for small island states and other vulnerable communities. And 2°C would be a rather feasible and realistic option, meaning that I would have to go eat some serious humble pie.
• Suppose we start to act on their larger budgets, but after another 5-10 years we discover they were wrong. Then we may have completely blown any chance of 1.5°C or 2°C.

I seriously hope they have this right, or at least, I hope they will be vocal if they revise their estimates downwards!

For science, I can’t help but frame the paper in two ways:

• We understand the climate system, but a more careful accounting shows the carbon budgets are much larger.
• We don’t understand the climate system.

Click to expand...
The paper: https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html

 

[KenGordon]

You must have missed my previous citation:

Did 1.5°C suddenly get easier? - Cicero
For politics, the stakes are high. Just ponder these two potential outcomes:

• Suppose the paper is correct, then 1.5°C is a distinct possibility, about the same effort that we previously thought for 2°C. There would be real and tangible hope for small island states and other vulnerable communities. And 2°C would be a rather feasible and realistic option, meaning that I would have to go eat some serious humble pie.
• Suppose we start to act on their larger budgets, but after another 5-10 years we discover they were wrong. Then we may have completely blown any chance of 1.5°C or 2°C.

I seriously hope they have this right, or at least, I hope they will be vocal if they revise their estimates downwards!

For science, I can’t help but frame the paper in two ways:

• We understand the climate system, but a more careful accounting shows the carbon budgets are much larger.
• We don’t understand the climate system.

Click to expand...
The paper: https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html

That same blog post also says:

What do I tell a policy maker?

It is best to say we need net-zero emissions by 2050 to 2100, as specified in the Paris Agreement. Problem solved, carbon budget not needed!

 

[chrisch]

That same blog post also says:

What do I tell a policy maker?

It is best to say we need net-zero emissions by 2050 to 2100, as specified in the Paris Agreement. Problem solved, carbon budget not needed!

By 2050 the frozen tundra methane released from current levels of warming will induce runaway climate change. The much argued about CO2-temperature correlation is not linear. Chaos theory explains this in scientific terms and also explains why there is not a clear cut linear and neat correlation with things like storms and even handed heating of terrestrial and marine ecosystems.

The last decade has seen the opposite of what is required, we have put out more - rather than less - fossil CO2. This has been accompanied by even more lies and propaganda by the fossil fuel industry. The debate - if anything - seems to be even more polarised than before.

We cannot wait until 2050 never mind 2100. Paris is way too little way too late. If we continue on that trajectory, as seems likely, then we need to debate how we deal with the results not what might prevent catastrophic failure of the human life support. I have tried to understand what the super rich have planned. I don't imagine they want to die any more than I do. thus far I have been unable to detect any kind of coherent plan or see any evidence that this group of people are any more prepared than the rest of us. I find this a bit odd. It seems like no one is preparing for the rather obvious.

Maybe David Koresh had it right all along

 

[admikar]

I tried to stay away from this,but......
I do accept that climate is changing and I do accept that human activities are helping those changes. What I do not accept is that humans are main reason for climate change.

By 2050 the frozen tundra methane released from current levels of warming will induce runaway climate change.

Sorry, but that prediction sounds a lot like "we would be underwater by 2015 if don't do something big NOW" predictions from past decades. @chrisch I respect your efforts, but you seem to completely disregard topics that do not correlate with your views, namely questions about models that failed to materialize. It seems to me, as regular human as I am, that those models, with some tweaks are what's used for future predictions.

 

[chrisch]

I tried to stay away from this,but......
I do accept that climate is changing and I do accept that human activities are helping those changes. What I do not accept is that humans are main reason for climate change.

Sorry, but that prediction sounds a lot like "we would be underwater by 2015 if don't do something big NOW" predictions from past decades. @chrisch I respect your efforts, but you seem to completely disregard topics that do not correlate with your views, namely questions about models that failed to materialize. It seems to me, as regular human as I am, that those models, with some tweaks are what's used for future predictions.

Ok so what is the human element? 10%? 30%? or 49.7%? (The latter would leave us as not the main reason). Also can you tell us what you consider is the human effect? For example it is a fact that the climate changes due to natural cycles. These cycles would indicate we should be returning back to the ice age. So whilst you are probably right that this is a bigger effect than human intervention it is going in the opposite direction to the observable phenomena.

My prediction is that we should do something now because we did not do something in past decades. Parts of the planet are now underwater that would not be if we had done something decades ago. Which parts of the planet are you thinking of? The bits that are underwater or those that have yet to enjoy that? I do not disregard topics that don't reinforce my existing view I really don't know why you say that. If the timescale is debatable (the tundra is melting right now - you do realise that don't you?) then acting early has only the disadvantage that it will leave less to do later and less opportunity for new businesses and jobs later. If there really is a level of urgency then we need to act on it.

The problem with everyone that says we have more time or we need more time or we need more research (that takes time) or any other stalling tactic is that - even if they are sincere - they get lumped in with the deniers who simply want to kill off the next generation. There is no more time. Act now or simply accept that we don't care about the next generation or the future. Do you have descendants? Young people you care about? Does it matter to you what kind of world you leave them? Are you willing to take the chance that your understanding is wrong and mine is right? I am willing to be wrong and suffer the embarrassment of doing a heap of stuff it turns out we didn't need to do. Are you willing to kill your kids?

 

[drrich2]

Act now or simply accept that we don't care about the next generation or the future. Do you have descendants? Young people you care about? Does it matter to you what kind of world you leave them?

Yes. A world with massive government overreach controlling every aspect of their lives driven by erroneous predictions of climate-driven disaster is the 'on the other hand' argument. Talk of 'carbon credits' (more new taxes!), inflicting onerous and costly new regulations on industry in a country that already has an ever-growing massive deficit and so vast a national debt I cannot imagine anybody credibly expects it will ever be paid, to be managed by the same government that created those problems, severely jeopardized Social Security, and at the local level my state's in a pension crisis from underfunding and other issues to the estimated tune of 30 to 60 something billion dollars.

But the same U.S. federal government that has such an appalling track record of catastrophic mismanagement is going to take over climate management. A government whose highest office is held by someone I imagine some of you consider a nut! I think we should replace the bald eagle with the ouroboros as our national symbol; a serpent or dragon consuming itself tail-first (and ours is getting hungrier all the time).

I get that the threat of massive coastal flooding, sustained elevations in sea levels, etc..., is a worrisome concern. But some of us are cautious about going 'forward,' when we don't know where 'forward' is going to take us (and we're not too sure where not going forward is going to take us, either). If the problem is what it's purported to be, pouring our resources into costly measures that don't significantly address it will leave us worse off. It may well be that 'something must be done,' but it's not so clear just what all the details of 'something' are going to be.

Richard.

 

[chrisch]

...
I get that the threat of massive coastal flooding, sustained elevations in sea levels, etc..., is a worrisome concern. But some of us are cautious about going 'forward,' when we don't know where 'forward' is going to take us (and we're not too sure where not going forward is going to take us, either). If the problem is what it's purported to be, pouring our resources into costly measures that don't significantly address it will leave us worse off. It may well be that 'something must be done,' but it's not so clear just what all the details of 'something' are going to be..

Worrisome for sure. Don't forget to add in the desertification of places like Texas and ambient temperatures that will make some places uninhabitable. This is imminent. But I agree with you, the US government has not really show itself to be particularly competent in the last 30-40 years. So let us further agree that it is better that an independent panel oversee the scenario.

Now as to going forward, what does that mean to you? I would be really concerned if we get into the realms of geo-engineering without some more universal agreement. Any nation going it alone is going to run into problems for sure. This is why the current situation requires a stabilisation rather than rushing into a "solution" that might not work (with all the financial implications you rightly point out) or might make things worse.

A massive cut to fossil CO2 is pretty much without any downside. If it has no effect (on climate) then nothing lost provided we keep looking at other factors. Why is there so much resistance to this? The obvious answer is that the oil companies would lose out in the short term. In the longer term the oil companies would still sit on a resource that the world needs for the chemical industry and the oil companies need to understand they are in the energy supply business. Diversify or go bust.

this doesn't need huge government control or interference. All you need do is set a limit and let the market decide how to share that out. Big fines for breaking the rules and who knows you might get your economy back to a positive balance

 

[kelemvor]

A massive cut to fossil CO2 is pretty much without any downside. If it has no effect (on climate) then nothing lost provided we keep looking at other factors. Why is there so much resistance to this? The obvious answer is that the oil companies would lose out in the short term. In the longer term the oil companies would still sit on a resource that the world needs for the chemical industry and the oil companies need to understand they are in the energy supply business. Diversify or go bust.

Except there are huge downsides to the methods of cutting "fossil C02" as has been proposed. That is exactly the problem. You claim to agree in the first sentence and then express in this paragraph that you do not understand the situation. In fact, the costs as a whole (in eliminating C02 completely) are so great that they can accurately be described as catastrophic.

So, blindly ignoring the reality and marching on with "cut all c02" is not a safe course of action. Doing nothing may not be safe either. However we don't know that for sure because the science is far from cut and dry on the topic. At least doing nothing or less has better odds.

Therein lies the crux of the conundrum - in my humble opinion.