WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

Hundreds of Scientists Rally in San Francisco to Stand Up For Science

By: Jeff Masters 3:46 PM GMT on December 14, 2016

Over 26,000 earth scientists are gathered this week in San Francisco for the annual meeting of The American Geophysical Union—the world’s largest conference on climate change. During the noon lunch break on Tuesday, I took a break from the usual hard science presentations and participated in something scientists will have to increasingly engage in—activism to protect science from political interference. Hundreds of scientists from the meeting were joined by hundreds more concerned citizens from the Bay Area in a “Stand Up For Science” rally, organized by climatetruth.org and The Natural History Museum. The speakers, which included Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, Harvard history of science professor Naomi Oreskes (author of the excellent book and movie, Merchants of Doubt), Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists (target of subpoenas this year brought by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology), Leila Salazar at Amazon Watch, Andres Soto at Communities for a Better Environment, David Karabelnikoff at Idle No More Bay Area, and James Coleman, student fellow at Alliance for Climate Education. The speakers affirmed that:

- Climate change is a real, human-caused, and urgent threat.
- We must uphold the United States' commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement.
- We must protect scientific integrity in policymaking.
- We must protect government scientists from censorship or suppression.
- We must reduce carbon pollution and U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.
- We can make the U.S. a clean energy leader, and champion the just transition to a new energy era that works for all of us.


Figure 1. Penn State Climate scientist Michael Mann addresses a crowd of about 500 people at Tuesday’s Stand Up For Science rally in San Francisco.

Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists urged all the scientists there to join in signing an open letter to Donald Trump, calling on the incoming Trump administration and 115th Congress to ensure that science continues to play a strong role in protecting public health and well-being. If you are a scientist and would like to add your name to the letter, whose signers include 22 Nobel prize winners, you can do so here.

The most effective speaker at the rally was Georgia Tech climate scientist Kim Cobb, who related her experience this year of scuba diving on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef and seeing it decimated by a massive coral bleaching episode due to record-warm ocean waters. She urged the scientists there to become activists—to get out of their comfortable chairs where they talk about data with colleagues, and help make a difference. “What are you waiting for?” she implored. “If we speak together, I am confident we can change the course of history.”

The rally closed with a few enthusiastic chants by the normally reserved scientists there:

Water is life!
Out of the labs and into the streets !
Stand up for science!

The rally was also covered by The San Francisco Chronicle. See if you can spot my bald spot in one of the photos in the article.

My related post: On Giving Tuesday, Support Increasingly Embattled Climate Scientists.

Note: The views expressed above are my own and not necessarily representative of The Weather Company or IBM.

Jeff Masters

Climate Change Politics Climate Change

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

- We must protect scientific integrity in policymaking.
- We must protect government scientists from censorship or suppression.


I have a question. Are these "government scientists" U.S. Civil Service government employees? or are they on contract to the U.S. government? or are they grant recipients?
Thanks. The latest videos from the meeting (mostly press conferences) can be found on their Youtube channel :
American Geophysical Union (AGU) - videos
From Phys.org:

NASA releases new eye-popping view of carbon dioxide

December 14, 2016 by Alan Buis


Using observations from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, scientists have developed a new model of carbon behavior in our atmosphere from Sept. 1, 2014, to Aug. 31, 2015. Such models can be used to better understand and predict where carbon dioxide concentrations could be especially high or low. Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/K. Mersmann, M. Radcliff, producers

A new NASA supercomputer project builds on the agency's satellite measurements of carbon dioxide and combines them with a sophisticated Earth system model to provide one of the most realistic views yet of how this critical greenhouse gas moves through the atmosphere.

Scientists have tracked the rising concentration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide for decades using ground-based sensors in a few places. A high-resolution visualization of the new combined data product provides an entirely different perspective. The visualization was generated by the Global Modeling and Assimilation Office at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, using data from the agency's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite, built and operated by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California.

The 3-D visualization reveals in startling detail the complex patterns in which carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, decreases and moves around the globe over the time period from September 2014 to September 2015.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as Earth's thermostat. Rising concentrations of the greenhouse gas, due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels for energy, have driven Earth's current long-term warming trend. The visualization highlights the advances scientists are making in understanding the processes that control how much emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere and how long it stays there—questions that ultimately will determine Earth's future climate.

Read more >>



Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/K. Mersmann, M. Radcliff, producers
Thanks for the updates..
Quoting 1. Barefootontherocks:

- We must protect scientific integrity in policymaking.
- We must protect government scientists from censorship or suppression.


I have a question. Are these "government scientists" U.S. Civil Service government employees? or are they on contract to the U.S. government? or are they grant recipients?
Good questions. But at least everyone agrees that policies should be made based on the integrity of science, and that government scientists--also known as 'scientists'--should be free from censorship or suppression.
I really think the name of the blog should be changed to
"The Front Line Against Global Warming"

That would help the average person searching the WU website know that this blog is dedicated to fighting Global Warming. To me it makes perfect sense, especially since the battle against GW is really just getting started.

You would also get a lot more web search traffic from people (searching) investigating the topic of GW.

Then during the active hurricane season, a Category 6 blog could be used to keep people informed about active tropical weather.
Quoting 1. Barefootontherocks:

- We must protect scientific integrity in policymaking.
- We must protect government scientists from censorship or suppression.


I have a question. Are these "government scientists" U.S. Civil Service government employees? or are they on contract to the U.S. government? or are they grant recipients?


I believe that was almost exactly the questionnaire sent to the different labs that work in climate change. What difference as to where they work is it to you?
Quoting 5. Neapolitan:

Good questions. But at least everyone agrees that policies should be made based on the integrity of science, and that government scientists--also known as 'scientists'--should be free from censorship or suppression.


Government scientists refers to all of the above; the greatest number are civil service employees.

Jeff Masters
Even though pro-science activism is in my very soul, and has been for decades, I've never felt the profound sense of urgency that Trump's election has birthed, and I've never seen that same urgent sense in others. But it's understandable; the incoming administration has made it clear that scientific truth--especially that which may hinder fossil fuel profits--will not be welcome, and will in fact be quashed, and scientists will be silenced.

This can't be allowed to happen.

January 20 will bring in a new administration, but we're not going to allow it to bring a new Dark Age. Everything we have, everything we've attained, every creep and leap of progress humanity has achieved, has been because of unhindered scientific inquiry. One anti-science, profit-over-people ignoramus won't change that basic truth. He can try, and no doubt he will (in fact, he already has). But in the long run, we, the people of Earth, aren't going to allow that.

That much you can count on .
I've typed and re-typed several comments. Right now, the new reich...I mean regime....has me speechless. We're screwed.

full disclosure: I don't believe humans are 100% responsible for climate change. I don't believe nature is 100% responsible for climate change. I DO KNOW that of the two....we, Humanity, is the only one that can actively change our participation level. This administration is going to do what it can to prevent any participation.
Quoting 1. Barefootontherocks:

- We must protect scientific integrity in policymaking.
- We must protect government scientists from censorship or suppression.


I have a question. Are these "government scientists" U.S. Civil Service government employees? or are they on contract to the U.S. government? or are they grant recipients?


If you read the article, you would have seen many of the individuals work at Universities. The funding for their research would have come from both public and private sectors.

Not that it should make a difference, no one can deny the benefits of government funded research.
The Chronicle article. Okay, thanks. I would like to be able to understand the fear.
Quoting 11. pipelines:



... no one can deny the benefits of government funded research.


They do when it does not fit their agenda.
Quoting 7. VAstorms:



I believe that was almost exactly the questionnaire sent to the different labs that work in climate change. What difference as to where they work is it to you?
No, my questions are not the same as the 74 questions. The Trump transition team questions were simple, like who attended conferences and who worked on research. I saw and posted the real questionnaire a couple blogs back. I don't understand where the scientists are coming from. I don't understand their fear. Seems to me the best way to be heard is to establish dialog with the new administration.
Quoting 8. JeffMasters:



Government scientists refers to all of the above; the greatest number are civil service employees.

Jeff Masters
Thank you for your straightforward answer.
Quoting 10. MonsterTrough:

I've typed and re-typed several comments. Right now, the new reich...I mean regime....has me speechless. We're screwed.

full disclosure: I don't believe humans are 100% responsible for climate change. I don't believe nature is 100% responsible for climate change. I DO KNOW that of the two....we, Humanity, is the only one that can actively change our participation level. This administration is going to do what it can to prevent any participation.
Well if that is the case, then we will know for sure how much of the climate change debate is really caused by humans. At the worst it will only be a 4 year experiment, and on the other end, we will see how little effect humans have on climate change, thus saving us all a lot of money, by trying to change over from petroleum products, if we don't really need to. This will give us, hopefully some time to help develop new technologies to actually switch over to new types of non petroleum products.
Oh no. I hope this activism doesn't give the incoming administration a new reason to label climate science as politically biased. At least I think, that in terms of the administration consolidating its policies, they will not see a reason to finance activism, that is opposed to them. And they could see any funding of climate science (which finds its way into climate scientists salaries) as such finance.

Next four years will be epic in the USA. Fortunately I'm thousands of miles away :)
Quoting 14. Barefootontherocks:

No, my questions are not the same as the 74 questions. The Trump transition team questions were simple, like who attended conferences and who worked on research. I saw and posted the real questionnaire a couple blogs back. I don't understand where the scientists are coming from. I don't understand their fear. Seems to me the best way to be heard is to establish dialog with the new administration.
Oh, dear. There was hardly a question among the 74 that didn't sound like it was lifted straight out of the Joe McCarthy playbook. But spectacularly missing from that questionnaire:? Virtually anything having to do with the DoE's most central and most critical mission: to protect "the integrity and safety of the nation’s nuclear weapons, advancing nuclear nonproliferation and promoting international nuclear safety.”

Whoops.

It certainly looks--at least to most people, including a whole lot of scientists--that the incoming administration was conducting a witch hunt. Kudos to DoE staff for shutting them down.
Quoting 17. elioe:

Fortunately I'm thousands of miles away :)


Don't forget those ICBM's have a long long range....
I am especially grateful for scientists like Jeff and Bob who both know and teach publicly the science of weather and climate and who help us learn from others in the field. Broader knowledge among a wider population is the only way changes to our lifestyles and our treatment of our home will be accomplished. Thank you, Jeff and Bob!
Quoting 19. MahFL:



Don't forget those ICBM's have a long long range....


Yep, so it's good to be in a non-aligned country. Although nuclear winter would be felt everywhere.

EDIT: Although I don't think that collapse of USA would result in a nuclear calamity. Collapse of Soviet Union did neither.
QUOTE:

347.weathermanwannabe
1:42 PM GMT on December 14, 2016

However, Florida can make up some economic ground with warmer Winters in terms of tourism from colder places................ :)
February is one of the busiest months of the year on Florida beaches. Many people crave a winter escape from the cold North, so they head to the balmy South. Florida boasts tropical temperatures for most of the year, although cold spells do strike during the winter. Some parts of the Sunshine State are war than others, making certain Florida beaches more inviting for a February vacatioAlthough the air stays warm on Florida beaches during the winter months, the water tends to cool off a bit. February water temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean are warmest at Miami Beach, where the average is roughly 73 degrees. On the western Gulf Coast, the warmest water can be found in Key West, where the temperature hovers around 70 degrees during February.

REPLY:
 make hay while the sun shines... it means that you take advantage of the chance to do something while conditions are good... lol
Thank you all for standing strong.

A guantlet has been thrown down. There is no notion of communicating or working to change with these peoples. The appointments make it clear the intentions and Trump himself with his statements pretty much confirms it.
We must call a orange orange and not hope and wish for more rational times. It would be nice to think these are reasonible peoples with no axe to grind but it certainly appears they are. Did back in the day peoples have sucess working with Joe McCarthy or were the ones who stood up and said what he did was wrong, have the most impact?
If peoples just got along to get along in those days his form of politics would have certainly resounded across the land for a couple of decades more.

No it is time to do what we reasonably can to challenge this. Scientists grouping together in a common cause, what better way? The first of many such things to come I hope. Exon Mobile's CEO head of the state dept., I still cannot believe it. If they had not been found obstructing their own scientists findings perhaps, but no that is not the case.
It is clear this statement of action by appointment. EPA head, are you kidding? This is tragic comedy. It must be challenged

Trump by my guess is copying Richard Nixon. Things get bad and the response will be by the left threatening enough to draw the right to him in the next election. Back then it made sense perhaps but in this day and time his strategy will fail. This is not the 1960's and seventies. AGW may destroy what we know of civilization in the end. If we do not stand up and be counted now, when? Hilllary much as I consider her a corrupt bag of dung she is better than this bafoon and she did win. Voting, my vote, does not count as much as some in some other state. How that can be constitutional in a democratic republic is beyond me.
My guess, Doc is the bald spot next to what appears to be black luggage with red spot.


Link
Quoting 17. elioe:

Oh no. I hope this activism doesn't give the incoming administration a new reason to label climate science as politically biased. At least I think, that in terms of the administration consolidating its policies, they will not see a reason to finance activism, that is opposed to them. And they could see any funding of climate science (which finds its way into climate scientists salaries) as such finance.

Next four years will be epic in the USA. Fortunately I'm thousands of miles away :)


lol.

you're not completely immune from a Trump administration though - there's going to be a lot of indirect impacts to people outside the US. "Deals" for oil etc. No doubt any policy enacted or repealed during this administration will be felt globally into the future; increase/decrease of greenhouse gases etc.
Quoting 21. elioe:



Yep, so it's good to be in a non-aligned country. Although nuclear winter would be felt everywhere.

EDIT: Although I don't think that collapse of USA would result in a nuclear calamity. Collapse of Soviet Union did neither.


USSR was like a controlled implosion. I don't see that happening with Trump. Contrasting Trump with Gorbachev would be like contrasting an oreo with a pea.
NOAA now onboard with redeveloping El-Nino.

Philip Klotzbach

@philklotzbach

Latest forecast from NOAA gives ~30% chance of #ElNino re-developing by July thru September of 2017.
11:15 AM - 8 Dec 2016 · Walnut Creek, CA


Quoting 26. CraigsIsland:



USSR was like a controlled implosion. I don't see that happening with Trump. Contrasting Trump with Gorbachev would be like contrasting an oreo with a pea.


LOL, I could imagine an analogous situation:

First, Trump in agreement with Russia, China etc. dismantles the entire NATO. At the same time, he makes drastic domestic changes. Then George W. Bush (or other "old" Republican people) would try a coup d'etat with the help of a faction in the military. The coup would fail, but by the time everything is over, it would be Governor of California that's in charge of all federal affairs, and he would proceed to dismantle the entire federation.
not what anyone needs.....

Quoting 27. StormTrackerScott:

NOAA now onboard with redeveloping El-Nino.

Philip Klotzbach

@philklotzbach

Latest forecast from NOAA gives ~30% chance of #ElNino re-developing by July thru September of 2017.
11:15 AM - 8 Dec 2016 · Walnut Creek, CA



so a semi permanent el nino?
Quoting 27. StormTrackerScott:

NOAA now onboard with redeveloping El-Nino.

Philip Klotzbach

@philklotzbach

Latest forecast from NOAA gives ~30% chance of #ElNino re-developing by July thru September of 2017.
11:15 AM - 8 Dec 2016 · Walnut Creek, CA



Quoting 28. elioe:



LOL, I could imagine an analogous situation:

First, Trump in agreement with Russia, China etc. dismantles the entire NATO. At the same time, he makes drastic domestic changes. Then George W. Bush (or other "old" Republican people) would try a coup d'etat with the help of a faction in the military. The coup would fail, but by the time everything is over, it would be Governor of California that's in charge of all federal affairs, and he would proceed to dismantle the entire federation.
That's horrific.

Doubt this is likely compared to other scenarios. I live in California, and from time to time there's talk about splitting up CA or joining Washington, Oregon into a new state/new country etc. etc. But I don't foresee almost any of that happening. I see a split within CA but not rejecting the American constitution. The principles of American Democracy are as solid as I think we've seen in any society (of course I'm biased, but I'm open to different election systems/French/British :)).

What does this election mean though? A lot of risk. It's been amazing. Expect a lot of changes. Good/Bad? it really depends on the issue and your beliefs/backgrounds and so much more.

I sincerely believe the US needs to do more on keeping fossil fuels beneath the ground and recognize that the profits may look juicy short-term, but long-term its horrific to gamble on.
Quoting 30. 19N81W:

so a semi permanent el nino?



Near La-Nina now but the issue is the PDO its so positive that it is causing La-Nina not to fully develop.

BTW look at the Gulf. OUCH!



CFSv2 though if correct would be indicating potentially a hyper active 2017 Hurricane Season for the Atlantic Basin.


Quoting 27. StormTrackerScott:

NOAA now onboard with redeveloping El-Nino.

Philip Klotzbach
%u2714
@philklotzbach

Latest forecast from NOAA gives ~30% chance of #ElNino re-developing by July thru September of 2017.


70% chance of it NOT developing :).
nothing to stir it up for so long....
Quoting 32. StormTrackerScott:



Near La-Nina now but the issue is the PDO its so positive that it is causing La-Nina not to fully develop.

BTW look at the Gulf. OUCH!


Quoting 27. StormTrackerScott:

NOAA now onboard with redeveloping El-Nino.

Philip Klotzbach

@philklotzbach

Latest forecast from NOAA gives ~30% chance of #ElNino re-developing by July thru September of 2017.
So...a 70% chance of neutral or La Nina? Sounds like pretty good odds...
Quoting 31. CraigsIsland:

... recognize that the profits may look juicy short-term, but long-term its horrific to gamble on.


Your thoughts on the medium term ?
Quoting 19. MahFL:



Don't forget those ICBM's have a long long range....
5500 KM and falls fast
Hmm, the rainbow is gone :(.

In an earlier Cat6 blog, someone linked this news about the questionnaire from eenews.com which is where I read the pdf document they claim is from the Trump team.

Once again, if someone hasn't seen the questions and wants to read the questions for him/herself...
FWIW, a link to the the 74 questions in question from Trump Team to Department of Energy (pdf) as reported in the news story linked above.

Of course, any energy use can affect climate change. From what I see and understand, two questions specifically ask for information specific to climate change:

#27. Can you provide a list of all Department of Energy employees or contractors who have attended any lnteragency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon meetings? Can you provide a list of when those meetings were and any materials distributed at those meetings, **EPSA emails associated with those meetings, or materials created by Department employees or contractors in anticipation of or as a result of those meetings?

#29. Which programs within DOE are essential to meeting the goals of President Obama's Climate Action Plan?


Questions #66 onward are general about "the labs" and are "apparently" answered in red, most stating the answer cannot be made public. Perhaps some of these questions would require answers from climate scientists, but who knows what other kinds of studies go on at "the labs"? Of course, there's no way to know who typed the answers to the lab questions and to whom they were typed. (maybe typed to a newsperson or by a newsperson?).

Most questions seem to relate to nuclear energy, department purpose, department administrative concerns like how many vacant positions exist and department goals and purposes, potential areas to cut budget, and these seem reasonable to me for a new administration that wants a handle on what been going on.

**edit reason: EPSA (Energy Policy Systems and Analysis) not part of the question but a designation in the right-hand column copied inadvertently (link added)
Quoting 36. MahFL:



Your thoughts on the medium term ?


"agnostic" renewable. meaning - all countries pitch in to adopt "clean" energy. From a social, political and economic perspective, this must happen or there will be a lot of medium term "pains". From people being forcibly relocated to rising sea levels, to droughts, to food nourishment to inequalities in distributions of goods and resources - this must happen. Adapt or die is the message to businesses AND governments of all levels.
Quoting 36. MahFL:



Your thoughts on the medium term ?


if you mean medium term oil/fossil fuels - you're looking at growth and higher prices. If you have no moral objection to investing in those kinds of companies - you stand to profit greatly.
Germany will miss its CO2 emission targets for 2020 by some 20 million tons, the government admitted today.
Still pressed over el nino.
Quoting 38. daddyjames:

Hmm, the rainbow is gone :(.


Have no fear. The rainbow is still there. I got it four times in a row just now.
Quoting 35. Neapolitan:

So...a 70% chance of neutral or La Nina? Sounds like pretty good odds...


Neutral ENSO years after a La Nina tend to be pretty rough hurricane seasons. 2008, 2011...
Quoting 46. Barefootontherocks:

Have no fear. The rainbow is still there. I got it four times in a row just now.


I guess it is where you happen to be located. I got a peak at the rainbow, but alas, no more ;).
ICBMs, nuclear proliferation, nuclear winter...are you all trying to stress out the readers of the blog? On top of all the other aggravating, exhausting, and frightening news going on?

I don't want to have my head in the sand (truly I don't), but d**n...

Quoting 39. Barefootontherocks:

In an earlier Cat6 blog, someone linked this news about the questionnaire from eenews.com which is where I read the pdf document they claim is from the Trump team.

Once again, if someone hasn't seen the questions and wants to read the questions for him/herself...
FWIW, a link to the the 74 questions in question from Trump Team to Department of Energy (pdf) as reported in the news story linked above.

Of course, any energy use can affect climate change. From what I see and understand, two questions specifically ask for information specific to climate change:

#27. Can you provide a list of all Department of Energy employees or contractors who have attended any lnteragency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon meetings? Can you provide a list of when those meetings were and any materials distributed at those meetings, EPSA **emails associated with those meetings, or materials created by Department employees or contractors in anticipation of or as a result of those meetings?

#29. Which programs within DOE are essential to meeting the goals of President Obama's Climate Action Plan?


Questions #66 onward are general about "the labs" and are "apparently" answered in red, most stating the answer cannot be made public. Perhaps some of these questions would require answers from climate scientists, but who knows what other kinds of studies go on at "the labs"? Of course, there's no way to know who typed the answers to the lab questions and to whom they were typed. (maybe typed to a newsperson or by a newsperson?).

"Most questions seem to relate to nuclear energy, department purpose, department administrative concerns like how many vacant positions exist and department goals and purposes, potential areas to cut budget, and these seem reasonable to me for a new administration that wants a handle on what been going on.

**edit reason: EPSA not part of the question but a designation in the right-hand column copied inadvertently)
I suspect that if you were one of the DoE scientists--that is, someone who's been there a while and who knows the players and who knows how things work and understands what the freedom of open research means--you might find the invasive nature of most of the questions to be uncomfortable and unprecedented. Which is why, it must be reiterated, DoE staff sent notice to Trump's people that would not participate in this witch hunt.

Not sure where anyone would get the notion that "most questions seem to relate to nuclear energy." In fact, the term "nuclear" only appears twice in the entire questionnaire, once in regard to cleanup of two shuttered reactor,s and another asking how staff might "reduce the bureaucratic burden" (ie, do away with regulations) of exporting nuclear power. Honestly, reading through the questions is enough to lead me to believe the incoming administration doesn't even understand what the DoE does (which may be why Trump has picked to run the department not a nuclear physicist as has been the norm there, but rather a 'Dancing With The Stars' contestant with a Bachelor's Degree in Animal Science.) Here's a sample, then you decide:

"1) Can you provide a list of all boards, councils, commissions, working groups, and currently active at the Department? For each, can you please provide members, meeting schedules, and authority (statutory or otherwise) under which they were created?"

"9) In the Annual Energy Outlook 2016, EIA assumed that the Clean Power Plan should be in the reference case despite the fact that the reference case is based on existing laws and EIA regulations. Why did EIA make that assumption, which seems to be atypical of past forecasts? "

"10) EIA's assessments of levelized costs for renewable technologies do not contain back-up costs for the fossil fuel technologies that are brought on-line to replace the generation when those EIA technologies are down. Is this is a correct representation of the true levelized costs?"

"12) Renewable and solar technologies are expected to need additional transmission costs above what fossil technologies need. How has EIA represented this in the AEO forecasts? What is the EIA magnitude of those transmission costs?"

"13) Can you provide a list of all Department of Energy employees or contractors who have attended any lnteragency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon meetings? Can you provide a list of when those meetings were and any materials distributed at those meetings, EPSA emails associated with those meetings, or materials created by Department employees or contractors in anticipation of or as a result of those meetings?"

"88) Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" (Oops. This one was from Joe McCarthy. Got the two confused. Mea culpa.)

And, again, why do you suppose it is that nuclear weapons were never mentioned even once in the entire questionnaire?

Quoting 49. LAbonbon:

ICBMs, nuclear proliferation, nuclear winter...are you all trying to stress out the readers of the blog? On top of all the other aggravating, exhausting, and frightening news going on?

I don't want to have my head in the sand (truly I don't), but d**n...


judgement day is inevitable

sorry dark reality can be scary real real scary
Quoting 35. Neapolitan:

So...a 70% chance of neutral or La Nina? Sounds like pretty good odds...

How much neutral and how much La Nina?
Oh, apparently there is "nothing" to worry about regarding the scientists:

Scaramucci said that the Trump team is on a "intellectual curiosity expedition" to see which Energy Department employees worked on climate change issues.

Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci: Scientific community gets 'a lot of things wrong'

Having been a scientist in the employ of the federal government, any questions asking for a detailed list of who did what - outside of obvious illegal activities - immediately draws concern.
The pertinant questions in the DOE questionnaire which the Trump transition team sent. There is no dispute that the team sent it. Trump is now saying someone on the team may have acted inappropriately by sending it.


27. Can you provide a list of all Department of Energy employees or contractors who have attended any Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon meetings? Can you provide a list of when those meetings were and any materials distributed at those meetings, EPSA emails associated with those meetings, or materials created by Department employees or contractors in anticipation of or as a result of those meetings?

29. Which programs within DOE are essential to meeting the goals of President Obama%u2019s Climate Action Plan?


40. Can you provide a list of Department employees or contractors who attended any of the Conference of the Parties (under the UNFCCC) in the last five years?


Rumor has it that the Reps are looking into removing protections within the civil service code of employment for federal employees with the intent of weakening them. Presently no one can be removed except at will employees for things like these. They can but will loose in a appeal to any court.

I can't see how those questions as versed serves any legitimate purpose for a transition team. Asking about those programs from department adminstrators, or specialists in their respective fields on current status and such would serve purpose.
29 I opine is a legitimate question for a transition team. Phased incorrectly however and politicized. Climate action plan should have been referenced.
Quoting 48. daddyjames:



I guess it is where you happen to be located. I got a peak at the rainbow, but alas, no more ;).
That's rainbow for you. Comes and goes. :)
Quoting 21. elioe:



Yep, so it's good to be in a non-aligned country. Although nuclear winter would be felt everywhere.

EDIT: Although I don't think that collapse of USA would result in a nuclear calamity. Collapse of Soviet Union did neither.

Believe me, it depends entirely upon how, precisely, we collapse and who, precisely, gets the fun codes to launch the nukes. We have more than a few lunatics in "responsible" positions already.

Non-aligned? Well, don't forget that Obama's predecessor famously said, "If you aren't with us, you're against us." Dig. Dig like your life depends on it! It may just at that.
(As usual, click on articles' title to read in full)

Climate deniers face scientific pushback
Climate News Network - Dec 10.
(...) "Most researchers who have tried to engage online with ill-informed journalists or pseudoscientists", he writes in the journal Nature, "will be familiar with Brandolini's law (also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle): the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. "Is it really worth taking the time and effort to challenge, correct and clarify articles that claim to be about science but in most cases seem to represent a political ideology?
"I think it is. Challenging falsehoods and misrepresentation may not seem to have any immediate effect, but someone, somewhere, will hear or read our response.
"The target is not the peddler of nonsense, but those readers who have an open mind on scientific problems. 'A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.' But an unchallenged untruth will never stop."
Dr Williamson details one case he is contesting himself - with Breitbart News, the website whose former senior executive, Stephen Bannon, is now chief strategist for US president-elect Donald Trump. (...)


The Climate Impacts of Trump's ExxonMobil Pick for State
Climate Central - Dec 13.

2016 "Arctic Report Card" Gives Grim Evaluation
Climate Central - Dec 14.

Devastating wildfires in Eastern forests likely to be repeated, expert warns
Phys.org - Dec 14.

Unhealthy forests affect distant ecosystems
Climate News Network - Dec 9.

Human "technosphere" weighs 30 trillion tonnes
Climate News Network - Dec 13.
First attempt to measure the volume of stuff created by humankind reveals that it is at least 100,000 times heavier than the global human population.
DONALD TRUMP’S WAR ON SCIENCE

Taken singly, Trump’s appointments are alarming. But taken as a whole they can be seen as part of a larger effort to undermine the institution of science, and to deprive it of its role in the public-policy debate. . . . . Science is the one domain in human life where bias and prejudice are systematically eliminated; now those very forces are set to undermine the practice of science in America. It is not only scientists who should actively fight against this dangerous trend. It is everyone who is concerned about our freedom, health, welfare, and security as a nation—and everyone who is concerned about the planetary legacy we leave for our children.

It's going to be a painful few years for science and scientist's on a whole.
Quoting 56. Misanthroptimist:


Believe me, it depends entirely upon how, precisely, we collapse and who, precisely, gets the fun codes to launch the nukes. We have more than a few lunatics in "responsible" positions already.

Non-aligned? Well, don't forget that Obama's predecessor famously said, "If you aren't with us, you're against us." Dig. Dig like your life depends on it! It may just at that.
some guy in the basement hacking from the outside in could do it never know but I am sure that is near impossible to do right

I hope the code is not
123456789

cause well we got that part already

lol
Just finished up at the AGU Legal Symposium here in San Francisco. Dr. Manns words and the legalities around the UVA crazed E-mail thing was a great lesson.

I added to the end with few words on How Dr. Ivor Han Heerden won His suit against LSU and the COrps of engineers when His data showed what happened here during Katrina.

I think I got my point across without too many werds.

Was a great time here this morning.

Now to tour the exhibit Hall, which is HUGELY,the Biggest..its Bigly.

We're gonna make Science Great again.

I may even cut my Hair as the flowers keep getting stuck in it.

: P

No wall too.

Quoting 17. elioe:

Oh no. I hope this activism doesn't give the incoming administration a new reason to label climate science as politically biased. At least I think, that in terms of the administration consolidating its policies, they will not see a reason to finance activism, that is opposed to them. And they could see any funding of climate science (which finds its way into climate scientists salaries) as such finance.

Next four years will be epic in the USA. Fortunately I'm thousands of miles away :)

Climate science is politically biased though.
Quoting 61. hotroddan:


Climate science is politically biased though.
Hey you never answered my question in the previous blog about whether your claim of high levels of Antarctic sea ice was ignorant, or intentional?
Quoting 60. Patrap:

Just finished up at the AGU Legal Symposium here in San Francisco. Dr. Manns words and the legalities around the UVA crazed E-mail thing was a great lesson.

I added to the end with few words on How Dr. Ivor Han Heerden won His suit against LSU and the COrps of engineers when His data showed what happened here during Katrina.

I think I got my point across without too many werds.

Was a great time here this morning.

Now to tour the exhibit Hall, which is HUGELY,the Biggest..its Bigly.

We're gonna make Science Great again.

I may even cut my Hair as the flowers keep getting stuck in it.

: P

No wall too.



A flat-top would suit you well. :)
Quoting 58. daddyjames:

DONALD TRUMP%u2019S WAR ON SCIENCE

Taken singly, Trump%u2019s appointments are alarming. But taken as a whole they can be seen as part of a larger effort to undermine the institution of science, and to deprive it of its role in the public-policy debate. . . . . Science is the one domain in human life where bias and prejudice are systematically eliminated; now those very forces are set to undermine the practice of science in America. It is not only scientists who should actively fight against this dangerous trend. It is everyone who is concerned about our freedom, health, welfare, and security as a nation%u2014and everyone who is concerned about the planetary legacy we leave for our children.

It's going to be a painful few years for science and scientist's on a whole.


So this is how liberty is implemented in the United States now?

Trump may have been elected president of the United States, but he is not MY president. I only follow what's right in life and what Trump is in the process of creating in his administration will end in nothing short of catastrophe in a few decades. I will rebel against his notion with every breath I take on this planet.


Amazing to me how they got in excess of 97% of the scientists to be politically biased in the same direction.
"Climate science is politically biased though..

A person famous for some new age sport, skateboarding I think it is, openly professes for the flat earth theory. Everyone I guess is entitled to their opinion it is said.
Stick together and stay strong! :-)

Trump team disavows climate change questionnaire to Energy Department
By Eugene Scott, CNN, Updated 1843 GMT (0243 HKT) December 14, 2016
Donald Trump's transition team is disavowing a questionnaire sent to the Energy Department requesting the names of employees working on climate change issues,
"The questionnaire was not authorized or part of our standard protocol. The person who sent it has been properly counseled," a Trump transition official told CNN Wednesday. ....
Quoting 62. no1der:


Hey you never answered my question in the previous blog about whether your claim of high levels of Antarctic ice was ignorant, or intentional?

I didn't see that question. If you want to restate it you can.
One of the Scrbblers came across this , I'm sure it is of interest to many here -

Leland Palmer / December 14, 2016
Hi Cate-

There was a new expedition to the East Siberian Arctic Seas area in 2016. Semiletov says that at each of about 20 stations set up in the past, methane releases are increasing:

““We have obtained a range of interesting data, but we won’t announce them until scientific papers are published. However, we have proved methane releases are increasing at the shelf. We reached and examined about 20 stations which had been measured earlier and each one showed the releases increasing. To underline that methane mega releases – with the area of over 1 km – are registered only at the East Siberian Shelf,” said head of the TPU’s Arctic Sea’s Carbon Study International Laboratory, RAS Associate Member Igor Semiletov.”

So at each one of about 20 monitoring stations measured earlier, releases have increased. There was a controversy about whether these releases are a natural phenomenon unrelated to global warming – let’s hope the new results lay that BS to rest. Mega-releases, with an area of over 1 km, are occurring.

Let’s hope they publish soon.
Quoting 8. JeffMasters:



Government scientists refers to all of the above; the greatest number are civil service employees.

Jeff Masters


I found that it did not matter. We were cleaning up radioactive waste at US DOE sites. All the labs, DOE offices, sites, and contractors came together and worked smart. The US DOE Inspector General investigated as to why we did not spend our full budget. His office concluded that we saved Taxpayers $5 Billion. We performed our full scope, at much less than estimated budget. That is the power of science focused on a problem.
Quoting 67. hotroddan:

I didn't see that question. If you want to restate it you can.
Your claim:

Quoting 78. hotroddan:
It is interesting how Antarctic Ice levels are very high while Arctic ice levels are very low.


Reality:



Please reconcile.
These two are no brainers and I'm surprised they need to be listed at all:
- We must protect scientific integrity in policymaking.
- We must protect government scientists from censorship or suppression.

I would like to see both and feel there things individuals can do.
- We must reduce carbon pollution and U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

The first one is more complicated.
Climate change is a real, human-caused, and urgent threat.
Ok, so climate change is caused by humans - not by variations in solar cycle nor by natural processes.
Climate change is the result of CO2 mainly.
We need to do three things.
Reduce CO2 emissions, cool the earth and pull C02 out of the atmosphere
Right?
Quoting 59. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:

some guy in the basement hacking from the outside in could do it never know but I am sure that is near impossible to do right

I hope the code is not
123456789

cause well we got that part already

lol

Nah, it's no 13456789, it's "password".

No one would ever guess that!
74. bwi
Hudson Bay finally starting to freeze over -- about 3 or 4 week behind what had been the new normal. Bering Sea starting to fill in too finally.
Overall Arctic sea ice extent still record low by a wide margin though.

Quoting 16. NativeSun:

Well if that is the case, then we will know for sure how much of the climate change debate is really caused by humans. At the worst it will only be a 4 year experiment, and on the other end, we will see how little effect humans have on climate change, thus saving us all a lot of money, by trying to change over from petroleum products, if we don't really need to. This will give us, hopefully some time to help develop new technologies to actually switch over to new types of non petroleum products.

It's clear that the climate change goal posts of the denialist camp are not made of steel set in concrete. They're more like balloons with neutral buoyancy that can be moved with ease whenever it is deemed convenient to do so. For how many years have we been hearing this exact same argument: "Just wait a little while longer, then we'll know for sure", and when "a little while longer" comes and goes and temperatures are still increasing and ice is still melting and sea levels are still rising, the same mantra is repeated: "just a little while longer". The denialist camp has no interest whatsoever in science at this point. Their only concern is saving face, and the last thing they will ever do is take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. They make a truly nauseating spectacle.

Quoting 61. hotroddan:


Climate science is politically biased though.


No, the science is not. It is what it is. Demonstrates a lack of respect, and a lack of understanding, of science.
On post 72 to my opinion yes and no. The heating of the earth is a symptom. The cause is not only co2 but as one poster is mentioning here, things like methane. So it is a mix of symptom and cause.
Removing carbon is a yes. Restriction of emissions of co2 is a yes. Planting trees is a temporary way of putting co2 into a bound state. There are technologically based proposed remedies for that as well, some quite extreme.
Quoting 58. daddyjames:

DONALD TRUMP’S WAR ON SCIENCE

Taken singly, Trump’s appointments are alarming. But taken as a whole they can be seen as part of a larger effort to undermine the institution of science, and to deprive it of its role in the public-policy debate. . . . . Science is the one domain in human life where bias and prejudice are systematically eliminated; now those very forces are set to undermine the practice of science in America. It is not only scientists who should actively fight against this dangerous trend. It is everyone who is concerned about our freedom, health, welfare, and security as a nation—and everyone who is concerned about the planetary legacy we leave for our children.

It's going to be a painful few years for science and scientist's on a whole.
This writer knows propaganda. Not sure the analogies used will apply, as I am in wait-and-see mode and will remain so. Love the George Orwell quote, though.
"In a 1946 essay, George Orwell wrote that 'to see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.' It’s not just that we’re easily misled. It’s that, by 'impudently twisting the facts,' we can convince ourselves of 'things which we know to be untrue.' A whole society, he wrote, can deceive itself 'for an indefinite time,” and the only check on that mass delusion is that 'sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality.'"
Regarding 71 nolder, you don't suppose he could be confusing antarctic land ice with antarctic sea ice? ;)

Perhaps then he may confuse other things like sun spots causeing present hot climates and AGW, or whatever trash he is spouting, suppose? Are we seeing a pattern here?


Quoting 79. ronnm:

Regarding 71 nolder, you don't suppose he could be confusing antarctic land ice with antarctic sea ice? ;)

Perhaps then he may confuse other things like sun spots causeing present hot climates and AGW, or whatever trash he is spouting, suppose? Are we seeing a pattern here?


You mean like confusing up and down, truth and falsehood, an audience that will tolerate lies and one that will not?
Quoting 78. Barefootontherocks:

This writer knows propaganda. Not sure the analogies used will apply, as I am in wait-and-see mode and will remain so. Love the George Orwell quote, though.
"In a 1946 essay, George Orwell wrote that 'to see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.' It’s not just that we’re easily misled. It’s that, by 'impudently twisting the facts,' we can convince ourselves of 'things which we know to be untrue.' A whole society, he wrote, can deceive itself 'for an indefinite time,” and the only check on that mass delusion is that 'sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality.'"



Not propaganda. Reports the stances and actions of the individuals that will be heading those agencies. One would not be incorrect in stating that they undermine science, and have done so consistently, to reinforce their personal beliefs.
I stand in opposition to that, regardless of political identity/party
Regarding 80, nolder, yes I agree it could be all that.

Most probably he can however chew gum and walk at the same time. So I would personally leave it at a inability to understand the written word, and or coupled with a inability to use logic and reasoning.

But you may be right I am not firm in my opinion.
Quoting 71. no1der:

Your claim:

Quoting 78. hotroddan:
It is interesting how Antarctic Ice levels are very high while Arctic ice levels are very low.


Reality:



Please reconcile.

That is the first time I have seen anything on Antarctic ice levels since 2014.

Look at 2015 it shows about the same amount of sea ice as in 2014.
Edit: sorry my picture did not work. refer to the picture above.


Seems right on average so far this year.
Quoting 83. hotroddan:


That is the first time I have seen anything on Antarctic ice levels since 2014.

Look at 2015 it shows about the same amount of sea ice as in 2014.


You know, there's some declines that one shouldn't even attempt to hide, lest they look silly.

No1der has shown you such case.
Bill McKibben on Why Exxon Mobil Is the Worst Oil Company

Rex Tillerson doesn’t just come from any oil company. He comes from the one that knew about climate change but spent decades lying to the public about it for profit.

Link

Quoting 84. hotroddan:


Seems right on average so far this year.
Hmmm... why does your graph end in July?
Go try somewhere else, son, you might do better.
Quoting 77. ronnm:

On post 72 to my opinion yes and no. The heating of the earth is a symptom. The cause is not only co2 but as one poster is mentioning here, things like methane. So it is a mix of symptom and cause.
Removing carbon is a yes. Restriction of emissions of co2 is a yes. Planting trees is a temporary way of putting co2 into a bound state. There are technologically based proposed remedies for that as well, some quite extreme.

C02 in the bound state and recycled form: At least two universities where working on algae solutions.
One was to create algae blooms in "farms" on land, then compost the algae to sequester it.
The second involved growing algae to make either a hard brick to replace coal or turning it into diesel equivalent.

Now the tough question - placing reflective panels on buildings to reduce the "heat island" by reflecting instead of absorbing heat. Would it work?
Quoting 87. no1der:


Hmmm... why does your graph end in July?
Go try somewhere else, son, you might do better.

Ok, it might end in July but it still is far different from your graph which ends in 2014-2015.
Quoting 84. hotroddan:



Seems right on average so far this year.

No. You might at least read the graph you are posting. It clearly ends in July.

Here's up to the end of November:
Quoting 84. hotroddan:



Seems right on average so far this year.


Yes, if you are looking at the average from July 31, 2016. It is December 2016.
92. SuzK
Quoting 27. StormTrackerScott:

NOAA now onboard with redeveloping El-Nino.

Philip Klotzbach

@philklotzbach

Latest forecast from NOAA gives ~30% chance of #ElNino re-developing by July thru September of 2017.
11:15 AM - 8 Dec 2016 · Walnut Creek, CA





The new normal. Good to see you Scott.
Here's another one that's up-to-date for a change, from NSIDC (link):


Quoting 90. Misanthroptimist:


No. You might at least read the graph you are posting. It clearly ends in July.

Here's up to the end of November:


While your graph shows the ice levels falling drastically in 2015 mine does not but, our graphs were not created in the same scale so it is hard to tell.
Quoting 89. hotroddan:


Ok, it might end in July but it still is far different from your graph which ends in 2014-2015.




10-year averages between 1979 and 2008 and yearly averages for 2012, 2014, and 2016 of the daily (a) ice extent and (b) ice area in the Southern Hemisphere and a listing of the extent and area of the current, historical mean, minimum, and maximum values in km2.

Current State of the Sea Ice Cover
Quoting 93. 999Ai2016:

Here's another one that's up-to-date for a change, from NSIDC (link):




This is a much better graph. Thank you. Yes the ice levels are below average but it doesn't seem to drastic; could be natural variation.
Quoting 94. hotroddan:


While your graph shows the ice levels falling drastically in 2015 mine does not but, our graphs were not created in the same scale so it is hard to tell.

Yours is out-of-date (and probably wrong; I can't be bothered to check it). Mine comes from NSIDC. They're completely reliable.
Quoting 97. Misanthroptimist:


Yours is out-of-date (and probably wrong; I can't be bothered to check it). Mine comes from NSIDC. They're completely reliable.

Mine comes from the NSIDC too.
Quoting 96. hotroddan:


This is a much better graph. Thank you. Yes the ice levels are below average but it doesn't seem to drastic; could be natural variation.




Seasonal cycle of Southern Hemisphere sea ice extents (a) and areas (b), given as daily averages, for the years 2007 through 2016. The vertical line represents the last data point plotted.
100. ronnm
Regarding 88, yes you are right techno, algae would remove carbon. AS would any growing thing. Then put into blocks and buried or whatever, sure that would do it. A tree is my preference but to each their own.

On refelctive things on buildings I think that has application to the heat island effect found in cities. And I think it does or will work in that application. Our land mass compared to buildings is just not enogh to effect radiation in a global situation.
Other technological solutions are to produce light reflective particles and put them in the upper atmosphere, things like that. Bunches of proposed solutions are out there. But till we stop our gross production of pollutants it is pretty much a fools errand. Little suggests we can continue our present consumptive patterns and find solution in any technological issue. Likely in the end both approaches will be required.


I think there must be hell to pay before we start to do things such as put reflective particles in the air. Or plainly speaking that would only happen after gross events such as a 20 meter sea leve or some such great catastrophe. Peoples for one depend upon agriculture. They would resist anything produced which blocks the sun for obvious reasons. Globally.
"Since October, Arctic ice extent has been more than two standard deviations lower than the long-term average. Antarctic sea ice extent quickly declined in November, also setting a record low for the month and tracking more than two standard deviations below average during the entire month. For the globe as a whole, sea ice cover was exceptionally low." Source : Sea ice hits record lows (link) - NSIDC, December 6, 2016.
I must go now so I will not be commenting any more for a while.
The Chill is coming for Houston end of week



JeffMasters has created a new entry.
I don't think anyone from any political party can deny that the Arctic region is warming much faster than the rest of the Globe. What has been interesting the last several Winters has been the intrusion of some impressive Arctic Outbreaks as warmer air moves up toward North Pole. Been some weird blocking patterns the last 5 or 6 Winters leading to some very wacky weather across the US.
Thank You for the Update on the Conference and 26,000 participants is truly impressive; now it is time for the the non-scientists who believe in their cause to support them as well in public by way of demonstration and continued opposition to policies, and politicians, which disregard the science and the scientists; this County and our Children deserve no less going into the future. And anyone who criticizes this particular demonstration, or any future ones like this, would be violating the Free Speech Clause of the US Constitution.
Climate change is real, man has probably influenced it a little. The political panic that they are pushing is as phony and a 3 dollar bill. For millions of years now the earth has warmed and cooled. Bankrupting America over this is absolutely ridiculous and dangerous for America! Lets get some reality in this discussion, American can not save the world! We have done enormous things already in cleaning up everything..carbon taxes will hurt no one but Americans. Only politicians will gain from this scam...Stop it now...I am so over this scam!
108. bwi
Quoting 96. hotroddan:


This is a much better graph. Thank you. Yes the ice levels are below average but it doesn't seem to drastic; could be natural variation.


The extreme weirdness of this year's Antarctic sea ice extent and area could be natural variation even at 2 sd below the average. Very interesting things are happening down there, with glacial and ice sheet mass loss and (probably) surface water freshening, weather pattern changes, ocean current and temperature/salinity profile changes etc.

But the main issue with the Antarctic isn't what's happening to the seasonal sea ice, it's what's happening to the grounded ice sheets and the glaciers behind them, and the impacts on sea levels in various places.

The main issue with Arctic amplification and sea ice loss is more about the sensible weather in the northern hemisphere. The patterns of Arctic sea ice loss over the last several decades are almost certainly NOT natural variation.

But I think you know all this...
109. ronnm
Regarding 107 climate change in all the many hours of presidential debates had one question and thirty seconds or so of response to it.

So who is pushing this thing? Seems peoples are not finding about all this through the liberal national media.
You may care to see the number of employees of the solar and wind as opposed to coal, sometime or other.
It is progress as in from horse and buggy to car. It costs some jobs but creates others.
Quoting 100. ronnm:

Regarding 88, yes you are right techno, algae would remove carbon. AS would any growing thing. Then put into blocks and buried or whatever, sure that would do it. A tree is my preference but to each their own.




Yea trees are great. Algae grew faster and was easier to scrape up.

Quoting 100. ronnm:


On refelctive things on buildings I think that has application to the heat island effect found in cities. And I think it does or will work in that application. Our land mass compared to buildings is just not enogh to effect radiation in a global situation.
Other technological solutions are to produce light reflective particles and put them in the upper atmosphere, things like that. Bunches of proposed solutions are out there. But till we stop our gross production of pollutants it is pretty much a fools errand. Little suggests we can continue our present consumptive patterns and find solution in any technological issue. Likely in the end both approaches will be required.




(sigh) Reflective panels would help local weather. Too bad they would not help on a larger scale.
I'm disappointed how few times seeding the upper atmosphere comes up. Even if folks do not want to say "man made" or "fossil fuel derived", people can see sea level change. Seeding the air is cheaper than building temporary dikes that only last a few years before they have to be built hither. There are several islands that flood daily due to sea level rise in both the Pacific and elsewhere.
(sorry, steps away from the soap box)
111. ronnm
Regarding 110 Techno Seeding to produce rain itself is somewhat contrersial. Some nations do that now but it is claimed to rob neighboring places fof their rain.

To produce and apply a thing that blocks the sun when large parts of the world depend upon agricultural product for their income or simply to feed a peoples would likely meet much global resistance. Wars have been fought over much less consequential things. If we endeavored that we would have to compensate nations peoples affected, with anticipated loss in crop yield. Which could get mightly expensive globally.

It will perhaps come to that solution as volcanic ash does such a fine job of cooling things down but only to my guess after a catastrophy directly attributable to AGW. By my take 50 to 100 years from now or more.
This sort of thing seems bound to come to a bad end. Of course, it's completely in keeping with the American "don't just stand there, DO SOMETHING" meme -- do something indeed, whether or not it makes sense.

The public (non-scientists) may well hear "Out of the labs and into the streets !" as the self-righteous shibboleth of the day from "elite" campaigners out to make most people's lives more difficult by making fuel more expensive, electricity unreliable, and so on. After all the public expects reasonable impartiality/detachment from 'real' scientists (and most other professional practitioners), rather than campaigning.

I don't actually know what AGU ought to do -- that might be a conversation for sociologists (if any are able to be impartial enough to engage in it.) However, acting out like bratty entitled college students will at best raise hackles without changing much of anything political (except maybe in San Francisco and Manhattan) for the better, and at worst will further bury the 'cause' in backlash.
113. BBJ16
"- Climate change is a real, human-caused, and urgent threat" is not the conclusion of of the UN-IPCC assesssment reports. While it is clear global warming has an anthropogenic forcing the magnitude of its effect is unclear. From UN-IPCC AR5, "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950".

"Extremely likely" is defined in the report as 95%-100% probability but "dominant" is undefined. Is it 51%? Is it the largest of several forcings but less that 50%? I cannot find out what the IPCC authors mean by "dominant". If it is 51% or greater I would have used the term "predominant" not "dominant".

"Urgent" is an alarmist adjective that shuts down the conversation. "Impending" is a better word in this case.
The extensive consensus and critically accepted reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007, 2014) made it clear that human-induced climate change is happening. As Dr. Andrew Weaver, a lead author in each of the IPCC's Second, Third and Fourth Scientific Assessment Reports (published in 1996, 2001 and 2007), states "scientists rarely use words like unequivocal, but when they do, they are absolutely certain".

IPCC :
"Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."

1880-2009. Of course both values are now higher (literally off-the-charts actually), CO2 is now above 400 ppm, global temperature has repeatedly set new records since 2009... Image source : University of Illinois.

Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in the message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.
- UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon (at the release of the IPCC report Nov 2014)
Our roads are already all ice sheets from pressed snow that has been falling one or two inches at a time for a while now. The high today was about 10F. The traffic was even heavier than usual for this valley/mountain city that has grown by a good 50% in the last 15 years. That's because people were, in part, battening down for the NEXT weather system:



... Winter Storm Warning in effect from midnight tonight to 6 am
MST Friday...

The National Weather Service in Great Falls has issued a Winter
Storm Warning for heavy snow... which is in effect from midnight
tonight to 6 am MST Friday. This warning replaces the Winter
Storm Watch.

* Locations... Great Falls... Kings Hill Pass... Flesher Pass...
Helena... Lincoln... MacDonald Pass... Rogers Pass... Choteau...
Fairfield... Stanford... Lewistown... Lewistown Divide... White
Sulphur Springs.

* Timing... periods of moderate to occasionally heavy snow will
impact the area late tonight through late Thursday night. The
snow will be followed by significantly colder temperatures by
Friday night.

* Snow accumulations... 4 to 8 inches at lower elevations... 8 to 13
inches in the mountains.

* Impacts... significant reductions in visibility in falling
snow... as well as widespread snowpacked and icy roads... will
create hazardous driving conditions. The heaviest snow rates
will likely impact the Thursday morning commute.


AND I have to drive across town twice tomorrow. Going to do a thanksgiving style dinner Friday for family and neighbors and turn it into something fun.
BBC: Toronto 'guerrilla' archivists to help preserve US climate data:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38324045

...need to be thinking ways of continuing to collect data on the sly as well.

Quoting 16. NativeSun:

Well if that is the case, then we will know for sure how much of the climate change debate is really caused by humans. At the worst it will only be a 4 year experiment, and on the other end, we will see how little effect humans have on climate change, thus saving us all a lot of money, by trying to change over from petroleum products, if we don't really need to. This will give us, hopefully some time to help develop new technologies to actually switch over to new types of non petroleum products.

Of course the "climate change debate" is 100% caused by humans. Regarding climate change itself and temperatures specifically since the known natural causes of climate change have trended negative it's likely that around 100% or more of the temperature increase is human caused.

What do you think waiting 4 years will change? It's such a short period that the vagaries of natural variation can easily overcome the steady upward trend of AGW. For most things in climate any period of less around 20 years is useless. The World Meteorological Agency defines the classical climate period as 30 years. All your "wait 4 years" accomplishes is more delay for responding to a problem that isn't going to go away for the foreseeable future.
Quoting 81. daddyjames:



Not propaganda. Reports the stances and actions of the individuals that will be heading those agencies. One would not be incorrect in stating that they undermine science, and have done so consistently, to reinforce their personal beliefs.
I stand in opposition to that, regardless of political identity/party
When I said, "This writer knows propaganda" at comment 78, I meant he knows how to recognize it.

Since you brought it up, he does, in fact, use a subtle form of propaganda by invoking a well-recognized name, George Orwell, and then seemingly applying Orwell's fine thoughts to the Trump admin political appointees, when actually the quote from Orwell could apply equally as well to AGW alarm sounders.
My take.
Quoting 88. TechnoCaveman:

...

Now the tough question - placing reflective panels on buildings to reduce the "heat island" by reflecting instead of absorbing heat. Would it work?


It would help some because by reflecting the visible light instead of absorbing it it sends the light back out at the same wavelength it came in at which the atmosphere is largely transparent too. Once it gets absorbed it's reradiated at a much lower temperature in the infrared range that greenhouses gases like CO2 can absorb slowing the flow of heat out of the atmosphere.

But I think instead of reflectors it would be better to replace them with solar collectors. The Urban Heat Island effect is not a significant factor in global warming, just in the local environment. The Sun rains down more energy on the face of the Earth in 12 hours than humans use in an entire year.
120. vis0
REPLY AS TO ::(i know i'm late to the rally,  "Better late than never"  should be the topic inn 4 years)

(both links auto scroll to comment once page is fully loaded)

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/com ment.html?entrynum=3524&page=6#comment_198

at

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/com ment.html?entrynum=3524&page=6#comment_256

 

 

 

If you look at the 5 w's of questioning (forgot how i replaced how with an old English word beginning with a "W") They show that humans most animals adapt Latitudinal manner not Longitudinally.

Not to go of course but i state this E-W W-E motion is really due to the magnetic process of a complex planet and the inttrAEcolour process (its a form of Hydrogen/Helium spin (hence  i use at times "Æ" ) interacting resonance(sd) i represent via colours)

COME BACK!, here let me explain it in a more "accepted" form.

The Polar regions have a magnetic influence that are best survived where the polar's magnetic output cancel out and that means somewhere in the middle aka furthest areas from Poles or inner most half/halves (please no halves knot jokes) . Look at a map's Latitudinal lines and that's mainly between the 45 degree areas of both Hemispheres.

Why 45? i use a laws of physics i adapted in late 1960s that in physics nature (living things) notice a change at 1/2 (half)  or or 2x (double) a change. In simple math 45 degrees is half of the 90 degrees it takes to cover from Equator to each pole. (or course if we used the number 1000 to count from Equator to poles half would be 500, but we use 90) A more simpler term as to physics we use is Glass half full / half empty...i use to do a joke on public access (1980s) as a science guy (dress in Doctor-like jacket) and say "half full" while filling glass half way or "twice full" as i'd pour 2 times more fake milk than fit into the glass spilling it all over ...SCIENCE! (uh... yes this is the jacket but turned inside out, here (jacket with m number facing out) i was acting like an escaped mental patient - easy part comes naturally to me  , - P   ...shows where all LIVE then..adult 1AM show clip Parental Wise Guidance recommended)

 

 

Now as to the resonance that is more of a science i call Galacsics and will not explain it via that science since it only exists in my mind and the universe outside this or any planet.  For some reason(s) humans care not of anything that is further away than the remote control...\-( well except for that piece of cheese under the remote ...myumm  myummm deelicious 4 month cured 3 days lost  - cheddar.

 

Now the resonance i divide into thirds.  As in  .333 and .666 these are the fluctuations Humans move laterally (latitudinally[word?]) floating over the physical boundaries. (To me) "star centered" complex being aka  Equatorial Humans tend to stay at .333 of the Equator as in "Tropics of" lines are their desired boundaries, while "planet centered" complex beings aka Neanderthal Humans tend to float towards .666 pole ward wise of 45 degrees.

Of course humans have a right to move where ever they want can afford.    The reason for the pole ward boundaries  (i state) has to do which the brain losing ability to create imagined thoughts whence too close to polar regions if one stays there too long without certain protections thus lower the odds for be creative (a nice way of saying surviving or saving ones a**,  during critical life threatening moments when voyaging outside of the normal passageways humans travel is confronted by harsh surprises that intelligence centered around wisdom is a bonus/helps for the purpose of survival)  

 

Now curiosity and being COMPLEX (intelligence feed by wisdom) humans meant that the animal known as Humans broke through that Latitudinal barrier and voyages toward polar regions and survived. Just being curious will not allow an animal to make it pole ward AND (back) SURVIVE to pass that voyages wisdom to others ion its "animal kingdom" / species.  Animals have to reach the "complex animal" stage and i explained in clues as to the 7 days 7 nights relating to 6 or 7 "Radon ages" and 6 or 7 "Ice ages" aforementioned as to physical mutations and latter as to Brain wiring mutations...then the omnipotent took a break on day 7th at Grothar''s Bar and Grill "Beta Centauri".

 

 

Now the warming of the Globe/Planet/Earth is changing this ebb and flow voyage from being mainly W to E    E to W driven to a (equatorial)  to S.Pole-ward and  (equatorial) to N. pole-ward direction.

 

This means that positive and negative things as to human survival will now NOT be controlled by Natures natural Latitudinal temperature/climate divisions/boundaries (NCDB).

 

 

As in bugs, diseases, animals that can harm or even eat humans will now move poleward     i WITHOUT being wiser just cause they need to survive at the basic animal level and millions of years of SLOW N STEADY learning due to SLOW AND STEADY climate changes has set in these less complex animals that they move according to long term weather almost climate period changes.

 

Therefore as we build vineyards in New England how will be safeguard the grapes from South American bugs (more pesticides???). These bugs  that never reached Lat. Lines matching Italy's area, heck not even Portugal/Morocco now (then) are as far north as Virginia and during warm spells you'll have those South American (equatorial) bugs reach New England.  

Then add diseases, mold will thrive as truly only dry / frost kills it so in a few hundred years...

 

(hundred yearas too far???, not too far THINK you read of George Washington that as over 200 "drop in the bucket" years ago)

 

...its too moist and warm and mold is everywhere except for desert which by then no one can survive w/o some super duper electric bill for AC/indoor climate control devices, that has vacuum sealed homes(Sit down Trump stop saying you'll buy 3, doesn't exist yet??? unless you count those created for serious life threatening allergy sufferers or bubble boy like mini homes)...i mean 110 degree outdoors vacuum sealed REAL "this old house" sturdy HOMES.)

 

So again great premise to think as to all consequences i just added the 50% of the consequences that for some reason you forgot (if TechnoCaveman added them later my apology not read ahead) By the way does TechnoCaveman play as your theme tune of the Nirobi Trio ...me I'm Percy Dovetonsils - Wikipedia? ah my style nothing in moderation go all out or be snake bitten...or i could be 99.9% wrong

...watch nolbe prizes in 10 yrs awarded to a theory how man (all animals on the physical dimension even single celled creatures) start by being pole ward grounded ("spine" build pole ward to become in comple beings the 13 cranial nerves ground in full circle to zodiac energies too deep to explain AGAIN) then once pole ward grounded all other use of energy goes towards the intake of experiences as towards instinct then intelligence then wisdom, all i ask for is cookie.

WEATHER:: 
zip10016, WINDY!!! and cold ... CLIMATE:: still warming