Why do liberals believe in global warming but not conservatives?

[Paratus]

I didn't say that. I said it won't happen, and we are doomed. What part of that is hard to understand?

The part where nothing you said actually made any sense?

Unless agent was right and you are hoping the rest of the third world will die off to decrease the surplus population.

I wasn't going to jump to that conclusion. So maybe you could clarify yourself.

 

[Triloby]

It's a million times more complex than a simple "DO YOU BELIVE IT YES/NO?"

I think most conservatives believe that humans are having some effect on the environment and the temperature is going up, ever so slightly. What they don't believe is that just because something is happening, it's automatically a problem, nor do they automatically believe every tom, dick, and sally that comes along saying they only way to save the world from global warming is to give them 10 million dollars.

As far as me personally, I think the solutions are mostly barking up the wrong tree. It's a really fucking simple math problem: X people cause Y pollution each, every Z of which results in a worse environment. There are two variables, but liberals love to pretend there is only one: we must use less, recycle more, blah blah blah. The truth is, there are too many people on this planet. China has 4 times our population: the problem isn't that americans use 50% more resources each, the problem is that China has too many damn people. There is a real hard limit to the number of people who can be supported on this planet, China & India are the clear problem in that regard.

But... the liberal solution has to be politically correct, has to be defensible, has to be nice, has to be popular- so the idea of telling people to quit having so many kids hasn't caught on, and probably never will. The planet is doomed.

Translation: "We need to nuke China and India so we can reduce their populations and waste less of Earth's resources that way."

/Big Fat "s"

 

[Chiropteran]

The part where nothing you said actually made any sense?

Unless agent was right and you are hoping the rest of the third world will die off to decrease the surplus population.

I wasn't going to jump to that conclusion. So maybe you could clarify yourself.

The math is pretty simple, it SHOULD make sense for most people.

Lets say 1 person produces 10 units of pollution in a lifetime. 10M units of pollution in a single year makes the temperature go up by 1 degree.

Now, the current argument seems to be to try to get that 10 units of pollution per person down to 9, and then down to 8, etc. But it totally ignores the fact that the population of the world keeps increasing, which is the real problem.

Population is going to keep going up. Sure, we can be a little more efficient, but it's like bailing out a boat that is filling with water from a hole in the bottom that keeps getting bigger. There is a real limit to how efficiently a person can live, and population never stops increasing, eventually the earth is going to die.

The harsh truth is that having children needs to become a privilege rather than a right, but I'm afraid it's such an unpopular view (and impossible to enforce globally) such that it won't occur and eventually the earth will just be overpopulated beyond saving.

 

[Paratus]

Increasing standard of living is part of the solution. The problem is Carbon emitted per kWh per person.

Increasing standard of living increases kWh used but lowers number of people in the long run.

Better mix of energy sources (natural gas over coal, nuclear, solar and wind over fossil fuels) lower the amount of carbon per kWh.

Sure the initial increase in standard of living probably increases CO2 output but over the long term it will reach 0 increase faster than by ignoring standard of living and increasing population.

Increasing standard of living across the world would be a huge business opportunity and reduce terrorism. Seems like a win win situation to me.

The math is pretty simple, it SHOULD make sense for most people.

Lets say 1 person produces 10 units of pollution in a lifetime. 10M units of pollution in a single year makes the temperature go up by 1 degree.

Now, the current argument seems to be to try to get that 10 units of pollution per person down to 9, and then down to 8, etc. But it totally ignores the fact that the population of the world keeps increasing, which is the real problem.

Population is going to keep going up. Sure, we can be a little more efficient, but it's like bailing out a boat that is filling with water from a hole in the bottom that keeps getting bigger. There is a real limit to how efficiently a person can live, and population never stops increasing, eventually the earth is going to die.

The harsh truth is that having children needs to become a privilege rather than a right, but I'm afraid it's such an unpopular view (and impossible to enforce globally) such that it won't occur and eventually the earth will just be overpopulated beyond saving.

Did you read my post earlier in the thread? I've quoted it above.

There's no need for authoritarian minded bullshit like China to reduce population. People choose to do it when they are educated and have a first world standard of living.

 

[agent00f]

The math is pretty simple, it SHOULD make sense for most people.

Lets say 1 person produces 10 units of pollution in a lifetime. 10M units of pollution in a single year makes the temperature go up by 1 degree.

Now, the current argument seems to be to try to get that 10 units of pollution per person down to 9, and then down to 8, etc. But it totally ignores the fact that the population of the world keeps increasing, which is the real problem.

Population is going to keep going up. Sure, we can be a little more efficient, but it's like bailing out a boat that is filling with water from a hole in the bottom that keeps getting bigger. There is a real limit to how efficiently a person can live, and population never stops increasing, eventually the earth is going to die.

The harsh truth is that having children needs to become a privilege rather than a right, but I'm afraid it's such an unpopular view (and impossible to enforce globally) such that it won't occur and eventually the earth will just be overpopulated beyond saving.

Good thing the chinese already starting limiting offspring to 1 in the 70's, are you doing your part?

The fact is the US is one of the most energy inefficient places on earth, and it's that way and stay that way because of entitled shits making these excuses. Remember those dumbshits mocking Carter for trying to appeal to americans to conserve? Apparently they just elected their new Reagan.

Did you read my post earlier in the thread? I've quoted it above.

There's no need for authoritarian minded bullshit like China to reduce population. People choose to do it when they are educated and have a first world standard of living.

Terrible solution for conservatives.

 

[Jaskalas]

People choose to do it when they are educated and have a first world standard of living.

!@#$, it's probably due to three factors. Increased cost of living, who can afford kids?, access to birth control, and women's rights so they have something else to do with their time.

 

[greatnoob]

Why do you think I've been quick to judge?

While your class may have differing opinions on the causes of global warming the absolute majority of climate scientists do not.

Natural forcings are currently roughly neutral.
Anthropogenic sources however drive the observed warming.

(From the IPCC AR5)

"While your class may have differing opinions,"
No that wasn't a discussion between our class but the different view points of climate change - we're meant to known all the opinions regardless of whether they make sense or not.
I was under the guise that the human impact of global warming was not measurable, you've showed me data that we weren't shown so I'll dive into it your source when I'm free.

Let's also talk about your economic analysis. While I basically agree that as fuel become scarce prices will rise which will drive adoption of new resources, did your class bother to compare that hypothesis with what's actually happening in the energy markets?

The market doesn't have to wait for scarcity before moving to new sources of energy, if those new sources make economic sense.

Natural gas, solar and wind have all seen dramatic reductions in costs making them more cost competitive than coal in the countries that are the heaviest users of coal.

Take the US for example:

Coal and oil are down. Natural gas and renewables are all trending up.

In my area 100% renewable electric power was only $0.06-0.07 per kWh.

So I'll stand by my original assertion that one or both of them were full of it.

"While I basically agree that as fuel become scarce prices will rise which will drive adoption of new resources, did your class bother to compare that hypothesis with what's actually happening in the energy markets?"

It's not a hypothesis but a very obvious microeconomics fact. You can observe in any market that higher prices of X (or lower prices of Y) will drive consumers to buy less of X and more of Y (the substitute).

Like I already said in my first post "What we should worry more about are places with already large or growing economies and an increasing population size, specifically India and China.." the first world will eventually have to go renewable (innovate) or risk massive turmoil.

"The market doesn't have to wait for scarcity before moving to new sources of energy, if those new sources make economic sense."

Of course not, it's all price driven. I've explained the free market vs interventionist ways of thought and my own personal opinion on this already in my reply to BonzaiDuck, specifically this: "(hopefully) most rational people would have realised the trend of higher prices and moved to alternatives by then."

What I mean by higher prices is that that X becomes cheaper relative to Y or Y becomes more expensive relative to X, and as you've also said "Natural gas, solar and wind have all seen dramatic reductions in costs making them more cost competitive than coal in the countries that are the heaviest users of coal."

"So I'll stand by my original assertion that one or both of them were full of it."
I've heard the same reasoning that his supposed scientist friend has made. I don't agree with them but I know that is one (lesser-known) opinion I've heard before, I wouldn't be so quick to call him a liar because of that.

 

[Paratus]

Snip

So here's a high level roadmap for combating climate change that takes into account population, energy mix, and CO2 sequestration. It's from posts of mine from a couple of earlier threads about MMGW.

(I've put it behind spoilers because it's a huge post that many have already read and are probably tired of me posting. So this is me thinking of you guys. )

Spoiler

So how do we go about stoping and reversing climate change? We'll start by using the goal Glenn gave in his thread of reducing our carbon foot print by 40% by 2050 and the IPCC goal of 100% in 2100.

To effectively analyze this issue we need to know three things:

• How much power per capita do we need by 2050 and by 2100
• Is there mix of power that could realistically reduce and eliminate our CO2 emissions
• How much CO2 needs to be pulled out of the air to reverse MMGW

SECTION 1:
Power and Population

Our carbon footprint for the most part is tied to the global population, mix of power sources, and standard of living expressed in terms of kWH per person per year. Reduce any of these and our carbon foot print goes down.

Now the green extremists don't seem to care about people or standards of living as long as the environment is protected. The conservative extremists don't care about people or protecting the environment if it reduces profits/economy. While both extremes are just opposite side of the same crazy coin there is a kernel of truth in each. The environment needs to be protected because we need it. The economy also needs to be protected because we need it too.

So my goal is to find a solution that simultaneously maintains or raises the standard of living while reducing our carbon footprint.

The only way I see to do that is to reduce the future population of the planet. The only way to do that ethically and morally is to increase the standard of living in the third world so birth rates drop and global population declines.

To increase the standard of living the number of kWh per person per year must increase. To do that while simultaneously reducing our carbon foot print before the population begins to reduce means significantly changing our mix of power sources.

To answer this question we need to know whether it's possible to reduce global population through standard of living and are there alternative power sources that could reasonably displace coal, oil and natural gas.

First up global population. From UN projections we are looking most likely at slowing growth but still peeking at 10+billion by 2050.

The breakdown shows that most of the gain is coming from developing nations. Developed nations actually have slowly declining or stagnating populations:

When looking at the break down by country, the countries with the highest birth rates also have some of the lowest kWh per person per year.
List of Countries by Birth Rate

Table of Countries by kWh per capita per year

For example:

Ethiopia has a rate of natural increase (birth rate - death rate) of over 32 but only 52 kWh per person per year

Italy on the other hand has a slightly negative rate of natural increase of -1.26 and over 5500 kWh per capita per year.

So the question is:

If we assume that by taking action to raise 3rd world quality of living we'll hit the lower peak population of ~8.5billion in 2050 how many kWh do we need to raise everyone up to 1st world quality of living while replacing 40% fossil fuel usage.?


Assumption 1: 1st world quality of living standards (~ Italy@ 5500kwh/person year) will let us reach the lower predicted global population

Assumption 2: Efficiency gains of 10% will be available by 2050 lowering the total kWH per person year required by ~ 500kwh/ person year for the third world

Assumption 3: There are currently 6 billion people in the third world with an average 1000kwh/person year who will need another 4000kwh/person year to reach 1st world quality of living

Assumption 4: 1.5billion new people in the third world need 5000kwh/person year in 2050 to reach 1st world quality of living

So for new generation we need:

6billion people x (4000kwh/person year) + 1.5billion people x (5000kwh/person year) =

3.60TW or 31.5trillion kWH per year in additional generation in 2050


In 2014 the world used about 17TW of power or 1.496x10^14kWh/year

Split as follows:

• Petroleum: 5.75TW
• Coal: 5.12TW
• Natural Gas: 4.11TW
• Nuclear: 0.82TW
• Renewable: 1.37TW

So to hit the target of 40% reduction of emissions by 2050 we need to replace:

.4 x (Coal + Natural Gas + Oil) =
5.96TW or 5.2X 10^13kWh/year

Total new clean power generation required for 2050 (40% fossil fuel replacement + new generation)= 5.96TW + 3.6TW =

9.56TW or 8.37 X 10^13 kwh/yr

Let's take a look at 2100 and see what it would require to get to 0 fossil fuel usage.

Assumption 5: With the third world now at 1st world standard of living assume a reduction to 6Billion people by 2100

Assumption 6: Another 10% efficiency gain is possible by 2100.

So to calculate the required clean power generation let's take the total power required in 2050 with 8.5billion and scale it down to 6billion and take another 10% off:

(17TW +3.6TW) (6B/8.5B)(.9)=

13.1TW Total clean generation in 2100

Now in 2050 we are already generating 11.75 TW cleanly so by 2100 we only have to generate another:

1.33TW

Population reduction means over 6TW of fossil fuel generation can be removed. Leaving only the 1.33TW to be covered by clean generation.

Next up how feasible is it to generate this energy cleanly.

SECTION 2:
Potential Power

For the purposes of this post I'm going to look at two of the most obvious clean options:

• Nuclear Fission
• Solar

We'll also assume that fossil fuels for transportation can be replaced by battery electric, fuels cell, or carbon neutral bio/synthetic fuels by 2100.

Nuclear - Pros & Cons:

Nuclear fission is clean from a greenhouse gas perspective as nothing is burned. It's also incredibly power dense compared to other common power sources:

• Natural Uranium (.7%U235) in a LWR - 443,000MJ/KG
• Reactor Grade Uranium (3.5%U235) in LWR - 3,456,000MJ/KG
• Natural Uranium in a Breeder Reactor - 86,000,000MJ/KG
• D-T Fusion - 576,000,000MJ/KG
• Oil - 46.3MJ/KG
• Coal - 32.5MJ/KG

Nuclear fission, depending on the process, releases 10,000 to 100,000 times more energy in a light water reactor than oil; 2 million times more in a breeder reactor.

In section one we calculated that by 2050 we would need 9.56TW of clean energy with an additional 1.33TW by 2100.

How much Uranium would that require?

In 2013 world wide nuclear power production was 364GW (link).

To generate that the industry used a block of Uranium 14.5m/side:

To generate all the power required in part one in 2050 we would need about 28 of those Uranium blocks per year.

By 2100 we would need about an additional 4 blocks for a total of 32 blocks of Uranium.

If instead of light water reactors, breeders were used, a single block could generate 5 times more power than is required in 2100.

For comparisons sake this the size block of oil produced in 2013:

So the pro's are it's entirely possible to generate the required amount of power needed with no more uranium mining required than we already do.

The cons are how many new reactors are needed and the risk from the waste. The use of breeders can significantly reduce that risk by continuing to "burn" the waste as fuel reducing the amount of waste and drastically shortening the storage requirements.

There are some great designs for small modular reactors in the 10MW-50MW size that could be good for developing countries. Designs would need to take proliferation into account.

(link)

Solar Pro's and Cons

Solar is another and complimentary option.

The Earth intercepts ~ 2x10^17W of solar power. This is about 20000 times more power than we need in 2100. Hypothetically it could supply all the power we would ever need.

Let's make some assumptions and see what would be a reasonable amount of solar power to generate from a low cost third world country solution.

Assumption 1: For developing countries assume fixed solar arrays that point south, in the Northern Hemisphere and north in the Southern Hemisphere. Tracking arrays are more efficient but can break down. Fixed arrays can just be set up and left.

Assumption 2: Let's assume a 10m^2 array per person, (roughly 10ft by 10ft).

Assumption 3: Per this site, which unfortunately has changed significantly since I started investigating this,(link) let's assume that the average yearly US solar insolation of ~5kwh/day for a fixed array pointed south at latitude is a good proxy for anywhere in the world.

Assumption 4: Assume the average efficiency of a mid-late 21st century solar array is ~ 25%. (The ISS arrays designed in the 80's are in the teens, stuff coming out the labs today are max at 40%).

kwh/person year = 5kwh/day x 365days x .25 = 456kwh/year

Or

.442TW per year

While that's a 50% increase above the baseline of 1000kwh/person year for most of the third world today it's only about 5% of the 9.56TW power we are looking for by 2050.

To completely replace the rest of the power we calculated for 2050 using the best solar arrays at 40% efficiency, dual axis sun tracking, and in the sunniest places around the word like the American Southwest (link), we get about

12kWH/m^2 per day x .4 x 365days

=1752 kWH/m^2 per year.

(9.56TW per year - .442TW per year) x (1 / 1752kWH/m^2 per year) =

46,000 km^2 worth of arrays.

Or

A square 213km on a side.

SECTION 3:
Reducing CO2

Let's say we wanted to reduce CO2 levels by 50PPM. One possible solution is just to simply grow more rainforest.

• 50PPM of CO2 = 0.005% of the mass of of the atmosphere
• CO2 has an atomic mass of 44
• Carbon has an atomic mass of 12 so it makes up 27.3% of the mass of one molecule of CO2 and .0014% of the atmosphere
• The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.148x10^18kg
• Total mass of carbon to remove = .0014%x5.148x10^18kg = 7.02x10^10 metric tons of Carbon.

So to remove 50 PPM of CO2 we have to sequester 70.2billion metric tons of Carbon.

According to this study http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/31/how-much-carbon-is-stored-in-t/:

dense rainforest stores 175 metric tons of carbon per hectare.

Dividing our 7.02x10^10 tons of carbon by 175 tons/hectare we would need:

• 401 million hectares of new rainforest
• which equals 4.01million km^2
• or increasing the area of the Amazon by 73% spread through the equatorial regions of the world.

A study I was able to find said a significant portion of the rainforest can repopulate in 65 years. So if we got started in the next 20 years we could probably shave 50PPM off our totals by the end of the century.

Couple that with efforts to replace coal and oil with renewables, nuclear efficiency gains and slowing population growth and we could potentially turn our positive warming imbalance into a negative cooling one.

Which should significantly mitigate sea level rise.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

<grammar nazi>Liberals don't believe in conservatives? I don't think that's true.</grammar nazi>

As to the question meant rather than the one asked, liberals have kind of a henny-penny attitude towards everything environmental. No matter what is happening on the planet it's the fault of business, it's going to mean the end of life on Earth and only they can solve it. That tends to turn people off and the message will be dismissed out of hand when it's sent as "this is your fault".

 

[OverVolt]

The land temperature record just measures suburban sprawl and development. The models are made to fit the data, their proven ability to predict is close to zero but that doesn't seem to stop them from trying.

 

[agent00f]

!@#$, it's probably due to three factors. Increased cost of living, who can afford kids?, access to birth control, and women's rights so they have something else to do with their time.

Only welfare queens can afford kids.

The land temperature record just measures suburban sprawl and development. The models are made to fit the data, their proven ability to predict is close to zero but that doesn't seem to stop them from trying.

If scientists weren't so stupid they'd be uneducated breitbart readers.

 

[Paratus]

"While your class may have differing opinions,"
No that wasn't a discussion between our class but the different view points of climate change - we're meant to known all the opinions regardless of whether they make sense or not.
I was under the guise that the human impact of global warming was not measurable, you've showed me data that we weren't shown so I'll dive into it your source when I'm free.



"While I basically agree that as fuel become scarce prices will rise which will drive adoption of new resources, did your class bother to compare that hypothesis with what's actually happening in the energy markets?"

It's not a hypothesis but a very obvious microeconomics fact. You can observe in any market that higher prices of X (or lower prices of Y) will drive consumers to buy less of X and more of Y (the substitute).

Like I already said in my first post "What we should worry more about are places with already large or growing economies and an increasing population size, specifically India and China.." the first world will eventually have to go renewable (innovate) or risk massive turmoil.

"The market doesn't have to wait for scarcity before moving to new sources of energy, if those new sources make economic sense."

Of course not, it's all price driven. I've explained the free market vs interventionist ways of thought and my own personal opinion on this already in my reply to BonzaiDuck, specifically this: "(hopefully) most rational people would have realised the trend of higher prices and moved to alternatives by then."

What I mean by higher prices is that that X becomes cheaper relative to Y or Y becomes more expensive relative to X, and as you've also said "Natural gas, solar and wind have all seen dramatic reductions in costs making them more cost competitive than coal in the countries that are the heaviest users of coal."

"So I'll stand by my original assertion that one or both of them were full of it."
I've heard the same reasoning that his supposed scientist friend has made. I don't agree with them but I know that is one (lesser-known) opinion I've heard before, I wouldn't be so quick to call him a liar because of that.

We've had these arguments many times on P&N so I tend to be brusque with turd dropping like Kazukians (For another example of this see Overvolts comment above)

If you want more information I suggest the following:

• http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ - this is a good high level overview
• https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html - this an in depth look at how the climate works and how model it. If you've got at science or engineering background it may make more sense.

Oh and I didn't mean he was lying I just meant they were wrong.

!@#$, it's probably due to three factors. Increased cost of living, who can afford kids?, access to birth control, and women's rights so they have something else to do with their time.

Those are probably a good part of the reduction as well.

 

[greatnoob]

We've had these arguments many times on P&N so I tend to be brusque with turd dropping like Kazukians (For another example of this see Overvolts comment above)

If you want more information I suggest the following:

• http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ - this is a good high level overview
• https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html - this an in depth look at how the climate works and how model it. If you've got at science or engineering background it may make more sense.

Oh and I didn't mean he was lying I just meant they were wrong.

Thanks, I'll give them a good read tonight if time permits and right, I've seen his thread crapping first hand so I can see where you're coming from

 

[Sunburn74]

Population size control is the best and fastest means to reduce co2 emissions with our level of technology. There is some tech out there to convert co2 to like ethanol I was reading about and we may find ways to cheaply make and release ozone but assuming tech doesn't change at the end of the day it's having more people that drives our environmental destruction. To be honest we have a second I certainly incentive to switch from oil for fuel so that we can save the remaining oil for material use. We use oil to make almost everything. That actually is its more valuable use in my opinion, not as fuel but as a basic resource to make clothes, plastics, etc

 

[Paratus]

Well I'm not feeling too bad about my road map. The latest meeting from the Paris accords has us increasing nuclear, renewables and reforestation to deeply decarbonize the US by mid-century.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...for-deep-decarbonization/?comments=1&start=40

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Well at least Obama is on his way out the door. If you'd like accurate information from a real climate scientist.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/13/trumping-the-climate/

"So . . . what can we expect from the Trump administration on environment/climate/energy?

"
With these definitions in mind, here are two examples that qualify as hoaxes that I have previously written about:

1. The UNFCCC definition of ‘climate change’ arguably qualifies as a hoax:..........."

 

[Grooveriding]

https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/13/trumping-the-climate/

Unless you enjoy having your skull shat in, I would suggest to anyone curious to not bother opening that link. Just some whackjob and their blog.

 

[Paratus]

Well at least Obama is on his way out the door. If you'd like accurate information from a real climate scientist.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/13/trumping-the-climate/

"So . . . what can we expect from the Trump administration on environment/climate/energy?

"
With these definitions in mind, here are two examples that qualify as hoaxes that I have previously written about:

1. The UNFCCC definition of ‘climate change’ arguably qualifies as a hoax:..........."

Judith Curry! She hasn't been a real climate scientist in over a decade! She pushes shit to get conservative clicks on her website and interviews on Fox.

Do you think this is my first rodeo? GTFO with this weak sauce shit.

 

[greatnoob]

Well at least Obama is on his way out the door. If you'd like accurate information from a real climate scientist.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/13/trumping-the-climate/

"So . . . what can we expect from the Trump administration on environment/climate/energy?

"
With these definitions in mind, here are two examples that qualify as hoaxes that I have previously written about:

1. The UNFCCC definition of ‘climate change’ arguably qualifies as a hoax:..........."

I read more than a quarter way through and this is garbage at best. No doubt morons would find this a great read so long as they can find a way to defend or "correct" their even dumber leader and the ridiculous shit he's been spouting and backtracking on.

 

[Paratus]

Unless you enjoy having your skull shat in, I would suggest to anyone curious to not bother opening that link. Just some whackjob and their blog.

Her site and whatsupwiththat are the go to climate "skeptics".

They've been pretty quiet since the satellite record they hung their hats on hit a record high this year:

And the ground stations:

And the ocean heat content:

(This is a fun one. 30x10^22joules of energy over 40 years equals about 200 A bombs going off every minute for those 40 years)

Strangely this extra heat didn't come from an increase in solar irradiance. In fact solar output is down a little.

But hardcore "skeptics" have their faith in a global conspiracy by all climate scientists, except the few who choose to make money off their skepticism.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

She's testified to both the House and the Senate over the years, invited by both Democrats and Republicans. Check out her Curriculum Vitae and see if you'd rather believe her (a real climate scientist) or a cut and paste spammer like Paratus. Read her blog and check out for yourself. You'll find a wealth of information. You'd think that after our recent experience with the media and our most recent election that you can't take the time to research the skeptic and opposition sites.
"
JUDITH A. CURRY
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
curryja@eas.gatech.edu

GENERAL INFORMATION

Education

1982 Ph.D. The University of Chicago, Geophysical Sciences
1974 B.S. cum laude Northern Illinois University, Geography

Professional Experience

2002- Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Environmental Studies Program
1989-1992 Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Penn State
1986-1989 Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University
1982-1986 Assistant Scientist, Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Awards/Honors

2006 Georgia Tech Sigma Xi Award, Best Faculty Paper Award
2004 Fellow, American Geophysical Union
2002 NASA Group Achievement Award for CAMEX-4
1997 Elected Councilor, American Meteorological Society
1995 Fellow, American Meteorological Society"
1992 Henry G. Houghton Award, the American Meteorological Society
1988 Presidential Young Investigator Award, the National Science Foundation Councillor
Professional Activities (last five years)

World Meteorological Organization / International Council of Scientific Unions / International Ocean Commission / World Climate Research Programme

Global Energy and Water Experiment (GEWEX) Radiation Panel (1994-2004 )
GEWEX Cloud System Studies (GCSS) Science Steering Group (1998-2004 )
Chair, GCSS Working Group on Polar Clouds (1998-2004 )
Chair, GEWEX Radiation Panel SEAFLUX Project (1999-2004)
Science Steering Group, Arctic Climate System (ACSYS) Programme (1994-2000)
Steering Committee, IGAC/SOLAS Air-Ice Chemical Interactions (2003- )

American Meteorological Society

Executive Committee of the Council (1998-2000)
Councillor (1997-2000)
Awards Committee (1995-1997)
Editor, Journal of Applied Meteorology (1993-1996)

National Science Foundation

Panel to review NCAR (2002)
Co-Chair, Science Working Group, Surface Heat Balance of the Arctic (SHEBA) (1993-1996)
Atmospheric Sciences Observing Facilities Advisory Panel (1994-1997)
Arctic System Science (ARCSS) Steering Committee (1993-1995)

Department of Energy

Executive Committee, Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program (93-96) Chair (1997-2000) and Member (1993-2000), Science Steering Committee, ARM Alaska site

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Lead Mission Scientist, FIRE Arctic Cloud Experiment (1996-1999)
Technology Subcommittee of the Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee (1997-2003)
Review Team, Earth System Science Pathfinder Missions (1998-1999)

NAS/NRC

Climate Research Committee (2003-2006)
Space Studies Board (2004-2007)

NOAA

Steering Committee for the Postdoc Program in Climate and Global Change, 1994-1998
Council on Long-Term Climate Monitoring 2002-2004
Climate Working Group 2004-2008

Other

Executive Committee for AGU Board of Heads and Chairs (2004-)
External Review Committee, Environmental Sciences Department, Rutgers University (2000-2001)
External Review Committee, Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue Univ (2003)
Nominating Committee, AGU Atmospheric Science Division (2004-)



RESEARCH GRANTS

Current Research Grants

Towards the Understanding and Parameterization of High Latitude Cloud and Radiation Processes. DOE ARM, 12/01/02-11/30/08, $720,000 (PI)

Applications of Aerosondes to long-term measurements of the atmosphere and sea ice surface in the Beaufort/Chukchi sector of the Arctic Ocean, NSF, 9/1/99-8/31/06, $3,997,402. (PI)

Arctic Regional Climate Model Intercomparison Project: Evaluation and Interpretation of Cloud and Radiation Fields Using Data Products from FIRE.ACE. NASA, 12/03-12/07, $525,000. (PI)

UAV Systems Analysis for Earth Observations: Education and Outreach. NASA, 3/05-3/08, $350,000 (PI)

Global analysis of ocean surface fluxes of heat and freshwater: satellite products, NWP analyses, and CMIP simulations. NASA, 10/1/05-9/30/10, $1.4M. (PI)

Parameterization of cloud particle activation and diffusional growth. NASA, $450,000, 11/1/05-10/31/08 (PI)"

 

[brycejones]

Snip

You're attempting to rehash arguments that have already been covered here many times over. Good luck with that.

 

[justoh]

What? Liberals do believe in conservatives. Well, I mean that they believe conservatives exist. Obviously they don't believe they're good for the country.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You're attempting to rehash arguments that have already been covered here many times over. Good luck with that.

I just see the same sort of hubris and smugness here that we all saw in the mainstream press over the last year or so. "it's settled, Trump will never be the Republican nominee" or "everyone knows that Trump really isn't serious" or "Trump just can't be President" or "the Paris Climate Accord is a done deal and no one disagrees with the science behind it"

Sorry, but there's plenty of disagreement and controversy about it, you just have a hard time wading through the mainstream bullshit to find it. Quite frankly the party that is now in charge of the Senate and House and soon to be Presidency and Supreme Court agree more with my views and Dr. Curry's science then this forum.

 

[agent00f]

I just see the same sort of hubris and smugness here that we all saw in the mainstream press over the last year or so. "it's settled, Trump will never be the Republican nominee" or "everyone knows that Trump really isn't serious" or "Trump just can't be President" or "the Paris Climate Accord is a done deal and no one disagrees with the science behind it"

Consider reading what she had to say on these matters before she was paid for otherwise: http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/pdf/atlanta_rev.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../10/10/AR2007101002157.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

In the intervening period, the evidence for warming has only compounded.