The EPA fires most of its scientists and advisory boards

Russell797 said:

How have your tax dollars been wasted on this issue? Investment in the development of new technology is a waste of money? Scientific research of the oceans, global ice mass, Earth monitoring satellites etc. is a waste of money? Never wonder why your ideology is considered backward and anti-science.

Click to expand...

Wasted on govt grants to build university professor careers.

American said:

Wasted on govt grants to build university professor careers.

Click to expand...

This country is losing it's pre-eminence as a beacon of shining light for scientific discovery because of attitudes such as yours. We can't let that happen. Why do you despise academia the way you do? This country has done great things when it has taken bold action to advance our knowledge and capabilities. The thinking of the Luddites did not get us there.

Your conspiracy theories are summarily dismissed as nonsense.

The EPA is a government bureaucracy with about 15,000 employees and over 70,000 pages of rules and regulations. This needs to be simplified so there is a better balance between economic growth and environmental protection.

If you ever worked in a government bureaucracy, they do things in a backwards way compared to the free market. For example, there is a white collar career ladder, where you advance upwards, based on performance, politics, and years of company service. Since they do hire good people, what tends to happen is you get top heavy, with too many good senior level managers for the job.

Often this results in the need to define new parallel positions, expanding the bureaucracy, laterally at all levels. Instead of one manager of water quality, it become manager of cold water quality, manager of warm water quality and manager of hot water quality. This lateral expansion is needed to promote all the good people who play by the rules of company politics. At this point, if these senior staffers are scientists, they are no longer doing science. Their main job is paper work, meetings and budgets. Some scientists, in the science jobs, prefer to stay there. Others, prefer the politics and want to leave the lab for the front office. Now they only talk science.

As far as budgets, you are never rewarded for saving money and being efficient. You will get punished for being efficient, with less funding next year. Power and prestige, in management, is based on how much money, resources and manpower you control. Nobody up top wants to give anything back since this reflects on their prestige status; bigger is better. The system is designed for prestige and not service. It has to support a lot of chiefs with the braves often frustrated by the waste and lack of efficiency.

At the end of the fiscal year, if you have extra money, you are asked to spend it during June jubilee. June jubilee can be fun, since you can get that back up microscope, you may not need, but would like to have just to be safe. This helps to balance the budget in antiquation of the future increase requested. It also makes management look smarter since they hit the budget on the dot.

Trump wants the EPA to act more like the private sector, with the tax payer in mind. The upper level scientists who will get the ax don't do science anymore but will need to get back to their roots.

Russell797 said:

And......another ~0.5C "in the pipeline" due to the remaining radiative imbalance even if no more CO2 were added.

Click to expand...

The complete imbalance from CO2 was realized quickly after the increase, the predicted amplified feedbacks are only theorized to exists.
It does appear if some positive feedbacks exists, but they are very minor.
The research based on the observations, place ECS between .8 and 2C. (Lindzen ton Otto).

longview said:

The complete imbalance from CO2 was realized quickly after the increase, the predicted amplified feedbacks are only theorized to exists.
It does appear if some positive feedbacks exists, but they are very minor.
The research based on the observations, place ECS between .8 and 2C. (Lindzen ton Otto).

Click to expand...

BS.....It takes decades for transient thermal equilibrium to occur and centuries for full equilibrium. The feedbacks are not theoretical. The Clausius Clapeyron Equation is not theoretical, the water vapor feedback is large and significant. The effects of albedo change are not theoretical, when ice melts a darker surface is exposed. When vegetation thickens a darker surface results. When the oceans warm they will hold less CO2 in solution..Facts of physics.

Russell797 said:

BS.....It takes decades for transient thermal equilibrium to occur and centuries for full equilibrium. The feedbacks are not theoretical. The Clausius Clapeyron Equation is not theoretical, the water vapor feedback is large and significant. The effects of albedo change are not theoretical, when ice melts a darker surface is exposed. When vegetation thickens a darker surface results. When the oceans warm they will hold less CO2 in solution..Facts of physics.

Click to expand...

The energy imbalance from adding CO2 is complete within seconds, ask yourself, how long after you place an optical filter in front of a light source, does it start filtering?
It starts instantly, so what happens to the energy, it has to go somewhere?
You know the Clausius Clapeyron Equation governs vaporization pressures at various temperatures, and the temperature changes expected from CO2
make that a very small factor.

longview said:

The energy imbalance from adding CO2 is complete within seconds, ask yourself, how long after you place an optical filter in front of a light source, does it start filtering?
It starts instantly, so what happens to the energy, it has to go somewhere?
You know the Clausius Clapeyron Equation governs vaporization pressures at various temperatures, and the temperature changes expected from CO2
make that a very small factor.

Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about if those statements reflect your true knowledge.

Thermal equilibrium is not instantaneous. The change in radiative imbalance is instantaneous. For Earth it's takes decades and centuries to bring that imbalance to zero because of the time required to warm deep water throughout the column and melt lots of ice. Until then the temperature continues to move in response to what imbalance remains. It doesn't matter if we are talking about a lump of coal, a silver spoon or an entire planet.

For each 1C in temperature change the absolute humidity increases by 7% near the current temp of 15C. That's a lot of the greenhouse gas H2O added to the atmosphere.

Russell797 said:

You don't know what you are talking about if those statements reflect your true knowledge.

Thermal equilibrium is not instantaneous. The change in radiative imbalance is instantaneous. For Earth it's takes decades and centuries to bring that imbalance to zero because of the time required to warm deep water throughout the column and melt lots of ice. Until then the temperature continues to move in response to what imbalance remains. It doesn't matter if we are talking about a lump of coal, a silver spoon or an entire planet.

For each 1C in temperature change the absolute humidity increases by 7% near the current temp of 15C. That's a lot of the greenhouse gas H2O added to the atmosphere.

Click to expand...

Of course thermal equilibrium is not instantaneous, but we are speaking about the energy imbalance caused by added CO2,
which is an imbalance in radiative energy, which would occur almost instantly (tens of milliseconds).
As to your theoretical 1C change, and it's effects, the normal diurnal cycle is over 10 C.
Most of the observed change has been to the bottom of the diurnal cycle, so the effects of a minor factor
effecting the absolute top of the cycle may not have much bearing.