What does Trump as President mean for Climate Change research??

[blizzard1024]

With Trump taking over as President, will he reign in money for climate change studies in favor of studies that are more useful to forecasting

severe weather, hurricanes etc and even research into short-term and seasonal climate variability of which there is little skill. Diverting

money away from climate change research to these areas will be more beneficial to society, focusing on public safety and 

the economy.  I saw that climate change research was awarded 22.5 billion dollars in FY13. That's enough to fund the entire NWS for 20 years!!!

It will be interesting and hopefully he will shut down this gravy train.... 

[heavy_wx]

Never mind that the previously-conducted climate studies that you would have de-funded have given us improvements in weather forecasting through the areas of radiative transfer, cloud and precipitation microphysics, climate variability. Do you think the WRF or the ECMWF or any other NWP model just magically calculates radiative heating rates or precipitation fluxes? Many of the improvements that have gone into those models have come about through studies that were at least partially motivated by understanding climate change impacts.

I mean we don't know for sure what Trump will do with NSF funding, but he has already appointed people to his transition team who want to get rid of DOE. DOE provides a significant amount of funding for atmospheric research, both directly related to climate and weather. And who knows if even the NWS is safe if significant spending cuts are implemented by congress and Trump.

[blizzard1024]

certainly anytime there is a presidential transition you never know what is going to happen. Trump did say he was going to exempt

agencies that deal with public safety from cuts. Hopefully this will be enough to save the NWS from the chopping block. But you

never know.  many high-level politicians don't even know what the NWS does. President Bush 1 was decent for NWS, the Clinton

years were problematic budget wise. Bush II was the best president for the NWS and Obama has not been very good. NWS has

endured bad budget years under him with republican congress boosting their budget. So you never know. 

 

But we do know Trump's position on climate change and this could be a big problem for academia in this field. 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

18 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

With Trump taking over as President, will he reign in money for climate change studies in favor of studies that are more useful to forecasting

severe weather, hurricanes etc and even research into short-term and seasonal climate variability of which there is little skill. Diverting

money away from climate change research to these areas will be more beneficial to society, focusing on public safety and 

the economy.  I saw that climate change research was awarded 22.5 billion dollars in FY13. That's enough to fund the entire NWS for 20 years!!!

It will be interesting and hopefully he will shut down this gravy train.... 

 

you're saying this during a time where global warming / ice melt is more pronounced than ever.

[Cerakoter1984]

18 hours ago, Bacon Strips said:

 

you're saying this during a time where global warming / ice melt is more pronounced than ever.

Funny how everyone seems to be ignoring the ridiculously low temperatures over Siberia. Haven't heard a word about that.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

2 hours ago, Cerakoter1984 said:

Funny how everyone seems to be ignoring the ridiculously low temperatures over Siberia. Haven't heard a word about that.

 

yea, because of the PV being out of whack ...from the enormous  heat / pattern.  

[Jenkins]

how long until this trash thread gets locked or moved to PR?

[chubbs]

Climate science will continue with or without Trump administration funding. Other countries will replace us as the technical leaders if we step aside. China will probably be the biggest beneficiary both from a climate science and a broader global leadership standpoint. 

[Hoosier]

57 minutes ago, BFF said:

how long until this trash thread gets locked or moved to PR?

It's fine here as long as people stay on the climate topic.

[blizzard1024]

4 hours ago, Bacon Strips said:

 

yea, because of the PV being out of whack ...from the enormous  heat / pattern.  

What does this mean?  The Polar Vortex out of whack?? These patterns have been happening for millions of years. come on. There is nothing unusual about the circulation patterns. They have happened before and will continue. Its called weather. 

[Brewbeer]

On 11/11/2016 at 5:12 PM, blizzard1024 said:

 Diverting money away from climate change research to these areas will be more beneficial to society, focusing on public safety and the economy.  

Yes, because Miami and other low lying areas in our nation and around the world going under water won't be at all detrimental to society, nor will in negatively effect public safety or the economy.

 

[Msalgado]

So, many of us in the academic realm are very worried.  I need NASA research to continue to get funded and in fact I really wish we had MORE funding.  The amount of orbital missions is dropping severely as we move forward and we're already not doing nearly enough.  But the suborbital missions like IceBridge and SnowEx are very important to my research so if they don't see further funding then I'll be in a really bad spot.

As a whole, a lot of the current climate action is at the local level, and that will continue.  But I have yet to come across anyone in an academic setting who thinks we'll come out of this unscathed.

[Msalgado]

Also, if you think that the money is better spen for weather purposes, you need to have a hard look at how much orbital data collected by NASA improves NWP accuracy.  Its much more crucial than sounding data.

[skierinvermont]

On 11/13/2016 at 4:52 AM, Cerakoter1984 said:

Funny how everyone seems to be ignoring the ridiculously low temperatures over Siberia. Haven't heard a word about that.

Global temperatures are at record highs. Siberia is less than 3% of the earth's surface area. Weather happens. 

[skierinvermont]

On 11/11/2016 at 7:19 PM, blizzard1024 said:

certainly anytime there is a presidential transition you never know what is going to happen. Trump did say he was going to exempt

agencies that deal with public safety from cuts. Hopefully this will be enough to save the NWS from the chopping block. But you

never know.  many high-level politicians don't even know what the NWS does. President Bush 1 was decent for NWS, the Clinton

years were problematic budget wise. Bush II was the best president for the NWS and Obama has not been very good. NWS has

endured bad budget years under him with republican congress boosting their budget. So you never know. 

 

But we do know Trump's position on climate change and this could be a big problem for academia in this field. 

 

This post shows just how partisan you are. It clouds all of your thinking. And it results in you posting factually incorrect information (lies).

The Republicans have been consistently targeting the NWS for spending cuts. Obama's proposed budgets have often cut spending for the NWS, but by much smaller margins.

For example, the continuing resolution passed by Republicans in the House for FY2011 cut NWS funding by 126 million... which is a huge portion of the NWS budget (~20%). 

Here we have Republicans writing a FOX news article calling for the elimination of the NWS: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/27/do-really-need-national-weather-service.html

In 2005, Republican Rick Santorum proposed eliminating the NWS.

In the 80s Reagan's administration proposed eliminating the NWS.

 

Republicans think that weather forecasting belongs in the private sector. As those of us who follow weather closely know, when it comes to public information and safety, the NWS is the go to source. The private sector is too motivated by profits (and hype) than public safety.

[eyewall]

It will be a significantly damaging setback for climate research and of course the situation will be allowed to grow much worse with at least 4 years of regression when it comes to mitigation efforts in the US (which of course is a huge carbon footprint).

[Cerakoter1984]

9 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Global temperatures are at record highs. Siberia is less than 3% of the earth's surface area. Weather happens. 

They were at record highs. They are currently not.

[SeanInWayland]

On 11/11/2016 at 5:12 PM, blizzard1024 said:

With Trump taking over as President, will he reign in money for climate change studies in favor of studies that are more useful to forecasting

severe weather, hurricanes etc and even research into short-term and seasonal climate variability of which there is little skill. Diverting

money away from climate change research to these areas will be more beneficial to society, focusing on public safety and 

the economy.  I saw that climate change research was awarded 22.5 billion dollars in FY13. That's enough to fund the entire NWS for 20 years!!!

It will be interesting and hopefully he will shut down this gravy train.... 

I'm merely an engineer without training in meteorology, so I'll let others with more knowledge in this field comment on the merits of climate change research vs. shorter-term meteorology.

However, here's what I foiund with 30 seconds of googling--the following GAO report from 2014, Climate Change Funding and Management. The very first figure is below, which seems to show ~$9B in Federal Climate Change Funding in 2013.

Figure 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-2014

What I find interesting is that Technology, which the introduction more or less states is technology aimed at reducing emissions, garners the lion's share of current climate change funding. In the meantime, Science has stayed flat at $2B/yr since 1993. Since you refer to "climate change studies", I presume Science is what you're referring to, since it's kind of hard to peg emissions reduction technology as falling into this category. It looks like shutting down the Science gravy train (and who wouldn't want to jump aboard a train like that, with its mighty 0% growth over 20 years?) will only net 1/10 of what was advertised.

[skierinvermont]

Anti-science trains are the best kind of trains.

[skierinvermont]

2 hours ago, Cerakoter1984 said:

They were at record highs. They are currently not.

False. November is on pace for record warmest November. October was 2nd warmest October.

[blizzard1024]

On 11/14/2016 at 11:59 PM, Msalgado said:

So, many of us in the academic realm are very worried.  I need NASA research to continue to get funded and in fact I really wish we had MORE funding.  The amount of orbital missions is dropping severely as we move forward and we're already not doing nearly enough.  But the suborbital missions like IceBridge and SnowEx are very important to my research so if they don't see further funding then I'll be in a really bad spot.

As a whole, a lot of the current climate action is at the local level, and that will continue.  But I have yet to come across anyone in an academic setting who thinks we'll come out of this unscathed.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/9/13574194/nasa-earth-science-trump-presidency-space-policy-private-partnerships

In this article Robert Walker who wrote Trump's space policy hints at shifting climate and atmospheric science research funding from NASA to NOAA.  "The science that is being doing is essentially Earth-based science," Walker tells The Verge. "It relates to weather; it relates to Earth-based needs. And so NOAA is probably a more appropriate place for that to be done." The goal is to free up funds for more NASA human exploration missions into deep space, Walker says. 

[chubbs]

 

12 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/9/13574194/nasa-earth-science-trump-presidency-space-policy-private-partnerships

In this article Robert Walker who wrote Trump's space policy hints at shifting climate and atmospheric science research funding from NASA to NOAA.  "The science that is being doing is essentially Earth-based science," Walker tells The Verge. "It relates to weather; it relates to Earth-based needs. And so NOAA is probably a more appropriate place for that to be done." The goal is to free up funds for more NASA human exploration missions into deep space, Walker says. 

Sounds like the earth is a low priority in the Trump admin

 

 

[PhillipS]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

 

Sounds like the earth is a low priority in the Trump admin

 

 

It seems they prefer show to science - there isn't a lot of cutting edge science in repeating manned missions to  the moon.

[donsutherland1]

I share the concerns of many that deep cuts in scientific research funding may be on the table for the incoming Trump Administration. An Administration that does not view climate change as a genuine issue based on scientific evidence is not likely to favor funding for such scientific research.

[blizzard1024]

Here is a guardian article...NASA to be stripped of all climate change research funds...which is called politically motivated science.... 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research

 

[Amped]

Trump might be the best thing for the climate. Carbon emissions will drop substantially after a nuclear war kills 90% of the human population.

[chubbs]

China will take the lead

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/with_trump_china_stands_along_as_global_climate_leader/3057/

[Thunderbomb1982]

From what I understand, Trump wants to cut funding for scientists who want to say all coastal cities will be flooded in 50 years. Also to those scientists who say we won't have winter in five years, and to those scientists who will try to get politicians to pass laws so cut carbon emissions. Our tax dollars go to these PHD's that make up data and theorize all day long that will are going to heat up..  If we do warm up, cool down, or stay the same, what can we do about it???  How about give more money to meteorologists that want to research more when tornados occur or other short term catastrophic events to help save lives! Rather than pay those who sit around all day, make up past temperature data/ ice maps and temperature data pre-1960, and tell the world were going to bake it we don't cut our carbon emissions. I'm studying meteorology and it would be awesome to better predict when tornadoes/deadly hailstorms that what's going to happen years from now. I would rather money go to predicting droughts/floods in areas as well within a couple of months.  The predictions are not that accurate these days three months out and it would be nice if we could have more funding to do research in these areas rather than "global warming".

[donsutherland1]

15 hours ago, Thunderbomb1982 said:

From what I understand, Trump wants to cut funding for scientists who want to say all coastal cities will be flooded in 50 years. Also to those scientists who say we won't have winter in five years, and to those scientists who will try to get politicians to pass laws so cut carbon emissions. Our tax dollars go to these PHD's that make up data and theorize all day long that will are going to heat up..  If we do warm up, cool down, or stay the same, what can we do about it???  How about give more money to meteorologists that want to research more when tornados occur or other short term catastrophic events to help save lives! Rather than pay those who sit around all day, make up past temperature data/ ice maps and temperature data pre-1960, and tell the world were going to bake it we don't cut our carbon emissions. I'm studying meteorology and it would be awesome to better predict when tornadoes/deadly hailstorms that what's going to happen years from now. I would rather money go to predicting droughts/floods in areas as well within a couple of months.  The predictions are not that accurate these days three months out and it would be nice if we could have more funding to do research in these areas rather than "global warming".

No scientist predicts that "all coastal cities will be flooded in 50 years." However, a number of locations are vulnerable and will face increased nuisance flooding as the sea level continues to rise.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/NOAA_Technical_Report_NOS_COOPS_073.pdf

https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal-flood-risk/shallow-coastal-flooding-nuisance-flooding

Annapolis has already experienced a dramatic increase in the frequency of such flooding. From NPR:

In fact, nuisance floods here have increased from about four each year in the 1950s to nearly 40 per year now. Annapolis leads the country in the increase in nuisance flooding recorded by NOAA — a nearly tenfold increase since the 1950s.

http://www.npr.org/2014/10/08/354166982/climate-change-worsens-coastal-flooding-from-high-tides

Finally, no one is 'making up' temperature and ice data.

[Thunderbomb1982]

Thanks for the comment. One thing especially I want to say is thank you for being respectful and to show data.  A good scientist finally and not one that puts me down.  However, I'm one that might disagree a bit...  One year they say it's 10 years coastal cities will be flooded, the next year they say within 20 years, then they say a different time frame from a variety of scientists on the news and where I've read. Then they try to falsify their past incorrect predictions because they think most of America is dumb or naïve to believe this stuff. It's never consistent so I was making a point about what let's the "average" of all global warming activists believe.  Annapolis may be flooding but New York isn't covered in ocean water.  Neither is New Orleans or other cities right near the coast but yet since we are loosing so much ice our oceans should be rising.  I'm talking about oceans rising, not about increase in storms that cause flooding that all global warming activities want to believe.