Let’s carry out the five year plan in 4 years! Picture courtesy nhikmetran at flickr.com
Posted on 11/18/2011 10:33:57 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
From the Carnegie Institution , what looks to be a throwback to the old days of central planning has been introduced, except it is twice as good as that, ten years instead of five. The only difference between the ten year carbon and science plan and what you see in the image below, is that none of the industrial elements you see will be included.
Let’s carry out the five year plan in 4 years! Picture courtesy nhikmetran at flickr.com
Scientists tackle the carbon conundrum
Palo Alto, CA—U.S. scientists have developed a new, integrated, ten-year science plan to better understand the details of Earth’s carbon cycle and people’s role in it. Understanding the carbon cycle is central for mitigating climate change and developing a sustainable future. The plan builds on the first such plan, published in 1999, but identifies new research areas such as the role of humans as agents and managers of carbon cycling and climate change, the direct impact of greenhouse gases on ecosystems including changes to the diversity of plants and animals and ocean acidification, the need to address social concerns, and how best to communicate scientific results to the public and decision makers.
The first carbon science plan for the U.S., published in 1999, resulted in numerous breakthroughs for understanding the carbon cycle and how it is changing in response to human pressures. For instance, researchers discovered that the huge quantities of CO2 absorbed by the oceans are causing ocean acidification, which is harming sea life and affecting the food chain. Research also characterized the large uptake of carbon by plants and soils in the Northern Hemisphere, and found that understanding land use and disturbance patterns is integral to understanding the global carbon cycle.
The new plan is the culmination of a three-year effort with input from hundreds of scientists about the current needs of the research community. Carnegie Institution for Science’s Anna Michalak, Duke University’s Rob Jackson, Appalachian State University’s Gregg Marland, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Christopher Sabine led the work on the 2011 A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan.*
“Although there has been a bonanza of new understanding about the carbon cycle over the last decade, many new questions have arisen,” remarked Michalak of Carnegie’s Department of Global Ecology. “A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan lays the groundwork for expanding beyond a primary focus on the ‘natural’ carbon flows between the atmosphere, oceans, and plant life, to fully integrate human impacts and the role of both intentional and inadvertent carbon management decisions.”
The team developed four science elements to drive the research. The backbone of the research strategy is to strengthen the network of observations to better monitor and track carbon as it winds its way through the atmosphere, ecosystems, oceans and society, and to find out how this changes over time. Other elements include studies of the processes that control the flows and transformations of carbon, and developing numerical models to predict future behavior.
Another important aspect of the plan is its increased emphasis on communication and making research more accessible to policy makers and the general public. It is hoped that this will lead to rational and well-informed decisions on how best to manage the global carbon cycle, especially the human impacts on it.
In an era of tight budgets and with public questions about the value of science, this plan calls for an expanded role for careful, integrated, and clear science to inform and support human objectives for a sustainable environment.
*The report is published by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research supported by NASA, DOE, USDA, USGS, NOAA, NSF, and NIST. The authors are Anna Michalak, Robert B. Jackson, Gregg Marland, Christopher L. Sabine, and the Carbon Cycle Science Working Group.
The Department of Global Ecology was established in 2002 to help build the scientific foundations for a sustainable future. The department is located on the campus of Stanford University, but is an independent research organization funded by the Carnegie Institution. Its scientists conduct basic research on a wide range of large-scale environmental issues, including climate change, ocean acidification, biological invasions, and changes in biodiversity.
The Carnegie Institution for Science (carnegieScience.edu) has been a pioneering force in basic scientific research since 1902. It is a private, nonprofit organization with six research departments throughout the U.S. Carnegie scientists are leaders in plant biology, developmental biology, astronomy, materials science, global ecology, and Earth and planetary science.
64 Responses to New ten year plan for carbon and climate science
*****************************************EXCERPT**********************************************
Mark and two Cats says:
“…identifies new research areas such as the role of humans as agents and managers of carbon cycling and climate change…”
Agents and managers of carbon cycling = jackbooted ecothug warmunists.
“…huge quantities of CO2 absorbed by the oceans are causing ocean acidification…”
CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t creating enough panic (and grant money); time to change the game.
*****************************************EXCERPT***************************************
RichieP says:
‘Latitude says:
November 16, 2011 at 2:40 pm
…and what’s the problem anyway? Obama said the seas would stop rising’
Not if the Guardian’s got anything to do with it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/16/climate-change-report-new-york-city
‘Major storms could submerge New York City in next decade
Sea-level rise due to climate change could cripple the city in Irene-like storm scenarios, new climate report claims’
***************************************EXCERPT******************************************
This looks like the usual fishing trip for money:
The US Global Change Research Plan Strategic Plan for the next 10 years 2012 – 2021 is calling for comments – due Nov 29th 2010
http://strategicplancomments.globalchange.gov/
This is Congress calling for us to tell the various Govenment Agencies how they should be spending climate research money for the next 10 years.
How about starting with a criminal fraud investigation into how the last 10 years of money was spent?
Interested WUWT readers should take a good look at this call for for comment. [Anthony please note].
Tell Congress to stop these lying thieves.
Stanford is like Penn State – just bring in the money, no ethics required. This is the Schneider legacy at work.
**************************************EXCERPT************************************
Downdraft says:
The words “numeric code” and “prediction” appeared in their press release. I guess “Model” has too many bad associations these days.
We already know what the results will be. The study is just to justify the grant money.
**************************************EXCERPT**************************************
higley7 says:
The public’s social (carbon) concerns and scientific communication are easily handled.
STOP THE ANTI-CARBON, FEAR-MONGERING PROPAGANDA!
ONLY PRESENT REAL SCIENCE!
That was soooo hard?
The big trick, however, is squashing the socialist, totalitarian agenda that is behind the AGW scam. That’s going to take time and stamina.
Believing that it is important to understand the carbon cycle is predicated on the idea that carbon, i.e., CO2, is a problem. As there is no downside to CO2, it being plant food, unable to cause ocean acidification, and, did I say, it is plant food. And it does not cause global warming. As CO2 interacts with water vapor to interfere with its ability to convert radiation to heat and also interacts with water vapor such that absolute water vapor decreases as CO2 increases, there is no problem. AND, the icing on the cake is that, if we do have 20–30 more years of cooling (according to IPCC 20–30 years without warming, at least), the oceans will begin to suck up CO2, just as they always have—there appears to be an 8-year lag once cooling commences.
The simple fact that our emissions have increased 33% in the last ten years and, not only has there been no warming—some cooling instead—but the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 has been constant, if not slightly decreased. There is no indication that man’s emissions are having any effect on atmospheric CO2 and the global temperatures are failing to respond to the IPCC’s predictions.
So, guys, let’s save some money and not spend billions learning details of a non-issue. There are lots of other things that need attention.
We must remember, folks, there are going to be a lot of scientists out there soon looking for work, cobbling up new projects as their global warming-related funding goes bye-bye.
********************************EXCERPT*********************************************
R. Shearer says:
As a chemist, it bugs me that a lessening of pH from 8.2 to about 8.0 could be called acidification.
It is obvious that acidification is being redefined in this context to invoke fear in the ignorant.
Did you see this from CARB?
California Announces Groundbreaking Advanced Clean Car Rules
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/newsrelease.php?id=250
**********************************EXCERPT***************************************
Its scientists conduct basic research on … ocean acidification
Yep big problem, the ocean has gone from as alkaline as baking soda to almost as alkaline as baking soda —– not acidic yet, or any time in the near future.
Unfortunately the general public has no clue about ph. Few realize that almost all our foods are acidic. Sea water ph ranges from about ph 8.25 to 8.14, but common foods are orders of magnitude more acidic.
ph of common substances are often acidic.
8.3 Baking Soda
8.25 – 8.14 Sea Water
7.4 Human Blood
7.0 Pure Water: Neutral
6.6 Milk: Acid
4.5 Tomatoes
4.0 Wine and Beer
3.0 Apples
2.2 Vinegar
2.0 Lemon Juice
Larry
Guess we could start a thread....so more might see it.
The people that are freaked out about the human impact on the carbon cycle should stop breathing so that we can sequester their carbon in caskets.
I don’t know, it’s Friday. When people read stuff like this, it will make their head explode right before the weekend :)
“Whew. CARB’s Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV) program aims to have battery, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles account for up to 15% of California’s new vehicle sales in 2025, which, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), means that dealers had better get moving and sell 1.4 million of these vehicles between 2018 and 2015.”
However, when asked, The Nitwits @ UCS stated that after a thorough review, their research did not define the term Customer./s
Didn’t we already do the acid rain thing?
Global Warming on Free Republic
The Department of Global Ecology was established in 2002 to help build the scientific foundations for a sustainable future.
If the supercommittee in Congress is looking for a place to cut government spending...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
