Climate change Cosmology Intelligent Design Physics

Should research funding agencies move resources away from particle physics to fighting climate change?

Spread the love

The LHC protons come from the small red hydrogen tank. / Saintfevrier (CC BY-SA 4.0)

That is, if a much bigger, better collider than the Large Hadron Collider that found the Higgs boson were built, would it find anything new? Or are the problem physicists see with the Standard Model not resolvable by smashing particles together? Japan is delaying a new collider and its decision is thought to produce a domino effect in other countries. One worry is the “nightmare scenario” in which the collider with hitherto undreamed-of energies reveals a desert, “a barren region otherwise devoid of new discoveries”:

Sir David King, the U.K.’s former chief scientific advisor, even goes as far to suggest it might be time to wrap up particle physics as we know it, not only because of what might be diminishing returns in terms of new discoveries but also due to the opportunity cost next-generation machines would bear for dealing with more pressing concerns. “I’m happy to draw a line at the FCC, congratulate all the particle physicists on the amazing work they’ve done, but suggest they move on to other extraordinarily challenging aspects of fundamental science,” he says. “I’m saying this at a time when humanity is faced with the biggest potential crisis it has ever had to face up to, which is climate change. I believe our intellectual resources should be focused on that.” Jonathan O’Callaghan, “Would New Physics Colliders Make Big Discoveries or Wander a Particle Desert?” at Scientific American

You know particle physics is in serious trouble when the idea of just putting the money into climate change instead gets serious face time.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Is science harmed by an illusion of progress? Tellingly, Hossenfelder adds, “So here is the puzzle: Why can you not find any expert, besides me, willing to publicly voice criticism on particle physics? Hint: It’s not because there is nothing to criticize.”

Note: She may not be as lonely as she thinks. Others just talk about it in a more roundabout way.

16 Replies to “Should research funding agencies move resources away from particle physics to fighting climate change?

  1. 1
    ET says:

    Climate change needs the $$$ so they can go back to “adjust” past records to make it seem like today is warmer than usual. It takes time and people-hours- both cost $$$.

  2. 2
    jawa says:

    Should Research Funding Agencies Move Resources Away From Particle Physics To Fighting Climate Change?

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to move resources away from SETI and related projects first?

    At least particle physics seems more serious.

  3. 3
    Johnnyfarmer says:

    Will be determined by who wins or steals the next election. Where do research funding agencies get most of their money?.

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    Johnnyfarmer – in Denmark most of it comes from . . . BEER!!!! Every time you drink a Carlsberg beer, some of the money goes to research.

  5. 5
    asauber says:

    “I’m saying this at a time when humanity is faced with the biggest potential crisis it has ever had to face up to, which is climate change.”

    This is potentially the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. 😉

    Andrew

  6. 6
    Brother Brian says:

    I have no desire to get into a climate change debate, but is it not wise to minimize the output of man-made chemicals to the environment? It is true that CO2 is not a toxin in the classic sense, but neither is phosphorus, and we have learned a hard lesson about discharging it into our waterways.

  7. 7
    asauber says:

    Brother Brian,

    C02 isn’t phosphorus.

    It’s not a man-made chemical either.

    It’s amazing(but not surprising) to see believers throw dung like this into the breeze and sincerely still expect to be taken seriously. Really, Brother Brian? We should believe in Global Warming and/or Climate Change because phosphorus is bad?

    Andrew

  8. 8
    Brother Brian says:

    Andrew,

    Phosphorus isn’t a man made chemical either. My reference had to do with phosphorus from sewage causing algal blooms and eutrophication of lakes and rivers.

    History has shown that anytime we discharge a chemical into the environment at a rate faster than it can be removed (or changed) through natural processes, there are consequences. Why do you suspect that CO2 would be any different?

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    “History has shown that anytime we discharge a chemical into the environment at a rate faster than it can be removed (or changed) through natural processes, there are consequences.”

    BB,

    You are gong to have to get specific about c02 and it’s demonstrable consequences for me to take you seriously. Trying to link it to other bad things to make it bad too doesn’t demonstrate anything.

    Andrew

  10. 10
    Brother Brian says:

    Andrew

    You are gong to have to get specific about c02 and it’s demonstrable consequences for me to take you seriously.

    No I don’t. All I was asking is why you thought that pumping a chemical into the environment faster than it can be removed by natural processes wouldn’t have consequences. If you don’t have an answer for this, that is fine.

    Trying to link it to other bad things to make it bad too doesn’t demonstrate anything.

    It demonstrates that too much of something, even something necessary for life, can have negative consequences. I don’t know if CO2 falls into this category. And neither do you.

  11. 11
    asauber says:

    BB,

    “pumping a chemical into the environment”

    It already resides in “the environment”.

    “I don’t know if CO2 falls into this category. And neither do you.”

    That’s why I’m waiting for some specific conclusive information from you, before I start worrying about it. But we both know there isn’t any, so, oh well.

    Andrew

  12. 12
    Brother Brian says:

    Andrew

    It already resides in “the environment”.

    So does mercury, arsenic and cyanide. You are dodging the question. CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and it is due to the burning of fossil fuels, not natural processes. Why are you so sure that there won’t be a negative consequence?

  13. 13
    ET says:

    CO2 emits in 3 different wavelengths. Only two of which are in the thermal IR range. Over 92% of what the earth emits is invisible to CO2.

    And all it- GHG’s- does is delay the inevitable. But an uneasy equilibrium is reached anyway. Meaning the warming is just days not cooling off as fast.

    Then there is the fact that plants will fail if the CO2 dips below 150PPM. And they thrive with what we have now.

    CO2 isn’t the problem. Pretty much everything else we do is. 95% of the plastic oceanic island came from 10 rivers 8 of which are in Asia.

    Soot on snow can cause it to melt even if the ambient temperature is below freezing. And when you look at the glaciers the first thing you notice is how dirty they are.

    But let’s focus on CO2…

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    A few inconvenient facts for those who want a global warming apocalypse.

    Human Emissions Saved Planet
    Excerpt: Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
    At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
    We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....l-warming/

    First off, c02 is not a well mixed gas as NASA’s own data reveals, and it is heavier than air – see article. This is extremely important as you have yet another key assumption (Like the falsified assumption Al Gore used as a “smoking gun”, that atmospheric c02 drives up temps, instead we found temps drive out more c02). So what you get from a sensor on a volcano is background c02 at a particular altitude, and particular latitude – they also apply a 70 year smoothing average to this data (just like they did when picking the absolute lowest ICE core c02 proxy data- then moved it over 35 years to have it magically line up perfectly with the Keeling curve), and the calibration rights to this and other “official” sensors around the globe are in the hands of former IPCC members. The well mixed gas concept was assumed from the get go – in fact the IPCC throughout 9K regional chemical analysis of c02 during the 20th century, other very important stomatal proxy evidence. So from the very lowest values they could pick, they then smoothed it with a 70 year average to take out the inconvenient normal variations with time which can be large – in fact it was well accepted before this nonsense, that c02 was at least 425ppm in the early 1940’s and almost as high two other times in the 20th century – so from the ground up, the make the data fit the theory, and they ignore graph that clearly showed a temp rise from the late 1920’s to the early 40’s, AND hide the 2.4F cooling from the late 40’s through the 70’s – these are their own graphs, and even their own words contradict what they say now. The entire “theory” is built out of fraud from the start. As Willie Soon tries to point out to us, almost everything that lives produces c02, and many abiotic systems as well. Example – plain old soil puts out 9X the amount of c02 than ALL of man’s activities, termites 2X the c02 than man’s use of FF. This is not science, it is a purposefully non-falsifiable theory – if it were evaluated as other non-political hypotheses, it would be thrown out in a heartbeat. If you have to heavily alter existing and current data, use less and less ground temp stations, and use mainly those that suffer from UHI effects, get rid of the medieval warm period and get caught in emails that you had to do it to make your point, when allow a warmunist activist admin privileges on wiki, and he hides well over 100 papers about the ice age scare of the 70’s, and still call yourself scientists then you should feel very ashamed over this agenda driven bull.
    per – UD blogger

    Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information.
    BY DR. TIM BALL · NOVEMBER 14, 2013
    “It occurred to me…” The tail always wagged the dog: Now, because of political correctness, the flea on the hair on the tail wags the dog.
    Excerpt: The pre-industrial CO2 level was marginally lower than current levels and likely within the error factor. Neither they, nor the present IPCC claims of 400 ppm are high relative to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that pre-industrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combine this with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase, when all records show the opposite, it is not surprising IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.
    The IPCC deception was premeditated under Maurice Strong’s guidance to prove CO2 was causing global warming as pretext for shutting down industrialized nations. They partially achieved their goal as alternate energies and green job economies attest. All this occurred as contradictory evidence mounts because Nature refused to play. CO2 increases as temperatures decline, which according to IPCC science cannot happen. Politicians must deal with facts and abandon all policies based on claims that CO2 is a problem, especially those already causing damage.
    https://drtimball.ca/2013/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/

    Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming
    By: John O’Sullivan
    Additionally, Nahle and his Slaying the Sky Dragon compadres demonstrate that carbon dioxide loses the energy it absorbs almost instantaneously, so there is no place for any kind of storage of thermal energy by carbon dioxide. To the more technically minded what Nahle and his colleagues say is that the release of a quantum/wave, at a different wavelength and frequency, lasts the time an excited electron takes to get back to its base state.
    Thus the IPCC’s CO2 “sky blanket” is shot full of holes as rational folk are increasingly abandoning the unphysical nonsense that carbon dioxide “traps” heat and raises global temperatures. Policymakers may be the last to wise up but they, too, must nonetheless consign the man-made global warming sham to the trash can marked “junk science.”
    Sources:
    [1.] In our “current environment,” atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen vastly outweigh CO2. Nitrogen: 3,888,899 Gigatons; Oxygen: 1,191,608 Gigatons; Carbon Dioxide: 3,051 Gigatons. On a weight basis the specific heat of nitrogen and oxygen together is approximately 1 per kilogram, whereas CO2’s is about 0.844. Thus it’s clear that everyday air has a better ability to hold onto heat.
    [2.] Professor Nahle, N., ‘Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section’ (2011), Biology Cabinet, (Peer Reviewed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico).
    https://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-%E2%80%98-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/

    What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change – PragerU – video
    CO2 and Temperature have not directly correlated for millions of years.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc

    The Truth about CO2 – Patrick Moore – co-founder GreenPeace – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc

    Record Breaking Winter Cold? Don’t Worry, the Climate Explainers Have it Covered
    Eric Worrall / December 28, 2017
    Excerpt: Global warming is an infinitely flexible, unscientific, unfalsifiable theory which can be stretched to accommodate any observation. Some Climate Scientists even shamelessly reject the very concept of scientific falsification with regard to the conduct of climate science.,,,
    No matter what happens to the weather, the climate explainers shamelessly cobble together an explanation which blames bad weather on your sinful lifestyle.
    Whatever the observation, the climate explainers have their theory – their infinitely adaptable theory, which they claim is science. Warm weather confirms their worst fears. Cold weather is waved away. Whatever the observation, the explainers shamelessly adapt their theory to provide an explanation, based on their “scientific” theory which cannot be falsified by any conceivable observations, event an abrupt plunge into a new ice age.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/28/record-breaking-winter-cold-dont-worry-the-climate-explainers-have-it-covered/

    Global Warming and Hurricanes
    An Overview of Current Research Results
    Last Revised: Aug. 30, 2017
    “In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic.”
    https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

    WHY GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM IS WRONG – Dr. Judith Curry – video – 2017
    Quote: On balance, I don’t see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming. [Humans do] influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don’t think it’s a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/a.....-wrong.php

    Dr. Judith Curry, a former AGW believer now turned skeptic, posted an article on her website in Dec. 2015 which includes an interesting graph.
    https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_dec8.jpg
    The red line represents what the average of 104 IPCC* computer generated climate models was predicting or forecasting.
    The blue and green lines represent actual data from actual global measurements. The blue is balloon data. The green is satellite data. The real data does show some global warming (the sceptics DO NOT DENY this) however it does not show the runaway, catastrophic warming the alarmists are predicting with their models. Who is being more rational here? The alarmists who cling to their predictions even though they have been proven wrong time and time again by real world data? Or those who analyse the real data to reach a tentative conclusion?

  15. 15
    Johnnyfarmer says:

    We all know research money will dry up when science no longer has problems to solve.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    We all know there are plenty of problems to solve. I doubt anyone is worried about running out of problems

Leave a Reply