The Executive Director Of The American Meteorological Society Educates President Trump On Climate Change

Source: Physics.Org

Regardless of your view on climate change, the idea that change is not occurring around us as a result of actions over time is a far reaching concept.  Government officials (elected officials) -- senate and congressional leaders are in agreement.  Although, constituents may influence their ability to relay their position in a public forum.  Why?  Furthermore, why does our President of the United States feel such a compelling force to step in front of a camera and take a stance counter to what scientific evidence points to as being true?  To counter the misinformation spread by the President on an interview, the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) stepped up and wrote a letter in opposition to his actions.  Lets take a small step back before showing the letter written in opposition to the President.  What is the AMS?



The American Meteorological Society consists of more than 13,000 scientists with the following mission:

The American Meteorological Society advances the atmospheric and related sciences, technologies, applications, and services for the benefit of society.

With a historical context as follows:

 Founded in 1919, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) is the nation’s premier scientific and professional organization promoting and disseminating information about the atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrologic sciences. Our more than 13,000 members include researchers, educators, students, enthusiasts, broadcasters and other professionals in weather, water, and climate.

With this introduction to the Meteorological Society in mind, here is the letter from the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society below:

16 October 2018

President Donald J. Trump

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Trump:

The interview with Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday, 14 October, included several questions related to climate change, reflecting the fact that this is an issue of vital importance to the nation. You raised several points in your replies that provide an opportunity for input from the scientific and science policy communities.

There is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence that shows that the warming global climate we have been experiencing in recent decades is primarily caused by human activity and that current long-term warming trends cannot be expected to reverse if no action is taken. These conclusions come from multiple independent lines of evidence. As is standard for the scientific process, each of these lines of evidence has undergone rigorous testing and has overcome all credible challenges. They reinforce one another and there are no contradictory lines of evidence that withstand scientific scrutiny. As a result, the basic scientific conclusions about climate change are extremely robust.

There are highly promising risk management options — ones that can reduce the risks of climate change, strengthen the U.S. economy, and promote job creation. Nevertheless, choices about whether and how to respond are complex, as you noted in your interview. People can welcome and accept the basic scientific assessments and still reach different conclusions about what to do. Many options would be consistent with your policy priorities.

You also said that scientists are making this political, which is misleading and very damaging. The scientific community welcomes all who commit to the pursuit of understanding through science irrespective of their political views, religious beliefs, and ethical values. As an institution, the American Meteorological Society takes no political positions and we proudly count among our members both individuals who strongly support you and those who routinely disagree. We are stronger for the breadth of our membership.

The American Meteorological Society would welcome the opportunity to work with your staff to ensure that they have full access to credible and scientifically validated information as you navigate the many difficult policy areas impacted by the Earth’s changing climate. We are confident that viable solutions exist and that they can be fruitfully developed if the best available knowledge and understanding is applied to the issues at hand.

Sincerely,

Keith L. Seitter 

As stated so clearly by Director Keith Seitter in the letter above, the evidence for climate change and the human component is overwhelming and robust.   The letter above is provided to the reader (you) to observe the evidence (support) that is sent to the President of the United States -- which he is obviously ignoring.  Scientific evidence is ignored?  Amazing.



The science is clear along with the growing support for the reality of change - which is greatly needed.  How to get that change implemented is unknown at the moment.  I will suggest though that part of the solution lies within each of us -- which is to say -- each of us should educate ourselves on the issue at hand and the scientific evidence which is being presented.  That education does not necessarily rely upon a college education,  just looking at the world around us.  As an example of this point, an article from 'The Scientist' titled "Sports Videos Give Clues to Climate Change" reports a new method used by scientists to observe the effects of climate change:

Over the course of five weeks, Van Langenhove identified 46 individual trees and shrubs that had been caught on film from multiple angles, giving the team 523 images to use to track when the plants leafed and flowered each year, and to measure the size of the leaves. When analyzing the data, the team found that during races that took place in the 1980s, almost no trees or shrubs on the course had begun to flower, and only 26 percent showed any leaves. But from 2006 onward, 45 percent of the same woody plants had started to leaf and 67 percent had started flowering by the time the cyclists hit the road in early April. And when the team correlated the plant data with local climate data—which have logged a temperature increase of 1.5 °C since 1980—the researchers found a solid link between warmer winter temperatures and earlier leafing and flowering (MEE, 9:1874–82, 2018).

The realization that video taken by an international sports organization could serve as a 'standard' for qualitatively observing the ecological changes associated with differing climates over time was ingenious.  This work shows that a person does not have to be educated (a formal education) to contribute to the evidence associated with climate research.  Each of us are scientists at heart as I have stated before.



Related Blog Posts:


Scientists compare Misinformation In Mainstream News to a Viral Infection

EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%

135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK

Why Is International Climate Action Important To Your Higher Education Institution?

Scientists Write President Trump Regarding Climate Action

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


A Good Start: Republicans Accept Climate Change As Real

There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?

How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???

Republicans Endorse Carbon Tax For Climate Change? Wow

EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?

Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan

Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice

French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations

How many trash carts can be filled with 80 billion pounds of trash?

Source: Saumya Khandelwal -- The New York Times

Each of us generates trash throughout each day.  The usual routine is to make sure that the trash that each of us generate ends up in 'the trash can' in each room.  From there, we know that the trash that is deposited will then get shipped to either a dump or a boat to another country.  Did you know that?  What if other countries cannot except anymore trash?  Why do I ask this question?  Read onto find out.



Recently, in an article in The New York Times titled "‘The Dump Killed My Son’: Mountains of Garbage Engulf India’s Capital" the author reported two stunning statistics regarding gigantic trash piles which were looming close to neighborhoods and carrying the possibility of transmitting disease.   Here is an excerpt which caught my eye regarding total amount of waste:

In the metropolitan area of Delhi, which includes the capital New Delhi, trash heaps are towering monuments to India’s growing waste crisis. About 80 billion pounds of trash have accumulated at four official dumping sites, on the fringes of a capital already besieged by polluted air and toxic water, according to the supervisors of the dumps.

Some of these dumps are simply open aired rooms which span up to 17 stories in height.  Yes, that is equivalent to around 170 feet in height.  WOW.  The weight in trash was another mind blowing statistic which was too much to comprehend.  Therefore, I decided to carry out a little dimensional analysis in order to better understand this mind blowing number -- 80 billion pounds of trash.  I asked the following question:



How many trash carts could be filled with 80 billion pounds of trash?

How many pounds of trash in a trash cart?

In order to start the analysis, the metric which will be used to cast this enormous number needs to be known.  The trash cart of interest is shown below:

This trash cart is commonly used in the United States by various waste management corporations.  The average amount of trash in pounds which each can hold might be tricky to figure out -- since not all trash weighs the same or takes up the same volume -- not all trash has the same density!



To get an answer, Google can be consulted by inserting the following question: "how many pounds of trash does a 96 gallon trash cart hold?"  The answer is shown below:

According to text in image, a 96 gallon trash can is able to hold up to 250 lbs of trash.  As I just mentioned, the exact amount of trash (weight) is difficult to calculate for a given volume.  Trash might weigh different amounts depending on the composition of the trash.  At this point, you might be a little disappointed.  No worries.



A common theme in this blog site is to "approximate" an answer.  Which is what is being done by us when we consult Google.  With an answer obtained, the analysis may be carried out to obtain a final answer.  With this in mind, lets move on to calculate the total amount of trash cans which may be filled with 80 billion pounds of trash.

How Many Trash Bins Hold 80 Billion Pounds Of Trash?

In the last section, the amount of trash was determined (in weight) which each trash bin (or can) could hold.  Given now the enormous statistic of 80 billion pounds -- the amount of trash in four different sites within the city Delhi, how many trash bins would be required to hold all of that trash?



The calculation can be done in a single step once the values (or numbers) and units of measurement have been inspected to ensure uniformity.  By uniformity of units, we mean that if a number such as the total amount of trash is reported in 'units of pounds', then our conversion factor must also be expressed in 'units of pounds' -- which is the case.



In the paragraphs above, the conversion factor for the 'density' of trash was determined by asking the search engine Google.  The density of trash was determined to be (approximated to be) around 250 pounds/96 gallons.  Density traditionally is expressed in units of 'grams/milliliters or kilograms/cubic meter.  For the sake of the current analysis, we can choose the units - we wish - as long as the answer is expressed in units typical for density.



Since a single 96 gallon trash can (or bin) holds around 250 pounds of trash, the density can be expressed as follows:

We drop the 96 gallons and substitute 'per trash can' -- meaning 1 trash can = 96 gallons.  Yes, volume is expressed as a single trash can -- strange.  This is acceptable as long as we state our assumption explicitly for the reader.  Therefore, the total amount of trash cans needed to hold 80 billion pounds of trash is calculated by dividing the total amount of trash by the density of trash as shown below:

The answer indicates that a total of 320,000,000 trash cans or 320 million trash cans.  Wow!  Not a small amount.  Naturally, when I read a startling statistic like this, I wonder why such an enormous amount of trash has been allowed to accumulate over time?  What about the propagation of disease?  Is there a possibility of disease propagation with such a staggering amount?



In another section of the same article, the description of a single pile was 17 stories high?  That is over 170 feet tall (an approximate value) as mentioned above.  Wow.  Now that the following analysis has been performed, you (the reader) have been liberated to carry out similar analyses using the same method.  In addition, analyses such as the one above shed a greater amount of light on the magnitude of the problem at hand -- the accumulation of trash.



Related Blog Posts:



How many people would be killed if 1,485 pounds of Fentanyl were distributed onto the streets in the U.S.?

What Is Dimensional Analysis?


Was The Recent Oil Spill in China The Largest In History?


LimeBike Dockless Bikeshare Riders Travel A Distance Of 13,000 Miles In Just Over 3 Weeks?

How Many Cigarettes Can You Roll With 18,000 Pounds Of Marijuana?


How Many Turkey's Are Served On Thanksgiving Day? How Many People Served?


How Much Trash Would Be Required To Fill The Great Wall Of China?


How Many Birds Per Minute Can Be Processed On A Single Line At A Poultry Processing Plant?


Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

If Technology Fails, Use Basic Math Skills - Count Manually!!

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?

What was the last book you read?

Source: MedicalXpress

Can you remember the name of the last book that you read recently?  Alright, how about the last book in 'hard copy' or 'soft copy' -- yes, a physical book?  Are those two answers different?  As the world seems to increasing move toward the digital world, so has our preferences to access data.  Which brings me to the point of this short blog post -- has the 'art of reading' been lost among us?



In my opinion, the answer is no.  Yes, more people are moving toward accessing books in digital form.  Although, I am open to being challenged on this assertion.  Recently, I ran across a TED talk from February of this year titled "The Dying Art of Reading Books" by Ms. Arrushi Agarwal with an introduction in the comments section shown below - which captivated my attention:

Research suggests that children who read for enjoyment every day perform better,  develop a broader vocabulary, increased general knowledge and an enhanced understanding of cultures. Reading for pleasure is a better indicator of whether a child does well at school rather than their social or economic background. In this age when multi media is encroaching our households and educational institutions and the number of avid readers is progressively getting endangered  Ms.Arushi Agarwal reminds us of the benefits and the joy of reading.

Ms.Arushi Agarwal is a student of Grade Eleven. She has a brilliant academic record and a well stocked personal library. Arrushi is a self professed bibliophile. Research suggests that children who read for enjoyment every day not only perform better, but also develop a broader vocabulary, increased general knowledge and a better understanding of other cultures. In fact, reading for pleasure is more likely to determine whether a child does well at school than their social or economic background. In this age when multi media is encroaching our households and educational institutions and the number of avid readers is progressively getting endangered we have with us a young lady who will be reminding us of the importance and the art of reading. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx

Wow.  The pleasure of reading is a subjective experience.  Reading allows a person to explore places in the world which are unreachable.  As pointed out in the video below, each person creates their own version of the places, events, and occurrences as described by an author in a given book.  Which means that there are billions of creative (subjectively created by each person) which are entertained as a result of books which are published.  This is astonishing to consider.



Reading allows a person to familiarize or leave their comfort zone and explore another world.  The benefits of reading are numerous as pointed out in the excerpt above.  The joy of opening a book cannot be properly described in the written word.  A whole new world/dialogue is created when a person opens up a book.  Books speak to us in an unusual way.  Creativity and imagination is required to read a book.  These factors contribute to the benefits of reading. 



What is the last book that you read?  Feel free to leave the title and a short description in the comments below.  For those interested in watching the short presentation -- 6 1/2 minutes in length, the video is shown below:

When was the last time that you found yourself lost in a book?  Each of us should read a book of significant length and outside our natural comfort zone.  This experience 'kick starts' our imagination as pointed out by Ms. Arrushi Agarwal -- who has made quite a journey through reading in a short span.  I hope that you will be inspired by the post and the content of the post to pick up a book and dive into a whole new world for a while.  The effort is worth the journey.  Happy Father's Day!!



Related Blog Posts:


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!