Climate modelling wrong

Science / scientist, funded by the government - where exactly is the theory part of the "conspiracy"?

Thisis the scientific equivalent of "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

How isolated is WHOI from government? Here is the funding for the research vessel Nereus.

National Science Foundation (NSF) has provided $6.3 million in funding.
Office of Naval Research (ONR) has provided $1.1 million funding.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has provided $549,000 in funding.
The Russel Family Foundation (TRFF) has provided $500,000 in funding.

 

That was Bowerbirds assertion, you'll have to ask her.

As far as the effectiveness of government investment in technology destined for the consumer, pretty poor.

 

That's why I said it would be a highly charged political issue. There is plenty of fresh water in the Great Lakes. This was proposed by Governor Connally of Texas in 1964 but never implemented. So it is not a new or radical idea. I do not know, however if he intended to get it from the Great Lakes.

I'm well aware of the aquifer issue. But eventually, they will be depleted. As I have said we can get along without many things, but water is not one of them.

Do not think that I am against alternative energy but what I would strongly argue is that it cannot possibly hope to fulfill our demands by itself. I think that is a total pipe dream.

I know where you are coming from. But I also believe it is misguided by ideology. It will never happen short of a breakthrough in cold fusion, which is only theoretically possible. At that point, should it happen, we could desalinate the ocean's water.

Don't be offended but I will just come out and say it. I believe this alternate energy business and climate change is a lot of bunk. I remember the 1950s when it got so hot it would burn the tires off your car. We have cycles of temperatures and there has been a lot of sun activity such as solar flares and the like. And then we had the "global cooling" scare of the 1960s. It sells magazines and gets a lot of gullible people stirred up. But I'm from Missouri the "Show Me" state. I have to be shown and I'm not seeing it.

 

I'm not offended. even though the last week has been bloody cold here for this time of the year, the fact is that the scientific evidence demonstrates that AGW is real. I don't trust memory as "evidence" that climate change isn't happening, because the events that stick in or minds tend to be those that are out of the norm, and there always have been variations and natural cycles.

what scientists are talking about is outside of these cycles.

alternative energy includes a range of possibilities, and one of the amazing things about human beings is that we find new and different ways of doing things all the time.

in the 70's - unmanned drones would have been the stuff of science fiction.

an iphone/android likewise.

new energy technologies are always being improved. they need government funding more than smart phones do - but probably less than research into unmanned drones did.

 

Yep! And I remember walking to school through mists and fogs - Brisbane hasn't seen a good fog in years - cities these days are too warm at night. Does that mean that the Global temperatures are not real? Of course not!!

But like Cass said we are inventing all the time - 20 years ago when my Parents were travelling around Australia my Dad had made himself a portable solar panel from used NASA solar cells (Heaven knows how he got a hold of them!!) I bought a solar panel for a couple of hundred dollars that puts out far more electricity than that old array ever would and I won't upgrade because I am waiting for the next generation paint/flexipanels which will be hitting the market soon

We have a whole screed of technology that has grown up around alternate energy and energy conservation. I know others do not like LED's but I LOVE them! Torches that never need either bulbs or batteries? Fabulous!! Heck I have a solar powered torch hanging off of my handbag that will probably last several years at least. At one stage oil and car companies almost had us totally convinced that we were not worth anything unless we owned a military type vehicle that nearly needed an oil refinery to run them. Now we are seeing cars that are cheaper and cheaper to run. Taxi's here love hybrids - they are laughing all the way to the bank!

 

I'm totally in favor of alternative forms of energy. My basic point, however, even if we stipulate that climate change is proven beyond any doubt I do not believe that we can do very much about it except to adapt to it.

Just think of all of the airplanes burning kerosene fuel by the billions of gallons. Are we willing to give up air travel? A raising of hands, please.

I have actually owned a hybrid vehicle. Good idea. Those are incremental changes that are desirable.

But if we are truly serious about this "problem" then I believe we have to move to drastic changes such as the building of man-made lakes across vast continents. It is absolutely a fact that the air temperature over water is less than on dry land. This is doable but requires a political solution.

 

blah blah blah.....don't care anymore, too much politicizing and too much of a failed power grab by the greens.

Global warming, dont believe it anymore. As Feinman said, if it cant be explained so the layman can understand it, then you dont understand it and its probably wrong.

 

Anyone can understand the mechanisms of man made global warming.

Many just refuse to believe a perfectly logical and sensible explanation and refuse to see the results right before their eyes.

What happens is a rehash of the same old stuff...over and over again.

 

Hmmmmm actually we would be better off growing more trees - same and better effect less erosion more precipitation better land storage to top up lakes etc.

But to be more logical the cost of what you propose would actually be more than what we are currently investing in the change to energy production and delivery. See much of our infrastructure is old and ageing and has not really been kept up to date because there has been no market incentive to keep it up to date and efficient.

Read between the lines here

http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid

Making grids "smarter" should have been done years ago not wait until we had wind farms to make the companies spend money on upgrades.

The swap out to renewables has a LOT of good side effects that seem to be swamped in the climate change debate

 

So planetary orbits are wrong because most Americans don't really understand them?

 

I don't know about giant man made lakes but every farm should have a pond for use during dry spells. A deep pond...preferably supplied by a stream or spring.

 

Still won't do much good if there is no rain. Our Dams (and there are a lot across the state) were below 25% for the most part but they did fill and overflowed in just one season

 

Planetary orbits can be easily explained with s single equation, or observations that clearly and unambiguously show the orbit, or simple experiments that cen be performed in a class or at home. The science is clear and unanimous.

Global warming - actually man made global warming - is full of thousand page reports which read like propaganda and are authored by sience wanna-bees and people with their hands out seeking my wallet. Questioners are subjected to ridicule instead of presented proof. All who don't get on the band wagon are seen as ignorant or deviant. Its not about science, its about politics and ego and power and money.

When I see people getting emotional when they are challenged, I see a faker and a scam.

 

Yes...true enough...but you still have 25%. And most years (here in the U.S.) are not that bad...yet. Thats why I said deep. And if it fed by a stream a little rain will go a long way.

I have also been looking into barduro clover. It survived the worst drought in 100 years here in bama.

I am going to do a test plot on some real difficult ground.

 

Is the water used for irrigation? If so, do they irrigate between dusk and dawn?

 

Depends Cubbie Station one of our biggest and most controversial dams is used for cotton growing

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environm...of-thirsty-farm/2006/11/06/1162661615902.html

Apparently about to be bought by a Chinese consortium.

The whole Murray Darling basin is one of the biggest rice suppliers to the world

We have a lot of smaller dams for watering stock but the main use for the bigger dams would be for human consumption. Many local rural areas though are investing in grey water recycling and finding that suits everyone

 

I saw a program on RFDTV ( a farm channel) and saw a fellow in Texas that owned a dairy farm. The man had a great system. He had slots in the floor of his barns that led into a small water treatment plant. When he hosed down the barn the water and manure went into the treatment plant through the floor and the solids were seperated out oft he liquids and the brown water was used to irrigate his pasture. the solids were sold as fertilizer. he used the same amount of water that he would use just for irrigation. He said his cows were healthier too.

It was kinda neat to see....a man after my own heart!...nothing wasted.

 

No, you said "the general public" and from what I have seen of the general public they are usually stymied at anything more complex than 2+2 and rapidly run out of fingers for higher mathematics

You know I have hit this conspiracy theory about scientists again and again and no-one has ever been able to explain it so it makes any sense what so ever. In what ways will the scientists take money from you? Why are they wrong? If they are wrong do you have an alternative hypothesis explaining the observed change?

Just because the report is long and there are aspects that are confusing to some (actually i have read the IPCC report and it is not that difficult) does not mean that the science is flawed.

 

Hah! We have gone into "composting toilets" in a BIG way out here - mind you middle of NOWHERE Flat desert like country all around and there are your composting toilets at the side of the road

Brilliant!!

 

more evidence of the correlation between denialists and conspiracy theory ideation.

 

Then you hang with the wrong crowd. Expand your horizons and meet more people. And don't you live in Australia?

It has nothing to do with "conspiracy", and like you, people have not been able to explain the proof of man made global warming to me so that it makes sense (and I am well educated with technical degrees). The proof is not clear. There are actual climate scientists (not late to the party wanna-bees but lifetime climate scientists) that do not buy in to the man-made global warming claims.

It has everythign to do with money. The global warming "crisis" and the demand by believers that we do something immediately or the world will end is familar, all panhandlers and snake oil salesmen use that approach. The global warming crowd sees the solution as a massive transfer of wealth from the US to the rest of the world.

I dont have to prove or disprove anything. Its a foolish idea that if I cannot disprove your theory or belief in global warming then the theory must be right. Thats one reason I think the entire subject is a scam. I don't think at this time it can be proven or disproven by anyone. Its a a hypothesis only.

I have read the IPCC reports as well, they are long winded, smell of propaganda, and clearly the product of politics. The IPCC is a product of the UN, an organization that is corrupt and greedy, and an organization which I do not see as a scientific and unbiased source for anything.

I have also read some of the actual technical papers that dont make it into the media. The subject is full of uncertainty.

 

Nah! I have just been hanging around with too many denialists - most of whom cannot tell a blog from a research article - let alone count above 20/21 if male

.
Yes, there are a few, and you can count them as under 100 (granted more than 20/21 which is probably why so many denialists run out of digits and just claim "lots") Unless of course you buy into the infamous "Oregon Petition" fraud. The vast majority DO believe in global warming and that the majority of the temperature rise we are seeing is the result of man pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere

Do not confuse good science with bad journalism - now show me where that is being proposed and by whom. Just because one of your right wing American pundits is claiming that is what is behind this does not make it so......

Now tell me, especially since the Berkely Temperature study confirmed the rise in average global temperature http://berkeleyearth.org If the rise in CO2 is not responsible for the rise in temperature - what is?

Really? So have I so tell me - what part of the which assessment report did you have difficulties with? Where in the meta-analysis were there faults? What proportion of research papers were suspect or not up to academic standard? Which conclusions were questionable?

So, even if you dispute the IPCC because you disbelieve the process or the people (You ARE aware are you not that the scientists involved were for the most part working on a voluntary basis?) That still leaves quite a number of independent reviewers and systematic analysis that have come to the same conclusion - the IPCC is just the largest

Bully for you - I have read a LOT of the papers available through Google scholar and the uncertainties are small and diminishing year by year. These were peer reviewed papers published in accredited and accepted academic journals not some unreferenced blog off of the internet.

 

Yep!

Apparently Steve Mcintyre is screaming blue murder about those research results but to be honest they could have easily been confirmed by a trawl of the denialist posts on this forum

 

Well, good for you. But unless you have a really good paper you can point me to that proves man made global warming, I dont care about what you have read and think. I'm open to the science, I don't give a hoot about the laymans opinion.

 

Granny says, "Whadaya mean climate modelin' is wrong...

... the weatherman on TV said accordin' to weather models...

... it was gonna rain tonight...

... an' it did...

... so dat climate modelin' must be right."