Discussion:
NASA scientist: California will run out of water in a year
(too old to reply)
jacob navia
2015-03-18 11:46:05 UTC
Permalink
See:
http://www.newsweek.com/nasa-california-has-one-year-water-left-313647

Consequence:

Ted Cruz Tells NASA to Stop Worrying About Climate Change and Focus on Space

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/ted-cruz-tells-nasa-to-stop-worrying-about-climate-change-and-focus-on-space-20150312

If temperature is too high... BREAK THE THERMOMETER!

:-)
Greg (Strider) Moore
2015-03-18 21:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by jacob navia
http://www.newsweek.com/nasa-california-has-one-year-water-left-313647
Ted Cruz Tells NASA to Stop Worrying About Climate Change and Focus on Space
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/ted-cruz-tells-nasa-to-stop-worrying-about-climate-change-and-focus-on-space-20150312
If temperature is too high... BREAK THE THERMOMETER!
:-)
Actually I'm fine with this. As long as someone like NOAA or another agency
takes over.

I think monitoring the environment remotely is hugely important and NASA has
a role there in supporting such operations, but it's not really their end
goal.

They should be focusing on space.
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Jeff Findley
2015-03-19 09:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg (Strider) Moore
Post by jacob navia
http://www.newsweek.com/nasa-california-has-one-year-water-left-313647
Ted Cruz Tells NASA to Stop Worrying About Climate Change and Focus on Space
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/ted-cruz-tells-nasa-to-stop-worrying-about-climate-change-and-focus-on-space-20150312
If temperature is too high... BREAK THE THERMOMETER!
:-)
Actually I'm fine with this. As long as someone like NOAA or another agency
takes over.
I think monitoring the environment remotely is hugely important and NASA has
a role there in supporting such operations, but it's not really their end
goal.
They should be focusing on space.
Except for the pesky little fact that it's written into NASA's charter!

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#FUNCTIONS

From above:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena
in the atmosphere and space.

In other words, they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. Talk
of taking this responsibility away from NASA is really talk about
changing its charter. And for more historical context, that bit about
Earth was added during the Reagan Administration.

Bottom line for me is that earth science was just fine for the
Republicans, until they started to dislike the data because it conflicts
with their world view. Rather than working on changing their world
view, instead they seem to be opposing collecting more data.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
Greg (Strider) Moore
2015-03-20 02:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Greg (Strider) Moore
Post by jacob navia
http://www.newsweek.com/nasa-california-has-one-year-water-left-313647
Ted Cruz Tells NASA to Stop Worrying About Climate Change and Focus on Space
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/ted-cruz-tells-nasa-to-stop-worrying-about-climate-change-and-focus-on-space-20150312
If temperature is too high... BREAK THE THERMOMETER!
:-)
Actually I'm fine with this. As long as someone like NOAA or another agency
takes over.
I think monitoring the environment remotely is hugely important and NASA has
a role there in supporting such operations, but it's not really their end
goal.
They should be focusing on space.
Except for the pesky little fact that it's written into NASA's charter!
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#FUNCTIONS
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena
in the atmosphere and space.
In other words, they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. Talk
of taking this responsibility away from NASA is really talk about
changing its charter. And for more historical context, that bit about
Earth was added during the Reagan Administration.
Bottom line for me is that earth science was just fine for the
Republicans, until they started to dislike the data because it conflicts
with their world view. Rather than working on changing their world
view, instead they seem to be opposing collecting more data.
That's unfortunately true. (Witness Florida where apparently the DEP is
reportedly forbidden from mentioning global warming).

To get on a bit of a soapbox, I do find it interesting that much of the
right-wing is often synonymous with not believing in climate change and yet
very supportive of the military. In the meantime the Pentagon believes
climate change will have a distinct impact on national security.

It strikes me there's a certain cognitive dissonance going on there.
Post by Jeff Findley
Jeff
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
JF Mezei
2015-03-20 06:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg (Strider) Moore
To get on a bit of a soapbox, I do find it interesting that much of the
right-wing is often synonymous with not believing in climate change and yet
very supportive of the military.
Follow the money. Hint: "drill baby, drill !"

A political party represents the interests of its membership. When those
members who make large donations have interests in success of the oil
industry, then the party ensures that its policies don't hurt the oil
industry.

We have such a party in power in Canada right now, whose base is in the
oil producing provinces.

The military industry is huge and generally donates to both sides. And
as you know, the military is a big spender with space industry, as well
as the political pork to pretend there is still a human space program (
Orion).
Robert Clark
2015-03-29 16:20:21 UTC
Permalink
I wouldn't put much stock in the military saying climate change is the
greatest threat facing us now, including those of international terrorism
and unstable states like North Korea and Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The
military says what the White House tells it to say, and the White House put
out a directive that all federal agencies have to adopt policy positions on
how to address climate change. A general who responded to that with, "I
don't agree with all this global warming stuff", wouldn't have his job very
long.

Bob Clark



------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago
with the Titan II first stage.
In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy.
Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time,
and the result will automatically be SSTO.
Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Greg (Strider) Moore
Post by jacob navia
http://www.newsweek.com/nasa-california-has-one-year-water-left-313647
Ted Cruz Tells NASA to Stop Worrying About Climate Change and Focus on Space
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/ted-cruz-tells-nasa-to-stop-worrying-about-climate-change-and-focus-on-space-20150312
If temperature is too high... BREAK THE THERMOMETER!
:-)
Actually I'm fine with this. As long as someone like NOAA or another agency
takes over.
I think monitoring the environment remotely is hugely important and NASA has
a role there in supporting such operations, but it's not really their end
goal.
They should be focusing on space.
Except for the pesky little fact that it's written into NASA's charter!
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#FUNCTIONS
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena
in the atmosphere and space.
In other words, they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. Talk
of taking this responsibility away from NASA is really talk about
changing its charter. And for more historical context, that bit about
Earth was added during the Reagan Administration.
Bottom line for me is that earth science was just fine for the
Republicans, until they started to dislike the data because it conflicts
with their world view. Rather than working on changing their world
view, instead they seem to be opposing collecting more data.
That's unfortunately true. (Witness Florida where apparently the DEP is
reportedly forbidden from mentioning global warming).

To get on a bit of a soapbox, I do find it interesting that much of the
right-wing is often synonymous with not believing in climate change and yet
very supportive of the military. In the meantime the Pentagon believes
climate change will have a distinct impact on national security.

It strikes me there's a certain cognitive dissonance going on there.
Post by Jeff Findley
Jeff
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Vaughn
2015-03-21 14:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Bottom line for me is that earth science was just fine for the
Republicans, until they started to dislike the data because it conflicts
with their world view.
Many of us understand the stupidity of mixing politics and religion.
Attempts to do so over the millennia have too often ended up in an
impressive body count.

I submit that mixing your science views with your political views is
just as stupid and short sighted. In other words, doubting global
warming simply because you are a Republican is just as stupid as
believing in it because you are a Democrat.
Jeff Findley
2015-03-21 15:18:55 UTC
Permalink
In article <mek0j9$kkl$***@speranza.aioe.org>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Vaughn
Post by Jeff Findley
Bottom line for me is that earth science was just fine for the
Republicans, until they started to dislike the data because it conflicts
with their world view.
Many of us understand the stupidity of mixing politics and religion.
Attempts to do so over the millennia have too often ended up in an
impressive body count.
I submit that mixing your science views with your political views is
just as stupid and short sighted. In other words, doubting global
warming simply because you are a Republican is just as stupid as
believing in it because you are a Democrat.
True. One should agree global warming, or climate change (whatever you
want to call it) is real based on the consensus of global climate
scientists.

In this case, opposing NASA's collection of more earth science data is
purely political and goes against the #1 reason for its existence as
stated by law in its charter.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
JF Mezei
2015-03-21 18:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
In this case, opposing NASA's collection of more earth science data is
purely political and goes against the #1 reason for its existence as
stated by law in its charter.
This has happened in Canada too because of of BushJR clone of a PM. The
problem is when the political arm of government intervenes into the
scientific portion to slant the output from those normally scientific
"factual" bodies, this is when you get a serious problem.

If NASA is prevented from publishing all facts because they are
inconvenient to the current political arm of government, there is a
serious problem.

But it also works both ways. NASA has "sweetened" the facts to justify
budgets for new programmes such as Shuttle, and the rocket-to-nowhere
which has now been downscaled to Orion.

It probably works better when a government gives a specific mandate:
gosub the Moon, or "get hard data on climate change" and lets NASA to
its business to achieve that goal without political interference.
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-21 18:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
says...
Post by Vaughn
Post by Jeff Findley
Bottom line for me is that earth science was just fine for the
Republicans, until they started to dislike the data because it conflicts
with their world view.
Many of us understand the stupidity of mixing politics and religion.
Attempts to do so over the millennia have too often ended up in an
impressive body count.
I submit that mixing your science views with your political views is
just as stupid and short sighted. In other words, doubting global
warming simply because you are a Republican is just as stupid as
believing in it because you are a Democrat.
True. One should agree global warming, or climate change (whatever you
want to call it) is real based on the consensus of global climate
scientists.
Why? I'll believe it when one of those folks can show me a climate
model that actually shows some predictive capability. As long as the
models don't work, I'm not sure why anyone would believe what they
predict.

And there is a difference between agreeing that climate is changing
(it pretty much always is in the long run) and what the causes of that
change are. Question that it is "primarily human-caused" and the
Global Warmists start lighting torches and picking up pitchforks.
Post by Jeff Findley
In this case, opposing NASA's collection of more earth science data is
purely political and goes against the #1 reason for its existence as
stated by law in its charter.
I don't disagree, but NASA shouldn't then be politicizing the data,
which is how this whole thing started.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Jeff Findley
2015-03-21 19:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
True. One should agree global warming, or climate change (whatever you
want to call it) is real based on the consensus of global climate
scientists.
Why? I'll believe it when one of those folks can show me a climate
model that actually shows some predictive capability. As long as the
models don't work, I'm not sure why anyone would believe what they
predict.
And there is a difference between agreeing that climate is changing
(it pretty much always is in the long run) and what the causes of that
change are. Question that it is "primarily human-caused" and the
Global Warmists start lighting torches and picking up pitchforks.
Post by Jeff Findley
In this case, opposing NASA's collection of more earth science data is
purely political and goes against the #1 reason for its existence as
stated by law in its charter.
I don't disagree, but NASA shouldn't then be politicizing the data,
which is how this whole thing started.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

From above:

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-
warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human
activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations
worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with
links to their published statements and a selection of related
resources.

Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-21 19:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
True. One should agree global warming, or climate change (whatever you
want to call it) is real based on the consensus of global climate
scientists.
Why? I'll believe it when one of those folks can show me a climate
model that actually shows some predictive capability. As long as the
models don't work, I'm not sure why anyone would believe what they
predict.
And there is a difference between agreeing that climate is changing
(it pretty much always is in the long run) and what the causes of that
change are. Question that it is "primarily human-caused" and the
Global Warmists start lighting torches and picking up pitchforks.
Post by Jeff Findley
In this case, opposing NASA's collection of more earth science data is
purely political and goes against the #1 reason for its existence as
stated by law in its charter.
I don't disagree, but NASA shouldn't then be politicizing the data,
which is how this whole thing started.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Thus NASA politicizes the issue. It's not their job to be touting
'consensus'. They're supposed to be data collectors.
Post by Jeff Findley
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-
warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human
activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations
worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with
links to their published statements and a selection of related
resources.
How did they decide who counted and who did not?
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.

The Earth's warming doesn't track with what the claim is the cause. No
explanation of that is offered. People pointing out THAT inconvenient
truth are merely shouted down. How about that?
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
jacob navia
2015-03-21 23:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Look Fred, go to California then, and just wait. Americans are the ones
that are starting to suffer the most from this catastrophe.

But there is no blinder person as the one that doesn't want to see.
Post by Fred J. McCall
The Earth's warming doesn't track with what the claim is the cause. No
explanation of that is offered. People pointing out THAT inconvenient
truth are merely shouted down. How about that?
I can't parse that. "The earth's warming doesn't track" ?
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-22 06:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by jacob navia
Post by Fred J. McCall
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Look Fred, go to California then, and just wait. Americans are the ones
that are starting to suffer the most from this catastrophe.
But there is no blinder person as the one that doesn't want to see.
I live right next door, you stupid wanker.
Post by jacob navia
Post by Fred J. McCall
The Earth's warming doesn't track with what the claim is the cause. No
explanation of that is offered. People pointing out THAT inconvenient
truth are merely shouted down. How about that?
I can't parse that. "The earth's warming doesn't track" ?
English challenged? I'm sorry. Let me make it clear. The claim is
that warming is due to output of fossil CO2 by human beings. But the
warming in no way seems to correlate to CO2 concentrations.

Better for you?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Jeff Findley
2015-03-22 15:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
Post by Fred J. McCall
The Earth's warming doesn't track with what the claim is the cause. No
explanation of that is offered. People pointing out THAT inconvenient
truth are merely shouted down. How about that?
How about a graph then:

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-
temperatures

Ignore the short term noise in the data and it most certainly looks like
there is a strong correlation.

Are you also going to deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-22 15:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
The Earth's warming doesn't track with what the claim is the cause. No
explanation of that is offered. People pointing out THAT inconvenient
truth are merely shouted down. How about that?
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-
temperatures
Ignore the short term noise in the data and it most certainly looks like
there is a strong correlation.
When you look at long term data, CO2 LAGS warming. Is there a case
for inverted temporal causation?
Post by Jeff Findley
Are you also going to deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas?
Are you going to deny that NO predictions have come true and that the
amount of warming bears little to no relationship to the amount of
increase in CO2?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Alain Fournier
2015-03-23 23:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Yes they can. It is not precise in the short term but the models
predicted global warming and we got global warming.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
The Earth's warming doesn't track with what the claim is the cause. No
explanation of that is offered. People pointing out THAT inconvenient
truth are merely shouted down. How about that?
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-
temperatures
Ignore the short term noise in the data and it most certainly looks like
there is a strong correlation.
When you look at long term data, CO2 LAGS warming. Is there a case
for inverted temporal causation?
There have been some instances where that has happened. But that doesn't
prove that CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't cause warming.
It only shows that there are some feedback loops. Global warming has
obviously not always been initiated by humans putting CO2 in the
atmosphere. Global warming has in the past been initiated by other
things. Then the feedback loops increased CO2 in the atmosphere
increasing the temperature even more.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Are you also going to deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas?
Are you going to deny that NO predictions have come true and that the
amount of warming bears little to no relationship to the amount of
increase in CO2?
Yes I will deny that. Several decades ago some scientists predicted
global warming. It came. So your claim that NO predictions have come
true is false. Look at the graph Jeff Findley cited above and say again
with a straight face that the amount of warming bears little to no
relationship to the amount of increase in CO2.

The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas can easily be verified in a lab.
Therefore it is obvious that if you increase CO2 in the atmosphere you
increase warming. And it is also obvious that the amount of CO2 that
humans have put into the atmosphere in the past century is very
significant. The science is clear on this, the predictions pan out.


Alain Fournier
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-24 02:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Yes they can. It is not precise in the short term but the models
predicted global warming and we got global warming.
No they can't. Do you not understand what 'predictive power' means in
this context? We got 19 years of no statistically significant warming
while CO2 concentrations went nowhere but up.
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
The Earth's warming doesn't track with what the claim is the cause. No
explanation of that is offered. People pointing out THAT inconvenient
truth are merely shouted down. How about that?
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-
temperatures
Ignore the short term noise in the data and it most certainly looks like
there is a strong correlation.
When you look at long term data, CO2 LAGS warming. Is there a case
for inverted temporal causation?
There have been some instances where that has happened. But that doesn't
prove that CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't cause warming.
Pretty much every instance of warming, in point of fact.
Post by Alain Fournier
It only shows that there are some feedback loops. Global warming has
obviously not always been initiated by humans putting CO2 in the
atmosphere. Global warming has in the past been initiated by other
things. Then the feedback loops increased CO2 in the atmosphere
increasing the temperature even more.
Yes, and what it shows is that the models don't comprehend reality
closely enough to be making policy prescriptions based on them.
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Are you also going to deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas?
Are you going to deny that NO predictions have come true and that the
amount of warming bears little to no relationship to the amount of
increase in CO2?
Yes I will deny that. Several decades ago some scientists predicted
global warming. It came. So your claim that NO predictions have come
true is false. Look at the graph Jeff Findley cited above and say again
with a straight face that the amount of warming bears little to no
relationship to the amount of increase in CO2.
The amount of warming bears little to no relationship to the amount of
increase in CO2. Go back to the first IPCC report. Read the
predictions. Watch them fail. Read each of them in order. They all
fail.
Post by Alain Fournier
The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas can easily be verified in a lab.
Therefore it is obvious that if you increase CO2 in the atmosphere you
increase warming. And it is also obvious that the amount of CO2 that
humans have put into the atmosphere in the past century is very
significant. The science is clear on this, the predictions pan out.
Well, no, they don't.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Alain Fournier
2015-03-24 11:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Yes they can. It is not precise in the short term but the models
predicted global warming and we got global warming.
No they can't. Do you not understand what 'predictive power' means in
this context? We got 19 years of no statistically significant warming
while CO2 concentrations went nowhere but up.
From
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/
"The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of
1998, have now occurred since 2000."
Do you want me to show you a few statistical tests showing the
statistical significance of that?

For the last 19 years we've had statistically very significant warming.
Which is a little surprising because for these kind of models 19 years
is a very short time, even if we hadn't had statistically significant
warming in such a short time it would not be enough to invalidate the
obvious validity of the science.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
The Earth's warming doesn't track with what the claim is the cause. No
explanation of that is offered. People pointing out THAT inconvenient
truth are merely shouted down. How about that?
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-
temperatures
Ignore the short term noise in the data and it most certainly looks like
there is a strong correlation.
When you look at long term data, CO2 LAGS warming. Is there a case
for inverted temporal causation?
There have been some instances where that has happened. But that doesn't
prove that CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't cause warming.
Pretty much every instance of warming, in point of fact.
Post by Alain Fournier
It only shows that there are some feedback loops. Global warming has
obviously not always been initiated by humans putting CO2 in the
atmosphere. Global warming has in the past been initiated by other
things. Then the feedback loops increased CO2 in the atmosphere
increasing the temperature even more.
Yes, and what it shows is that the models don't comprehend reality
closely enough to be making policy prescriptions based on them.
Ludicrous.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Are you also going to deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas?
Are you going to deny that NO predictions have come true and that the
amount of warming bears little to no relationship to the amount of
increase in CO2?
Yes I will deny that. Several decades ago some scientists predicted
global warming. It came. So your claim that NO predictions have come
true is false. Look at the graph Jeff Findley cited above and say again
with a straight face that the amount of warming bears little to no
relationship to the amount of increase in CO2.
The amount of warming bears little to no relationship to the amount of
increase in CO2. Go back to the first IPCC report. Read the
predictions. Watch them fail. Read each of them in order. They all
fail.
No they don't fail. They are not precise and can't be precise. But they
predict warming and we get warming. We've got more warming than what was
predicted in the first reports but still they were in the right direction.


Alain Fournier
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-24 11:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Yes they can. It is not precise in the short term but the models
predicted global warming and we got global warming.
No they can't. Do you not understand what 'predictive power' means in
this context? We got 19 years of no statistically significant warming
while CO2 concentrations went nowhere but up.
From
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/
"The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of
1998, have now occurred since 2000."
Do you want me to show you a few statistical tests showing the
statistical significance of that?
For the last 19 years we've had statistically very significant warming.
Which is a little surprising because for these kind of models 19 years
is a very short time, even if we hadn't had statistically significant
warming in such a short time it would not be enough to invalidate the
obvious validity of the science.
That's simply not true. Even proponents of Human Caused Global
Warming like Phil Jones have been forced to admit it.
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
The Earth's warming doesn't track with what the claim is the cause. No
explanation of that is offered. People pointing out THAT inconvenient
truth are merely shouted down. How about that?
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-
temperatures
Ignore the short term noise in the data and it most certainly looks like
there is a strong correlation.
When you look at long term data, CO2 LAGS warming. Is there a case
for inverted temporal causation?
There have been some instances where that has happened. But that doesn't
prove that CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't cause warming.
Pretty much every instance of warming, in point of fact.
Post by Alain Fournier
It only shows that there are some feedback loops. Global warming has
obviously not always been initiated by humans putting CO2 in the
atmosphere. Global warming has in the past been initiated by other
things. Then the feedback loops increased CO2 in the atmosphere
increasing the temperature even more.
Yes, and what it shows is that the models don't comprehend reality
closely enough to be making policy prescriptions based on them.
Ludicrous.
Thank you for that cogent demonstration of careful analysis.
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Are you also going to deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas?
Are you going to deny that NO predictions have come true and that the
amount of warming bears little to no relationship to the amount of
increase in CO2?
Yes I will deny that. Several decades ago some scientists predicted
global warming. It came. So your claim that NO predictions have come
true is false. Look at the graph Jeff Findley cited above and say again
with a straight face that the amount of warming bears little to no
relationship to the amount of increase in CO2.
The amount of warming bears little to no relationship to the amount of
increase in CO2. Go back to the first IPCC report. Read the
predictions. Watch them fail. Read each of them in order. They all
fail.
No they don't fail. They are not precise and can't be precise. But they
predict warming and we get warming. We've got more warming than what was
predicted in the first reports but still they were in the right direction.
And a stopped clock is right twice a day. So what?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Alain Fournier
2015-03-25 00:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Yes they can. It is not precise in the short term but the models
predicted global warming and we got global warming.
No they can't. Do you not understand what 'predictive power' means in
this context? We got 19 years of no statistically significant warming
while CO2 concentrations went nowhere but up.
From
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/
"The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of
1998, have now occurred since 2000."
Do you want me to show you a few statistical tests showing the
statistical significance of that?
For the last 19 years we've had statistically very significant warming.
Which is a little surprising because for these kind of models 19 years
is a very short time, even if we hadn't had statistically significant
warming in such a short time it would not be enough to invalidate the
obvious validity of the science.
That's simply not true. Even proponents of Human Caused Global
Warming like Phil Jones have been forced to admit it.
The important thing is that on meaningful time spans we get
statistically very significant warming.

Here instrumental record means since 1880. So lets compute the
likelihood to have 9 of 10 warmest years in the past 15 years. Under the
null hypothesis (H0) we can put p = 15/135 which is about 0.111. So what
is the probability to see such an extreme event of 9 of the 10 warmest
years in the past 15 years:
P(H0) = P(X >= 9) = 10 * p^9 * (1-p) = 2.3 x 10^(-8).
Statistically significant usually means P(H0)<0.05, here 2.3 x 10^(-8)
is smaller than 0.05 by a long shot.

Maybe you would prefer to look at the probability to have 10 out of 10
of the warmest years in the past 17 years? That would give
P(H0) = 10^(-9).
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
The Earth's warming doesn't track with what the claim is the cause. No
explanation of that is offered. People pointing out THAT inconvenient
truth are merely shouted down. How about that?
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-
temperatures
Ignore the short term noise in the data and it most certainly looks like
there is a strong correlation.
When you look at long term data, CO2 LAGS warming. Is there a case
for inverted temporal causation?
There have been some instances where that has happened. But that doesn't
prove that CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't cause warming.
Pretty much every instance of warming, in point of fact.
Post by Alain Fournier
It only shows that there are some feedback loops. Global warming has
obviously not always been initiated by humans putting CO2 in the
atmosphere. Global warming has in the past been initiated by other
things. Then the feedback loops increased CO2 in the atmosphere
increasing the temperature even more.
Yes, and what it shows is that the models don't comprehend reality
closely enough to be making policy prescriptions based on them.
Ludicrous.
Thank you for that cogent demonstration of careful analysis.
Well, if you think that policy shouldn't be based on science, on what do
you think it should be based?



Alain Fournier
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-25 04:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Yes they can. It is not precise in the short term but the models
predicted global warming and we got global warming.
No they can't. Do you not understand what 'predictive power' means in
this context? We got 19 years of no statistically significant warming
while CO2 concentrations went nowhere but up.
From
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/
"The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of
1998, have now occurred since 2000."
Do you want me to show you a few statistical tests showing the
statistical significance of that?
For the last 19 years we've had statistically very significant warming.
Which is a little surprising because for these kind of models 19 years
is a very short time, even if we hadn't had statistically significant
warming in such a short time it would not be enough to invalidate the
obvious validity of the science.
That's simply not true. Even proponents of Human Caused Global
Warming like Phil Jones have been forced to admit it.
The important thing is that on meaningful time spans we get
statistically very significant warming.
Here instrumental record means since 1880.
Unadjust the data.
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Thank you for that cogent demonstration of careful analysis.
Well, if you think that policy shouldn't be based on science, on what do
you think it should be based?
Well, if you simply assume you're right, it's not based on 'science',
now is it?

Show me models that show actual predictive behaviour. None of them
do.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Alain Fournier
2015-03-25 23:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Yes they can. It is not precise in the short term but the models
predicted global warming and we got global warming.
No they can't. Do you not understand what 'predictive power' means in
this context? We got 19 years of no statistically significant warming
while CO2 concentrations went nowhere but up.
From
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/
"The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of
1998, have now occurred since 2000."
Do you want me to show you a few statistical tests showing the
statistical significance of that?
For the last 19 years we've had statistically very significant warming.
Which is a little surprising because for these kind of models 19 years
is a very short time, even if we hadn't had statistically significant
warming in such a short time it would not be enough to invalidate the
obvious validity of the science.
That's simply not true. Even proponents of Human Caused Global
Warming like Phil Jones have been forced to admit it.
The important thing is that on meaningful time spans we get
statistically very significant warming.
Here instrumental record means since 1880.
Unadjust the data.
Why should we do that?
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Thank you for that cogent demonstration of careful analysis.
Well, if you think that policy shouldn't be based on science, on what do
you think it should be based?
Well, if you simply assume you're right, it's not based on 'science',
now is it?
Correct. But that isn't what is done. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its heat
trapping capacity can be measured in a lab, you know a lab like a place
where some scientists work. When you burn fossil fuels, in a normal way,
you put CO2 in the atmosphere. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can
be approximated, basically what you add in the atmosphere is the amount
of the increase, not exactly because some of it is cycled in different
ways but we can evaluate that. The effect of this increase can be
estimated by using the heat trapping capacity of CO2 which is known from
the above mentioned lab work. From this we know that the temperature
will rise. Basic science.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Show me models that show actual predictive behaviour. None of them
do.
The models have been predicting warming for a few decades. We have been
observing warming for a few decades. What do you want more than that? No
the models can't predict exact temperatures in x years for any value of
x. But they do show that over a few decades, without humans changing
their habits we will get severe weather change.


Alain Fournier
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-26 03:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Yes they can. It is not precise in the short term but the models
predicted global warming and we got global warming.
No they can't. Do you not understand what 'predictive power' means in
this context? We got 19 years of no statistically significant warming
while CO2 concentrations went nowhere but up.
From
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/
"The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of
1998, have now occurred since 2000."
Do you want me to show you a few statistical tests showing the
statistical significance of that?
For the last 19 years we've had statistically very significant warming.
Which is a little surprising because for these kind of models 19 years
is a very short time, even if we hadn't had statistically significant
warming in such a short time it would not be enough to invalidate the
obvious validity of the science.
That's simply not true. Even proponents of Human Caused Global
Warming like Phil Jones have been forced to admit it.
The important thing is that on meaningful time spans we get
statistically very significant warming.
Here instrumental record means since 1880.
Unadjust the data.
Why should we do that?
Intellectual integrity. If you first jigger the data and then claim
the data supports you, that's merely lying.
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Thank you for that cogent demonstration of careful analysis.
Well, if you think that policy shouldn't be based on science, on what do
you think it should be based?
Well, if you simply assume you're right, it's not based on 'science',
now is it?
Correct. But that isn't what is done. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its heat
trapping capacity can be measured in a lab, you know a lab like a place
where some scientists work. When you burn fossil fuels, in a normal way,
you put CO2 in the atmosphere. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can
be approximated, basically what you add in the atmosphere is the amount
of the increase, not exactly because some of it is cycled in different
ways but we can evaluate that. The effect of this increase can be
estimated by using the heat trapping capacity of CO2 which is known from
the above mentioned lab work. From this we know that the temperature
will rise. Basic science.
And yet it doesn't rise nearly to the degree your 'basic science'
says. In fact, for damned near a generation there was no
statistically significant global warming at all.
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Show me models that show actual predictive behaviour. None of them
do.
The models have been predicting warming for a few decades. We have been
observing warming for a few decades.
Well, no, we haven't.
Post by Alain Fournier
What do you want more than that? No
the models can't predict exact temperatures in x years for any value of
x. But they do show that over a few decades, without humans changing
their habits we will get severe weather change.
But there's no reason to believe what they predict, since if you start
in the past and run them forward they predicting nothing even
approximately like what we've seen. If you start them today and run
them backward, they miss the past by a mile.

Hell, if that's your definition of 'actual predictive behaviour',
you're really too ignorant to be in this conversation and are merely
parroting what your religion has told you.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Alain Fournier
2015-03-27 00:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Yes they can. It is not precise in the short term but the models
predicted global warming and we got global warming.
No they can't. Do you not understand what 'predictive power' means in
this context? We got 19 years of no statistically significant warming
while CO2 concentrations went nowhere but up.
From
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/
"The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of
1998, have now occurred since 2000."
Do you want me to show you a few statistical tests showing the
statistical significance of that?
For the last 19 years we've had statistically very significant warming.
Which is a little surprising because for these kind of models 19 years
is a very short time, even if we hadn't had statistically significant
warming in such a short time it would not be enough to invalidate the
obvious validity of the science.
That's simply not true. Even proponents of Human Caused Global
Warming like Phil Jones have been forced to admit it.
The important thing is that on meaningful time spans we get
statistically very significant warming.
Here instrumental record means since 1880.
Unadjust the data.
Why should we do that?
Intellectual integrity. If you first jigger the data and then claim
the data supports you, that's merely lying.
Adjusting data does not mean falsifying data. There is no intellectual
integrity problem with adjusting data. Just this morning I obtained
evidence identifying a gene that had a fantastic effect on psychiatric
disorders, the kind of result that brings Nobel prizes. For various
reasons I knew it was phoney. I asked a few questions to the people
reading the genetic data in the lab, and finally found out that they had
forgotten to adjust the data because the patients had been read on one
machine and the controls on another machine. After adjustments, no
significant signals. If only those handing out Nobel prize were against
data adjustments like you seam to be...

You can take a look to
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/guest-post-skeptics-demand-adjustments/
If you look at the chart in the bottom, you will see that in the case of
global temperatures there isn't much of a difference whether you look at
it with or without adjustments. Without adjustments temperature
increases would be a tiny little bit bigger, not smaller. So if you wish
to do the unscientific thing of using unadjusted data, you can still
very clearly see the trend in global warming.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Thank you for that cogent demonstration of careful analysis.
Well, if you think that policy shouldn't be based on science, on what do
you think it should be based?
Well, if you simply assume you're right, it's not based on 'science',
now is it?
Correct. But that isn't what is done. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its heat
trapping capacity can be measured in a lab, you know a lab like a place
where some scientists work. When you burn fossil fuels, in a normal way,
you put CO2 in the atmosphere. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can
be approximated, basically what you add in the atmosphere is the amount
of the increase, not exactly because some of it is cycled in different
ways but we can evaluate that. The effect of this increase can be
estimated by using the heat trapping capacity of CO2 which is known from
the above mentioned lab work. From this we know that the temperature
will rise. Basic science.
And yet it doesn't rise nearly to the degree your 'basic science'
says. In fact, for damned near a generation there was no
statistically significant global warming at all.
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Show me models that show actual predictive behaviour. None of them
do.
The models have been predicting warming for a few decades. We have been
observing warming for a few decades.
Well, no, we haven't.
You can go look once again at the chart at the bottom of
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/guest-post-skeptics-demand-adjustments/
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
What do you want more than that? No
the models can't predict exact temperatures in x years for any value of
x. But they do show that over a few decades, without humans changing
their habits we will get severe weather change.
But there's no reason to believe what they predict, since if you start
in the past and run them forward they predicting nothing even
approximately like what we've seen. If you start them today and run
them backward, they miss the past by a mile.
Hell, if that's your definition of 'actual predictive behaviour',
you're really too ignorant to be in this conversation and are merely
parroting what your religion has told you.
It isn't about religion. Look again at the chart cited twice above. If
you do that with your screen level surely you will see that the
temperatures are going up.


Alain Fournier
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-27 03:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Intellectual integrity. If you first jigger the data and then claim
the data supports you, that's merely lying.
Adjusting data does not mean falsifying data. There is no intellectual
integrity problem with adjusting data.
I'd add a few words to your statement above. It's far too 'positive'.


<snip>
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
But there's no reason to believe what they predict, since if you start
in the past and run them forward they predicting nothing even
approximately like what we've seen. If you start them today and run
them backward, they miss the past by a mile.
Hell, if that's your definition of 'actual predictive behaviour',
you're really too ignorant to be in this conversation and are merely
parroting what your religion has told you.
It isn't about religion. Look again at the chart cited twice above. If
you do that with your screen level surely you will see that the
temperatures are going up.
You still don't understand what 'actual predictive behaviour' means.
By your definition pretty much any model is as good as any other.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
William Mook
2015-03-27 04:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Yes they can. It is not precise in the short term but the models
predicted global warming and we got global warming.
No they can't. Do you not understand what 'predictive power' means in
this context? We got 19 years of no statistically significant warming
while CO2 concentrations went nowhere but up.
From
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/
"The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of
1998, have now occurred since 2000."
Do you want me to show you a few statistical tests showing the
statistical significance of that?
For the last 19 years we've had statistically very significant warming.
Which is a little surprising because for these kind of models 19 years
is a very short time, even if we hadn't had statistically significant
warming in such a short time it would not be enough to invalidate the
obvious validity of the science.
That's simply not true. Even proponents of Human Caused Global
Warming like Phil Jones have been forced to admit it.
The important thing is that on meaningful time spans we get
statistically very significant warming.
Here instrumental record means since 1880.
Unadjust the data.
Why should we do that?
Intellectual integrity. If you first jigger the data and then claim
the data supports you, that's merely lying.
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Thank you for that cogent demonstration of careful analysis.
Well, if you think that policy shouldn't be based on science, on what do
you think it should be based?
Well, if you simply assume you're right, it's not based on 'science',
now is it?
Correct. But that isn't what is done. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its heat
trapping capacity can be measured in a lab, you know a lab like a place
where some scientists work. When you burn fossil fuels, in a normal way,
you put CO2 in the atmosphere. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can
be approximated, basically what you add in the atmosphere is the amount
of the increase, not exactly because some of it is cycled in different
ways but we can evaluate that. The effect of this increase can be
estimated by using the heat trapping capacity of CO2 which is known from
the above mentioned lab work. From this we know that the temperature
will rise. Basic science.
And yet it doesn't rise nearly to the degree your 'basic science'
says. In fact, for damned near a generation there was no
statistically significant global warming at all.
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Show me models that show actual predictive behaviour. None of them
do.
The models have been predicting warming for a few decades. We have been
observing warming for a few decades.
Well, no, we haven't.
Post by Alain Fournier
What do you want more than that? No
the models can't predict exact temperatures in x years for any value of
x. But they do show that over a few decades, without humans changing
their habits we will get severe weather change.
But there's no reason to believe what they predict, since if you start
in the past and run them forward they predicting nothing even
approximately like what we've seen. If you start them today and run
them backward, they miss the past by a mile.
Hell, if that's your definition of 'actual predictive behaviour',
you're really too ignorant to be in this conversation and are merely
parroting what your religion has told you.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
CO2 levels are rising, according to some they contribute a small amount to global warming. The bulk of the effect has to do with lower levels of cosmic background radiation, due to our position in the galaxy, which reduce cloud formation, which change the albedo of the Earth and its temperature.



Even so, rising CO2 levels are changing the pH of the oceans, and create other adverse effects. Further, reliance on fossil fuels enriches very few at a far larger cost to industrial society, and produces an artificial scarcity. Abundant alternatives exist. Rising energy costs make exorbitant recovery processes economic, at great environmental cost - fracking kills the water supply in most geologies.

So, reducing our impact on the biosphere to zero due to energy use, is a good idea, and workable alternative. Getting there is possible, if we stand up to the fossil energy machine.

Telling lies about CO2 undermines the development of real alternatives.

Telling the truth about viable alternatives, undermines the fossil fuel machine.

https://vimeo.com/52213948
Snidely
2015-03-26 06:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Delta-T of 4 degrees by 2100, 10 degrees at the poles; weather
instability, sea levels rising. Those certainly sound like predictions
to me.

It is true that they don't have a definite date for when decreasing
salinity in the North Atlantic will reverse the Gulf Stream, or
agreement on whether there will be more ordinary-sized hurricanes or a
small number of super-sized hurricanes.

Observational data is already indicating a serious trend, with shifts
in the center of rainfall in the Thailand-Bangladesh-India area, the
North American jet stream becoming more variable, warm-weather species
moving north both in the Rockies and along the West Coast.

For those interested in knowing more about the models, the CComputing
Science" column of the Nov-Dec issue of _American Scientist_ has an
introduction to them. Since it's a column instead of a feature
article, you can find the whole column at
<URL:http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2014/6/clarity-in-climate-modeling>
and the sample stripey-model and references at
<URL:http://bit-player.org/extras/climate/>

/dps
--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-26 10:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Delta-T of 4 degrees by 2100, 10 degrees at the poles; weather
instability, sea levels rising. Those certainly sound like predictions
to me.
Yeah, but so far their past predictions FAIL. Why believe these? Hey,
a crystal ball can 'predict', but I don't rely on mystics for policy
direction, either.
Post by Snidely
It is true that they don't have a definite date for when decreasing
salinity in the North Atlantic will reverse the Gulf Stream, or
agreement on whether there will be more ordinary-sized hurricanes or a
small number of super-sized hurricanes.
Or perhaps something else entirely. So far there are neither more
ordinary-sized hurricanes nor a smaller number of super-sized
hurricanes. Several years when the Global Warmists were declaring
that storms would increase in dramatic ways we wound up with very low
numbers of not particularly powerful storms.
Post by Snidely
Observational data is already indicating a serious trend, with shifts
in the center of rainfall in the Thailand-Bangladesh-India area, the
North American jet stream becoming more variable, warm-weather species
moving north both in the Rockies and along the West Coast.
Yes, climate changes. If I construct a model that says climate will
change and the cause is skirt lengths, would you buy into it?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Alain Fournier
2015-03-27 00:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Snidely
Observational data is already indicating a serious trend, with shifts
in the center of rainfall in the Thailand-Bangladesh-India area, the
North American jet stream becoming more variable, warm-weather species
moving north both in the Rockies and along the West Coast.
Yes, climate changes. If I construct a model that says climate will
change and the cause is skirt lengths, would you buy into it?
When the first scientific papers on global warming caused by human
activity came out, we hadn't yet observed significant global temperature
increases. Unlike your lunacy about skirt length, there is a scientific
model. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are putting CO2 in the atmosphere.
Put the two together, what do you get.


Alain Fournier
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-27 03:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Snidely
Observational data is already indicating a serious trend, with shifts
in the center of rainfall in the Thailand-Bangladesh-India area, the
North American jet stream becoming more variable, warm-weather species
moving north both in the Rockies and along the West Coast.
Yes, climate changes. If I construct a model that says climate will
change and the cause is skirt lengths, would you buy into it?
When the first scientific papers on global warming caused by human
activity came out, we hadn't yet observed significant global temperature
increases. Unlike your lunacy about skirt length, there is a scientific
model. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are putting CO2 in the atmosphere.
Put the two together, what do you get.
And when temperature change doesn't correlate particularly well with
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, what do you get?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
jacob navia
2015-03-27 20:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
And when temperature change doesn't correlate particularly well with
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, what do you get?
Interesting:

1) "THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING" (1990-2010)
2) "THERE IS A WARMING BUT IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT" (2010-2014)
3) "THE WARMING EXISTS, BUT IT IS NOT CO2 RELATED" (2015)
4) "WE DID NOT AND COULD NOT KNOW AT THAT TIME
THAT WE WOULD END HERE!" (2025)

The planet is warming (you just acknowledge that fact). True it is
difficult to deny that.

But the fact that we are pumping CO2, a greenhouse gas into the
atmosphere by GIGA-TONS a year is JUST A COINCIDENCE!

How wonderful!

The world is so FULL of interesting coincidences.
David Spain
2015-03-27 20:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by jacob navia
Post by Fred J. McCall
And when temperature change doesn't correlate particularly well with
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, what do you get?
1) "THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING" (1990-2010)
2) "THERE IS A WARMING BUT IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT" (2010-2014)
3) "THE WARMING EXISTS, BUT IT IS NOT CO2 RELATED" (2015)
4) "WE DID NOT AND COULD NOT KNOW AT THAT TIME
THAT WE WOULD END HERE!" (2025)
I don't recall Fred taking positions like that, in those time-frames, but I'll let Fred speak for himself.

Tell you what. Why don't you start by doing your part. Stop using fossil fuels and any and ->all<- products & services derived from them. For the purposes of this conversation consider natural gas (in and of itself a horrible GHG) a "fossil" fuel.

Also you left out a data point:

0) THE EARTH IS ON THE EDGE OF A NEW ICE AGE! (1970)
Post by jacob navia
The planet is warming (you just acknowledge that fact). True it is
difficult to deny that.
No he didn't say that. He said no warming in nearly the past two decades. And he's right.
Post by jacob navia
But the fact that we are pumping CO2, a greenhouse gas into the
atmosphere by GIGA-TONS a year is JUST A COINCIDENCE!
No he didn't say that either. But I will say it's not a coincidence. We (humanity) are doing it. I don't believe that is what is under debate.
However CO2 is coming out of the atmosphere too.
Post by jacob navia
How wonderful!
The world is so FULL of interesting coincidences.
I'm interested more in where folks think the new equilibrium point is. There will be a limit to where CO2 goes. I have read that there is evidence in the historical record (ice cores?) for ice ages that have occurred when atmospheric C02 was at TEN TIMES the present level or nearly 4000 PPM.

I wonder what the "headroom" is for man made CO2? There will be an economic limit reached in consumption when China achieves a steady state. With the largest population to serve any other country will pale in comparison to China's carbon footprint. And once that has stabilized I wonder where we will be. As much as the political left would like to leave this at the USA's doorstep we will soon not be the major contributor. In fact as I understand it our (USA) carbon footprint actually has been in decline now for a few years. Even w/o Kyoto...
jacob navia
2015-03-27 21:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
I'm interested more in where folks think the new equilibrium point is.
There will be a limit to where CO2 goes. I have read that there is
evidence in the

historical record (ice cores?) for ice ages that have occurred when
atmospheric C02

was at TEN TIMES the present level or nearly 4000 PPM.


You are even right this time.
In the late Ordovician (450 Million years ago) there was a huge
glaciation event even if CO2 was high.

Why?

Because at that time, all land masses were a single continent called
Gondwana. That continent passed at that time through the NORTH POLE.

The ONLY continent was covered in polar ice. That caused a huge clima
catastrophe for all land animals that lived in the only continent. And
of course, that had nothing to do with the high levels of CO2 that were
normal for that epoch. Temperature was much higher in the planet overall
during that period, except at the end, when Gondwana passed through the
North Pole.

And anyway, global warming has happened before. And no, it will NOT be
the end of life in this planet. It means simply that Miami will be under
1 meter of water, as New York, most of Florida coast will disappear,
etc. It means that enormous catastrophes will happen and millions of
refugees escaping the rising waters, etc.

When sea level rised in the past, the animals fleed and if many
disappeared, there wasn't anyone to register that. Now is quite different.
Snidely
2015-03-28 08:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by jacob navia
The planet is warming (you just acknowledge that fact). True it is
difficult to deny that.
No he didn't say that. He said no warming in nearly the past two decades. And he's right.
Cite? After all, 2014 just beat 2013's record. Check the condition of
the tundra, too.

/dps
--
Trust, but verify.
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-28 11:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Post by David Spain
Post by jacob navia
The planet is warming (you just acknowledge that fact). True it is
difficult to deny that.
No he didn't say that. He said no warming in nearly the past two decades. And he's right.
Cite? After all, 2014 just beat 2013's record. Check the condition of
the tundra, too.
How can anyone even marginally paying attention not know this?

Even Global Warmists like Phil Jones have admitted this.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
David Spain
2015-03-30 07:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by jacob navia
The planet is warming (you just acknowledge that fact). True it is
difficult to deny that.
No he didn't say that. He said no warming in nearly the past two decades. And he's right.
Cite? After all, 2014 just beat 2013's record. Check the condition of
the tundra, too.
/dps
That 2014 "record" is within error bars. And it doesn't surpass 1998 as the hottest year on record to my knowledge.
As for a cite. Sure. Here take one from a pro-modeling viewpoint:

http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

The problem with the deep ocean as heat absorber is that we don't see increases in sea temperature above 800m depth that you'd think would be necessary prerequisite to getting AGW heating below 800m! If it can't be seen getting there how'd it get got?

Dave
Post by David Spain
--
Trust, but verify.
A little more verify
A little less trust.
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-28 02:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by jacob navia
Post by Fred J. McCall
And when temperature change doesn't correlate particularly well with
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, what do you get?
1) "THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING" (1990-2010)
2) "THERE IS A WARMING BUT IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT" (2010-2014)
3) "THE WARMING EXISTS, BUT IT IS NOT CO2 RELATED" (2015)
4) "WE DID NOT AND COULD NOT KNOW AT THAT TIME
THAT WE WOULD END HERE!" (2025)
The planet is warming (you just acknowledge that fact). True it is
difficult to deny that.
No, I didn't. Which part of "no statistically significant warming" is
it that is confusing you?
Post by jacob navia
But the fact that we are pumping CO2, a greenhouse gas into the
atmosphere by GIGA-TONS a year is JUST A COINCIDENCE!
It may very well be. It's not as if that's the only thing on the
planet happening, after all.
Post by jacob navia
How wonderful!
The world is so FULL of interesting coincidences.
It is, indeed.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Alain Fournier
2015-03-28 00:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Snidely
Observational data is already indicating a serious trend, with shifts
in the center of rainfall in the Thailand-Bangladesh-India area, the
North American jet stream becoming more variable, warm-weather species
moving north both in the Rockies and along the West Coast.
Yes, climate changes. If I construct a model that says climate will
change and the cause is skirt lengths, would you buy into it?
When the first scientific papers on global warming caused by human
activity came out, we hadn't yet observed significant global temperature
increases. Unlike your lunacy about skirt length, there is a scientific
model. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are putting CO2 in the atmosphere.
Put the two together, what do you get.
And when temperature change doesn't correlate particularly well with
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, what do you get?
Are you talking of some hypothetical planet or what? Here on Earth if
you look at the graph that Jeff pointed out a little up thread
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures
you will clearly see that global temperatures do correlate with CO2
concentrations quite well. If you look at the actual data and the
scientific theory it's quite obvious that humans are causing global warming.


Alain Fournier
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-28 02:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Snidely
Observational data is already indicating a serious trend, with shifts
in the center of rainfall in the Thailand-Bangladesh-India area, the
North American jet stream becoming more variable, warm-weather species
moving north both in the Rockies and along the West Coast.
Yes, climate changes. If I construct a model that says climate will
change and the cause is skirt lengths, would you buy into it?
When the first scientific papers on global warming caused by human
activity came out, we hadn't yet observed significant global temperature
increases. Unlike your lunacy about skirt length, there is a scientific
model. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are putting CO2 in the atmosphere.
Put the two together, what do you get.
And when temperature change doesn't correlate particularly well with
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, what do you get?
Are you talking of some hypothetical planet or what? Here on Earth if
you look at the graph that Jeff pointed out a little up thread
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures
you will clearly see that global temperatures do correlate with CO2
concentrations quite well. If you look at the actual data and the
scientific theory it's quite obvious that humans are causing global warming.
If you actually do that math, it's still questionable that there IS
warming.

Which part of 'no statistically significant global warming' is it that
is confusing you?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Snidely
2015-03-27 05:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Fred J. McCall is guilty of
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Snidely
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Delta-T of 4 degrees by 2100, 10 degrees at the poles; weather
instability, sea levels rising. Those certainly sound like predictions
to me.
Yeah, but so far their past predictions FAIL. Why believe these? Hey,
a crystal ball can 'predict', but I don't rely on mystics for policy
direction, either.
Post by Snidely
It is true that they don't have a definite date for when decreasing
salinity in the North Atlantic will reverse the Gulf Stream, or
agreement on whether there will be more ordinary-sized hurricanes or a
small number of super-sized hurricanes.
Or perhaps something else entirely. So far there are neither more
ordinary-sized hurricanes nor a smaller number of super-sized
hurricanes. Several years when the Global Warmists were declaring
that storms would increase in dramatic ways we wound up with very low
numbers of not particularly powerful storms.
Post by Snidely
Observational data is already indicating a serious trend, with shifts
in the center of rainfall in the Thailand-Bangladesh-India area, the
North American jet stream becoming more variable, warm-weather species
moving north both in the Rockies and along the West Coast.
Yes, climate changes. If I construct a model that says climate will
change and the cause is skirt lengths, would you buy into it?
No, but I don't ignore actual data, either, nor the reviews of a large
number of scientists. Have you examined the models? If not, feel free
to use the article I mentioned to help locate the appropriate
resources, and begin examining models. If you can show the models are
wrong, then that's a useful step. If you can show the models use skirt
lengths, that would be interesting information.

/dps
--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-27 10:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Fred J. McCall is guilty of
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Snidely
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Delta-T of 4 degrees by 2100, 10 degrees at the poles; weather
instability, sea levels rising. Those certainly sound like predictions
to me.
Yeah, but so far their past predictions FAIL. Why believe these? Hey,
a crystal ball can 'predict', but I don't rely on mystics for policy
direction, either.
Post by Snidely
It is true that they don't have a definite date for when decreasing
salinity in the North Atlantic will reverse the Gulf Stream, or
agreement on whether there will be more ordinary-sized hurricanes or a
small number of super-sized hurricanes.
Or perhaps something else entirely. So far there are neither more
ordinary-sized hurricanes nor a smaller number of super-sized
hurricanes. Several years when the Global Warmists were declaring
that storms would increase in dramatic ways we wound up with very low
numbers of not particularly powerful storms.
Post by Snidely
Observational data is already indicating a serious trend, with shifts
in the center of rainfall in the Thailand-Bangladesh-India area, the
North American jet stream becoming more variable, warm-weather species
moving north both in the Rockies and along the West Coast.
Yes, climate changes. If I construct a model that says climate will
change and the cause is skirt lengths, would you buy into it?
No, but I don't ignore actual data, either, nor the reviews of a large
number of scientists. Have you examined the models? If not, feel free
to use the article I mentioned to help locate the appropriate
resources, and begin examining models. If you can show the models are
wrong, then that's a useful step. If you can show the models use skirt
lengths, that would be interesting information.
Showing the models are flawed is easy. Take any of them and
initialize it to conditions a thousand years ago and then run them
forward and see how well they match historical data.

Hint: They don't, unless you 'adjust' or ignore big chunks of the
data. Everyone, including most climate scientists, knows this.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Alain Fournier
2015-03-28 00:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Snidely
Fred J. McCall is guilty of
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Snidely
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Delta-T of 4 degrees by 2100, 10 degrees at the poles; weather
instability, sea levels rising. Those certainly sound like predictions
to me.
Yeah, but so far their past predictions FAIL. Why believe these? Hey,
a crystal ball can 'predict', but I don't rely on mystics for policy
direction, either.
Post by Snidely
It is true that they don't have a definite date for when decreasing
salinity in the North Atlantic will reverse the Gulf Stream, or
agreement on whether there will be more ordinary-sized hurricanes or a
small number of super-sized hurricanes.
Or perhaps something else entirely. So far there are neither more
ordinary-sized hurricanes nor a smaller number of super-sized
hurricanes. Several years when the Global Warmists were declaring
that storms would increase in dramatic ways we wound up with very low
numbers of not particularly powerful storms.
Post by Snidely
Observational data is already indicating a serious trend, with shifts
in the center of rainfall in the Thailand-Bangladesh-India area, the
North American jet stream becoming more variable, warm-weather species
moving north both in the Rockies and along the West Coast.
Yes, climate changes. If I construct a model that says climate will
change and the cause is skirt lengths, would you buy into it?
No, but I don't ignore actual data, either, nor the reviews of a large
number of scientists. Have you examined the models? If not, feel free
to use the article I mentioned to help locate the appropriate
resources, and begin examining models. If you can show the models are
wrong, then that's a useful step. If you can show the models use skirt
lengths, that would be interesting information.
Showing the models are flawed is easy. Take any of them and
initialize it to conditions a thousand years ago and then run them
forward and see how well they match historical data.
Hint: They don't, unless you 'adjust' or ignore big chunks of the
data. Everyone, including most climate scientists, knows this.
You can look at for instance
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/
to see that climate models can very well predict climate change and
match historical data.

As for the past 1000 years, average global temperatures have barely
moved more than the uncertainty in measurements in that time frame until
accurate measurements started in the 1800s. And yes that includes the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. It is quite difficult to
have a model which will predict background noise. The fact that a model
can't predict background noise doesn't indicate that the model isn't good.

You can try again. Show that the models are flawed. They predicted the
warming which has been observed in the past few decades. Of course the
fact that that warming is way above background noise helps.


Alain Fournier
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-28 02:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Snidely
Fred J. McCall is guilty of
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Snidely
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
When the evidence coupled with the models doesn't prove out, one
wonders just what is behind that consensus. Not all that long ago the
consensus was that we were headed for another ice age.
Theories change, especially when additional data is collected. I'm all
for NASA collecting more data to be analyzed. More data is always
better.
But it's not a theory unless you can build a model with some
predictive power. They can't.
Delta-T of 4 degrees by 2100, 10 degrees at the poles; weather
instability, sea levels rising. Those certainly sound like predictions
to me.
Yeah, but so far their past predictions FAIL. Why believe these? Hey,
a crystal ball can 'predict', but I don't rely on mystics for policy
direction, either.
Post by Snidely
It is true that they don't have a definite date for when decreasing
salinity in the North Atlantic will reverse the Gulf Stream, or
agreement on whether there will be more ordinary-sized hurricanes or a
small number of super-sized hurricanes.
Or perhaps something else entirely. So far there are neither more
ordinary-sized hurricanes nor a smaller number of super-sized
hurricanes. Several years when the Global Warmists were declaring
that storms would increase in dramatic ways we wound up with very low
numbers of not particularly powerful storms.
Post by Snidely
Observational data is already indicating a serious trend, with shifts
in the center of rainfall in the Thailand-Bangladesh-India area, the
North American jet stream becoming more variable, warm-weather species
moving north both in the Rockies and along the West Coast.
Yes, climate changes. If I construct a model that says climate will
change and the cause is skirt lengths, would you buy into it?
No, but I don't ignore actual data, either, nor the reviews of a large
number of scientists. Have you examined the models? If not, feel free
to use the article I mentioned to help locate the appropriate
resources, and begin examining models. If you can show the models are
wrong, then that's a useful step. If you can show the models use skirt
lengths, that would be interesting information.
Showing the models are flawed is easy. Take any of them and
initialize it to conditions a thousand years ago and then run them
forward and see how well they match historical data.
Hint: They don't, unless you 'adjust' or ignore big chunks of the
data. Everyone, including most climate scientists, knows this.
You can look at for instance
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/
to see that climate models can very well predict climate change and
match historical data.
As for the past 1000 years, average global temperatures have barely
moved more than the uncertainty in measurements in that time frame until
accurate measurements started in the 1800s. And yes that includes the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. It is quite difficult to
have a model which will predict background noise. The fact that a model
can't predict background noise doesn't indicate that the model isn't good.
You can try again. Show that the models are flawed. They predicted the
warming which has been observed in the past few decades. Of course the
fact that that warming is way above background noise helps.
Which planet are you living on, Alan, because what you say is
happening on yours isn't happening on ours.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Snidely
2015-03-27 07:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Yeah, but so far their past predictions FAIL. Why believe these? Hey,
a crystal ball can 'predict', but I don't rely on mystics for policy
direction, either.
Be specific about which predictions failed, so that we can examine the
prediction and failure.

/dps
--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-27 10:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Post by Fred J. McCall
Yeah, but so far their past predictions FAIL. Why believe these? Hey,
a crystal ball can 'predict', but I don't rely on mystics for policy
direction, either.
Be specific about which predictions failed, so that we can examine the
prediction and failure.
Start with the first climate report. See how few of its predictions
are right. Rinse and repeat.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Alain Fournier
2015-03-28 01:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Snidely
Post by Fred J. McCall
Yeah, but so far their past predictions FAIL. Why believe these? Hey,
a crystal ball can 'predict', but I don't rely on mystics for policy
direction, either.
Be specific about which predictions failed, so that we can examine the
prediction and failure.
Start with the first climate report. See how few of its predictions
are right. Rinse and repeat.
Here from the first climate report (First Assessment Report Overview
Chapter) page 53 1.0.5 second paragraph:
The first unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from
observations is not likely for a decade or more.

Okay they were off a little, that was in 1990 and we had unequivocal
detection of greenhouse effect a little before 2000. Still not too bad
of a prediction.

Most of the other predictions I saw in there are about the years 2050
and/or 2100. So I found one prediction which is mostly right, the other
ones I saw were about the years 2025, 2030, 2050 and 2100. I can't see
any predictions in there that have been discredited by time, except
maybe their predictions of ice cover for the USSR. I suspect that the
USSR won't comeback so that prediction won't become true :-)

The prediction I saw for 2025 is an increase of about 1 ºC (from 1990
the year of that report) that seems likely to be about right.

So why were you suggesting that we look at how few of the predictions
are right since from what I can see their predictions are mostly for
future years. And the one prediction for something past is really not
too bad.


Alain Fournier
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-28 02:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Fournier
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Snidely
Post by Fred J. McCall
Yeah, but so far their past predictions FAIL. Why believe these? Hey,
a crystal ball can 'predict', but I don't rely on mystics for policy
direction, either.
Be specific about which predictions failed, so that we can examine the
prediction and failure.
Start with the first climate report. See how few of its predictions
are right. Rinse and repeat.
Here from the first climate report (First Assessment Report Overview
The first unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from
observations is not likely for a decade or more.
Okay they were off a little, that was in 1990 and we had unequivocal
detection of greenhouse effect a little before 2000. Still not too bad
of a prediction.
Which part of 'no statistically significant global warming' is it that
you just don't get, Alan?
Post by Alain Fournier
Most of the other predictions I saw in there are about the years 2050
and/or 2100. So I found one prediction which is mostly right, the other
ones I saw were about the years 2025, 2030, 2050 and 2100. I can't see
any predictions in there that have been discredited by time, except
maybe their predictions of ice cover for the USSR. I suspect that the
USSR won't comeback so that prediction won't become true :-)
The prediction I saw for 2025 is an increase of about 1 ºC (from 1990
the year of that report) that seems likely to be about right.
So far warming has been about 0.1ºC. It's going to have to accelerate
quite a bit to be "about right".
Post by Alain Fournier
So why were you suggesting that we look at how few of the predictions
are right since from what I can see their predictions are mostly for
future years. And the one prediction for something past is really not
too bad.
Well, you do have to actually open your eyes and look at the right
planet...
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
JF Mezei
2015-03-27 08:38:50 UTC
Permalink
How much did Sandy cost ? Recovery not even complete yet.

People dismiss rising sea levels. But a small increases raises the
number of storms that will push water onto lower manhattan, flood
telecom conduits, flood tunnels.

The costs are real.


There may not be 100% proof that increasingly funky weather is caused by
climate change which is caused by increased CO2 levels. However, the
planet cannot afford to wait for that 100% because it will be way too
late by the time you have proof even the Republicans will accept.

All indications point to CO2 increases which have and/or will cause
weather havok.

One of the definitions of "intelligence" is to be able to draw
conclusions based on data/evidence and experiments. We know the effect
that CO2 has on light transmission and infrared transmission. That
science applies to the planet. So even though the weather statistics
don't yield 100% certainty yet, we know CO2 is bad for planet.

Those who deny it do so because they have a stake in oil/coal industries.
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-27 10:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
How much did Sandy cost ? Recovery not even complete yet.
What did Human Caused Global Warming have to do with Sandy? Nothing.
Post by JF Mezei
People dismiss rising sea levels. But a small increases raises the
number of storms that will push water onto lower manhattan, flood
telecom conduits, flood tunnels.
The costs are real.
Oh, don't be silly! How much sea level rise has there been. Storm
surge isn't magical.
Post by JF Mezei
There may not be 100% proof that increasingly funky weather is caused by
climate change which is caused by increased CO2 levels.
In fact there isn't any proof at all.
Post by JF Mezei
However, the
planet cannot afford to wait for that 100% because it will be way too
late by the time you have proof even the Republicans will accept.
However, the planet cannot afford to blow wealth in making changes
that could just as easily turn out to have no effect on the problem
and leave us with no wealth to deal with it.
Post by JF Mezei
All indications point to CO2 increases which have and/or will cause
weather havok.
Nonsense.
Post by JF Mezei
One of the definitions of "intelligence" is to be able to draw
conclusions based on data/evidence and experiments. We know the effect
that CO2 has on light transmission and infrared transmission. That
science applies to the planet. So even though the weather statistics
don't yield 100% certainty yet, we know CO2 is bad for planet.
In fact, they don't yield any statistical significance at all.
Post by JF Mezei
Those who deny it do so because they have a stake in oil/coal industries.
Lying bullshit.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
jacob navia
2015-03-27 20:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh, don't be silly! How much sea level rise has there been. Storm
surge isn't magical.
The annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2
millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80
years.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

Yes. Let's avoid being silly.

:-)
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-28 02:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by jacob navia
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh, don't be silly! How much sea level rise has there been. Storm
surge isn't magical.
The annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2
millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80
years.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
Yes. Let's avoid being silly.
:-)
Let's see now, that's a whopping TWO AND A HALF INCHES over the last
two decades. If that's enough to cause significant flooding, you're
really living in the wrong place!

I'll just note that that amount is WAY below the predictions of the
Global Warmists for that two decades...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
jacob navia
2015-03-28 08:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by jacob navia
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh, don't be silly! How much sea level rise has there been. Storm
surge isn't magical.
The annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2
millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80
years.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
Yes. Let's avoid being silly.
:-)
Let's see now, that's a whopping TWO AND A HALF INCHES over the last
two decades. If that's enough to cause significant flooding, you're
really living in the wrong place!
I'll just note that that amount is WAY below the predictions of the
Global Warmists for that two decades...
Sure, that's nothing. The fact that it is twice the value doesn't make
you think anything is wrong. Just wait until we have several meters. But
THEN it will be too late!

As you can see from the photographs the NASA is taking, Artic ice is
disappearing at an accelerating rate. The same with the antartic and
Groenland.

But that is really nothing serious. Let's wait until sea level goes 1
meter up. Then we can always say that we couldn't do anything to stop it.
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-28 11:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by jacob navia
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by jacob navia
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh, don't be silly! How much sea level rise has there been. Storm
surge isn't magical.
The annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2
millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80
years.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
Yes. Let's avoid being silly.
:-)
Let's see now, that's a whopping TWO AND A HALF INCHES over the last
two decades. If that's enough to cause significant flooding, you're
really living in the wrong place!
I'll just note that that amount is WAY below the predictions of the
Global Warmists for that two decades...
Sure, that's nothing. The fact that it is twice the value doesn't make
you think anything is wrong. Just wait until we have several meters. But
THEN it will be too late!
Twice the value of WHAT?
Post by jacob navia
As you can see from the photographs the NASA is taking, Artic ice is
disappearing at an accelerating rate. The same with the antartic and
Groenland.
But that is really nothing serious. Let's wait until sea level goes 1
meter up. Then we can always say that we couldn't do anything to stop it.
Let's take action that we don't know will matter. Then when we figure
out how to really influence these things we'll have no resources left
to do so.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
JF Mezei
2015-03-31 00:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
What did Human Caused Global Warming have to do with Sandy? Nothing.
Do you deny that weather events are increasing damage to property ? In
the case of Manhattan, it is extremely vulnerable.

Lower Manhattan was in facrt flooded. Verizon wrote off all its copper
in the Wall street area. Too expensive to fix the shorts due to salt
water flooding the conduits.

How many tunnels were flooded ? How much is being spent to change all
the signaling equipment in them due to it being flooded in SALT water ?

Climate change will result in higher frequency of such events. Consider
how much money is being poured even yeasr later in fortifying the area
against the next storm.

You can deny those storms are due to "climate change", but at the end of
the day, if their intensity or frequency increases and you do nothing,
you'll find the costs to be horrendous.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh, don't be silly! How much sea level rise has there been. Storm
surge isn't magical.
People think "sea level rise of 10cm when Manhattan is 1m above sea is
no big deal". But when average storm surge is 0.9m, that that small
increase is the difference between lower Manhattan staying dry and
Manhattan being flooded.
Post by Fred J. McCall
However, the planet cannot afford to blow wealth in making changes
that could just as easily turn out to have no effect on the problem
and leave us with no wealth to deal with it.
Going green doesn't actuallty blow wealth. It shifts it to companies
that provide green energy away from those who provide carbon based energy.
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-31 02:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Fred J. McCall
What did Human Caused Global Warming have to do with Sandy? Nothing.
Do you deny that weather events are increasing damage to property ?
Sure I deny it. There's no evidence to support it.
Post by JF Mezei
In the case of Manhattan, it is extremely vulnerable.
Lower Manhattan was in facrt flooded. Verizon wrote off all its copper
in the Wall street area. Too expensive to fix the shorts due to salt
water flooding the conduits.
How many tunnels were flooded ? How much is being spent to change all
the signaling equipment in them due to it being flooded in SALT water ?
Climate change will result in higher frequency of such events. Consider
how much money is being poured even yeasr later in fortifying the area
against the next storm.
You can deny those storms are due to "climate change", but at the end of
the day, if their intensity or frequency increases and you do nothing,
you'll find the costs to be horrendous.
And if I fart and blow down the Empire State Building it will be very
expensive, too. Anyone can say 'if'. There's no evidence for 'higher
frequency' or 'greater intensity' overall.

I always find it funny when you Global Warmists point to weather as
proof of your position but whenever someone points out that the
climate isn't doing what you claim "that's just weather".
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh, don't be silly! How much sea level rise has there been. Storm
surge isn't magical.
People think "sea level rise of 10cm when Manhattan is 1m above sea is
no big deal". But when average storm surge is 0.9m, that that small
increase is the difference between lower Manhattan staying dry and
Manhattan being flooded.
Oh, horse manure.
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Fred J. McCall
However, the planet cannot afford to blow wealth in making changes
that could just as easily turn out to have no effect on the problem
and leave us with no wealth to deal with it.
Going green doesn't actuallty blow wealth. It shifts it to companies
that provide green energy away from those who provide carbon based energy.
Wrong. When the same infrastructure investment provides the same
amount of energy at the same cost, you come talk to me. Until then,
you're just talking shite.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
William Mook
2015-03-27 19:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
How much did Sandy cost ? Recovery not even complete yet.
People dismiss rising sea levels. But a small increases raises the
number of storms that will push water onto lower manhattan, flood
telecom conduits, flood tunnels.
The costs are real.
There may not be 100% proof that increasingly funky weather is caused by
climate change which is caused by increased CO2 levels. However, the
planet cannot afford to wait for that 100% because it will be way too
late by the time you have proof even the Republicans will accept.
All indications point to CO2 increases which have and/or will cause
weather havok.
One of the definitions of "intelligence" is to be able to draw
conclusions based on data/evidence and experiments. We know the effect
that CO2 has on light transmission and infrared transmission. That
science applies to the planet. So even though the weather statistics
don't yield 100% certainty yet, we know CO2 is bad for planet.
Those who deny it do so because they have a stake in oil/coal industries.
Politics is about power. Power is pursued for itself. We have a wide range of government agencies that are powerless when things go well, but have absolute power when things go badly. How many of them arrange things to go badly to perpetuate and expand their power? Many believe nearly all major catastrophe, especially those that are touted widely in the media, are engineered.


jacob navia
2015-03-21 23:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a*scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are*not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
Exactly.
Jeff Findley
2015-03-22 15:14:01 UTC
Permalink
In article <mekvfr$cd2$***@speranza.aioe.org>, ***@jacob.remcomp.fr
says...
Post by jacob navia
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a*scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are*not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
Exactly.
Unfortunately, in the US, such statements are taken politically by those
who would ignore the scientists who specialize in climate.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
David Spain
2015-03-24 09:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
Jeff
Jeff,

Normally I'd agree, but Climate Science seems to be a special case.
It has been politicized to the point that appeals to authority that
normally hold in other areas of Science are in doubt. Even the peer
review process in place has been questioned (Climategate emails, etc).
That is how bad it has gotten. I'm afraid it has mostly to do with money
and politics (as usual).

First off, let's get rid of the term Climate Change. That is totally
worthless and contributes nothing to the debate. Of course our climate
changes. It has done so naturally since the beginning of the planet and
will continue until the Sun goes nova and takes out this planet. The
*real* debate is over AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) due to human
combustion of fossil fuels that release CO2 into the atmosphere. Closely
related is the CAGW debate (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming)
which predicts that if AGW is left unabated, we will reach a tipping
point where the Earth's climate will so rapidly change due to global
warming that humanity will not be able to mitigate its effects possibly
leading to our own extinction!

I've been following the whole AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) debate
for almost a decade. The science is truly far from settled. There was a
recent participatory conference held by the APS where the panel was
50/50 split on the idea that CO2 is a significant temperature forcing
function. At least to the extent the model's predict. At this point I'm
wondering if the APS board is as cosy with its position statement on AGW
as it has been in the past.

The 97% figure has even been questioned. That 97% of climate modeler's
wish to defend the accuracy of their models I would not deny. :-)

In the past 17 years or so, satellite data shows surface temperature
have remained static, while the climate models continue to project a
rise in temperature, to the point where the two disagree significantly.

The atmosphere is an extremely complex chaotic system coupled with
radiative forcing and convective transfers from both land and sea.

Until recently the climate model's didn't even take into account cloud
cover.

As I've said before, until the models can be run sufficiently backwards
in time to closely match climatology from -1,000 to -10,000+ years, I
remain skeptical. Not a denier. I loathe that politically charged term
and it has NO PLACE in any scientific debate.

Yes I believe CO2 can affect climate. Will it cause crises and mass
extinctions, death, destruction, calamity world-wide? I remain
skeptical. Show me the data and the physics that demonstrates the
linkage first. I refuse to be fear driven.

Dave
David Spain
2015-03-25 15:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by Jeff Findley
Scientists are a conservative lot by nature and engage in regular peer
reviews of data and papers. When there is a 97% consensus among climate
scientists that warming trends are caused by human activities, I'm not
sure how anyone can make the statement that there is not a *scientific*
consensus on this issue. It seems to me that people who are *not*
climate scientists are the ones who are most vocally claiming that there
is no consensus on this issue and are therefore making this a political
issue rather than a scientific one.
Jeff
Jeff,
The 97% figure has even been questioned. That 97% of climate modeler's
wish to defend the accuracy of their models I would not deny. :-)
http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html
Dave
Robert Clark
2015-03-29 16:14:38 UTC
Permalink
The *original* charter for NASA from 1958 did not include provisions for
Earth studies:

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended).
[Editorial Headnote: "National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958," Public
Law #85-568, 72 Stat., 426. Signed by the President on July 29, 1958, Record
Group 255, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C;
available in NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Page references to original document in
brackets.]
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html

However the new charter supported by Obama and passed by Congress does
include Earth studies:

CHAPTER 201—NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE PROGRAM
SUBCHAPTER I--SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY

The question is should NASA focus on what the original charter was devoted
to. Note, even planetary science supporters should be concerned about this
because the "Earth studies" portion of the funding for NASA now reaches 41%,
cutting greatly into both unmanned space missions and manned missions.

Bob Clark


------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago
with the Titan II first stage.
In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy.
Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time,
and the result will automatically be SSTO.
Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Greg (Strider) Moore
Post by jacob navia
http://www.newsweek.com/nasa-california-has-one-year-water-left-313647
Ted Cruz Tells NASA to Stop Worrying About Climate Change and Focus on Space
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/ted-cruz-tells-nasa-to-stop-worrying-about-climate-change-and-focus-on-space-20150312
If temperature is too high... BREAK THE THERMOMETER!
:-)
Actually I'm fine with this. As long as someone like NOAA or another agency
takes over.
I think monitoring the environment remotely is hugely important and NASA has
a role there in supporting such operations, but it's not really their end
goal.
They should be focusing on space.
Except for the pesky little fact that it's written into NASA's charter!

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#FUNCTIONS

From above:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena
in the atmosphere and space.

In other words, they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. Talk
of taking this responsibility away from NASA is really talk about
changing its charter. And for more historical context, that bit about
Earth was added during the Reagan Administration.

Bottom line for me is that earth science was just fine for the
Republicans, until they started to dislike the data because it conflicts
with their world view. Rather than working on changing their world
view, instead they seem to be opposing collecting more data.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
Jeff Findley
2015-03-30 00:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Clark
The *original* charter for NASA from 1958 did not include provisions for
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended).
[Editorial Headnote: "National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958," Public
Law #85-568, 72 Stat., 426. Signed by the President on July 29, 1958, Record
Group 255, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C;
available in NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Page references to original document in
brackets.]
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html
However the new charter supported by Obama and passed by Congress does
CHAPTER 201?NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE PROGRAM
SUBCHAPTER I--SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY
The question is should NASA focus on what the original charter was devoted
to. Note, even planetary science supporters should be concerned about this
because the "Earth studies" portion of the funding for NASA now reaches 41%,
cutting greatly into both unmanned space missions and manned missions.
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf

From the above document:

(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall
be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the
following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and'2' of
phenomena in the atmosphere and space

'2' The clause, ?of the Earth and? was added by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, 1985,
Pub. L. No. 98-361, § I 10(b), 98 Stat. 422, 426 (Jul. 16, 1984).

So, the fact is that the "Earth" part came from "National Aeronautics
and Space Administration Authorization Act, 1985," Public Law 98-361,
July 16, 1984, section 110(b) (98 Stat. 426). Note that this became law
when *Ronald Reagan* was president and there was a *Republican-
controlled Senate* (either of whom could have stopped the "Earth" bit
from being inserted prominently into NASA's charter).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
Robert Clark
2015-03-30 15:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Clark
The *original* charter for NASA from 1958 did not include provisions for
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended).
[Editorial Headnote: "National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958," Public
Law #85-568, 72 Stat., 426. Signed by the President on July 29, 1958, Record
Group 255, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C;
available in NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Page references to original document in
brackets.]
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html
However the new charter supported by Obama and passed by Congress does
CHAPTER 201--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE PROGRAM
SUBCHAPTER I--SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY
The question is should NASA focus on what the original charter was devoted
to. Note, even planetary science supporters should be concerned about this
because the "Earth studies" portion of the funding for NASA now reaches 41%,
cutting greatly into both unmanned space missions and manned missions.
Bob Clark
CORRECTION: The *increase* in the Earth studies portion of NASA's budget has been 41%, while other sections such as space exploration have much much less.
But the Earth studies portion of NASA's budget is still relatively small.

Bob Clark
William Mook
2015-03-19 10:00:26 UTC
Permalink
The coming breakdown crisis puts pressure on the technicians to come up with solutions. Molecular 3D printers will make food printing a reality. Also, self-replicating nano-machinery will harvest sunlight and produce whatever is desired on demand.

Here's a place to model;

http://www.trianonpalace.com/

It consists of 200 guest rooms capable of supporting 400 persons. A world with 7.12 billion people will require 17.8 million hotels like this. Spread evenly across the land area of Earth in a hexagonal close packed array will see one spaced every 3,830 meters.

An underground moving sidewalk, feeding an underground maglev train system, connects all hotels via great circle routes.




Belt speeds of up to 100 kph will be used over short distances up to 20 km. So, 25 hotels with 10,000 people will be served by these in 12 minutes or less.

Maglev at 500 kph it will carry people and things farther - traveling 12,000 km in 24 hours.
Jeff Findley
2015-03-21 13:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Mook
The coming breakdown crisis puts pressure on the technicians to
come up with solutions. Molecular 3D printers will make food
printing a reality. Also, self-replicating nano-machinery will
harvest sunlight and produce whatever is desired on demand.
This current science fiction has nothing to do with space travel.

Holy crap, I think I'm going to have to killfile you again.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
William Mook
2015-03-27 19:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by William Mook
The coming breakdown crisis puts pressure on the technicians to
come up with solutions. Molecular 3D printers will make food
printing a reality. Also, self-replicating nano-machinery will
harvest sunlight and produce whatever is desired on demand.
This current science fiction
Tell that to Dr. Burke at the University of Illinois

http://3dprint.com/50777/molecular-3d-printer/

I'm sure he'll see the error of his ways and stop all of his research, no matter what sort of funding he gets from companies and government agencies all over the world.
Post by Jeff Findley
has nothing to do with space travel.
Tell that to NASA, I'm sure they'd be quite interested.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27778.0

I'm sure they'll drop their plans to fight world hunger with 3D food printing technology after speaking with you.

http://qz.com/86685/the-audacious-plan-to-end-hunger-with-3-d-printed-food/

(NOT!) lol.
Post by Jeff Findley
Holy crap, I think I'm going to have to killfile you again.
Jeff
PROMISE? You're all talk and no go. Please ignore me. That way I don't have to put up with the reams of abusive, illogical and just plain wrong crap you routinely put out.

I think your problem is you watch too damn much Star Trek! Fact is, to you a 3D chemical synthesizer probably sounds like a food replicator to you, and so your knee jerk reaction is to shit on it. You let you emotional connections with a fictional show sway your logical mind - and as a result - you're not thinking, you're doing something else.

Loading Image...
Post by Jeff Findley
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
bob haller
2015-03-25 15:36:03 UTC
Permalink
if youcome home at night and find the garage door ajar, some lights on you rarely use, and see your front door has been kicked in........

do you waltz caually in your home,?

or call the police to investigate before you enter? jut in case some burglars are still in the building?

global warming ha the potential to be so dangerous, its like possible bad guys in your home.

take precautions.

at this point denying there is omething happening is a foolish move......

leake mead is at the lowest level since hoover dam was built.

when food hortages become the norm, dont complain...... you deserve it
David Spain
2015-03-25 16:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
if youcome home at night and find the garage door ajar, some lights on you rarely use, and see your front door has been kicked in........
do you waltz caually in your home,?
or call the police to investigate before you enter? jut in case some burglars are still in the building?
And it's ok when the police show up that they throw a bomb into your house in order to "safe it"?
Post by bob haller
global warming ha the potential to be so dangerous, its like possible bad guys in your home.
take precautions.
Like throwing a bomb into your house, it may or may not be worth $30 trillion dollars worth of precaution...
Post by bob haller
at this point denying there is omething happening is a foolish move......
'There's a man with a gun [computer] over there... A tellin' me a I got to beware...'

Dave
David Spain
2015-03-25 20:40:49 UTC
Permalink
To get back to the OP. It might behoove California to revise it's agricultural water usage plans rather than impose a carbon tax, say 50% additional on the price of gasoline?
jacob navia
2015-03-26 23:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
To get back to the OP. It might behoove California to revise it's agricultural
water usage plans rather than impose a carbon tax, say 50% additional on
the price of gasoline?
Sure, but why is this drought happening?

New York, and specially Manhattan is going to get drowned. They propose
to build huge damms to stop the waters...
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/nyregion/protecting-new-york-city-before-next-time.html?pagewanted=all)

Just try to cope with the consequences, never speaking about the causes
of the phenomena we all see. Every day there is a small notice in the
sccientific literature. Today's, for instance we can read this:

Artic ice shelves rapidly thinning
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150326151432.htm

But that is normal...

Many parts of Florida will disappear. But since this is going to happen
slowly in human terms, the people doing the bad decisions now will not
have to endure the consequences.

Who cares about what will happen in 20-30 years?

Let's go on polluting now. Let's build more pipelines, extract more oil
through fracking, transform most of what is left from the U.S. into a
wasteland. This is good for the economy, it brings jobs and profits NOW!

Millions of people in California are going to start feeling the problems
in the next years... And that without the other ecological time bombs:

The Salton Sea: A Time-Bomb Amid California Drought
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/a392e5f5b0404ca262138bb04db5a95d.htm

But that will only afftect the health of a few million people, who cares?

Nobody, most of the victims do not read scientific news reports and
still believe that the bible will solve their problems.

Obviously *some* people know what they are doing. But they do not care,
they think they are going to get away with it. As they have done till now.

Mr McCall reminds me of the guy that is falling from the 50th floor.

What? Falling from the 50th floor dangerous? You idiot. I have fallen
already 48 floors and NOTHING has happened!

I note however, that there is a change in the vocabulary. Even Mr McCall
doesn't deny that the clima is changing. Now, the arguments run:

"It has always changed, it is just not man-made"

In europe we will get colder. The gulf stream is weakening, so we will
have a wetter and colder time.

The U.S. will support most of the consequences of the change. But they
still think that they have some time left.
William Mook
2015-03-27 05:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Post by David Spain
To get back to the OP. It might behoove California to revise it's agricultural
water usage plans rather than impose a carbon tax, say 50% additional on
the price of gasoline?
Sure, but why is this drought happening?
Weather control is an established fact. The USAF has sought to control the weather since 1996.

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

There has been a covert program operational since 1996 to combat global warming through the spread of aerosols managed by Edward Teller.

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/Teller_etal_LLNL231636_1997.pdf

Since then the program has been broadly active. It has undergone mission creep, through the addition of biological and chemical agents that reduce fertility and spread long-term diseases that shorten human life. Furthermore, programmes have been proposed openly, and very likely implemented covertly as an adjunct to this program, that deploy hibernating disease vectors across a territory by aerosol spray, which are then remotely activated by microwave or gamma ray burst. By covertly seeding large tracts of land in this way, regions can be rendered uninhabitable by remote control if and when needed.

Now any large population of individuals will have about 4% of that population be criminal psychopaths. Those of low IQ self-identify and are easily isolated. Any population will also have about 1/6th % HIGH FUNCTIONING. This means that 67 people per million of any population will possess high functioning psychopaths. Now with 21,295,000 government employees, we can predict with certainty that 1,426 of them will be high functioning psychopaths. These individuals will tend to rise to the highest level in any meritocracy, and by operation of the Peter Principle, will undermine and sabotage capable competitors. Once they have power they will not relinquish it. There 315,255,000 American citizens. There are 21,112 high functioning psychopaths in that population as well.

So, when we create a situation that allows the government, and its contractors, to control the weather, and use the mechanism to carry out other programs deemed worthy by the military, these 1,426 government employees, and 21,112 contractors, will be drawn to them if they can be manipulated to provide very large gains in personal power and wealth. Being geniuses all, they will be very clever in creating situations that benefit them in ways that are undetectable, and very clever in covering their asses if discovered, using whatever force is necessary to maintain their power and wealth.

To this end, we have an explanation of the droughts in the most productive lands in the country, when we stop to consider the impact those droughts have on farm prices, food futures, land prices, and so on.

What if you could create a drought and cause food prices to spike and land prices and farm prices to fall? Would you do it?

According to the USDA the 2014 drought has cost California farmers $21.3 billion alone. The value of California farm land has plummeted to the lowest prices in decades. The value of nuts, fruits, vegetables, that California produces has skyrocketed. Literally trillions of dollars have changed hands.

Now, what if you could communicate and otherwise control a weather modification program? What if you could work through the futures markets to benefit from price spikes in certain commodities? What if you could arrange to take those profits and buy up troubled farms in normally highly productive areas?

Would you do it? Would anyone get together to make $1 trillion or more in a few years?








Post by David Spain
New York, and specially Manhattan is going to get drowned. They propose
to build huge damms to stop the waters...
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/nyregion/protecting-new-york-city-before-next-time.html?pagewanted=all)
Just try to cope with the consequences, never speaking about the causes
of the phenomena we all see. Every day there is a small notice in the
Artic ice shelves rapidly thinning
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150326151432.htm
But that is normal...
Many parts of Florida will disappear. But since this is going to happen
slowly in human terms, the people doing the bad decisions now will not
have to endure the consequences.
Who cares about what will happen in 20-30 years?
Let's go on polluting now. Let's build more pipelines, extract more oil
through fracking, transform most of what is left from the U.S. into a
wasteland. This is good for the economy, it brings jobs and profits NOW!
Millions of people in California are going to start feeling the problems
The Salton Sea: A Time-Bomb Amid California Drought
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/a392e5f5b0404ca262138bb04db5a95d.htm
But that will only afftect the health of a few million people, who cares?
Nobody, most of the victims do not read scientific news reports and
still believe that the bible will solve their problems.
Obviously *some* people know what they are doing. But they do not care,
they think they are going to get away with it. As they have done till now.
Mr McCall reminds me of the guy that is falling from the 50th floor.
What? Falling from the 50th floor dangerous? You idiot. I have fallen
already 48 floors and NOTHING has happened!
I note however, that there is a change in the vocabulary. Even Mr McCall
"It has always changed, it is just not man-made"
In europe we will get colder. The gulf stream is weakening, so we will
have a wetter and colder time.
The U.S. will support most of the consequences of the change. But they
still think that they have some time left.
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-27 10:26:15 UTC
Permalink
And there's the loon...
Post by William Mook
Post by David Spain
Post by David Spain
To get back to the OP. It might behoove California to revise it's agricultural
water usage plans rather than impose a carbon tax, say 50% additional on
the price of gasoline?
Sure, but why is this drought happening?
Weather control is an established fact. The USAF has sought to control the weather since 1996.
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
There has been a covert program operational since 1996 to combat global warming through the spread of aerosols managed by Edward Teller.
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/Teller_etal_LLNL231636_1997.pdf
Since then the program has been broadly active. It has undergone mission creep, through the addition of biological and chemical agents that reduce fertility and spread long-term diseases that shorten human life. Furthermore, programmes have been proposed openly, and very likely implemented covertly as an adjunct to this program, that deploy hibernating disease vectors across a territory by aerosol spray, which are then remotely activated by microwave or gamma ray burst. By covertly seeding large tracts of land in this way, regions can be rendered uninhabitable by remote control if and when needed.
Now any large population of individuals will have about 4% of that population be criminal psychopaths. Those of low IQ self-identify and are easily isolated. Any population will also have about 1/6th % HIGH FUNCTIONING. This means that 67 people per million of any population will possess high functioning psychopaths. Now with 21,295,000 government employees, we can predict with certainty that 1,426 of them will be high functioning psychopaths. These individuals will tend to rise to the highest level in any meritocracy, and by operation of the Peter Principle, will undermine and sabotage capable competitors. Once they have power they will not relinquish it. There 315,255,000 American citizens. There are 21,112 high functioning psychopaths in that population as well.
So, when we create a situation that allows the government, and its contractors, to control the weather, and use the mechanism to carry out other programs deemed worthy by the military, these 1,426 government employees, and 21,112 contractors, will be drawn to them if they can be manipulated to provide very large gains in personal power and wealth. Being geniuses all, they will be very clever in creating situations that benefit them in ways that are undetectable, and very clever in covering their asses if discovered, using whatever force is necessary to maintain their power and wealth.
To this end, we have an explanation of the droughts in the most productive lands in the country, when we stop to consider the impact those droughts have on farm prices, food futures, land prices, and so on.
What if you could create a drought and cause food prices to spike and land prices and farm prices to fall? Would you do it?
According to the USDA the 2014 drought has cost California farmers $21.3 billion alone. The value of California farm land has plummeted to the lowest prices in decades. The value of nuts, fruits, vegetables, that California produces has skyrocketed. Literally trillions of dollars have changed hands.
Now, what if you could communicate and otherwise control a weather modification program? What if you could work through the futures markets to benefit from price spikes in certain commodities? What if you could arrange to take those profits and buy up troubled farms in normally highly productive areas?
Would you do it? Would anyone get together to make $1 trillion or more in a few years?
http://youtu.be/5QOVdE_3anU
http://youtu.be/jf0khstYDLA
http://youtu.be/TGsi7JaV6gs
http://youtu.be/q8R_SEmjTO0
Post by David Spain
New York, and specially Manhattan is going to get drowned. They propose
to build huge damms to stop the waters...
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/nyregion/protecting-new-york-city-before-next-time.html?pagewanted=all)
Just try to cope with the consequences, never speaking about the causes
of the phenomena we all see. Every day there is a small notice in the
Artic ice shelves rapidly thinning
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150326151432.htm
But that is normal...
Many parts of Florida will disappear. But since this is going to happen
slowly in human terms, the people doing the bad decisions now will not
have to endure the consequences.
Who cares about what will happen in 20-30 years?
Let's go on polluting now. Let's build more pipelines, extract more oil
through fracking, transform most of what is left from the U.S. into a
wasteland. This is good for the economy, it brings jobs and profits NOW!
Millions of people in California are going to start feeling the problems
The Salton Sea: A Time-Bomb Amid California Drought
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/a392e5f5b0404ca262138bb04db5a95d.htm
But that will only afftect the health of a few million people, who cares?
Nobody, most of the victims do not read scientific news reports and
still believe that the bible will solve their problems.
Obviously *some* people know what they are doing. But they do not care,
they think they are going to get away with it. As they have done till now.
Mr McCall reminds me of the guy that is falling from the 50th floor.
What? Falling from the 50th floor dangerous? You idiot. I have fallen
already 48 floors and NOTHING has happened!
I note however, that there is a change in the vocabulary. Even Mr McCall
"It has always changed, it is just not man-made"
In europe we will get colder. The gulf stream is weakening, so we will
have a wetter and colder time.
The U.S. will support most of the consequences of the change. But they
still think that they have some time left.
William Mook
2015-03-27 19:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
And there's the loon...
Post by William Mook
Post by David Spain
Post by David Spain
To get back to the OP. It might behoove California to revise it's agricultural
water usage plans rather than impose a carbon tax, say 50% additional on
the price of gasoline?
Sure, but why is this drought happening?
Weather control is an established fact. The USAF has sought to control the weather since 1996.
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
There has been a covert program operational since 1996 to combat global warming through the spread of aerosols managed by Edward Teller.
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/Teller_etal_LLNL231636_1997.pdf
Since then the program has been broadly active. It has undergone mission creep, through the addition of biological and chemical agents that reduce fertility and spread long-term diseases that shorten human life. Furthermore, programmes have been proposed openly, and very likely implemented covertly as an adjunct to this program, that deploy hibernating disease vectors across a territory by aerosol spray, which are then remotely activated by microwave or gamma ray burst. By covertly seeding large tracts of land in this way, regions can be rendered uninhabitable by remote control if and when needed.
Now any large population of individuals will have about 4% of that population be criminal psychopaths. Those of low IQ self-identify and are easily isolated. Any population will also have about 1/6th % HIGH FUNCTIONING. This means that 67 people per million of any population will possess high functioning psychopaths. Now with 21,295,000 government employees, we can predict with certainty that 1,426 of them will be high functioning psychopaths. These individuals will tend to rise to the highest level in any meritocracy, and by operation of the Peter Principle, will undermine and sabotage capable competitors. Once they have power they will not relinquish it. There 315,255,000 American citizens. There are 21,112 high functioning psychopaths in that population as well.
So, when we create a situation that allows the government, and its contractors, to control the weather, and use the mechanism to carry out other programs deemed worthy by the military, these 1,426 government employees, and 21,112 contractors, will be drawn to them if they can be manipulated to provide very large gains in personal power and wealth. Being geniuses all, they will be very clever in creating situations that benefit them in ways that are undetectable, and very clever in covering their asses if discovered, using whatever force is necessary to maintain their power and wealth.
To this end, we have an explanation of the droughts in the most productive lands in the country, when we stop to consider the impact those droughts have on farm prices, food futures, land prices, and so on.
What if you could create a drought and cause food prices to spike and land prices and farm prices to fall? Would you do it?
According to the USDA the 2014 drought has cost California farmers $21.3 billion alone. The value of California farm land has plummeted to the lowest prices in decades. The value of nuts, fruits, vegetables, that California produces has skyrocketed. Literally trillions of dollars have changed hands.
Now, what if you could communicate and otherwise control a weather modification program? What if you could work through the futures markets to benefit from price spikes in certain commodities? What if you could arrange to take those profits and buy up troubled farms in normally highly productive areas?
Would you do it? Would anyone get together to make $1 trillion or more in a few years?
http://youtu.be/5QOVdE_3anU
http://youtu.be/jf0khstYDLA
http://youtu.be/TGsi7JaV6gs
http://youtu.be/q8R_SEmjTO0
Post by David Spain
New York, and specially Manhattan is going to get drowned. They propose
to build huge damms to stop the waters...
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/nyregion/protecting-new-york-city-before-next-time.html?pagewanted=all)
Just try to cope with the consequences, never speaking about the causes
of the phenomena we all see. Every day there is a small notice in the
Artic ice shelves rapidly thinning
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150326151432.htm
But that is normal...
Many parts of Florida will disappear. But since this is going to happen
slowly in human terms, the people doing the bad decisions now will not
have to endure the consequences.
Who cares about what will happen in 20-30 years?
Let's go on polluting now. Let's build more pipelines, extract more oil
through fracking, transform most of what is left from the U.S. into a
wasteland. This is good for the economy, it brings jobs and profits NOW!
Millions of people in California are going to start feeling the problems
The Salton Sea: A Time-Bomb Amid California Drought
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/a392e5f5b0404ca262138bb04db5a95d.htm
But that will only afftect the health of a few million people, who cares?
Nobody, most of the victims do not read scientific news reports and
still believe that the bible will solve their problems.
Obviously *some* people know what they are doing. But they do not care,
they think they are going to get away with it. As they have done till now.
Mr McCall reminds me of the guy that is falling from the 50th floor.
What? Falling from the 50th floor dangerous? You idiot. I have fallen
already 48 floors and NOTHING has happened!
I note however, that there is a change in the vocabulary. Even Mr McCall
"It has always changed, it is just not man-made"
In europe we will get colder. The gulf stream is weakening, so we will
have a wetter and colder time.
The U.S. will support most of the consequences of the change. But they
still think that they have some time left.
You're the lunatic who can't accept a fact if it reminds you of the abuse you suffered as a child. So, you've got to be the good little boy who believes what his daddy says. Blame your daddy, but don't blame me.
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-28 02:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Mook
Post by Fred J. McCall
And there's the loon...
<snip idiocy>
Post by William Mook
You're the lunatic who can't accept a fact if it reminds you of the abuse you suffered as a child. So, you've got to be the good little boy who believes what his daddy says. Blame your daddy, but don't blame me.
Mookie has had a delusion and now acts as if it is fact. I wonder if
insanity is considered a defense against libel?

Projection, Mookie? Did your Daddy not love you or love you all to
much? Yeah....
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
David Spain
2015-03-27 14:37:57 UTC
Permalink
[things]
What you've shown me largely is, even if these dire predictions turn out to be true (and the models predicting them are suspect IMHO), the idea that there is one central all-knowing, all-omniscient authority that will solve all our complex problems is largely a reflection of your own political outlook rather than anything I can use to gage effectiveness of any mitigation policy. In fact, why need there *always* be a policy? If the time frames are as gradual as most predict, (the consensus opinion might I add!), why not just let the free market & free enterprise sort it out. Oh that's right I forgot, we're too stupid to stop in time to "to the right thing". Therefore we need government coercion to force us on the "right" path.

Again I will chose data driven over fear driven every time...

Dave
bob haller
2015-03-27 16:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
[things]
What you've shown me largely is, even if these dire predictions turn out to be true (and the models predicting them are suspect IMHO), the idea that there is one central all-knowing, all-omniscient authority that will solve all our complex problems is largely a reflection of your own political outlook rather than anything I can use to gage effectiveness of any mitigation policy. In fact, why need there *always* be a policy? If the time frames are as gradual as most predict, (the consensus opinion might I add!), why not just let the free market & free enterprise sort it out. Oh that's right I forgot, we're too stupid to stop in time to "to the right thing". Therefore we need government coercion to force us on the "right" path.
Again I will chose data driven over fear driven every time...
Dave
If this occurs slowly over say 100 years, it might be acceptable.

however problems like the california drought, is going to impact each and every person.


its going to cost mega trillions to mitigate the problems
David Spain
2015-03-27 19:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
If this occurs slowly over say 100 years, it might be acceptable.
however problems like the california drought, is going to impact each and every person.
Not me. *I* don't live in Californication. In fact if the current issues of the pop model pulp fictions (well minus the pulp, tree ring proxies are no longer in favor I hear) are correct, I'm in for extra rainfall...
Post by bob haller
its going to cost mega trillions to mitigate the problems
Ah yes, the socialist "collective" in action.
When your water bill goes up to $100 per cu ft. maybe a move might be in order?

And before anyone hands me the "you can't move off planet" load, remember, California's water problems have been *decades* in the making and didn't start with climate change nor will it end with climate change mitigation whatever claptrap that means.

Dave
jacob navia
2015-03-27 20:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
Ah yes, the socialist "collective" in action.
When your water bill goes up to $100 per cu ft. maybe a move might be in order?
And before anyone hands me the "you can't move off planet" load, remember, California's water problems have been*decades*
in the making and didn't start with climate change nor will it end with
climate change mitigation whatever claptrap that means.

YES SIR!

Let's go on polluting then!

MORE SUVs!

More fracking!

I think you are 100% right.

You, and your country, deserve your future!
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-28 02:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by David Spain
[things]
What you've shown me largely is, even if these dire predictions turn out to be true (and the models predicting them are suspect IMHO), the idea that there is one central all-knowing, all-omniscient authority that will solve all our complex problems is largely a reflection of your own political outlook rather than anything I can use to gage effectiveness of any mitigation policy. In fact, why need there *always* be a policy? If the time frames are as gradual as most predict, (the consensus opinion might I add!), why not just let the free market & free enterprise sort it out. Oh that's right I forgot, we're too stupid to stop in time to "to the right thing". Therefore we need government coercion to force us on the "right" path.
Again I will chose data driven over fear driven every time...
Dave
If this occurs slowly over say 100 years, it might be acceptable.
however problems like the california drought, is going to impact each and every person.
This is hardly the first drought in the history of the planet.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
JF Mezei
2015-03-31 00:50:30 UTC
Permalink
To climate change deniers:

When tree huggers started to warn about ozone layer, they were dismissed
as "tree huggers" despite scientists saying it was a true problem.

When scientists discovered huge ozone holes at the poles, and statistics
started to show increase in skin cancers in australia, the politicians
woke up, and it didn't take long for them to take strong action with the
Montréal protocol (late 1980s) banning production of CFCs. It didn't
take that long for all aerosol cans to change their propellant. CFCs
still exist, but in much smaller quantities, and the world economy did
not suddently end because we have to stop using CFCs.

Consider this: the "global warming/climate change" warnings have gone on
for much longer than the ozone warnings did. The deniers have not been
able to provde any evidence that climate change is NOT occuring. They
have not been able to prove the theories wrong, and those theories keep
getting more and more proven with time. Hint: if climate change
therories were so wrong, they would have been proven wrong by now. They
haven't.

The evicence keeps on mounting, yet, the deniers continue to resist.
Why ? Because contrary to the CFC producers who could shift to producing
less harmfull gases, the oil and coal industries can't suddently shift
to producing stuff that doesn't release into atmosphere carbon that had
been sequestered underground for thousands of years.
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-31 02:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
When tree huggers started to warn about ozone layer, they were dismissed
as "tree huggers" despite scientists saying it was a true problem.
When scientists discovered huge ozone holes at the poles, and statistics
started to show increase in skin cancers in australia, the politicians
woke up, and it didn't take long for them to take strong action with the
Montréal protocol (late 1980s) banning production of CFCs. It didn't
take that long for all aerosol cans to change their propellant. CFCs
still exist, but in much smaller quantities, and the world economy did
not suddently end because we have to stop using CFCs.
Consider this: the "global warming/climate change" warnings have gone on
for much longer than the ozone warnings did. The deniers have not been
able to provde any evidence that climate change is NOT occuring. They
have not been able to prove the theories wrong, and those theories keep
getting more and more proven with time. Hint: if climate change
therories were so wrong, they would have been proven wrong by now. They
haven't.
The evicence keeps on mounting, yet, the deniers continue to resist.
Why ? Because contrary to the CFC producers who could shift to producing
less harmfull gases, the oil and coal industries can't suddently shift
to producing stuff that doesn't release into atmosphere carbon that had
been sequestered underground for thousands of years.
Which part of 'no statistically significant global warming for almost
20 years' is it that's confusing you?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Snidely
2015-03-27 05:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Spain
To get back to the OP. It might behoove California to revise it's
agricultural water usage plans rather than impose a carbon tax, say 50%
additional on the price of gasoline?
Well, yes, agriculture does use more water than cities do. On the
other hand, I don't fancy chewing on houses for my next meal.

/dps
--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-26 02:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
if youcome home at night and find the garage door ajar, some lights on you rarely use, and see your front door has been kicked in........
do you waltz caually in your home,?
No, I enter carefully, prepared to kill some idiot like you.
Post by bob haller
or call the police to investigate before you enter? jut in case some burglars are still in the building?
global warming ha the potential to be so dangerous, its like possible bad guys in your home.
That makes no sense at all. And we must remember that Bob "Chicken
Little" Haller thinks almost everything is an impending disaster about
to happen.
Post by bob haller
take precautions.
at this point denying there is omething happening is a foolish move......
leake mead is at the lowest level since hoover dam was built.
And just how do you determine appropriate policies without models that
can actually predict what will happen in response to your actions?
Post by bob haller
when food hortages become the norm, dont complain...... you deserve it
When you've spent all your resources on measures that make no
difference and food hortages become the norm, it will be a simple case
of suicide of the stupid.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
William Mook
2015-03-27 04:48:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
if youcome home at night and find the garage door ajar, some lights on you rarely use, and see your front door has been kicked in........
do you waltz caually in your home,?
Yeah, after I get my gun out of the glove box. Sure.
Post by bob haller
or call the police to investigate before you enter?
No, I investigate, and assure myself no one is in the house.
Post by bob haller
just in case some burglars are still in the building?
Those people will die.
Post by bob haller
global warming ha the potential to be so dangerous, its like possible bad guys in your home.
Well, your comparison is flawed in this regard, you didn't come home and see for yourself that your front door is kicked in. You are relying on a trusted friend's telephone report that the front door is kicked in while you're on vacation in Tahiti, as an explanation of his entering your house and taking all your valuables.
Post by bob haller
take precautions.
CO2 levels long ago were far higher than they are today. H2O vapor also blocks IR. Its not clear that CO2 levels contribute more than 20% of the warming that we see. We also see warming on Mars. Some have suggested that changing background radiation changes the cloud cover on Earth and Mars and consequently changes their albedo. This is a far more direct driver of global warming than CO2.

Now, getting rid of CO2 is still a good idea! CO2 levels are so high that pH in the oceans is changing due to CO2 absorption. Reliance on diminishing supplies of fossil fuels is driving us toward war. Low cost solar power is possible. Low cost aneutronic fusion has been suppressed and needs to come into the open. We need to abandon oil. Doing so for faulty or specious reasons only helps those who benefit from energy scarcity and from reliance on fossil fuels.
Post by bob haller
at this point denying there is omething happening is a foolish move......
leake mead is at the lowest level since hoover dam was built.
when food hortages become the norm, dont complain...... you deserve it
bob haller
2015-03-30 03:15:13 UTC
Permalink
significant sea level increases can cause such dramatic economic problems, that will definetely impact the nations security
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-30 14:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
significant sea level increases can cause such dramatic economic problems, that will definetely impact the nations security
Only if there actually ARE "significant sea level increases"...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
bob haller
2015-03-30 17:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
significant sea level increases can cause such dramatic economic problems, that will definetely impact the nations security
Only if there actually ARE "significant sea level increases"...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
ahh when KSC is under water will tat convince you?

39a & b are right at sea level
Fred J. McCall
2015-03-31 02:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
significant sea level increases can cause such dramatic economic problems, that will definetely impact the nations security
Only if there actually ARE "significant sea level increases"...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
ahh when KSC is under water will tat convince you?
39a & b are right at sea level
Which planet is that on, Bobbert, because it's certainly not this one.

"The Launch Complex 39 Pads A and B are roughly octagonal in shape.
Each covers about 0.25- square-mile (0.65-square-kilometer) of land,
contained within a high chain link fence. Space Shuttles launch from
the top of the concrete hardstand in the center of the pad. The Pad A
stand is 48 feet (14.6 meters) above sea level at its top, while the
upper surface at Pad B is at an elevation of 55 feet (16.8 meters)."

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count4.htm
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
William Mook
2015-03-30 09:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by jacob navia
http://www.newsweek.com/nasa-california-has-one-year-water-left-313647
Ted Cruz Tells NASA to Stop Worrying About Climate Change and Focus on Space
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/ted-cruz-tells-nasa-to-stop-worrying-about-climate-change-and-focus-on-space-20150312
If temperature is too high... BREAK THE THERMOMETER!
:-)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-23/saudis-start-production-at-world-s-biggest-desalination-plant

The world's largest desalination plant produces 264 million US gallons per day.

The Ras al-Khair desalination plant is a hybrid plant that uses heat and electricity to desalt Persian gulf water at a rate of 264 million US gallons per day. It uses waste heat from the production of 2.6 GW of electricity, and uses a combination of heat and surplus electricity to desalt water.

http://www.water-technology.net/projects/-ras-al-khair-desalination-plant/

Most very large plants uses multi-stage evaporation, especially if the salt is to be recovered. Reverse osmosis plants are energetically more efficient, however, they have a higher capital cost, higher operating cost, due to frequent replacement of reverse osmosis filters, and a shorter life span. You also produce a brine output with RO which must be discharged back into the ocean well away from the ocean intake. The brine volume is added to the fresh water volume in handling water, which has an energy and capital cost as well.


For this reason, in very large installations, multi-stage evaporation is favoured over RO. Though the use of RO on this scale is a testament to the advances in RO technology. So, RO is an up and coming tech. Has been for the past 20 years.

With a 2.6 GW electrical output you nave 6.5 GW thermal input. The electricity is sold, and the heat is used in a multi-stage evaporator to make fresh water. Unsold electricity fires up the RO plant and adds to the water supply made with waste heat. In this way the heat is mitigated.

In the Gulf States you typically have gas which is flared since the cost of transport is too high. For local consumption this is captured and burned. To produce 6.5 GW thermal input you need 481 tons of gas per hour.

Now California uses 57 GW of power according to the DOE EIA. The water used to cool these plants is withdrawn from fres water supplies. It is not reused for public supply. Clearly there is a benefit if;

(1) Sea water is desalted using waste heat,
(2) The desalted water simultaneously cools the plant,
(3) The desalted water is used for public supply,
(4) Waste water is used to irrigate farms,
(5) Irrigated land is within greenhouses to reduce evaporation,
(6) Irrigation waste is recycled,

What is the impact of this?

Now, LA uses 7.3 GW of electrical power.

We have 2.2 GW of power comes from the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant. Another 2.8 GW comes from the MOss Landing Power Plant, 2.0 GW of power comes from AES Alamitos Gas Power plant, 1.5 GW comes from the Ormond Beach Power plant.

These are places to start.

So, we make use of the heat in these power plants, to drive a multi-stage evaporator, while cooling the plant and arrange to buy surplus electrical power when available, to drive RO filters, we will produce 22x the output of Ras al-Kahair plant - 5.8 billion gallons per day at a cost of $154 billion which translates to $8.38 per 1000 gallons at typical discount rates.

The California PERS has over $1 trillion in funds that it could bring to bear on a project such as this.

California uses 38 billion gallons of water per day. 6.6 billion gallons per day is used as cooling water for power plants. This could be reduced to 5.8 billion gallons per day with the installation of more advanced systems using water desalination as a component.

Reuse of this desalted water for human consumption supplies 5.8 billion gallons per day.

So, this subtracts off the 6.3 billion gallons per day is used as the public water supply leaving 0.5 billion gallons per day from fresh water sources.

According to the USGS

Total......... 37969

Irrigation.... 23056
Thermoelectric 6601
Public Supply. 6307
Aquaculture... 973
Industrial.... 400
Mining........ 272
Livestock..... 188
Self Supply... 172

Growing plants under glass and recycling water in these facilities radically reduces water demand for irrigation to about 20% conventional levels. So, that is reduced to 4.6 billion gallons per day when instituted. Furthermore, waste water has nutrients in it that are suitable for plants, once disease vectors are eliminated.

So, a near term program would entail;

(1) Conversion of agriculture to greenhouses
(2) Reuse of waste water as irrigation for green houses,
(3) Reuse desalted cooling water from power plants for public supply.
(4) Use of waste heat in power plants for desalination to increase supply.
(5) Use of salt water for thermoelectric cooling.

In this way 38 billion gallons per day is reduced to 2.1 billion gallons per day, providing a 33.9 billion gallon per day surplus.

Now the USDA reports 7.9 million acres in California is irrigated.

http://ers.usda.gov/topics/in-the-news/california-drought-2014-farm-and-food-impacts/california-drought-2014-farms.aspx

It costs about $1 million per acre to put irrigated land under a glass greenhouse. It costs $400,000 per acre to put land under a plastic film greenhouse. Recovery of evaporated water in a greenhouse reduces water consumption by 80%. Another $500,000 per acre installs improved water management systems.

Even with the high priced spread this is $11.9 billion to cover this acreage. It saves 18.4 billion in irrigation water - and by reuse of waste water from public sewage - use is reduced to zero.

The reduced water handling - which is energy intensive normally - is reduced. Surplus energy is redirected toward air handling and temperature control - which changes energy impact by reducing energy needs, and increasing yields. Furthermore, the spread of pollutants is reduced the need for fertilizer is reduced, and the recycling of waste radically reduces adverse environmental impact. Finally, control of insects and reduced biohazards, mean less sales of insecticide.

http://www.zeecol.com/

The $8.70 per 1,000 gallons can be allocated to the different users to pay for the system. Power plants, Public users, Farmers, Industry, each pays $2.00 per 1000 gallons - and each gets a benefit in addition to water. Farmers for example, get greenhouse and improved water management.

If we wished to fee ourselves from natural gas and nuclear power we could do so, using advanced hydrogen producing solar panels as described here;

https://vimeo.com/52213948

Now beyond this more conventional approach, it is possible to harvest water from air, according to MIT scientists;



http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/innovation/this-tower-pulls-drinking-water-out-of-thin-air-180950399/

A square meter of mesh produces 3 gallons per day in California along the coast according to UC Davis USGS and Berkeley Lab study done in 2014.

Whether you love fog,
https://vimeo.com/69445362

Or hate it,


A mesh arc over a free way, 40 meters in diameter and 20 meters tall eliminates intense fog conditions like that above inside the arc while collecting 300,000 gallons per day. To collect 6.8 billion gallons of water requires 22,670 miles of sea coast highways to be covered with water collecting mesh and channels. The rain water run off would also be captured nearly doubling the amount collected. Lighting and road maintenance of affected roadways would be improved, and advertising could be sold along the roadway to defray costs.


Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...