$4 Million for Climate Change research

Okay so those bits you agree with but these bits

Earth System Research Laboratory
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
Climate Program Office
National Climatic Data Center
National Geophysical Data Center
National Oceanographic Data Center
Climate Prediction Center

are the bits you don't agree with yes?

 

You've not said anything BB... why list a bunch of agencies? I'm not interested in the politics of misleading people by giving massaged snapshots such as press releases and reports, which are designed to send a specific message to a type of audience..... my posts were talking about the data which reflects a wider truth. If you disagree with my post and its data then feel free to say so and why, otherwise listing a bunch of agencies as some sort of justification of anything is a bit of a waste of time as it has zero value to the discussion.

My data shows a clear correlation between solar activity and sea surface temperature, which explains the current heating much more then human influences.

Gore's campaign was a smoke screen to make money, and the scientific community got behind it to feather their nests and drive environmentlism. The later I support - but not at the cost of truth and spreading ignorance.

 

This is one of the issues that many of the alarmist either don't know or have never been told, that sea surface temperature is caused by the sun. This is something that is widely known in science but not reported in press releases. For instance, the Pacific covers 1/2 of the world and has the largest affect on northern hemisphere weather with ENSO which is caused by wind and weather patterns along with the PDO and AMO which are caused by ocean currents. The idea that the atmospheric warming is hiding in the deep oceans beggers belief because for the atmosphere to transfer warmth to the deep ocean it would have to transfer heat to the sun warmed surface first. If you know anything about heat content, that would be akin to a gnat affecting the path of a Mack truck.

The ocean heat transfer is heating more at the equator and that heat circulates to the poles where it is released to space. A critical temperature control at the equator is cloud formation which reflects the heat back to space and the hotter it is at the equator, the earlier clouds form. This, of course, only happens on the sun facing side of the oceans. This is why the temperature at the equator has not changed more than 1C for a millennia.

Of course this is one thing that is not modeled very well, clouds, yet they are critical in temperature control.

 

All of those are part of NOAA and are to be found on the left hand side of the screen http://www.noaa.gov/about-noaa.html

And again you are claiming to agree with the science of NOAA but are seemingly distrusting the conclusions the science is showing

 

So you've got nothing except empty hubris hey!? Fair enough, that's all Al Gore had as well and look at how many simpletons came out to support him. If its popular opinion you want, then I can understand why your standards are so low.

My conclusions are supported by the data, duh... if you disagree, show me in the data I've provided or provide better data. Dont just keep prattling on about me being wrong and you being right, with nothing to back it up.... its starting to seem like reading a preschooler's level of posting.

As I've said its not political for me, and I stopped following when the data coming out to support AGW was fiddled and framed to mislead - it means you've a perfect opportunity to show me up with your 'better' data you must have. If all you have is the word of scientists then you've got nothing.

 

I suppose the billions spent on climate science by government, mostly for modeling, has no effect.

There is no conspiracy, only incentive.

 

I suppose you prefer Christopher Monckton? I mean HE has such a great record of being on the money with climate change

I am not disagreeing with the conclusions - I am saying I AGREE with the conclusions backed by NOAA - ALL of them. I am not cherry picking the bits I want to believe and then trying to claim I am basing my beliefs on "science"

But I do not have to defend myself when my opposition shows so clearly where the logical errors lie in their own arguments

 

You mean the same NOAA that just adjusted the land/ocean surface data again to make May the warmest month. The dataset that now disagrees with all other datasets? That NOAA?

 

I dunno anything about Monckton, as I've said I lost interest when Al Gore came out with his BS and the whole illusion of AGW began.

If you agree with my data and conclusions then your position is that global warming is being driven by solar activity and has nothing (effectively nothing, obviously it has a local effect and slight overall system effect) to do with human pollution.

 

I have this rule - anyone who uses Al Gore (who is an ex politician from America and NOT a climate scientist) as a reason for not believing in the findings of climate scientists (a more scientific approach BTW ) is invited to compare Gore with Monkton

You have NOT proven that global warming is being primarily driven by solar activity because your argument has some huge holes - mostly that solar activity, if anything has been reduced

 

There is a known delay between change in solar activity and temperature on Earth. Since satellite temperature records cannot find any warming for two decades, it may already be here.

BTW, using a graph that is outdated from a cartoonists alarmist blog is not really good for quality science authenticity.

 

What's the source and what were the techniques for that? Also the smaller the range of data (both temperature and time in your graph) the less useful it is.... but even on yours you can see a direct correlation up until the 1980's... where they probably switched their data source for solar activity at that point. Previously it was observation of the sun but now its probably stuff like spot measurements in orbit or on the ground (being W/m^2 in your graph). The problem with using satellites to measure point levels is they ignore the channeling of energy through the magnetic field which could be driving variance at polar regions more generally. The only way to compare data is to include how it was collected otherwise your wasting everyones time.....

... and why would I bother with comparing anyone with Gore? To what end? You can if it makes you feel better but I"m not sure how its relevant.

 

What else would you guys come up with to further ignore climate change?
Regards

 

According to Dems and President, Climate Change is a fact, undisputable. So what research needs $4m funding? If it is a fact, what is the $4m for?

There is not a Scientist on Earth or any intelligent college graduate that doesn't concur with the fact that the climate is changing. Because it has and always will be changing regardless of what we Humans do. Can we attempt to slow it somewhat? Probably. But most Scientist agree that even if we stop using all fossil fuels, world wide, we will only have a small effect on the climate.

Instead, we should put our funding into research on how to adapt to the climates change. There is a need to be prepared for potential changes. Period.

 

You've got it backwards. I was never convinced off my initial position which I held before AGW became popular, I'm talking about the early 90's here.... but I'm open to it if the data can be shown to be more truthful/accurate then what I've already posted from NASA and NOAA back in the mid 90's. The whole AGW so far has been a sideshow of misrepresentation and sensationalism designed to fool the fools.... but that doesnt mean I havent missed stuff - as I've said, its not really an interest of mine to wade through sewage science in the hope I'll find someones gold filling. It's just nothing the AGW crowd have said has convinced me over my data.... I gotta keep to the most likely truth.

 

Ignoring climate change? No, ignoring the myriad alarmist claims that never come to pass. I suppose paying attention to all the science and not just one alarmist ideology that is ruining science is considered being a denier by the alarmists.

 

Yeah - real scientific


NOT

- - - Updated - - -

More science I see.....................

 

Hoosier,
to me it doesn't matter, which camp people believe in, as long as they understand we need to act. All of us, in all countries, we really have to act.
Rely on our Federal Government? They couldn't give a rats ass about this planet past their 3 year cycle....
Cheerio

 

LOL, you have trouble reading? If you bothered to read my post you'd see I asked you a question, and my comments after that were me discussing possibilities of your answer given you did not provide that information in the first instance. Your shooting at shadows and avoiding the question - which was how/where was the data for your graph obtained? If you cannot answer this, then your graph is meaningless and worth ZERO.

 

It's a unrealistic position to have though, as the government needs to manage the entire economy/nation. Cost to the nation needs to be proportional to the actual reality.... which is really only what most of the anti-AGW crowd are trying to seek. We've got enough waste in the world to waste more on the environmental fantasy of scientists.

Meanwhile in real news Lockheed Martin has had some success on its room sized fusion reactor, which they say in the future could create zero waste. It's why direct action works better, because putting the money where it needs to go can be more effective in producing improved outcomes then simply creating a market and expecting market forces to eventually drive innovation. If you were serious about solving pollution you'd be spending cash on R&D rather then taxing polluters.

 

Need to act comes from the alarmist camp. Need to act on what, at what cost, and what are the unintended consequences? Mitigation or Risk Management? Is warming good or bad? Is rising CO2 good or bad? These questions are still debatable if you step outside of the orthodoxy.

 

I lost interest when I saw the conspiracy theories - have learnt a long time ago that when they surface rationality leaves the conversation

 

Which is why money should have been moved from subsidies to coal and gas to research and development years ago

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814

 

What conspiracy theory? Your not making any sense BB.... you couldnt back your position so now your trying to make it personal by inventing nonsense... typical 'left' tactic.

 

IQUOTE=axialturban;1065132368]It's a unrealistic position to have though, as the government needs to manage the entire economy/nation. Cost to the nation needs to be proportional to the actual reality.... which is really only what most of the anti-AGW crowd are trying to seek. We've got enough waste in the world to waste more on the environmental fantasy of scientists.

Meanwhile in real news Lockheed Martin has had some success on its room sized fusion reactor, which they say in the future could create zero waste. It's why direct action works better, because putting the money where it needs to go can be more effective in producing improved outcomes then simply creating a market and expecting market forces to eventually drive innovation. If you were serious about solving pollution you'd be spending cash on R&D rather then taxing polluters.[/QUOTE]

Sure,
Abbott's pals don't need to reduce emissions, God aren't we happy to have the Liberal/Nationalists in Australia, backing the coal and mining industries crimes....
If the Abbott Government is so sure about the right way for Australia and the world there wouldn't have been any need to shut down plenty of environmental offices and task groups. If DV is still among us, he once published a list of those closed down by the Abbott Government.
It is a bit like you have a different opinion, better to get rid of you....
Regards