fish-feeder wrote: Climate and weather go hand in hand,they both change. We may be adding to it,but we are not the sole contributing factor. |
Alan L wrote: OK, I wasn't going to post here- it is a fishing website, right? I have a PhD in science. Brmbrm would call me a climate denier. Greepeace are very good at politicising stffand making labels. I would call myself agnostic. unlike most here (incl Brmbrm) I have spent ages looking for the quintessential science paper linking CO2 to global warming. It has to exist right? Like all great discoveries - Einsteins theory of relativity, Darwins theory of evolution, Watson and Cricks discovery of the duble helix (DNA). (my computer is doing weird **** - sorry - can't fix right now - bear with me) This seminal paper should be at the top of all GW papers as the prime citation. It is not. I have spent hundreds of hrs looking for it. Instead I get IPCC quotes. I have read most of the early IPCC reports (unlike Brmbrm I guess) looking for the citation. Guess what... it is not there. Just hypotheses. That is a loooong way from fact. Show of hands (votes for the hypothesis ) doesnot cut it scientifically. One ugly fact can change a beautiful theory no matter how many subscribe to it. The science iscorrupt. Sorry. You talk about big oil companies etc.. Greepeace rhetoric again. Scientist are corrupt too. They have mortgages to pay, research projects they want to fund.Their move thru the ranks usually depends on the number of papers printed etc. It all takes funding esp in science - expensive equipment, fieldtrips, students to fund etc. Where else to get the funding but the billion $ GW industry. NZ incl. Unlike Brmbrm, I have sat on all sides of this equation - provider of funds, applicant for funds and referee of Govt science funds. It is a game. Make no mistake, and they know how to play it. If you want to studythe sex life of an obscure ant , what funding pool do you have a chance in. Now tag 'with respect to climate change' and your funding pool just grew mega $s. Is this scientist likely to challenge the notion of AGW? Like thousands of others chasing the GW money trail - Billions of $s. Don't point the finger at oil companies. Unlike Brmbrm, I have been involved in some climate researchfor NZ's past climate. Brmbrm - find me the papers and I can subscribe to your view. I have spent ages looking for them - no luck so far. So then we move to 'green' alternatives. brmbrm, do you know how many mega tonnes of planet earth are crushed/mined for rare earths to make the batteries, or how much CO2 is expended? And what to do with the batteries? And how to charge them - sustainably. Dam every river? For me Hydrogen would be the answer. I doubt I will ever buy an EV - my conscience won't let me, but politics prevail. We all want to be seen to be green, even if it kills us. The energy equation for hydrogen has been the problem. Solar may fix that - if you are comfortable with a tank of hydrogen in your car. But we got to the moon 50 yrs ago, so should be able to solve the pesky issues that go with it. is the science as setted as you would like to think Brmbrm?. No where near. The IPCC even rates the solar energy factor as 'largely unknown' or - 'poorly understood' I think is theirterm. the largest energy input into planet earth. The largest GHG- water vapour - BY A LOONG WAY. 70-80%. small changes in H2O have a LARGE effect on retained IR heat. The sun emits UV (short wavelength) which is radiated back (at night) as longer wavelength IR. H2O is a much stronger absorber of IR than the fractional % CO2. That is why deserts get so cold at night. So, Brmbrm, find me the papers - that should be at the top of every GW funded research paper, and I will subscribe to your view. Until then, the jury is out on my part. regards Alan |
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Alan L wrote: OK, I wasn't going to post here- it is a fishing website, right? I have a PhD in science. Brmbrm would call me a climate denier. Greepeace are very good at politicising stffand making labels. I would call myself agnostic. unlike most here (incl Brmbrm) I have spent ages looking for the quintessential science paper linking CO2 to global warming. It has to exist right? Like all great discoveries - Einsteins theory of relativity, Darwins theory of evolution, Watson and Cricks discovery of the duble helix (DNA). (my computer is doing weird **** - sorry - can't fix right now - bear with me) This seminal paper should be at the top of all GW papers as the prime citation. It is not. I have spent hundreds of hrs looking for it. Instead I get IPCC quotes. I have read most of the early IPCC reports (unlike Brmbrm I guess) looking for the citation. Guess what... it is not there. Just hypotheses. That is a loooong way from fact. Show of hands (votes for the hypothesis ) doesnot cut it scientifically. One ugly fact can change a beautiful theory no matter how many subscribe to it. The science iscorrupt. Sorry. You talk about big oil companies etc.. Greepeace rhetoric again. Scientist are corrupt too. They have mortgages to pay, research projects they want to fund.Their move thru the ranks usually depends on the number of papers printed etc. It all takes funding esp in science - expensive equipment, fieldtrips, students to fund etc. Where else to get the funding but the billion $ GW industry. NZ incl. Unlike Brmbrm, I have sat on all sides of this equation - provider of funds, applicant for funds and referee of Govt science funds. It is a game. Make no mistake, and they know how to play it. If you want to studythe sex life of an obscure ant , what funding pool do you have a chance in. Now tag 'with respect to climate change' and your funding pool just grew mega $s. Is this scientist likely to challenge the notion of AGW? Like thousands of others chasing the GW money trail - Billions of $s. Don't point the finger at oil companies. Unlike Brmbrm, I have been involved in some climate researchfor NZ's past climate. Brmbrm - find me the papers and I can subscribe to your view. I have spent ages looking for them - no luck so far. So then we move to 'green' alternatives. brmbrm, do you know how many mega tonnes of planet earth are crushed/mined for rare earths to make the batteries, or how much CO2 is expended? And what to do with the batteries? And how to charge them - sustainably. Dam every river? For me Hydrogen would be the answer. I doubt I will ever buy an EV - my conscience won't let me, but politics prevail. We all want to be seen to be green, even if it kills us. The energy equation for hydrogen has been the problem. Solar may fix that - if you are comfortable with a tank of hydrogen in your car. But we got to the moon 50 yrs ago, so should be able to solve the pesky issues that go with it. is the science as setted as you would like to think Brmbrm?. No where near. The IPCC even rates the solar energy factor as 'largely unknown' or - 'poorly understood' I think is theirterm. the largest energy input into planet earth. The largest GHG- water vapour - BY A LOONG WAY. 70-80%. small changes in H2O have a LARGE effect on retained IR heat. The sun emits UV (short wavelength) which is radiated back (at night) as longer wavelength IR. H2O is a much stronger absorber of IR than the fractional % CO2. That is why deserts get so cold at night. So, Brmbrm, find me the papers - that should be at the top of every GW funded research paper, and I will subscribe to your view. Until then, the jury is out on my part. regards Alan |
Transformations wrote: Halleluja, was beginning to think there was no sanity out there. Thanks Muppet, V8, Alan and some others. Those that believe "the science is settled" should really go to SpecSavers🤐 |
reel crayze wrote:
So let me get this correct . We have NASA which is chock full of the some of the worlds leading climate scientists telling us we have a problem and then we have the big oil, energy companies and all the influence we know they have with politicians and they have the attitude " nothing to see here " [pun intended].. Tell me about Specsavers ??? Its the old adage.. follow the money.. the NASA scientists have nothing to gain yet they still keep telling us there is a problem, what is there motive ?.. Oil industry, i wonder what drives them ?? [excuse the pun] |
Kevin.S wrote: The big problem I have with most of the climate change "experts" is that they keep making predictions of impending disaster that always turn out to be wrong. Not that long ago they were talking about covering the polar ice caps with black plastic to try and retain more of the suns heat to stave off the impending ice age that was coming. Then it was global warming and by now we were all supposed to have been roasted, now it's climate change and it's all about wild weather events. No wonder so many of us have become jaded and no longer listen to them. Unfortunately it's like the boy who cried wolf, and if they ever do get it right hardly anyone will listen to them. As for "what do the scientists have to gain", that's pretty obvious -millions of dollars in research funding, a cushy job and an income for life. |
Fish galore! Coming off the back of Easter Weekend and with some very nice weather... Read More >
Excellent snapper action There is some excellent autumn snapper fishing straight out and up the... Read More >
Whangarei Harbour fishing well Like the weather, the fishing has been patchy throughout Bream Bay... Read More >
Party time! Inshore fishing and offshore fishing are on now. It’s that perfect time of... Read More >