Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[orogenicman]

What was THAT supposed to mean Junior? That's how you keep 10 research scientists employed with Government funding. BESIDES what the corporation needs you for..

You match your research interest to whatever piles of money Congress allocates for "crises". No crisis -- No money.. What? You think they just fund any "good ideas" that just walk in door?? Go try that at DARPA or NOAA or the Pentagon.

MAJOR misconception on the parts of the folks here on the forum that think GOVERNMENT is the director and leader of American innovation..

Did you promise them specific research results for their money?

Nobody can do that.. But the PREREQUISITE is that you have to tell the story of how this research addresses a specific crisis that they've chartered to address. Technology and research are fungible across MANY disciplines. Same research may be applicable to several interests of the Government.

In the case of Climate research -- it's pretty much the same. They can pull funding out of the biological sciences (Forestry, Marine Fisheries, etc) or the Ocean Sciences (NOAA, NAVY, etc) or out of other areas like NASA, FEMA, Homeland Security, and NWService. IN EVERY CASE --- the money available is under Grant Applications that MENTION "man-made global warming" or "catastrophic climate change" and you BETTER be prepared to deliver SOMETHING that mentions those crisis --- no matter HOW your research actually turns out.. It's IS biased research --- by the very structure of the funding mechanism.

What did you mean by "projecting my shyster tactics on others"? EH???

Well, that's a load of shite. They do not mandate what the results of funded research shall be. The results are what they are, dude. Even null results are valid results if they are reproducible, and falsifiable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Did you promise them specific research results for their money?

Nobody can do that.. But the PREREQUISITE is that you have to tell the story of how this research addresses a specific crisis that they've chartered to address. Technology and research are fungible across MANY disciplines. Same research may be applicable to several interests of the Government.

In the case of Climate research -- it's pretty much the same. They can pull funding out of the biological sciences (Forestry, Marine Fisheries, etc) or the Ocean Sciences (NOAA, NAVY, etc) or out of other areas like NASA, FEMA, Homeland Security, and NWService. IN EVERY CASE --- the money available is under Grant Applications that MENTION "man-made global warming" or "catastrophic climate change" and you BETTER be prepared to deliver SOMETHING that mentions those crisis --- no matter HOW your research actually turns out.. It's IS biased research --- by the very structure of the funding mechanism.

What did you mean by "projecting my shyster tactics on others"? EH???

Well, that's a load of shite. They do not mandate what the results of funded research shall be. The results are what they are, dude. Even null results are valid results if they are reproducible, and falsifiable.

You're not listening to what I'm telling you.. I SAID you can't promise research results. But you had BETTER ACKNOWLEDGE THE CRISIS that created the pot of money that PAID for your research. So you better MENTION the relevence of findings to the issue at hand --- even if you have to stretch or reach for it...

That's how you get these whacky pronouncements in Abstracts on AGW that go media viral when it's ACTUALLY not even important or relevant to the body of the work...

 

[PMZ]

Nobody can do that.. But the PREREQUISITE is that you have to tell the story of how this research addresses a specific crisis that they've chartered to address. Technology and research are fungible across MANY disciplines. Same research may be applicable to several interests of the Government.

In the case of Climate research -- it's pretty much the same. They can pull funding out of the biological sciences (Forestry, Marine Fisheries, etc) or the Ocean Sciences (NOAA, NAVY, etc) or out of other areas like NASA, FEMA, Homeland Security, and NWService. IN EVERY CASE --- the money available is under Grant Applications that MENTION "man-made global warming" or "catastrophic climate change" and you BETTER be prepared to deliver SOMETHING that mentions those crisis --- no matter HOW your research actually turns out.. It's IS biased research --- by the very structure of the funding mechanism.

What did you mean by "projecting my shyster tactics on others"? EH???

Well, that's a load of shite. They do not mandate what the results of funded research shall be. The results are what they are, dude. Even null results are valid results if they are reproducible, and falsifiable.

You're not listening to what I'm telling you.. I SAID you can't promise research results. But you had BETTER ACKNOWLEDGE THE CRISIS that created the pot of money that PAID for your research. So you better MENTION the relevence of findings to the issue at hand --- even if you have to stretch or reach for it...

That's how you get these whacky pronouncements in Abstracts on AGW that go media viral when it's ACTUALLY not even important or relevant to the body of the work...

How about some examples of "whacky pronouncements in Abstracts on AGW that go media viral when it's ACTUALLY not even important or relevant to the body of the work."

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, that's a load of shite. They do not mandate what the results of funded research shall be. The results are what they are, dude. Even null results are valid results if they are reproducible, and falsifiable.

You're not listening to what I'm telling you.. I SAID you can't promise research results. But you had BETTER ACKNOWLEDGE THE CRISIS that created the pot of money that PAID for your research. So you better MENTION the relevence of findings to the issue at hand --- even if you have to stretch or reach for it...

That's how you get these whacky pronouncements in Abstracts on AGW that go media viral when it's ACTUALLY not even important or relevant to the body of the work...

How about some examples of "whacky pronouncements in Abstracts on AGW that go media viral when it's ACTUALLY not even important or relevant to the body of the work."

Just had one on this forum about a month ago.. Someone counted mudbugs in mid-ocean sediment and the press went wild with OCEANS WARMING AT A QUICKER RATE THAN IN 2000 yrs..

Problem was --- as I pointed out --- RIGHT IN THE TOP OF THE STUDY --- these guys conceded that they found a MedWarmPeriod signature MUCH HIGHER than today's oceans temps.. And MUDBUG studies don't HAVE the time resolution in the data to make a pronouncement ABOUT RATES like in that headline. It was actually quite comical how different the science was from the hype it generated.. Almost polar opposite..

The whole dustup over the dying Pacific Oysters was another. LOTS of GOVT money went out on that one. Was always a "factory farming" problem and not an Ocean Acidification problem. But you'd see the headline and then read the study and wonder how the hell the press missed all the science..

Was because these GRANT-TAKERS --- GAVE the press the story that the client wanted to hear. NOT a summary of the science in their report..

 

[orogenicman]

Nobody can do that.. But the PREREQUISITE is that you have to tell the story of how this research addresses a specific crisis that they've chartered to address. Technology and research are fungible across MANY disciplines. Same research may be applicable to several interests of the Government.

In the case of Climate research -- it's pretty much the same. They can pull funding out of the biological sciences (Forestry, Marine Fisheries, etc) or the Ocean Sciences (NOAA, NAVY, etc) or out of other areas like NASA, FEMA, Homeland Security, and NWService. IN EVERY CASE --- the money available is under Grant Applications that MENTION "man-made global warming" or "catastrophic climate change" and you BETTER be prepared to deliver SOMETHING that mentions those crisis --- no matter HOW your research actually turns out.. It's IS biased research --- by the very structure of the funding mechanism.

What did you mean by "projecting my shyster tactics on others"? EH???

Well, that's a load of shite. They do not mandate what the results of funded research shall be. The results are what they are, dude. Even null results are valid results if they are reproducible, and falsifiable.

You're not listening to what I'm telling you.. I SAID you can't promise research results. But you had BETTER ACKNOWLEDGE THE CRISIS that created the pot of money that PAID for your research. So you better MENTION the relevence of findings to the issue at hand --- even if you have to stretch or reach for it...

That's how you get these whacky pronouncements in Abstracts on AGW that go media viral when it's ACTUALLY not even important or relevant to the body of the work...

Well, once again, you assume that grant money for climate research is being paid out exclusively on account of some crisis. A lot of fundamental work is being done simply because we don't have data from which to make any conclusions. Some moneys fund ongoing research in specific areas. It is like that with every scientific discipline. Yet somehow you deem it important to single out the climate science community as if they are doing something unique or illegal.

Clue - there is no conspiracy, Mr. flaciddic. Take yer meds.

 

[Kosh]

Still waiting for the loyal AGW cultists to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate and yet still post with said evidence they claim is out there.

 

[orogenicman]

Still waiting for the loyal AGW cultists to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate and yet still post with said evidence they claim is out there.

There are 28 pages of posts here. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, don't expect anyone to cater to your wishes.

 

[Kosh]

Still waiting for the loyal AGW cultists to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate and yet still post with said evidence they claim is out there.

There are 28 pages of posts here. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, don't expect anyone to cater to your wishes.

Wrong no datasets with source code has been posted on this thread, please point to the specific post that claim exists with such data that proves CO2 drives climate.

 

[Abraham3]

Why don't you let us know when you've read

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf

 

[Kosh]

Why don't you let us know when you've read

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf

.....and yet still no datasets with source code have been provided by the AGW church members.

Just a link to the propaganda.

 

[westwall]

I do whine about people who pretend to be knowledgeable when, in fact, they are merely political.

So sayeth the political whore. All you assholes spout is "consensus" this and "consensus" that. Do you know what "consensus" is? It's POLITICAL YOU DIPSHIT!

Your very core mantra is political, always has been, always will be.

What a stupid fool.

My mantra is follow the science. Yours is to chase after the bucks.

How many BILLIONS of dollars have been wasted on AGW research? How many TRILLIONS (which you get to skim off the top of course) do you guys want the planet to spend to lower the global temp by one degree in 100 years...MAYBE?

You and your fellow clones are so full of shit it's no longer funny.

 

[westwall]

Still waiting for the loyal AGW cultists to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate and yet still post with said evidence they claim is out there.

There are 28 pages of posts here. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, don't expect anyone to cater to your wishes.

And not one of them has what Kosh asked for. Do try and keep up. You're embarrassing yourself yet again olfraud.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, that's a load of shite. They do not mandate what the results of funded research shall be. The results are what they are, dude. Even null results are valid results if they are reproducible, and falsifiable.

You're not listening to what I'm telling you.. I SAID you can't promise research results. But you had BETTER ACKNOWLEDGE THE CRISIS that created the pot of money that PAID for your research. So you better MENTION the relevence of findings to the issue at hand --- even if you have to stretch or reach for it...

That's how you get these whacky pronouncements in Abstracts on AGW that go media viral when it's ACTUALLY not even important or relevant to the body of the work...

Well, once again, you assume that grant money for climate research is being paid out exclusively on account of some crisis. A lot of fundamental work is being done simply because we don't have data from which to make any conclusions. Some moneys fund ongoing research in specific areas. It is like that with every scientific discipline. Yet somehow you deem it important to single out the climate science community as if they are doing something unique or illegal.

Clue - there is no conspiracy, Mr. flaciddic. Take yer meds.

No crisis -- No money.. Ask the guys at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos. Without an emphasis on atomic weapons/energy -- these guys are now bidding on Grants for kidney dialysis and cloud computing to keep their staff. Buddy of mine at Livermore is now doing "traffic studies".

The VAST MAJORITY of hot bullet items for climate scientists are now tagged with "man-made global warming" or anthropogenic climate change.. AND -- I didn't mention that the Agency can "science shop" for contracts, just like lawyers have a method to "jury shop".. Because they KNOW from previous work who will deliver the kind of "heavily seasoned product" that they desire..

 

[orogenicman]

You're not listening to what I'm telling you.. I SAID you can't promise research results. But you had BETTER ACKNOWLEDGE THE CRISIS that created the pot of money that PAID for your research. So you better MENTION the relevence of findings to the issue at hand --- even if you have to stretch or reach for it...

That's how you get these whacky pronouncements in Abstracts on AGW that go media viral when it's ACTUALLY not even important or relevant to the body of the work...

Well, once again, you assume that grant money for climate research is being paid out exclusively on account of some crisis. A lot of fundamental work is being done simply because we don't have data from which to make any conclusions. Some moneys fund ongoing research in specific areas. It is like that with every scientific discipline. Yet somehow you deem it important to single out the climate science community as if they are doing something unique or illegal.

Clue - there is no conspiracy, Mr. flaciddic. Take yer meds.

No crisis -- No money.. Ask the guys at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos. Without an emphasis on atomic weapons/energy -- these guys are now bidding on Grants for kidney dialysis and cloud computing to keep their staff. Buddy of mine at Livermore is now doing "traffic studies".

The VAST MAJORITY of hot bullet items for climate scientists are now tagged with "man-made global warming" or anthropogenic climate change.. AND -- I didn't mention that the Agency can "science shop" for contracts, just like lawyers have a method to "jury shop".. Because they KNOW from previous work who will deliver the kind of "heavily seasoned product" that they desire..

I don't have to ask anyone. My paper got published under an NSF grant. No crisis required. Next.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, once again, you assume that grant money for climate research is being paid out exclusively on account of some crisis. A lot of fundamental work is being done simply because we don't have data from which to make any conclusions. Some moneys fund ongoing research in specific areas. It is like that with every scientific discipline. Yet somehow you deem it important to single out the climate science community as if they are doing something unique or illegal.

Clue - there is no conspiracy, Mr. flaciddic. Take yer meds.

No crisis -- No money.. Ask the guys at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos. Without an emphasis on atomic weapons/energy -- these guys are now bidding on Grants for kidney dialysis and cloud computing to keep their staff. Buddy of mine at Livermore is now doing "traffic studies".

The VAST MAJORITY of hot bullet items for climate scientists are now tagged with "man-made global warming" or anthropogenic climate change.. AND -- I didn't mention that the Agency can "science shop" for contracts, just like lawyers have a method to "jury shop".. Because they KNOW from previous work who will deliver the kind of "heavily seasoned product" that they desire..

I don't have to ask anyone. My paper got published under an NSF grant. No crisis required. Next.

You are correct.. NSF is much more open-minded than the agencies that are tasked with SPECIFIC missions.. So their pots of gold are not so cubby-holed..

 

[orogenicman]

No crisis -- No money.. Ask the guys at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos. Without an emphasis on atomic weapons/energy -- these guys are now bidding on Grants for kidney dialysis and cloud computing to keep their staff. Buddy of mine at Livermore is now doing "traffic studies".

The VAST MAJORITY of hot bullet items for climate scientists are now tagged with "man-made global warming" or anthropogenic climate change.. AND -- I didn't mention that the Agency can "science shop" for contracts, just like lawyers have a method to "jury shop".. Because they KNOW from previous work who will deliver the kind of "heavily seasoned product" that they desire..

I don't have to ask anyone. My paper got published under an NSF grant. No crisis required. Next.

You are correct.. NSF is much more open-minded than the agencies that are tasked with SPECIFIC missions.. So their pots of gold are not so cubby-holed..

But then, agencies that are tasked with specific missions would be expected to dole out grant money based on those missions. Why the hell wouldn't they? Would you expect the Department of energy to dole out grant money to fund research on bladder cancer? I don't think you would.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't have to ask anyone. My paper got published under an NSF grant. No crisis required. Next.

You are correct.. NSF is much more open-minded than the agencies that are tasked with SPECIFIC missions.. So their pots of gold are not so cubby-holed..

But then, agencies that are tasked with specific missions would be expected to dole out grant money based on those missions. Why the hell wouldn't they? Would you expect the Department of energy to dole out grant money to fund research on bladder cancer? I don't think you would.

NASA right now is doling money for Muslim outreach -- yet you wouldn't figure that would be high in THEIR mission statement.. There is competition for resources. If you are currently doing what Congress and the Admin feel are the IMPORTANT things, you can keep your funding or increase it at somebody else's expense.

NSF is somewhat sheltered from the "commercialism" of mission statements.
But you can drill down thru the NOAA grants (eg) and see that they are looking for RESEARCH that CONFIRMS their "mission story" that

1) Climate change & increasingly EXTREME WEATHER is a given and is an accepted prereq to their mission (and funding)
2) You better be producing research that confirms this agency is ESSENTIAL to safeguarding the public from the IMMEDIATE threats of climate change..

To wit.. Go to the Grants pages -- enter "climate" into the search..
Pick one at random --- like this..

Search Grants | GRANTS.GOV

NOAA-OAR-CPO-2012-2003041
Climate Program Office for FY 2012
Department of Commerce

Description: Changing climate confronts society with significant economic, health, safety, and national security challenges. NOAA advances scientific and technical programs to help society cope with, and adapt to, today's variations in climate and to prepare for tomorrow's. Toward this end, the agency conducts and supports climate research, observations, modeling, information management, assessments, interdisciplinary decision support research, outreach, education, and stakeholder partnership development. These investments are key to NOAA's mission of "Science, Service, and Stewardship" and are guided by the agency's vision to create and sustain enhanced resilience in ecosystems, communities, and economies, as described in NOAA's Next Generation Strategic Plan (NGSP) . Fostering climate adaptation and mitigation, and, specifically, the development of an informed society anticipating and responding to climate and its impacts - is one of the primary pathways through which NOAA plans to advance its mission. The NGSP outlines NOAA's five-year climate objectives: 1) Improved scientific understanding of the changing climate system and its impacts; 2) Assessments of current and future states of the climate system that identify potential impacts and inform science, service, and stewardship decisions; 3) Mitigation and adaptation choices supported by sustained, reliable, and timely climate services; and 4) A climate-literate public that understands its vulnerabilities to a changing climate and makes informed decisions. NOAA works in partnership with Federal, academic, private, and international research entities, and places a substantial emphasis on productive partnerships and interactions with decision makers and other stakeholders.Within this context, NOAA's Climate Program Office (CPO) manages competitive research programs conducted in regions across the United States, at national and international scales, and globally. The CPO also provides strategic guidance and oversight for the agency's climate science and services programs and helps to integrate capabilities from across the agency to provide enhanced services to its constituents. Achieving the first of the NGSP climate objectives, an improved scientific understanding of the changing climate system and its impacts, requires a number of core capabilities be supported. These core capabilities can be broadly categorized to include: (a) understanding and modeling, (b) observing systems, data stewardship, and climate monitoring, (c) predictions and projections, and (d) integrated service development and decision support.These core capabilities, in turn, will focus initially on the following societal challenges identified in the NGSP as early evidence of progress to be made by NOAA in providing sustained, reliable, and timely climate services:* Climate Impacts on Water Resources* Coasts and Climate Resilience* Sustainability of Marine Ecosystems* Changes in Extremes of Weather and Climate* Information for Mitigating Climate ChangeEach of the Competitions announced in this Federal Funding Opportunity addresses one or more of these core capabilities or societal challenges. It is expected that applications submitted in response to this Opportunity will identify their relevance to NOAA's climate science and services by indicating which core capabilities and/or societal challenges will be addressed by the proposed work. Application abstracts must include a paragraph describing the work's relevance to the NGSP's long-term goal of climate adaptation and mitigation as well as to the Competition that is being targeted.In FY 2012, we estimate that $15.5 million will be available for approximately 60 new awards pending budget appropriations. It is anticipated that most awards will be at a funding level between $50,000 and $200,000 per year, with some exceptions for larger awards. Investigators are highly encouraged to visit the CPO website http://www.cpo.noaa.gov/index.jsp?p.../program_elements.jsphttp://www.noaa.gov/ngsp

Hell -- if the Climate wasn't changing drastically and Extreme Weather WASNT on the increase --- there'd be no Grant. No Crisis --- No Money. No Money -- No Grant.. QED...

Not exactly as OBJECTIVE a process as MOST people think... JUST TRY to apply for climate money from NOAA if YOU THINK Climate Change and Extreme Weather is NOT on the horizon... Or you're not seeing the Crisis that they are seeing.. Or if you're NOT WILLING to prostrate your pride to acheive the "public outreach" portion that I bolded above in your Abstract and Conclusions and invent a nicely spiced Press Release for your work to DISTURB the public into giving NOAA MORE MONEY to protect them..

 

[orogenicman]

So what you are telling us is that you don't believe that NOAA should be spending tax payer money to "help society cope with, and adapt to, today's variations in climate and to prepare for tomorrow's"? You prefer the head in the sand method, do you?

 

[ScienceRocks]

These people don't believe America should be a respected science power.

They're extremist and morons.

 

[Abraham3]

The problem is that they reject what almost everyone else believes. Thus it seems perfectly natural to us to ask for research on developing responses to global warming, to them that is wrong as it assumes facts they believe (or claim to believe) are unsupported by the evidence.

FCT, what do you believe is convincing all those scientists that AGW is valid? Do you really think they're all lying for the money?