Posts by Farmer Green
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to David Hood,
In this sense I think that if there was to be no average warming for the next decade, climate models would need some serious revision.
A point of agreement then . In another decade of no warming, depending on which dataset we are using (presumably RSS ) the period of no warming would total just over 30 years. That seems eminently sensible given the 30 year half cycle of the PDO. Certainly no warming until well after 2030 would indicate incomplete understanding.
I don’t think it matters greatly that we differ on when complete and final understanding of the climate mechanism will be achieved. That understanding depends mostly on the economic situation and the availability of funding for climate research. You may have a rosier view of the economic quagmire than does farmer green.
You mention the physical properties of CO2 which would seem to be well established but FG’s understanding is that its possible role in positive feedback loops may be the issue where catastrophe does or does not occur,and that this aspect of the GCMs may be poorly understood at present.
FG appreciates that you have not once used the D word, but have engaged constructively : it’s very rare on this site.. -
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Richard Grevers,
Do you know about these?
http://www.powerco.co.nz/Divisions/BASEPOWER/Photo-Gallery/Redflow/ -
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Sacha,
Sorry I didn't realise quite how smart you were. Unforgiveable. Did I really say the earth was flat? Of course not.
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Chris Waugh,
. In other words, I don’t see much point in debating climate change, but bloody hell, we do need to clean up.
Couldn't agree more. And that translated directly into becoming an organic farmer 35 years ago. FG is very happy to report that it has been everything that he dreamed of and more, but is essentially indistinguishable from the farming of the 1940s and 1950s with the exception of the level of paperwork (traceability). And of course the modern technology. The underlying principles are the same.
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Lilith __,
“So you want us to adapt to something you claim isn’t happening? Huh?”
Those are your exact words. You made up the bit about the claim that climate change is not happening. It is clearly a false accusation.
You then revised it to include the word anthropogenic and FG asserted that all organisms change their environment. Climate is a major , significant part of that environment. It can’t be much clearer. -
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to David Hood,
Really ? How many links?
The scientific process proceeds point by point with resolution of differing viewpoints. Why can both sides not be argued? Who else here will argue the negative? FG’s interest is purely academic now that he has his exemption from the ETS and has been invited to de-register completely.
Climate science is full of uncertainty; that is why it is interesting. In 50 years we may know exactly how it works, but it’s a long shot at present. Do you claim to know already? -
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Sacha,
What has Manapouri got to do with it? It probably owes us nothing by now , and we could use it for electricity and spill water from dams elsewhere . There are more than a few rivers that could have used more flow this past summer.
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Lilith __,
And there’s no need to be nasty.
Just calling you on the false accusation; it is in no way nasty, but you may not enjoy it much.
All organisms alter their environment. It is therefore impossible that the sum total of humanity and everything that it does will not have an effect, however imperceptible , or swamped by natural variation. The question is , does it matter? It is inevitable, that is certain. -
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Lilith __,
You’re putting words in my mouth; don’t bother. Science is not about belief anyway : it’s about knowledge. "Accepted science" changes with new knowledge.
I’ve adapted to the very obvious change in 1999 when the PDO switched from warm to cool. The period from 1975 -1998 was very different (for those for whom climate is critical).
It was very obvious that many, especially new , farmers failed to notice what was happening and the past summer was a real wake up call. A summer like the last one would have been considered pretty good during the 1975 -1999 period when el Nino and drought were predominating. Coming ,as it did , after 10 wet summers it caught out those with no memory , high debt, low or non-existent profitability, and dependent on bought-in feed.
Change the subject? Yeah right. Climate is not something theoretical ; it’s always there ; proximate; and always changing. Perhaps you haven’t noticed , or it makes no difference to you. -
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Richard Grevers,
It is primarily water that we are talking about. Spreading it amongst ALL the existing users is not a bad idea. Using it ALL for electricity that we don’t currently need seems a little wasteful.
What does your last sentence mean?