A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 9:18 PM GMT en Junio 21, 2011

Share this Blog
4
+

A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)

In the previous entry I set out the need of a scientific organization; that is, an organization that is designed and run to honor the tenets of the scientific method. This stands in contrast to, say, a laboratory or a center that is populated by scientists carrying out a multitude of projects, each following the scientific method. One motivation for the scientific organization is the steady stream of reports from the past two decades calling for better integration of U.S. climate activities to provide predictions to meet societal needs. At the foundation of my argument is that the way we teach, fund and reward scientific investigation has been, traditionally, fragmenting. Without addressing this underlying fragmentation, there are high barriers to achieving the needed integration. (see, Something New in the Past Decade?, The Scientific Organization, High-end Climate Science).

What does it take for an organization to adhere to the scientific method? Ultimately, I will arrive at the conclusion that it takes a diligence of management and governance, but for this entry I will continue to focus on the elements of the scientific method, and specifically the development of strategies to evaluate and validate collected, rather than individual, results.

In May I attended a seminar by David Stainforth. Stainforth is one of the principles in the community project climateprediction.net. From their website, “Climateprediction.net is a distributed computing project to produce predictions of the Earth's climate up to 2100 and to test the accuracy of climate models.” In this project people download a climate model and run the model on their personal computers, then the results are communicated back to data center where they are analyzed in concert with results from many other people.

This is one example of community science or citizen science. Other citizen science programs are Project Budburst and the Globe Program. There are a number of reasons for projects like this. One of the reasons is to extend the reach of observations. In Project Budburst people across the U.S. observe the onset of spring as indicated by different plants – when do leaves and blossoms emerge? A scientific motivation for doing this is to increase the number observations to try to assure that the Earth's variability is adequately observed – to develop statistical significance. In these citizen science programs people are taught how to observe - a protocol is developed.

Education – that is another goal of these citizen science activities, education about the scientific method. In order to follow the scientific process, we need to know the characteristics of the observations. If, as in Project Budburst, we are looking for the onset of leafing, then we need to make sure that the tree is not sitting next to a warm building or in the building’s atrium. Perhaps, there is a requirement of a measurement, for example, that the buds on a particular type of tree have expanded to a certain size or burst in some discernible way. Quantitative measurement and adherence of practices of measurement are at the foundation of developing a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment is one where we try to investigate only one thing at a time; this is a difficult task in climate science. If we are not careful about our observations and the design of our experiments, then it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to evaluate our hypotheses and arrive at conclusions. And the ability to test hypotheses is fundamental to the scientific method. Design, observations, hypothesis, evaluation, validation – in a scientific organization these things need to be done by the organization, not each individual.

Let’s return to climateprediction.net. A major goal is to obtain a lot of simulations from climate models to examine the range of variability that we might expect in 2100. The strategy is to place relatively simple models in the hands of a whole lot of people. With this strategy it is possible to do many more experiments than say one scientist or even a small team of scientists can do. Many 100,000s of simulations have been completed.

One of the many challenges faced in the model-based experiments is how to manage the model simulations to provide controlled experiments. If you think about a climate model as a whole, then there are a number of things that can be changed. We can change something “inside” of the model, for example, we can change how rough we estimate the Earth’s surface to be – maybe grassland versus forest. We can change something “outside” of the model - the energy balance, perhaps, some estimate of how the Sun varies or how carbon dioxide will change. And, still “outside” the model, we can change the details of what the climate looks like when the model simulation is started – do we start it with January 2003 data or July 2007? When you download a model from climateprediction.net, it has a unique set of these parameters. If you do a second experiment, this will also have a unique set of parameters. Managing these model configurations and documenting this information allows, well, 100000s of simulations to be run, with a systematic exploration of model variability. Experiment strategy is explained here.

What impressed me about climateprediction.net is the ability to design and execute a volunteer organization that allows rigorous investigation with of a group of thousands of people on thousands of different computers distributed all over the globe. Protocols have been set up to verify that the results are what they should be; there is confidence in the accuracy of the information collected. Here is an example where scientists are able to define an organization where the scientific method permeates the organization. Is this proof that a formalized scientific organization is possible? What are the attributes that contribute to the success of a project like climateprediction.net? Are they relevant to a U.S. climate laboratory?

Bringing this back to the scale of U.S. climate activities – in 2008 there was a Policy Forum in Science Magazine by Mark Schaefer, Jim Baker and a distinguished number of co-authors. All of these co-authors had worked at high levels in the government, and they all struggled with the desire and need to integrate U.S. climate activities. Based on their experience they posed an Earth System Science Agency made from a combined USGS and NOAA. In their article they pointed out: “The synergies among our research and monitoring programs, both space- and ground-based, are not being exploited effectively because they are not planned and implemented in an integrated fashion. Our problems include inadequate organizational structure, ineffective interagency collaboration, declines in funding, and blurred authority for program planning and implementation.” Planning and implementation in an integrated fashion, I will add – consistent with the scientific method – that is what is needed for a successful scientific investigation by an individual; it is needed to make climateprediction.net substantive; it is needed for any climate organization that is expected, as a whole, to provide integrated climate information.

r




Figure 1: Location of participants in climateprediction.net. From the BBC, a sponsor of the experiment.


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 184 - 134

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

Quoting RustyShackleford:


Without green energy do you know your power bill would be higher?
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Energy like hydro, solar, wave, tidal, geothermal and wind.


Oh..

Turbines are horrible and take up space that can be used for farming.

solar well if the sun don't shine.

wave and tidal sound the same how much energy do they get from it?
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting RustyShackleford:


What type of green energy?

The type that proves not to work?


Energy like hydro, solar, wave, tidal, geothermal and wind.
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Do you like green energy?


What type of green energy?

The type that proves not to work?
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting RustyShackleford:


Carbon Credits...

People stand to make millions off of something that will ruin the job market and the lives of millions...

The world isn't warming this year...

Carbon Credits...

They have not come up with a conclusion that this is man made...

The IPCC in one of their opening statements says it is mans fault

Mission statement from them:

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change"

Wait back that up...

human-induced climate change...

Hold on a second...

Aren't you supposed to find out if this is man made not already that the preconceived thought in your head it is?

Seems a bit dirty....


Do you like green energy?
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The challenge I presented was to convince me that AGW is a sham. I am willing to be convinced and I never claimed to support the AGW theory. The challenge is to convince me that AGW is a a farce and for those that believe in AGW to convince me that the science behind it is correct. Yes, you are guilty of not meeting that challenge. And, no, I do not need to prove my case since I am not making any case to support or deny AGW. YOU, and others, are making the case. The challenge for you is to convince me that you are correct in what you support. Are you guilty of not meeting this challenge? Absolutely!


Carbon Credits...

People stand to make millions off of something that will ruin the job market and the lives of millions...

The world isn't warming this year...

Carbon Credits...

They have not come up with a conclusion that this is man made...

The IPCC in one of their opening statements says it is mans fault

Mission statement from them:

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change"

Wait back that up...

human-induced climate change...

Hold on a second...

Aren't you supposed to find out if this is man made not already that the preconceived thought in your head it is?

Seems a bit dirty....
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


What is your purpose in asking these questions?


I didn't ask you those.

They were meant for Nea.

They were Spathy's questions also. All credit goes to him.
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting RustyShackleford:
And just a question.....
If all across the controlled lands of the World,Every country adopted the Climate agenda,
How much warming could be reduced ?
Reduced by how many degrees?
And what cost is involved in this minor reduction of temp rise?
And just where are the funds going to come from after the Warmists have decimated the GDP of the world?


What is your purpose in asking these questions?

This is how I would answer your first question. Since it is purely a hypothetical question, there is no definitive answer that anyone could give you.
The amount of warming that could be reduced would far exceed that of taking no action at all.
Do you suggest that we have already reached a tipping point and that there is nothing we can do about it now and therefore we should, figuratively speaking, speed up the car that running low on gas? Are you in the habit of being a quitter and throwing your hands into the air, boldly professing that there is nothing we can do about now? Move along folks. There is nothing to see here. Is this your approach to life and its problems we all face?

To answer your second question, there is no exact answer that anyone could give you. This question is as ridiculous to ask as to what temperature, from Earth's past, should we try to achieve today. The question is NOT what is the best temperature for us on Earth and these questions do NOT bring anything to the debate to prove or disprove AGW. What is the purpose of the questions anyway? Do they serve as nothing more than just another distraction from the true debate? YES! This is obviously the only intent in asking such questions. They are simply a distraction and serve no real purpose! The question is what efforts are we going to make to try to keep the Earth's temperature from reaching a point that makes life much more difficult for human life to exist. Doing nothing will not help to reduce the temperature of the Earth. Are you satisfied with this fact, or do you think we should make a more unified effort to control our own destiny? Does this matter if it is AGW induced changes or just a natural process the Earth goes through?

What is the cost involved in a minor reduction of the temperature? I do not know. What is the cost involved is continual, minor rise in temperature? I do know the answer to the ultimate result of this.
Where, indeed, will the funds come from after the speculators, creative financing and creating capital out of thin air has ALREADY decimated the world GDP?! I seriously do not know where the funds will come from. I also do not know where the funds will come from to finance an ever changing world due to a rising global temperature. Do you?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RustyShackleford:


Guilty until proven innocent? I don't think so!!!!

It is your case and you have to find humans guilty.

Which you haven't yet and by you I mean all of you's.


The challenge I presented was to convince me that AGW is a sham. I am willing to be convinced and I never claimed to support the AGW theory. The challenge is to convince me that AGW is a a farce and for those that believe in AGW to convince me that the science behind it is correct. Yes, you are guilty of not meeting that challenge. And, no, I do not need to prove my case since I am not making any case to support or deny AGW. YOU, and others, are making the case. The challenge for you is to convince me that you are correct in what you support. Are you guilty of not meeting this challenge? Absolutely!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:



Oh, not; not this piece of denialist propaganda again. Let's see the fair and balanced perspective of the two "experts" presented in the video:

--David Legates: forced to stop using his title as "state climatologist" in public statements related to climate change; makes a healthy adjunct living speaking before and on behalf of various ExxonMobil-funded groups.

--Willie Soon: a Big Energy-funded denialist whose stated position that the earth is warming solely because of solar irradiance has been debunked countless times.

But I guess it's small wonder this piece keeps popping up again and again and again; contarians really have little else to support their positions.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting Neapolitan:

"Why are we so freaking worried about a little hole in the front of the Titanic? This drives me nuts."


Why are we so worried about millions of bits and pieces of orbital space debris around the space station and the space shuttle? This drives me nuts."
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting RMuller:


The Vikings were farming on Greenland a thousand years ago or more. There was no ice then. Why are we so freaking worried about a little ice loss. This drives me nuts.

"Why are we so freaking worried about a little hole in the front of the Titanic? This drives me nuts."
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting Ossqss:




This video is POPPYCOCK! NOAA HAS IT RIGHT AGAIN.

Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.



Link

Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting RMuller:


The Vikings were farming on Greenland a thousand years ago or more. There was no ice then. Why are we so freaking worried about a little ice loss. This drives me nuts.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RMuller:


The Vikings were farming on Greenland a thousand years ago or more. There was no ice then. Why are we so freaking worried about a little ice loss. This drives me nuts.


The whole North Pole without ice is a little ice loss now?
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting cyclonebuster:


You think they will open again this year?


The Vikings were farming on Greenland a thousand years ago or more. There was no ice then. Why are we so freaking worried about a little ice loss. This drives me nuts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RustyShackleford:


Sorry I misread and didn't see "to"

That would be all my fault.

Sometimes I read through things to quickly.

Happens all the time during Text messages.

I apologize.


A good egg sometimes needs cracking.
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
I see you two have hijacked this blog again....

;)
Member Since: Enero 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Where did I say they were open again?


Sorry I misread and didn't see "to"

That would be all my fault.

Sometimes I read through things to quickly.

Happens all the time during Text messages.

I apologize.
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting RustyShackleford:


You said they were open in your post.

Not if they will open.

I'm not the expert on this subject so my opinion does not matter one bit.

But...

Maybe it will maybe it won't.

I'm hoping not but you never know the variables are outside my control.


Where did I say they were open again?
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting cyclonebuster:


You think they will open again this year?


You said they were open in your post.

Not if they will open.

I'm not the expert on this subject so my opinion does not matter one bit.

But...

Maybe it will maybe it won't.

I'm hoping not but you never know the variables are outside my control.
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting RustyShackleford:


I see nothing open...


You think they will open again this year?
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting cyclonebuster:
OUCH NOT AGAIN. NW AND NE passage to open again. What is that now like 3 years in row?




I see nothing open...
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
OUCH NOT AGAIN. NW AND NE passage to open again. What is that now like 3 years in row?


Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
sigh...
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
And just a question.....
If all across the controlled lands of the World,Every country adopted the Climate agenda,
How much warming could be reduced ?
Reduced by how many degrees?
And what cost is involved in this minor reduction of temp rise?
And just where are the funds going to come from after the Warmists have decimated the GDP of the world?
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting Neapolitan:

A) I don't know which question you're referring to.

B) This is a free forum; if someone chooses to comment on not on any particular comment or subject, that's their right.

C) My not commenting on any particular post isn't cherry-picking any more than my deciding not to eat the broccoli in tonight's chicken lo mein. See, cherry-picking is emphasizing only the data that agrees with your beliefs, while downplaying or ignoring everything else.

D) I've answered perhaps two dozen times--both in this forum and the main--precisely what I do about warming. I really don't wish to repeat, but I promise you it's available. (Now I know how Michael Mann and Phil Jones must feel, always being asked the same question over and over and over and over and over and over...)


Number 152.

Right below your last post.
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting RustyShackleford:
Nea you still haven't answered Spathy's question.

You continue to cherry pick posts and only reply to the ones that you think are deemed answerable.

What are you doing to offset the warming?

There are more question I'll go back and find the post in a few minutes hopefully you'll want to comment on it if not I understand (it'll be to hard on you)

sigh

A) I don't know which question you're referring to.

B) This is a free forum; if someone chooses to comment on not on any particular comment or subject, that's their right.

C) My not commenting on any particular post isn't cherry-picking any more than my deciding not to eat the broccoli in tonight's chicken lo mein. See, cherry-picking is emphasizing only the data that agrees with your beliefs, while downplaying or ignoring everything else.

D) I've answered perhaps two dozen times--both in this forum and the main--precisely what I do about warming. I really don't wish to repeat, but I promise you it's available. (Now I know how Michael Mann and Phil Jones must feel, always being asked the same question over and over and over and over and over and over...)
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting spathy:
Unfortunately a jury of peers in the MMGW camp is defined as those that support the false theory that Any Warming is due to man!
How convenient; to be a peer, you must be in lockstep with the Good ole boy Warmist club.

Unfortunately GIO
The warmists are using this exact scenario to further a destructive agenda.
#8
"Just so long as the one showing that phony arrogance and willful ignorance isn't an elected official making decisions that affect all of us--"

And just a question.....
If all across the controlled lands of the World,Every country adopted the Climate agenda,
How much warming could be reduced ?
Reduced by how many degrees?
And what cost is involved in this minor reduction of temp rise?
And just where are the funds going to come from after the Warmists have decimated the GDP of the world?

HUMMMMM?
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting Neapolitan:

No, not models: real world observation.

With those observations in hand, honest people are left with but a few options:

A) Refuse to acknowledge that the climate is changing;

B) Acknowledge that the climate is changing, but deny that man has had anything to do with it.

C) Acknowledge that the climate is changing, and admit that man is partially, mostly, or wholly responsible.

Now, in selecting 'A', a person is simply not being honest. Period. In selecting 'B', there's a bit more honesty, perhaps, but a dismissal of most of the extant climate science. And that, of course, leaves only 'C'. And since 'C' is the obvious option--why are the deniers still denying?



D. Lying, Cheating and Stealing and people who want to control everybody is the reason why I don't agree. Plus the mounds of data saying we aren't warming as fast as the IPCC would like you to think.
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Nea you still haven't answered Spathy's question.

You continue to cherry pick posts and only reply to the ones that you think are deemed answerable.

What are you doing to offset the warming?

There are more question I'll go back and find the post in a few minutes hopefully you'll want to comment on it if not I understand (it'll be to hard on you)

sigh
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting RustyShackleford:


Did models tell ya that? HAHAHA

sigh

No, not models: real world observation.

With those observations in hand, honest people are left with but a few options:

A) Refuse to acknowledge that the climate is changing;

B) Acknowledge that the climate is changing, but deny that man has had anything to do with it.

C) Acknowledge that the climate is changing, and admit that man is partially, mostly, or wholly responsible.

Now, in selecting 'A', a person is simply not being honest. Period. In selecting 'B', there's a bit more honesty, perhaps, but a dismissal of most of the extant climate science. And that, of course, leaves only 'C'. And since 'C' is the obvious option--why are the deniers still denying?

Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting Neapolitan:

Don't worry, Rusty; as the planet continues to warm, those EXTREMES will become NORMAL--then we can all just pretend they haven't happened. Pretty cool, no?


Did models tell ya that? HAHAHA

sigh
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting cyclonebuster:


No we are running out of gas. It is a limited resource.Go ahead fill up make it even worse.


I'm willing to bet you either

Bike

or

Walk

to work? everyday.
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting RustyShackleford:


He's a pro warmer of course he's going to show the extremes. EXTREMES

Your running out of gas maybe you should go fill up.

Don't worry, Rusty; as the planet continues to warm, those EXTREMES will become NORMAL--then we can all just pretend they haven't happened. Pretty cool, no?
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Dr. Rood I asked a pretty good question here at climateprediction.net blog. What say you?


Link
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting RustyShackleford:


He's a pro warmer of course he's going to show the extremes. EXTREMES

Your running out of gas maybe you should go fill up.


No we are running out of gas. It is a limited resource.Go ahead and fill up make it even worse.
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Read Dr. Masters blog today. Pretty convincing to me how about you?


He's a pro warmer of course he's going to show the extremes. EXTREMES

Your running out of gas maybe you should go fill up.
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Like it doesn't run on gas anyways. LOL! Where does the power come from ultimately. Fossil Fuel Power Plants right? Some nuke,hydro,solar,wind,wave,thermal thrown into the mix but the majority is still supplied by fossil fuels.

img src="">

No gas here though!

Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting RustyShackleford:


That's your only comeback.

You can't prove tornadoes this year are mans fault.

You can't prove this warming is mans fault.

You can't prove any of this.

It is innocent until proven guilty but yall think it is the other way around.

#noproof
#excuses
#gameover


Read Dr. Masters blog today. Pretty convincing to me how about you?
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting cyclonebuster:


LOL!


That's your only comeback.

You can't prove tornadoes this year are mans fault.

You can't prove this warming is mans fault.

You can't prove any of this.

It is innocent until proven guilty but yall think it is the other way around.

#noproof
#excuses
#gameover
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting RustyShackleford:


You never know.


LOL!
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting cyclonebuster:


A cat 5 storm could never reach Houston as a cat 5.


You never know.
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting RustyShackleford:


Rita which was a Cat 5 at one point.

Let me find the animation of what they thought it was going to do.

You can go to almost any hurricane and look at the 5 day cone and laugh at the "models" they are normally off.

Link

It was a Cat 5 in the Gulf bearing down on Houston at the time and then it went east.


A cat 5 storm could never reach Houston as a cat 5.
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting Ossqss:
Preliminary Assessment of Climate Factors Contributing to the Extreme 2011 Tornadoes - ESRL

So you agree with my oft-repeated statement: the only thing as outrageous as claiming with 100% certainty that a particular weather event is a direct cause of climate change is claiming with 100% certainty that that weather event is NOT a direct cause of climate change.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Which storm was it?


Rita which was a Cat 5 at one point.

Let me find the animation of what they thought it was going to do.

You can go to almost any hurricane and look at the 5 day cone and laugh at the "models" they are normally off.

Link

It was a Cat 5 in the Gulf bearing down on Houston at the time and then it went east.
Member Since: Mayo 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting RustyShackleford:


noaa.gov right?

Somebody wants something...

Privatize it yet??? Then it'll be trustworthy.


In the words of John McEnroe "You cannot be serious?", LOL. That was attempted a few years ago.
National Weather Service Duties Attempted Takeover 2005
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.786:
Member Since: Marzo 18, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 283

Viewing: 184 - 134

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.