# American Meteorological Survey on Global Warming



## jack97 (Nov 21, 2013)

Here's a 2013 survey conducted on the American Meteorological Society members. Interesting that of the respondents, 52% percent believe global warming is caused by man.

Saw it on Forbes today, but the results were available last week, not surprise it hasn't made it to more media outlets.

 Here's the manuscript version, it has detail of the respondents and the spreadsheet at the.   http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 22, 2013)

Thanks for posting that.  It's a pretty interesting read, although not that surprising in terms of findings I guess.  Their discussion includes a bunch of things I feel like we already knew, including:


Scientists with greater expertise in climate science believe that there is a human-caused component of climate change (as opposed to scientists with less expertise).
"Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change"
"These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change"


Their discussions about the political ideology impacts are very revealing and informative.  They show that a liberal political ideology is correlated with a belief that climate change is largely human-caused.  They then attribute political ideology as a causative affect on certain scientific beliefs and understanding. However, one thing I wish they had explored a little bit deeper is whether scientific knowledge and expertise influences ones political ideology.  It's plausible that many scientist hold liberal beliefs _because _they are knowledgeable experts, instead of the other way around.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 22, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Thanks for posting that.  It's a pretty interesting read, although not that surprising in terms of findings I guess.  Their discussion includes a bunch of things I feel like we already knew, including:
> 
> 
> Scientists with greater expertise in climate science believe that there is a human-caused component of climate change (as opposed to scientists with less expertise).
> ...



Normally a large research project is politically motivated. More so, I read this past year, 2-3 billions dollars was granted to research university in the US on climate change. IMO, the participants have an interest in the pursuit of this since they feed off each other. If the National Research Foundation believes that climate change is caused by man then they will grant funds to scientist that will support this belief. That in itself is the irony, science has not been conducted in this manner.... well in the US. It has been conducted that way in the USSR with Lysenko.


btw, as the paper mentioned, the survey itself was motivated by dissent among members. Here's Tim Kelley's twitter feeds on his opinion. 

https://twitter.com/SurfSkiWxMan/statuses/348042171619872768

https://twitter.com/SurfSkiWxMan/statuses/348041474803376128


----------



## jack97 (Nov 23, 2013)

hmmm.... just thinking this thru for the non science geeks. The irony that I speak of is related to one of the quotes from TK

"Science has on open mind. We were trained that way our entire life, we're science geeks since birth, 50+ years. Capice? doubtful"


It may turn out the true liberals minds are the ones with open minds and do not spit out  bullet points from a position paper or a political platform. In science, observations should determine the causation not vice versa.

IMO, this climate issue has so much irony and drama, its better than watching TV drama.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 23, 2013)

jack97 said:


> Here's a 2013 survey conducted on the American Meteorological Society members. Interesting that of the respondents, 52% percent believe global warming is caused by man.



This is not a totally fair assessment of this interesting paper.

Scientific facts are NOT determined by opinion polls.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 23, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> This is not a totally fair assessment of this interesting paper.
> 
> Scientific facts are determined by opinion polls.




 science are facts based on observations.  The survey counters the 97% number the IPCC has been using.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 23, 2013)

jack97 said:


> science are facts based on observations.



 Oops...  Forgot the'not' in my post above.... 

Polling results depends on who you are polling obviously. If you poll climate scientists actually involved in scientific research, you get a number closer to the IPCC quoted number above.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 23, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Polling results depends on who you are polling obviously. If you poll climate scientists actually involved in scientific research, you get a number closer to the IPCC quoted number above.



Hence the purpose of the survey, the findings so far by climate scientist have not thoroughly convince meteorologist, scientist who study or observe the atmosphere.  Perhaps the climate scientist and the government officials who control funding are drinking the same kool aid.  It should alarm all regardless of any political persuasion that something is wrong.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 23, 2013)

jack97 said:


> Hence the purpose of the survey, the findings so far by climate scientist have not thoroughly convince meteorologist, scientist who study or observe the atmosphere.  Perhaps the climate scientist and the government officials who control funding are drinking the same kool aid.  It should alarm all regardless of any political persuasion that something is wrong.



Here are the numbers, overall, 62% of all responders say global warming is mostly or partly due to humans. (only 11% say there is no global warming, the other don't know the cause or say it's a natural cause).  If you take climate scientists that do most of their research in 'climate science', this goes to 88% (with 98% believing in global warming).  Clearly, the people who know the most think that climate change is mostly due to human effects.

On this topic, the opinion of meteorologists is hardly more relevant than that of geologists or hydrologists.  

There are really only two possible ways of looking at this:

1- the scientists who actually do real climate research are indeed the better experts on the topic,  they overwhelmingly agree on the role of humans, and may be we should trust them.
2- the same scientists are part of a global conspiracy to get funding, and we should trust everyone else but them. 

What I find alarming is the distrust of scientists in this case.  If you have cancer, trust your oncologist, if your home foundation develops cracks trust the civil engineer, if you need the best possible estimate of rainfall probability for tomorrow, indeed trust your meteorologist, but if the climate warms up, do NOT trust the climate scientists ???  You either believe in science or you don't.

I don't care about the meteorologists' opinion on climate change anymore than I care about the opinion of climatologists on tomorrow's weather.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 23, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> What I find alarming is the distrust of scientists in this case.  If you have cancer, trust your oncologist, if your home foundation develops cracks trust the civil engineer, if you need the best possible estimate of rainfall probability for tomorrow, indeed trust your meteorologist, but if the climate warms up, do NOT trust the climate scientists ???  You either believe in science or you don't.



if i had cancer or if my foundation was cracked, i would get a second opinion; from a doctor not in the same practice as the first or from a civil engineer not from the same company as the first.

btw..... its not a matter of trusting science or not, that's is close minded. science is about growth and transformation (sorry walt white but I can't put decay in this one) time will tell who is right or wrong. Scientist have accepted fundamental principles that they are not experts in mainly b/c the principles have been tested rigorously through out time and have still held up.  However, present climate scientist hypothesis about agw has not convince everyone in the scientific community, imo b/c the findings are not overwhelming.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 24, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> ...... It's plausible that many scientist hold liberal beliefs _because _they are knowledgeable experts, instead of the other way around.



Took me a while to dig this out... some distinguish members; nobel prize laureates and fellows from the American Physical Society (Physics) and the American Chemical Society have resigned their membership due to their society's position papers, akin to what happened in the AMS. You may know this or not, Physicist, Chemist and Meteorologist do study the atmosphere but they study it under the context of finding truth not under the guise of it. Hence the dissent among the ranks.


Here's the stories on the noted physicists resignation,

http://www.ibtimes.com/nobel-laurea...hysics-group-over-stand-global-warming-313636

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...ter-a-Martin-Luther-moment-in-science-history


No stories of the chemist resignation but  letters to the editor when they publish their position paper.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/87/i30/Climate-Change-Controversy.html



IMO, this type of dogma has gone further than when religious zealots tried to put creationism in place of or equal to evolution.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 24, 2013)

jack97 said:


> *IMO, the participants have an interest in the pursuit of this since they feed off each other. If the National Research Foundation believes that climate change is caused by man then they will grant funds to scientist that will support this belief. *That in itself is the irony



_*BINGO.*_

Thousands of people would lose their high-paying jobs were the man-made Global Warming hypothesis deemed a bust.  Not only that, but take a guess as to what the government responsiveness will be if you apply for a grant to investigate an alternate theory.  SPOILER ALERT: It wont end well.

 I used to believe in AGW years ago, until I started following the money and it led me to a putrid stench.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 24, 2013)

The other thing not being considered in this AMS study is what in data analysis is called, "survivor  bias". 

 Many quit the AMS because of their belief that there was an  almost religious fervor towards Global Warming and that their opinions weren't being considered, or worse, even _allowed _to be professed.  

Essentially that they were being suppressed  and steamrolled, and that they didnt wish to be a part of it anymore.  So  many people who WOULD have voted against the validity of man-created Global Warming are no longer able to vote against it,  and yet they could only manage a non-impressive 52% = TELLING.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 24, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> _*BINGO.*_
> 
> Thousands of people would lose their high-paying jobs were the man-made Global Warming hypothesis deemed a bust.  Not only that, but take a guess as to what the government responsiveness will be if you apply for a grant to investigate an alternate theory.  SPOILER ALERT: It wont end well.
> 
> I used to believe in AGW years ago, until I started following the money and it led me to a putrid stench.



That's where you got it wrong.   If you could do legitimate science that shows global warming is not happening, there would be much easier ways to get money than to go through the NSF (Jack, it's the NSF not the NRF).


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 24, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> The other thing not being considered in this AMS study is what in data analysis is called, "survivor  bias".
> 
> Many quit the AMS because of their belief that there was an  almost religious fervor towards Global Warming and that their opinions weren't being considered, or worse, even _allowed _to be professed.
> 
> Essentially that they were being suppressed  and steamrolled, and that they didnt wish to be a part of it anymore.  So  many people who WOULD have voted against the validity of man-created Global Warming are no longer able to vote against it,  and yet they could only manage a non-impressive 52% = TELLING.



This is an incredible display of bad faith.  The ONLY thing that you can get out of this paper is that the better the expertise on climate science, the more likely you are to think that global warming has a man-made component.   

This is not a scientific survey with carefully chosen sub-samples of a base group.   This was sent out to ALL members (26% response rate) so there are potential biases much much larger than 'survivor bias'.   

You can try to misrepresent the survey by using the 52% but let me spin it the other way - only 4% (yes 4%) of all surveyed do not believe that global warming is happening.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 24, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> That's where you got it wrong.   If you could do legitimate science that shows global warming is not happening, there would be much easier ways to get money than to go through the NSF (Jack, it's the NSF not the NRF).



I think all gov including US have acknowledge that global warming is happening wrt the industrial age. The question is whether its man made or not. That is where the hysteria starts and where the money cycle starts.


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 24, 2013)

jack97 said:


> I think all gov including US have acknowledge that global warming is happening wrt the industrial age. The question is whether its man made or not. That is where the hysteria starts and where the money cycle starts.



Yes, you're right on the money. All governments have acknowledged it, based on the overwhelming majority of expert science.  And that overwhelming majority of expert scientists have identified that there is a human induced component.  And that makes some people hysterical.

That's really a shame because hysteria is an unproductive use of energy. That energy would be better placed towards solutions and adaptations.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 24, 2013)

jack97 said:


> I think all gov including US have acknowledge that global warming is happening wrt the industrial age. The question is whether its man made or not. That is where the hysteria starts and where the money cycle starts.



Do you realize those are the exacts same arguments guys like you were using 15 years ago about whether or not climate change was real ?  

Care to enlighten us about where you get your information about this hysteria and money cycle scheme ?

The question about whether or not there is a man-made component is pretty much settled.  Go read the science and tell us where it is wrong instead of crying wolf about pseudo conspiracies.   You may find that hysteria is not where you think it is.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 24, 2013)

jack97 said:


> Took me a while to dig this out... some distinguish members; nobel prize laureates and fellows from the American Physical Society (Physics) and the American Chemical Society have resigned their membership due to their society's position papers, akin to what happened in the AMS. You may know this or not, Physicist, Chemist and Meteorologist do study the atmosphere but they study it under the context of finding truth not under the guise of it. Hence the dissent among the ranks.
> 
> 
> Here's the stories on the noted physicists resignation,
> ...



Concerning Ivar Giaever, poster boy for deniers, read this and learn why this guy has been laughed at.  And it ain't because of a conspiracy.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html


----------



## jack97 (Nov 25, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Concerning Ivar Giaever, poster boy for deniers, read this and learn why this guy has been laughed at.  And it ain't because of a conspiracy.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html




 Ivar Giaever admits to not studying the atmosphere, he does not believe the position paper should have been written under the context and the methods that have been used. People who laugh at him are closed minded given his past contribution. 

IMO, in terms of new ideas, Salby, a respected scientist who got the run around from the NSF, MU and most likely the regional awg zealots. He surmise that temp is driving the co2, that in itself needs to be scrutinize but the satellite observations of co2 do not match that of man made emission. Guy used to be a IPCC reviewer and written textbooks on atmospheric physics. Has another ytube tape in hamberg where he goes into more numerical techniques, it not for the faint of heart who loves this stuff, meaning the scientific method.


And yes I have read the debate on the opposing web sites... that's what science is about, allowance to hear and analyze opposing views. That is the essence of why Giaever resigned.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 25, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> ....- only 4% (yes 4%) of all surveyed do not believe that global warming is happening.



Those 4 % may believe the surface temp is lower than the past temp surmised by core samples. Recent finding shows the greenland ice coverage around 5000 to 3000 years ago was smaller than it is today and correlates to the archaeologist findings when they surmise Norsemen settled in the region at around the same period. If so, it could lead one to believe present surface temp is cooler. I would admit that the survey question should have used a timed reference point for temp. 

Media description below, paper is most likely thru a pay wall
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2013/11/033.html


This also begs the question of why we are spending so much money on finding ways co2 has reduced the arctic ice sheets when in fact it has gotten smaller before, 1000 of years before the industrial age.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 25, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> That's really a shame because hysteria is an unproductive use of energy. That energy would be better placed towards solutions and adaptations.



exactly!

New satellite measurements show natural co2 has no coherency to man made co2 emission. More ice core sampling shows the increase co2 lags temperature increase, which begs the question how can co2 cause temperature increase if the past proxies shows it lags  by ~ 200 yrs. And base on proxies, as far as we can measure, WG has been going on and this warming spell is most likely a natural oscillation. 


View attachment 9611

I think most research has been fruitful but there comes a time when you have to think about other things...... and use the limited funding to figure out ways to adapt. A carbon tax seems silly if natural co2 swamps out man made and if temperature actually controls the co2 levels. 

And if liberal means to be unorthodox.... then I would also state that it might be time to address the white elephant in the room. The IPCC should consider plan parenthood for the whole planet. We have too many people on a planet which has limited resources. Proxies shows earth goes through temp variations that can alter land masses which alter food production. We may not have enough food to feed everyone if land mass are in drought or become frozen.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 25, 2013)

jack97 said:


> This also begs the question of why we are spending so much money on finding ways co2 has reduced the arctic ice sheets when in fact it has gotten smaller before, 1000 of years before the industrial age.



The Greenland ice sheet and arctic ice sheets are two different things.  

In the cited paper above, there is nothing and I mean ABSOLUTELY nothing that discusses the links between CO2 concentration and ice sheet extent, and it is NOT a paper about climate change.  Main conclusion (only applicable to West Greenland) simply indicate that the extent of the ice sheet is linked to ocean temperature and not air temperature.  If you are going to cherry pick a paper to justify your position, you should at least read the paper (go to a university library) to know what it is really about.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 25, 2013)

jack97 said:


> New satellite measurements show natural co2 has no coherency to man made co2 emission.



And the point is ?



jack97 said:


> More ice core sampling shows the increase co2 lags temperature increase, which begs the question how can co2 cause temperature increase if the past proxies shows it lags  by ~ 200 yrs.




I suggest you read this paper to answer your question about the lag between CO2 and temperature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

View attachment 9611



jack97 said:


> A carbon tax seems silly if natural co2 swamps out man made and if temperature actually controls the co2 levels.


Natural CO2 is indeed much more important than that of man-made CO2.  But it is the man-made CO2 that has contributed to the observed increase in CO2.   Temperature does NOT control C02. 



jack97 said:


> And if liberal means to be unorthodox.... then I would also state that it might be time to address the white elephant in the room. The IPCC should consider plan parenthood for the whole planet. We have too many people on a planet which has limited resources. Proxies shows earth goes through temp variations that can alter land masses which alter food production. We may not have enough food to feed everyone if land mass are in drought or become frozen.



I'm fully with you on the problem of over-population.  However, the IPCC mandate is to report on climate change science.   It would be severely overstepping its mandate if it was to get into issues such as over-population.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 25, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> I suggest you read this paper to answer your question about the lag between CO2 and temperature.
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html



Latest paper shows otherwise. May hold up or not, if so then it counters the paper you referenced. Meaning knowledge is not static, it grows or evolves. Which was the whole point about the understanding the dissent in the surveys.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract


If it does hold, then it shows CO2 lags temp increase by two hundreds years max. So for the past GW cycles, CO2 could not of warm the surface. CO2 is not the driver of such events. 





fbrissette said:


> Natural CO2 is indeed much more important than that of man-made CO2. But it is the man-made CO2 that has contributed to the observed increase in CO2. Temperature does NOT control C02.



In the Salby vid, he shows the net annual emission from satellite observations are not coherent to man-made net annual emission.  It leads to his opinion that man made emission are too small, two order of magnitude. This is new findings/analysis from satellite observations. And again, it needs to be scrutinized by all in the scientific community. 





fbrissette said:


> I'm fully with you on the problem of over-population. However, the IPCC mandate is to report on climate change science. It would be severely overstepping its mandate if it was to get into issues such as over-population.



Officers  from the IPCC are suggesting that we (collectively) embrace nuclear power given its capacity and it is carbon neutral, this is suggesting public policy. Telling people to keep it in their pants is just another public policy.


----------



## ScottySkis (Nov 25, 2013)

Basically we can't prove why earth Carbon is going up sure man kind contributed to it but were fucke& if we don't figure a way to stop it.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 25, 2013)

Scotty said:


> Basically we can't prove why earth Carbon is going up sure man kind contributed to it but were fucke& if we don't figure a way to stop it.



yep... if it's truly a natural cycle when temps and co2 goes up, has nothing to do with man made emission, we most likely do not have the means to stop it. That only happens in sci fi movies.  However modern man has survived a mini ice age, the question in my mind is if we have enough natural resource; food and heat to sustain a large population in severe temp extremes.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 25, 2013)

jack97 said:


> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract
> 
> 
> If it does hold, then it shows CO2 lags temp increase by two hundreds years max. So for the past GW cycles, CO2 could not of warm the surface. CO2 is not the driver of such events.



??? The paper you quoted above says that CO2 is not lagging temperature as infered by previous papers.  Are you trying to make my case ???




jack97 said:


> In the Salby vid, he shows the net annual emission from satellite observations are not coherent to man-made net annual emission.  It leads to his opinion that man made emission are too small, two order of magnitude. This is new findings/analysis from satellite observations. And again, it needs to be scrutinized by all in the scientific community.



Murry Salby...   Please....   He could not get any of his work published because it is so severely flawed.  He was fired by both University of Colorado and Mcquarrie University in Australia.  Do you know how hard it is to get fired in a university ?  And he managed to do it twice...  You know there is something wrong when a scientist uses internet videos instead of proper science journals.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 25, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> ??? The paper you quoted above says that CO2 is not lagging temperature as infered by previous papers.  Are you trying to make my case ???



no... your reactions are making my case and the purpose of the survey. Reread the abstract. 



fbrissette said:


> Murry Salby... Please.... He could not get any of his work published because it is so severely flawed. He was fired by both University of Colorado and Mcquarrie University in Australia. Do you know how hard it is to get fired in a university ? And he managed to do it twice... You know there is something wrong when a scientist uses internet videos instead of proper science journals.



Not sure about the CU but he was recruited to be a chair at  MU at 2008, the termination situation was under dubious circumstances. Doubt anyone will know the truth about it, so why bother. 

Using the internet may be his way to get his message across since he was restricted in travel by MU. And presently on tour giving lectures. The paper review process right now could be more political. What he shows has correlated to other findings and replicated by others. His main message is satellite observations do not show the same trends as man made c02 emissions.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 25, 2013)

One of the most bizarre things about the whole climate debate is how "saddened" people who fervently support Global Warming seem to get when data points roll in that suggest it might not be happening (or if is, is why less critical than was believed).


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 25, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> You can try to misrepresent the survey by using the 52% but *let me spin it the other way - only 4% (yes 4%) of all surveyed do not believe that global warming is happening*.



Who cares?   That's a red herring.  Everyone should know that the earth has been in a warm phase, the question is whether or not is has even the slightest thing to do with man. 

CO2 is rising just like the scientists said it would (even WORSE than they predicted in fact), yet the earth's temperature is NOT rising like they said it would, even worse (for them) it's moderated.   

The man-made Global Warming hypothesis is broken, and they know it.  Which is why they're currently punting and making excuses with this_, "Global Warming might take a break for 20 years or so" _nonsense.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 26, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> The man-made Global Warming hypothesis is broken, and they know it.  Which is why they're currently punting and making excuses with this_, "Global Warming might take a break for 20 years or so" _nonsense.



Most scientist who publish to their respective journals have started to believe the agw hypothesis is flawed since the temps have been flatlining. imo, i think the IPCC believe its flawed as well, they are saying the world needs to agree by 2015 or they will become irrelevant.  By then maybe we can finally get back to science instead of dogma.


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 26, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> ??? The paper you quoted above says that CO2 is not lagging temperature as infered by previous papers.  Are you trying to make my case ???



I noticed that too.  I started to write a response, but then I realized how much wasted energy is going into this thread (and others) and realized that I'm pretty much done with it.  Time and energy spent on "debating" with anonymous people online is really unproductive.  That same time can be spent actually working on solutions, adaptations, and mitigation.

For example, I'm currently organizing an 8 part public lecture series on the small-scale local impacts of climate change, in this case, as felt through sea level rise.  The coastal communities I work in are struggling to understand the rate and extent of change they need to deal with and what their options are.  This series is focused towards an audience of private land/home owners and some municipal players.  The main goal is to provide straightforward information that allows people to filter out the political noise and focus on practical responses.  This idea was spawned by local people asking for it.  Those of us living and working on the immediate waterfront spend zero time debating about sea level rise....we're too busy living it.

Let me be clear to those who I know are already waiting to pounce on conspiracies of ulterior motives and personal gain.  Nobody is getting rich off of this.  In fact nobody is making a cent from this.  I have zero funding to organize and host this series. I am running this through a non-profit community center that I work/volunteer at.  We did apply for a small (~$15K) grant to cover the expenses of hosting this but we did not receive the funding.  But the value of this is great enough that it's worth working on without the funding.  Fortunately all of our speakers agree and are willing to give their presentations at no cost (despite significant travel etc).  These are professionals working in the fields of climate science, coastal geology, oceanography, coastal engineering, etc.  These are real people that I know personally.  They are not the mythical "evil, corrupt scientists" invented by fringe internet blogs.  I can tell you for a fact that not a one of them (including me) is getting rich from any of the science they are involved in.  Nor do they have a motivation to create issues that don't exist just to receive funding.  For example, I have been much more successful getting funding for fisheries restoration projects as opposed to climate change related projects.  And I much prefer working on the fisheries projects.  I would be more than happy to not be dealing with this lecture series, but it addresses a real problem and people are asking for help so I'm helping. 

At least this thread shows that people are reading the science.  Unfortunately it's being misunderstood and/or misrepresented in several cases.  And I can't spend my energy proofing that.  I'm impressed by fbrissette's ability to keep up with it (god for you man).  But at least it's being discussed.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 26, 2013)

Very cool thing for you do Cannonball.  I hope the lecture series is videotaped.  If it is, please share it here.

I have very little interest in discussing the temperature outside and whether human's are responsible for it's rise or fall.  Preparing for and adapting to what appears is going to be a massive change in our ocean fronts due to the sea level rising is a much more compelling story / situation to discuss IMO.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 26, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> the question is whether or not is has even the slightest thing to do with man.



And yet this question has mostly been settled.  You would know that if you'd bother reading the actual scientific literature instead of taking your information from paid bloggers on the net.  



BenedictGomez said:


> CO2 is rising just like the scientists said it would (even WORSE than they predicted in fact), yet the earth's temperature is NOT rising like they said it would, even worse (for them) it's moderated.



CO2 has been rising according to the pessimistic scenarios.  I mean you can't possibly blame the scientists for the lack of political courage in reducing GHG and the faster than expected growth of emissions from India and China.   

You are correct that the global earth temperature has been stagnating (at its record levels) for the past 10-15 years.  There are lots of possible reasons for that, and it shows that we still have a lot to learn about short-term natural variability.   Again, if you'd bother to read real scientific literature, you would know that the probability of having plateaus and even short-term decreases in an overall long-term upward trend has been studied and established for a while.  The heat is accumulating elsewhere in the mean time, most likely in the ocean where we have little measurements outside of the surface temperature which can be measured with satellites.




BenedictGomez said:


> The man-made Global Warming hypothesis is broken, and they know it.  Which is why they're currently punting and making excuses with this_, "Global Warming might take a break for 20 years or so" _nonsense.



Repeating this does not make it true.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 26, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> Very cool thing for you do Cannonball.  I hope the lecture series is videotaped.  If it is, please share it here.
> 
> I have very little interest in discussing the temperature outside and whether human's are responsible for it's rise or fall.  Preparing for and adapting to what appears is going to be a massive change in our ocean fronts due to the sea level rising is a much more compelling story / situation to discuss IMO.



You should take interest in this.  It's actually a good news that humans are mostly responsible for the increase because it means we can do something about it beside adapting.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 26, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> I noticed that too.  I started to write a response, but then I realized how much wasted energy is going into this thread (and others) and realized that I'm pretty much done with it.  Time and energy spent on "debating" with anonymous people online is really unproductive.  That same time can be spent actually working on solutions, adaptations, and mitigation.



I'm taking time to debunk the classical denial theories not because I'm trying to convince Jack97 and Benedict Gomez as I know this is a lost cause.  I'm doing it for others who might follow this thread.  There is lot of disinformation on the net and the good science is not that readily accessible.   Professionally I'm also involved in a lot of impact and adaptation initiatives.   What you are doing is important.  Good stuff.


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 26, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> I'm taking time to debunk the classical denial theories not because I'm trying to convince Jack97 and Benedict Gomez as I know this is a lost cause.  I'm doing it for others who might follow this thread.  There is lot of disinformation on the net and the good science is not that readily accessible.   Professionally I'm also involved in a lot of impact and adaptation initiatives.   What you are doing is important.  Good stuff.



And good for you for keeping at it.   Sometimes I feel like there is a downside to trying debunk the disinformation though.  That is what makes people feel like there is a debate going on.  If they are making random claims and someone argues with them, they consider that to be a "debate".  And for the others following the thread, the back and forth may also look like a debate because they don't have the time or expertise to dig into the real details of all the articles being posted back and forth.   But oh man do I understand how hard it is to just let it slide.....


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 26, 2013)

jack97 said:


> Most scientist who publish to their respective journals have started to believe the agw hypothesis is flawed since the temps have been flatlining.



Who appointed you as official spokesperson for 'most scientists' ?  I publish and read in many of those journals and I have not seen the least bit of this.



jack97 said:


> By then maybe we can finally get back to science instead of dogma.



Climate scientists have been and are still doing science trying to better understand the past climate and better predict the future climate.  For every scientist that dwells into the politics of climate change, you'll find hundreds working hard, doing solid science to further our understanding of our fragile earth system.   You and your camp contribute next to nothing by using papers our of context and spreading disinformation.  If you want dogma, look no further than in your mirror.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 26, 2013)

We've owned a marina since 1960. The average water level of high tide & low tide hasn't changed during that time. Moon tides aren't any higher or lower than they normally are. I'm no scientist but this is what I've seen first hand.

As for fisheries mgt. you just lost a big one with the pair trawling herring boats.


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 26, 2013)

steamboat1 said:


> We've owned a marina since 1960. The average water level of high tide & low tide hasn't changed during that time. Moon tides aren't any higher or lower than they normally are. I'm no scientist but this is what I've seen first hand.
> 
> As for fisheries mgt. you just lost a big one with the pair trawling herring boats.



Specific locales can vary considerably.  You must be in a pretty fortunate spot.  The measured annual rate of sea level rise in NY has been ~2.78mm/year from 1880 to present.  That's great that you haven't been impacted.  Have you noticed the tidal anomaly of the past couple years?  Unrelated to sea level rise, actual tides have been higher than predicted tides as a result of global oscillations (NAO etc).  It's been visibly noticeable in the salt marshes here in MA but I haven't paid much attention to other areas.  Have you seen it at the marina?

No kidding about the pair trawlers, it's ugly.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 26, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Sometimes I feel like there is a downside to trying debunk the disinformation though.  That is what makes people feel like there is a debate going on.  If they are making random claims and someone argues with them, they consider that to be a "debate".  And for the others following the thread, the back and forth may also look like a debate because they don't have the time or expertise to dig into the real details of all the articles being posted back and forth.



This is a very good point.  Never saw it that way, but you may be right.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 26, 2013)

steamboat1 said:


> We've owned a marina since 1960. The average water level of high tide & low tide hasn't changed during that time. Moon tides aren't any higher or lower than they normally are. I'm no scientist but this is what I've seen first hand.



If you're interested in the oceans and in changes in global levels, here's the link for the final draft of chapter 3 from Working group 1.  This is a good overview of the science with respect to change in the oceans including water levels.   As you'll see, it is good old plain science. Even though the mean sea level is on the rise, sea levels are dropping below average in some parts of the world due to ocean currents and differential cooling.   Some coastal areas are also moving up and down due to tectonic forces or isostatic rebound from the last ice age, thus complicating the picture.

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


----------



## jack97 (Nov 26, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> And good for you for keeping at it.   Sometimes I feel like there is a downside to trying debunk the disinformation though.  That is what makes people feel like there is a debate going on.  If they are making random claims and someone argues with them, they consider that to be a "debate".  And for the others following the thread, the back and forth may also look like a debate because they don't have the time or expertise to dig into the real details of all the articles being posted back and forth.   But oh man do I understand how hard it is to just let it slide.....



Then look at the data and do not trust one source. So far the AGW is broken b/c it relys on co2 driving temp. Observation shows CO2 has been steadily going up and temps has flatline

I implore you and anyone to see the Salby vid, he has 35 years in the field, held various university position and has written two books on the subject. There has been some smear campaign going on and again it fruitless to go into that.  Regardless of this, you can not take away his academic exp. His talks explains this to laymen, it may have some technical flaws, but it has sprouted technical debate and thinking which is what its all about. 

The vid from Sidney Inst has some great questions and answers on what sciences all about. Its about 55 mins long, imo, more worthwhile than a reality episode on TV.


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 26, 2013)

jack97 said:


> Then look at the data and do not trust one source. So far the AGW is broken b/c it relys on co2 driving temp. Observation shows CO2 has been steadily going up and temps has flatline
> 
> I implore you and anyone to see the Salby vid, he has 35 years in the field, held various university position and has written two books on the subject. There has been some smear campaign going on and again it fruitless to go into that.  Regardless of this, you can not take away his academic exp. His talks explains this to laymen, it may have some technical flaws, but it has sprouted technical debate and thinking which is what its all about.
> 
> The vid from Sidney Inst has some great questions and answers on what sciences all about. Its about 55 mins long, imo, more worthwhile than a reality episode on TV.



Hey man, you sound like a really sincere guy.  I work with this stuff literally every day, so I certainly do not get my information from one source.  I appreciate your obvious interest in looking for truths and facts, and for placing a high value on the scientific method.  As a scientist I find that to be very heartening.  I understand where you are coming from and why you find the Salby and Inst videos intriguing.  On the surface they are very appealing. I'm not going to get into unproductive back-and-forth on where they fail.  I will in return, implore you to seek out original published science beyond the abstracts, beyond Forbes' digestion of them, beyond blogger summaries, and beyond YouTube videos.  I understand that it's not always easy to gain access to full versions of legitimate scientific journals online.  But if you really are interested it will be worth the extra effort to access them through your library or a university.  I'll warn you though, they tend to pretty dry and tend to address very small-scale issues.  Scientific research is almost always focused at excruciatingly specific issues.  It is the media, politics, and agencies that turn those specifics into bigger picture issues (for better or for worse).


----------



## jack97 (Nov 26, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Hey man, you sound like a really sincere guy.  I work with this stuff literally every day, so I certainly do not get my information from one source.  I appreciate your obvious interest in looking for truths and facts, and for placing a high value on the scientific method.  As a scientist I find that to be very heartening.  I understand where you are coming from and why you find the Salby and Inst videos intriguing.  On the surface they are very appealing. I'm not going to get into unproductive back-and-forth on where they fail.  I will in return, implore you to seek out original published science beyond the abstracts, beyond Forbes' digestion of them, beyond blogger summaries, and beyond YouTube videos.  I understand that it's not always easy to gain access to full versions of legitimate scientific journals online.  But if you really are interested it will be worth the extra effort to access them through your library or a university.  I'll warn you though, they tend to pretty dry and tend to address very small-scale issues.  Scientific research is almost always focused at excruciatingly specific issues.  It is the media, politics, and agencies that turn those specifics into bigger picture issues (for better or for worse).



I have been reading these journals and do not have time to go back and forth myself. I find the journals entertaining from a numerical tech point of view. I understand the issue with Salby's approach and the lasted paper by Humlum may support this but that won't be resolved here so why bother. 

Not sure when you got your degrees and what field, doesn't really matter. I have a master but didn't have the time and money to get a phd. I had prof who where reviewers or editors for their journals. For the past 10 to 20 years it has got competitive in the academic world, profs would have to do cutting edge research to show they were worthy for tenure, else their contracts would expire so they have an incentive to get research money to stay employed to do research. By the way, I have worked on proposal for research funds as well, the program office on that end looks for things so some times you have to sell your ideas to what they want. That's all I got to say other than I like taking long walks on beaches and so on. 

I'm out, later.


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 27, 2013)

jack97 said:


> IMO, in terms of new ideas, Salby, a respected scientist who got the run around from the NSF, MU and most likely the regional awg zealots. He surmise that temp is driving the co2, that in itself needs to be scrutinize but the satellite observations of co2 do not match that of man made emission.



You sure you read that right? I point to the hole in the ozone layer caused, it's been reliably shown, by excessive releases of chlorofluorocarbons. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure the heaviest use of Aquanet occurred in Jersey, not Antarctica.

The angle on man causing climate change that I'm amazed never shows up is, I think, a simple one, with really only 1 conclusion.
Riddle me this- under what circumstances is it beneficial to continue pumping large quantities of CO2, CO, SOx, NOx, and various particulates into the atmosphere? I posit that there is no benefit to it. Therefore, it can only be neutral or negative. Evidence suggests that the effect is not neutral (we can all argue about the degree of non-neutrality, I suppose). The inescapable conclusion, then, is that it's probably not a good thing to pump crap into the atmosphere. Ergo, we should think about either doing something about it, or preparing for potential effects.

The cost of being prepared and wrong is much lower than being unprepared and wrong.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 27, 2013)

ctenidae said:


> You sure you read that right? I point to the hole in the ozone layer caused, it's been reliably shown, by excessive releases of chlorofluorocarbons. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure the heaviest use of Aquanet occurred in Jersey, not Antarctica.
> 
> The angle on man causing climate change that I'm amazed never shows up is, I think, a simple one, with really only 1 conclusion.
> Riddle me this- under what circumstances is it beneficial to continue pumping large quantities of CO2, CO, SOx, NOx, and various particulates into the atmosphere? I posit that there is no benefit to it. Therefore, it can only be neutral or negative. Evidence suggests that the effect is not neutral (we can all argue about the degree of non-neutrality, I suppose). The inescapable conclusion, then, is that it's probably not a good thing to pump crap into the atmosphere. Ergo, we should think about either doing something about it, or preparing for potential effects.
> ...



Since you pose it in two ways, I will answer as such;

Salby has 35 years of exp in this field and he treats this problem the old fashion way; look at the data and figure out formulas to match it. Believe it or not that has been the core of physics. BTW, a standing joke at MIT, the hardest course a science major has to take was abstract algebra. Past and present measurement shows increase  of co2 lags increase of temp and presently temps have flatlined while co2 has increased, so it still lags. Salby and Humlum have surmise that if the climate is truely acting like a dynamic system, then it it must have a cause and effect. If so, then how can co2 cause changes in temps when it has been lagging, both in present and in past measurements. Not sure what Humlum thinks but Salby is open to the idea that at some point, further increases of man made emissions may alter the outcome of this dynamic system. The AGW hypothesis is flawed in this manner since observation shows co2 does not drive temp. Reality shows there that natural forces have a more dominate effect. 

To the next part of your q, public policy.  I stated a carbon tax is silly, still by it and I never said anything about it's ok to pump more pollutants in the air. In terms of the carbon tax, i weighted that opinion b/c we have really two viable carbon neutral alternatives; nuclear and ethanol (i think other biomass alternate are still in its infancy). Pros and cons of nuclear are well known. As for ethanol, consider the impact of converting land masses to make this carbon neutral fuel source. Since the 10% mandate due to the Bush admin, some has speculated food prices have increased ( i know I feel it in my wallet) and more conservation land has been converted for ethanol production. Now take this globally, if such a tax was impose, it may have damaging effects in terms of food cost and deforestation. 

These are hard question to resolve however it should be made by concrete data which is really my biggest point. 


BTW.... I really have a lot of real work to do, so I will be out for a while.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 30, 2013)

ctenidae said:


> You sure you read that right? .....



More stuff on the AGW dogma..... British documentary has leading author scientist, some from the from IPCC talk about how temp is driving CO2 emissions. Salby did not start this hypothesis but the satellite readings he has access to definitely supports this. Go up the first 3 mins and you will get their sound bites, stick around for the full doc and you will see the corruption. The social dynamics of profs getting research funds is real, universities are judge by the size of the research grants, so this leads to many doing AGW related research just to keep the flow of grants coming in.   Broadcasted in 2007, I find it non surprising this did not air in the US due to the leftist activist.


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 30, 2013)

Yup this 5 year old piece has been circulated quite a bit.  Then disputed by the people in it.  Then was forced to make corrections.  But more fun are some of the other videos recommended by YouTube after watching this....

The Last Dragon | A Fantasy Made Real
Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" - Global Warming (FULL)
Al Gore's Inconvenient SCAM, Lies versus Lord Monckton Truth and Logic
Penn & Teller : Crap - Global Warming

Thanks, but I think I'll look somewhere other than YouTube for my science.  Sure is entertaining though, the comments are priceless!


----------



## jack97 (Nov 30, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Yup this 5 year old piece has been circulated quite a bit.  Then disputed by the people in it.  Then was forced to make corrections.....



Would love to see a recant from any of these scientist about the causal relationship between temps and co2. In reference to their statement; temps driving co2.  That's the fundamental issue. 

imo, the solar cycle/sun spot thing is a just part of the scientific process.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 2, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Yup this 5 year old piece has been circulated quite a bit.  Then disputed by the people in it.  Then was forced to make corrections.  But more fun are some of the other videos recommended by YouTube after





jack97 said:


> Would love to see a recant from any of these scientist about the causal relationship between temps and co2.......



No recant???

I could not find any myself,  these scientist are essentially saying the same things since the swindle documentary. Temps was driving CO2 in the past. Present observations shows the same trends, yes man has pump lots of CO2 into the climate but natural effects still dominate. Satellite observations and theory shows the atmosphere is tolerant to man's emissions.

Al Gore's bait and switch of causation by correlation was bought by the zealots and sold by policy wonks. 

Dr Clark's testimony the Canadian Senate, great mini tutorial for the laymen





Dr Christy's testimony to US Senate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMd8RT2a_8U

Dr Lizden to the UK Parliament 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-vIhTNqKCw

Dr Shaviv to the G Marshall Inst, imo, named after a great american
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzITX46XHog

Dr Ball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0

Dr Micheals is employed by the Cato Institute and has more recent vids on public policy and of interest to any open mind. I don't agree with some of his opinions and did not think it belong in this thread when it came to something I thought was objective like science.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 2, 2013)

jack97 said:


> No recant???



Oh, was I in charge of that?  

Sorry, I thought I made it clear that I wasn't going to spin my wheels running around pointing you to hard science on the subject, while you search YouTube for information.  I don't consider that a "debate".   And honestly, even if that could be considered a debate, this isn't really a productive venue for it.  I'm sure the videos you found are compelling.  I probably won't get a chance to watch them.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 2, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Oh, was I in charge of that?
> 
> Sorry, I thought I made it clear that I wasn't going to spin my wheels running around pointing you to hard science on the subject, while you search YouTube for information.  I don't consider that a "debate".   And honestly, even if that could be considered a debate, this isn't really a productive venue for it.  *I'm sure the videos you found are compelling*.  I probably won't get a chance to watch them.




Yes, I found them very compelling b/c the testimony & lectures has sound science instead of the dogma by the AGW zealots. Any scientist who took the bait on a non causal system of a natural process should have their pocket protectors taken away from them.


----------



## goldsbar (Dec 4, 2013)

So let's simply ignore the impact in variations in that big star you see in the sky everyday and say all the warming is man made.  My guess is much of it is.  What are you going to do?  Outlaw the SUVs all of you drive to the ski resort?  Outlaw skiing (tremendous energy use/waste)?  Kill off a lot of people?  Stop buying everything from China (hint: it will just become more polluted here and you'll pay more)?

And who cares what 99% of scientists believe.  The sun used to rotate around the earth based on some pretty good science.  It's not fact - again, I actually believe a lot of it.  It's conjecture based on indirect evidence.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 5, 2013)

goldsbar said:


> The sun used to rotate around the earth based on some pretty good science.



The people AGAINST science said that.  It took what is called 'the scientific revolution' (of which Galileo was an important part of), to free people from the middle age and move into the renaissance.  It was science against religion/dogma then.  It's science against dogma/politics today.  

What am I going to do about it ?  The little I can (education, teaching and research mostly).  I'm certainly not giving up skiing.  What I've learned studying our short  200-year environmental history is that society reacts to an environmental threat only in the face of terrible circumstances.  Research about water treatment followed the first large epidemics during the industrial revolution. Wastewater treatment appeared when the waterways became so polluted that drinking water treatment became inefficient. Air pollution regulations appeared when thermal inversions regularly killed hundreds and sometimes thousands of people in Europe. We started dealing with contaminated soils when we realized that people's health was compromised and that School boards built entire developments on toxic landfills.   We attacked the problems of CFCs when it became clear that we were destroying the very thin layer that allows life on earth.

I fail to see why it will be different with global warming.   People will not change their habits until we are facing the abyss.  I don't think this will happen for another 15-20 years.   And, then, again, science will bail us out.   But let's not kid ourselves, it's gonna be a lot more expensive in the end than if we were acting now.  

The internet is a fantastic thing.  It is incredible at many things, including disinformation.  Not that long ago, access to information was a great challenge.   Now the challenge is how to separate good from bad information.   This thread is a splendid example of that.

If you think that dumping 26 Gtons (that's 10^9 tons, or 2 trillions kg) of CO2 in the atmosphere every year is sustainable then so be it.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 5, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> The people AGAINST science said that.  It took what is called 'the scientific revolution' (of which Galileo was an important part of), to free people from the middle age and move into the renaissance.  It was science against religion/dogma then.  It's science against dogma/politics today.




That argument can be use for either case. 





fbrissette said:


> I fail to see why it will be different with global warming. People will not change their habits until we are facing the abyss. I don't think this will happen for another 15-20 years. And, then, again, science will bail us out. But let's not kid ourselves, it's gonna be a lot more expensive in the end than if we were acting now.



From Humlum's web site, data shows a pause in temps even as co2 rises. The amount of man made emissions still dwarfs what is exchanged by nature. It would turn out that if US follows the IPCC emission treaty, in 20 years, my kid will live in a country with a weak economy and a significant lower standard of living. 




btw, here's the humlum web site, click greenhouse gas sub menu on the left & scroll if you want to see more detail of the data.... yes data, not dogma.
http://www.climate4you.com/


spencer's web site, he post troposphere temps, if greenhouse effects are happening, this is the region where it would show up.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 5, 2013)

jack97 said:


> spencer's web site, he post troposphere temps, if greenhouse effects are happening, this is the region where it would show up.
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/




Ah, Roy Spencer, one of the main joint signer of the 'Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming' which states in its first article:



> Article 1 - We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.  Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.



Sorry Cannonball, I just got sucked back in...


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 5, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Ah, Roy Spencer, one of the main joint signer of the 'Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming' which states in its first article:
> 
> 
> Sorry Cannonball, I just got sucked back in...



Yeah, well when someone cites Spencer, or any evangelical creationists, as a source for science you can only bite your tongue so hard.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 5, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Ah, Roy Spencer, one of the main joint signer of the 'Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming' which states in its first article:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Cannonball, I just got sucked back in...





Cannonball said:


> Yeah, well when someone cites Spencer, or any evangelical creationists, as a source for science you can only bite your tongue so hard.




I figure I would get those replies and as anticipated you both take the smear campaign straight from the book of alarmist. LOL... I linked sites of observed data such as Humlum but you have to zero in on the smear.  

Spencer has contributed more toward satellite sensing in this field. He has testified in front of the senate without any criticism that his religion has or is distorting the data he has observed. In addition, he was the first to consider clouds as a mechanism of negative feedback since the current forecast models had to artificially amplify CO2 to match past trends. The NSF has recently indicated more research in this field. 

If you want proof his religion has not gotten in the way, the data correlates well to RSS. And yes, the alarmist web sites have smear the UAH readings because of a flaw on how they read the temps but two anormalities seems to match each other well. 

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html


btw.... no comment on the 17 year pause ?????


----------



## jack97 (Dec 5, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> ......I'm certainly not giving up skiing.......




Given that skiing or riding emits so much co2 as oppose to other winter activities, I find this remark so hypocritical from someone who believes in AGW. The Carlin ytube just about states it.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 5, 2013)

jack97 said:


> Given that skiing or riding emits so much co2 as oppose to other winter activities, I find this remark so hypocritical from someone who believes in AGW.



So if we believe in global warming, it is hypocritical to ski ?  Are we allowed to drive a car ? How about farting ?  after all methane has 21 times the warning potential of CO2...


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 5, 2013)

jack97 said:


> btw.... no comment on the 17 year pause ?????



If you'd bother to read what I write, you'd find that I have already discussed that earlier.

btw, since you keep on saying that temperature drives CO2, how do you explain that CO2 keeps on increasing when temperature is plateauing ?


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 5, 2013)

jack97 said:


> ...but you have to zero in on the smear.



How about this: Your poster boy Roy Spencer is on the board of governor of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think-thank that receives significant funding from oil companies.

Since you enjoy misinforming and misdirecting, I think it's only fair that we're allowed to play by your rules.  I'm done discussing science with you.  In the mean time I'm having fun and increasing my number of posts.   77 more to get my fourth mountain !


----------



## jack97 (Dec 6, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> So if we believe in global warming, it is hypocritical to ski ?  Are we allowed to drive a car ? How about farting ?  after all methane has 21 times the warning potential of CO2...



for AGW believers, yep.... given they side with the IPCC policies that tells one how to live, it is hypocritical.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 6, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> If you'd bother to read what I write, you'd find that I have already discussed that earlier.
> 
> btw, since you keep on saying that temperature drives CO2, how do you explain t*hat CO2 keeps on increasing when temperature is plateauing *?



So you admit CO2 has increased and temps have flatlined.

btw, I have already stated what I believe and what i think of scientist who forgot about cause and effect. And those who think correlation equals causality.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 6, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> How about this: Your poster boy Roy Spencer is on the board of governor of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think-thank that receives significant funding from oil companies.



this is the institute's charter....

The George C. Marshall Institute was established in 1984 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation to conduct technical assessments of scientific issues with an impact on public policy.
We publish reports, host roundtables, workshops and collaborate with institutions that share our interest in basing public policy on scientific facts.

As you like to put people in political ideology camps for this subject matter, I like to judge people in what they can bring to the table. Haha... Spencer has probably added more enlightenment to this global warming issue through his instrumentation process than you can ever imagine. 




fbrissette said:


> Since you enjoy misinforming and misdirecting, I think it's only fair that we're allowed to play by your rules. I'm done discussing science with you. In the mean time I'm having fun and increasing my number of posts. 77 more to get my fourth mountain !



I have posted ytubes since it't the best way to get info out to others. Anyone who wants to weigh the significant (or lack of) of testimony to government bodies can judge themselves. 

and btw.... the chaps from the IPCC you always cite are just propaganda used for political ideology. You may thinks its science but it really isn't . Most scientist have come to realized this or they will soon. The longer the IPCC makes statements like unequivoval, catastrophic change  and the longer the temps stays flat... the sooner the shell game is over.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 6, 2013)

jack97 said:


> So you admit CO2 has increased and temps have flatlined.
> 
> btw, I have a.



??????? Nobody is denying that temperatures have plateaued.  I've discussed this in an earlier post.  You  really have to work on your reading skills.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 6, 2013)

jack97 said:


> and btw.... the chaps from the IPCC you always cite are just propaganda used for political ideology. You may thinks its science but it really isn't . Most scientist have come to realized this or they will soon. The longer the IPCC makes statements like unequivoval, catastrophic change  and the longer the temps stays flat... the sooner the shell game is over.



Let me see.  The IPCC assessment report from group 1, which is a literature review of thousands of papers from thousands of scientists from hundreds of universities and research centers, that is written by several scientists and reviewed by dozens of others, all donating their time for free is not science.

On the other hand, the YouTube videos and website of a guy who believes in intelligent design and is on the board of directors of a think tank supported by oil companies are science.

 It's a good thing we have you to show us the way.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 6, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> *So if we believe in global warming, it is hypocritical to ski ?  Are we allowed to drive a car ? *How about farting ?  after all methane has 21 times the warning potential of CO2...



Quite possibly yes, quite possibly no.

   It all depends on how self-righteous the individual is about Global Warming.  

IME, the MOST "passionate" people about this issue often, if not typically, are in fact the biggest hypocrites.  And FWIW, if we're going to go down this road, he didnt touch on the biggest hypocrisy of all, which is eating meat. 

 If, *IF*, you're going to believe in this theory, you should know that human meat consumption is about the most destructive behaviour you can practice.  Even worse than driving one of those gas-guzzling (*GASP*) SUVs. Thus it is written by the "Church of the IPCC".  So why does almost nobody know this?  

Two reasons:

1) You cannot extract money from people and corporations by getting them to not eat meat.
2) If people knew this "inconvenient truth", they'd tell the Global Warming complex to piss off.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 7, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Let me see.  The IPCC assessment report from group 1, which is a literature review of thousands of papers from thousands of scientists from hundreds of universities and research centers, that is written by several scientists and reviewed by dozens of others, all donating their time for free is not science.
> 
> On the other hand, the YouTube videos and website of a guy who believes in intelligent design and is on the board of directors of a think tank supported by oil companies are science.



the YTube I posted had testimony from Christy and Lindzen both were lead authors of their respective sections. If you value your sacred IPCC chapters, would it not be wise to listen to what they have said and are currently stating???





fbrissette said:


> *It's a good thing we have you to show us the way*.



lol..... I never implied wanting to lead.... but people wanting to be lead can interpret it that way. And yeah.... if someone disagrees in politics, the smear campaign begins. Haha... iirc, boxer gave Happer  harder time than she did when Spencer testified, what irony!


----------



## jack97 (Dec 7, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> IME, the MOST "passionate" people about this issue often, if not typically, are in fact the biggest hypocrites.  And FWIW, if we're going to go down this road, he didnt touch on the biggest hypocrisy of all, which is eating meat.
> 
> If, *IF*, you're going to believe in this theory, you should know that human meat consumption is about the most destructive behaviour you can practice.  Even worse than driving one of those gas-guzzling (*GASP*) SUVs. Thus it is written by the "Church of the IPCC".  So why does almost nobody know this?
> 
> ...




+1

In addition, the good church according to the single book wants to make sure the third world countries in Africa want to stay under-develop. They can use solar and wind power, yet the powers to be can still use other forms of efficient power. This will further radicalize the population against western nations..... no wonder Al Qaeda is wining their hearts and minds.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 7, 2013)

jack97 said:


> the YTube I posted had testimony from Christy and Lindzen both were lead authors of their respective sections. If you value your sacred IPCC chapters, would it not be wise to listen to what they have said and are currently stating???




btw....  Lindzen was the lead author for Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks in the IPCC third assessment report. Christy was the lead author in Temp Trends in the lower Atmosphere. Anyone with half a brain would want to know why they became heretics to the views of the IPCC establishment.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 7, 2013)

"it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."  -John Christy


----------



## jack97 (Dec 7, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."  -John Christy




haha..... you and fbrissette crack me up. That's your recant??? A cherry pick of a quote?  Put it under the context of what he is saying and has been saying. Here's a post of a lecture in 2010, go to 14:48 since you don't have the time! lol..... i think he has some more remarks on polar bears and the big scandal/misdirect on that topic.

If you have the time of course.... haha








btw.... I like listening to the whole lecture or interview, that way the views or quotes are not distorted or placed in a different context. Call me strange but that's the way I roll.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 7, 2013)

Just finished up a good ski day and a nice hike.  So I gave this a shot over some lunch and beer.  How does this support the case you're making?  He says:

4:00: “There is no doubt that carbon dioxide has gone up, I mean that’s for sure.  And carbon dioxide is a thermal gas so it will cause warming”

4:30-ish: Discussing Central Valley of CA: “Because of irrigated agriculture this is now a green moist vegetated plain. That changes the climate…it’s got to have changed the climate somehow.”  He then goes on to discuss how human development changes the climate.  So much for your whole “humans can’t change the climate” argument. 

I had trouble following the gist of the next 10 minutes where he uses extremely localized examples to say that global climate models aren’t accurate.  I’m pretty sure he understands that difference between local and global, so I’m not sure where he was going with that.

19:05: Yup very well documented that Antarctic ice area has increased…..as the overall Antarctic ice mass has declined. Melting of the mass and refreezing at the edges increases ice area while being an overall net loss in ice.

19:38:  just flat inaccurate.  Polar bears are listed as “Threatened” by FWS.  He can toss around whatever stats he likes but “threatened” is a legal term that is developed through both science and policy.  I’m pretty sure he’s not a biologist so I’m not sure where he gets to make scientific claims outside of his field.   And that's how the rest of the talk goes.  He stops talking about climate (his field of expertise) and gets into worldwide medical issues, policy, and economics.  All of which he doesn't seem anymore qualified to speak on that you or I.  So at that point he's just another voice in the crowd.

So the take home for me is: When John Christy the climatologist is talking about climate science he is confident that global CO2 increase results in global temperature increases, and that other human activities also change the climate.  This is pretty consisent with your original post that started the thread.  Where the survey showed that the more expertise in climate science a person has they more they believe in AGW.  Christy fits that description.   However, when John Christy the man-on-the-street talks about public policy he thinks it's too expensive for us to work towards changes.  It's a great example of science vs opinion, and how scientists are also regular people who have opinions outside of their work.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 7, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Just finished up a good ski day and a nice hike.  So I gave this a shot over some lunch and beer.






Cannonball said:


> So the take home for me is: *When John Christy the climatologist is talking about climate science he is confident that global CO2 increase results in global temperature increases*, and that other human activities also change the climate.



I would suggest you watch that vid again perhaps without the beer. I'll give you a hint, when he talks about negative feedback in the systems this goes against the AGW hypothesis. 

One way to look at it.... in order for co2 to drive temp and have an isomorphic relationship, the co2 must amplify the temp and that can be only be done with positive feedback. This is not seen in the satellite observations, meaning co2 and temp as seen in the real world is no longer isomorphic; co2 still increases but temps have flatline.  Christy has been consistent with this message from the great global warming swindle movie you have dismissed and iirc even to his latest testimony to the senate. 

I'll try this again..... check out the section where he and other scientists talks about AGW's greenhouse effect and that CO2 is not a dominate factor.  If it was a greenhouse effect, increases in temps would be seen in the troposphere. Observations show little change. Time mark 14:40


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 7, 2013)

I don't know what to tell you man, I played your game, I watched your video.  If you need to pick and choose which parts I was supposed to ignore for it to support your case, then that makes for a moving target we'll probably never hit. And this last propaganda piece that you keep pushing...seriously?  This thing was so roundly denouced and discredited when it came out in 2007 that the UK even took legal action against it.  You seriously consider it to be of value?  I'm gonna go drink more beer now.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 7, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> I don't know what to tell you man, I played your game, I watched your video.  If you need to pick and choose which parts I was supposed to ignore for it to support your case, then that makes for a moving target we'll probably never hit. And this last propaganda piece that you keep pushing...seriously?  This thing was so roundly denouced and discredited when it came out in 2007 that the UK even took legal action against it.  You seriously consider it to be of value?  I'm gonna go drink more beer now.



lol.....I figure you would reply in this manner, anyone who would does a take away that Christy believes in AGW has been in the echo chamber too long. 

btw... its not propaganda if it turns out to be true and observe data is supporting that vid in 2007.  If you want another data point here's the vid of Christy's testimony to the senate.... in full context but no q&a. Its clear he does not believe co2 as a dominate factor. lol.... Watch it if you want to take the red pill or let it be if want the blue pill.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 7, 2013)

yet another reality check if you think Christy believes in AGW. 

If we lived in a closed society, he would be burned at the stake by the church of the IPCC!


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 7, 2013)

jack97 said:


> One way to look at it.... in order for co2 to drive temp and have an isomorphic relationship, the co2 must amplify the temp and that can be only be done with positive feedback. This is not seen in the satellite observations, meaning co2 and temp as seen in the real world is no longer isomorphic; co2 still increases but temps have flatline.  Christy has been consistent with this message from the great global warming swindle movie you have dismissed and iirc even to his latest testimony to the senate.
> 
> I'll try this again..... check out the section where he and other scientists talks about AGW's greenhouse effect and that CO2 is not a dominate factor.  If it was a greenhouse effect, increases in temps would be seen in the troposphere.



Do you really think it's that simple ? Do you really think that positive and negative feedbacks have not been studied ?  Do you really think that Christy and Williams assertions about the troposphere have not been thoroughly investigated (and proven wrong) ? Do you really think so highly of yourself that without any formal training, self-educating over YouTube, you can outsmart the best climate scientists? Do you at least know that most climate scientists are NOT alarmists ? 

Forget about old YouTube videos and go read the real science.  In a university library.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 7, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> Quite possibly yes, quite possibly no.
> 
> It all depends on how self-righteous the individual is about Global Warming.



That's a more balanced view.  Jack97 seems to think that everyone who believes in global warming is an alarmist. Among scientists who work in climate science, you have roughly three groups:

- The deniers: it's a very small group.  They can't get papers published anymore so they resorted to the web.  They are very vocal and have attained celebrity status among the 'non climate-science educated' crowd.  Since there are so few of them, they do get a lot of press.  I have no idea as to their true motivations.  Attention whores to some, superior minds to others...  I'll only say that there are lots of intelligent weirdos in academia. 

-The alarmists: it's also a relatively small group.  They are quick to paint apocalyptic scenarios.  Some of them think that painting a dark picture is fair game to level the field against the well-organized anti-climate change lobby.  Some of them definitely enjoy the attention.

- the others - By far the largest group.  They do solid science but are pragmatic about the potential future impacts.  They have a balanced view.  Despite the fact the the overall picture is not rosy, they'll grant you that some impacts will be positive.  They all know that reducing emissions will be very costly in the short-term. Having studied the sensitivity of the climate system, they all agree that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is not sustainable and they are 'greener' than most.   But they have families, they drive cars and some of them even ski.   They are pragmatic enough to understand that living their life with a zero-carbon footprint will not do much, and that most changes will have to come from much higher up the food chain.




BenedictGomez said:


> IME, the MOST "passionate" people about this issue often, if not typically, are in fact the biggest hypocrites.  And FWIW, if we're going to go down this road, he didnt touch on the biggest hypocrisy of all, which is eating meat.
> 
> If, *IF*, you're going to believe in this theory, you should know that human meat consumption is about the most destructive behaviour you can practice.  Even worse than driving one of those gas-guzzling (*GASP*) SUVs. Thus it is written by the "Church of the IPCC".  So why does almost nobody know this?



There are so many examples about why out way of living is not sustainable.  Seeing other problems as worse ain't an excuse to bailout on climate change.   Climate change is a serious issue.  I was in the Maldives last August.  Average elevation of the country is 1 foot.  Climate change is very real to them.   They are slowly losing their land. Not in 50 years.  Now.  Because of the way we live.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 8, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> * Polar bears are listed as “Threatened” by FWS.  He can toss around whatever stats he likes but “threatened” is a legal term that is developed through both science and policy.*



Do you mean, like the Alligator, or do you mean, like the Humpback Whale?

Oh.....wait..... I get it....I bet you mean like the Swordfish?  

Or maybe the Bald Eagle?  

No?  Not it? 

Oh....okay.... I'll bet you meant the American Wolf!

The fact is, *population dynamics is an EXTREMELY difficult thing to gauge*, and man ***** it up more often than not.  

The reality is these _"endangered"_ populations in general weren't nearly as _"endangered" _as we once thought they were.  As much as we'd love to pat ourselves on the back, we didnt parachute into the environment and "save" them from extinction (SEE: Polar Bear).


----------



## jack97 (Dec 8, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Do you really think it's that simple ? Do you really think that positive and negative feedbacks have not been studied ? Do you really think that Christy and Williams assertions about the troposphere have not been thoroughly investigated (and proven wrong) ? *Do you really think so highly of yourself that without any formal training, self-educating over YouTube, you can outsmart the best climate scientists?* Do you at least know that most climate scientists are NOT alarmists ?



another classic misdirect.... I point out a simple way to look at it from a layman's pov and you imply I outsmarted the best climate scientist out there. For the record, the ytube vids imo, are great b/c it records lectures and testimony by the scientist themselves such that it can not be biased or taken out of context by the reporters. Anyone who chooses to click on those vids can make up there own mind.





fbrissette said:


> ......go read the real science. In a university library.



haha.... i did that many years ago, the paper chase an all, used to lived in the library. Presently at work, I have access to a technical library for my own field of study. I would strongly suggest you brush up on causal systems. The AGW hypothesis clearly shows a lack of understanding on that subject matter.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 8, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> That's a more balanced view.  *Jack97 seems to think that everyone who believes in global warming is an alarmist.* Among scientists who work in climate science, you have roughly three groups:
> 
> - The deniers: it's a very small group.  They can't get papers published anymore so they resorted to the web.  They are very vocal and have attained celebrity status among the 'non climate-science educated' crowd.  Since there are so few of them, they do get a lot of press.  I have no idea as to their true motivations.  Attention whores to some, superior minds to others...  I'll only say that there are lots of intelligent weirdos in academia.
> 
> ...



Again, another misdirect..... I said that you are taking the approach of the alarmist with your smear campaign when talking about Spencer.

And I have said that majority of scientist believe GW is happening whether it's dominated by man made emissions (AGW) is highly contested by some of the best (imo) climate scientist.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 8, 2013)

jack97 said:


> And I have said that majority of scientist believe GW is happening whether it's dominated by man made emissions (AGW) is highly contested by some of the best (imo) climate scientist.




MIT one of the top technical & science schools in the world and to become an emeritus prof requires a major undertaking from the individual. imo.... when one of them speaks, one has to consider their words and opinions. Lindzen was a leading author of his section in the IPCC report, he may be considered a heretic b/c of his contrarian views. Below is a short interview, check out his testimony/lecture to the UK Parliament if you want more substance in his message.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 8, 2013)

jack97 said:


> haha.... i did that many years ago, the paper chase an all, used to lived in the library.



Why don't you try it again.  In the field of climate science this time.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 8, 2013)

jack97 said:


> Again, another misdirect..... I said that you are taking the approach of the alarmist with your smear campaign when talking about Spencer.



So in your view, anyone who believes in climate change is an alarmist ?  (and should be forbidden from skiing...)


----------



## Big Game (Dec 8, 2013)

Notes to mods: Shouldn't this be in a political discussion? 

Also, climate is not the same thing as weather. This is misclassified. This topic is not about northeast weather. 

It's bad enough we don't have any storms to speculate upon this December, but even worse is a old and busted debate about global warming stinking up what is typically a great weather forum filled with very knowledgable people. 

People should be able to freely discuss their opinions, but in the proper place you created for them.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 8, 2013)

jack97 said:


>



Wow that Youtube channel really covers all the best conspiracy theories!  Wild stuff. I like the ones about "The New World Order", the Illuminati and "Black Propaganda". I can see why you are so worked up.  I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I watched that stuff all the time.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 8, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Wow that Youtube channel really covers all the best conspiracy theories!  Wild stuff. I like the ones about "The New World Order", the Illuminati and "Black Propaganda". I can see why you are so worked up.  I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I watched that stuff all the time.



haha.... i stay up at nite to do other things. you like all people who stay in their comfort zone of self arrogance, will come up with mis directs and smear tactics.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 8, 2013)

Big Game said:


> Notes to mods: Shouldn't this be in a political discussion?
> 
> Also, climate is not the same thing as weather. This is misclassified. This topic is not about northeast weather.
> 
> ...



hey sorry about this bud and you are right..... this dec start and other stuff got me tied up at home. I'm most likely finish with the stuff I need to do. I can finally start thinking about skiing.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 8, 2013)

Big Game said:


> Notes to mods: Shouldn't this be in a political discussion?
> 
> Also, climate is not the same thing as weather. This is misclassified. This topic is not about northeast weather.
> 
> ...




I'm with you 100%.   I'm officially out of this thread since it is quite clear we're not going anywhere anyway.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 8, 2013)

Big Game said:


> Notes to mods: Shouldn't this be in a political discussion?
> 
> Also, climate is not the same thing as weather. This is misclassified. This topic is not about northeast weather.
> 
> It's bad enough we don't have any storms to speculate upon this December.....



Agreed!!  Let's get back to talking about what we are here for....Skiiing weather!  No significant stoms so far (a little something coming tonight) but still, it's been a great early season for ski weather.  Heading out the door right now to snag day 8.  That's one of the best early starts for me.  For a change I'll be in mid-season condition once the real snow starts falling.


----------

