Da Weatherman Sez...

[THE TUBA]

I am an avid reader of works by the late author Michael Crichton. Crichton was never shy to stir up controversy, especially in this decade. Here are a couple of his speeches relevant to this subject that I found highly interesting. I don't necessarily agree with every assertion he makes, but I do think that these (and many of his other essays and speeches) raise important questions and make interesting connections about the interactions between science, society, and mass media.

The Case For Skepticism on Global Warming
Aliens Cause Global Warming
Why Speculate?

-Mike

[SRanney]

If indeed "climatologists" can "take the earth's temperature" (including averaging in the back of my deep freezer and Rosie O'Donnell's armpit)...

See Kriging.

...it is completely accepted that [the average temperature of the earth] has been dropping for the past several years

Again, short term data sets have nowhere near the same amount of information that long-term data sets have. I do not refute your suggestion that the mean temperature of the earth has been dropping for the past few years, but taken within the context of available long-term data sets, regression techniques indicate that the mean temperature of the earth's surface is increasing. Based upon the best available science, independent international research institutions (not all of whom are gubmint funded) have modeled the temperature of the earth for several decades into the future. Each of at least a dozen models--developed independently--predict that the mean temperature of the surface of the earth will increase by an average of 3.4 C. Granted, as in modeling most large-scale systems, the level of uncertainty will be large, but what's interesting is that none of the models predicted a long-term decrease in the temperature of the earth.

Is global warming real? Is it a construct of gubmints to tax corporate citizens? If you don't buy it, you don't buy. I doubt that there's anything that will convince you otherwise, Bloke. What you should recognize though is that within the context of long-term data sets, the date of ice-out in many northern lakes has been moving up in the calendar; migratory birds are moving south later in the summer/fall and returning north earlier and earlier; many species' native ranges are growing (or shifting) toward the poles. The upshot is that the timing and spatial distribution of many natural things has changed.

The majority of the scientific arguments suggest that these changes are the result of global climate change. No doubt the uncertainty of many of these climate change models give rise to skepticism, and it seems like most of the arguments against climate change (including the Michael Crichton lectures) focus on the uncertainty within the models, which are reasonable arguments. If you're not swayed by the available data, that's fine. Vote against those who wish to tax your carbon usage. But ultimately, what if global warming is real? What's it going to hurt to try and reduce anthropogenic sources of CO2 emissions? In the last hundred years or so, the fraction of CO2 in our atmosphere (which has always been a very small concentration, 0.03% or so) has increased by 50%. Knowing that CO2 absorbs infrared energy, isn't it reasonable to assume that increases in this gas may in turn increase the temperature of the planet? We're already confident that the pH of the oceans has been decreasing as a result of increases in atmospheric CO2, so why is it unreasonable to assume that CO2 is having an affect on temperature?

bloke "who doesn't fall for the stupid-(_!_) pictures of polar bears floating out in the water on small sheets of ice, either"

If you did, I'd point and laugh at you for being gullible.

The Scientific Method involves a "proof"...not a "consensus".

I and every one of my academic advisors and most scientists I know would disagree. I would argue that the scientific method requires a preponderance of evidence rather than proof. In practice, scientists rarely try to "prove" a hypothesis but only to find support for them. Some hypotheses are refuted as a result of other scientists finding more support for other ideas. Who is to say that scientists won't find a better explanation for the changes that are occurring on the earth's surface?

Steven "who thinks that the pork ribs and brisket he'll be smoking tomorrow on his propane-fired smoker in unseasonably cold 10 F weather will taste just as good as anything that Bloke can smoke up" Ranney

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Steven "who thinks that the pork ribs and brisket he'll be smoking tomorrow on his propane-fired smoker in unseasonably cold 10 F weather will taste just as good as anything that Bloke can smoke up" Ranney

Now them's some fightin' words!!!

[SRanney]

a textbook example of crap coming out of crap's crap-hole:

Why is it crap, Bloke? What is it about the dumbed-down, New York Times version of a paper from a top-tier, peer-reviewed scientific journal that makes it crap? Is it solely because you disagree with the conclusions reached by the authors of the original paper? Have you read the original paper?

[Todd S. Malicoate]

[quote="the "Doctor" in the article from the University of Arizona"]With humans’ clear and growing ability to alter the climate, Dr. Overpeck said[/quote]
There's your crap. There's nothing clear about the human race's ability to alter the climate. At all.

Todd "nice and cool in my R12-refrigerated vehicle in the summer" S. Malicoate

[SRanney]

Is it solely because you disagree with the conclusions reached by the authors of the original paper?

With humans’ clear and growing ability to alter the climate, Dr. Overpeck said...

There's your crap. There's nothing clear about the human race's ability to alter the climate. At all.

So your disagreement with the Dr.'s opinion makes the article, the accompanying peer-reviewed paper, and the entire argument of anthropogenic climate change worthless. In other words, in your opinion, the article is crap.

Steven "who believes that opinions are like a$$holes: everybody has one and they all stink, including himself" Ranney

[Todd S. Malicoate]

So your disagreement with the Dr.'s opinion makes the article, the accompanying peer-reviewed paper, and the entire argument of anthropogenic climate change worthless. In other words, in your opinion, the article is crap.

You are drawing a conclusion where one was never offered. I never said the article was crap; in fact, I only pointed out one small piece of it that is...

[rant]and, in addition, I am growing very tired of people on message boards using the "in your opinion" card. When I say something is crap (or any other emphatic statement, for that matter), I would expect the reader to understand it's my opinion and not some irrefutable fact. I'm not going to write "in my opinion" or the even more ridiculous "IMHO" after every statement I make. I didn't notice the use of "in my opinion" when quotes of emphatic (doom-and-gloom) statements from "scientists" were used in the article, either.[/rant]

That said, yeah...the entire argument of anthropogenic climate change and Dr. Underdick's recommendation that we "act fast" to prevent disaster are, in my opinion, crap.

[SRanney]

Fair 'nough.

Take care.

[Nick Pierce]

What you should recognize though is that within the context of long-term data sets, the date of ice-out in many northern lakes has been moving up in the calendar; migratory birds are moving south later in the summer/fall and returning north earlier and earlier; many species' native ranges are growing (or shifting) toward the poles. The upshot is that the timing and spatial distribution of many natural things has changed.

Meanwhile, studies conducted from my apartment indicate that in this area at least, winter snowstorms and cold weather in general are arriving much earlier then they did last year, as well as several years previous, if memory serves.

Just saying (while fully realizing that one outlier in such a short time span proves little. I just find it humorous)

[SRanney]

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

Also, the users of TubeNet are not likely to convince each other that climate change is induced anthropogenically or via natural means.

[SRanney]

Mankind has always had a huge ego. Individually and collectively men have always believed that their current and lasting influence is much more than in reality.

To some extent, I agree with you Bloke. Is it not possible though that the impacts that man is having on our environment won't affect the planet? Trees will regrow of course, but I believe that continuing on as we are now will only make things worse.

You and I seem to disagree on this. I've no problems with that at all, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.

I always love scientific "debates" where the one who questions the hypothesis (oops! sorry... "consensus" ) has his mic cut off:

I don't think Al Gore is in it for the science. You and I can agree on that.

Science is a strange animal indeed. When somebody questions the establishment, bad things can happen to that person. This isn't new:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

[SRanney]

Natural vs. unnatural. Without going into detail, atmospheric, terrestrial, oceanic, and geologic carbon "pools" were--historically speaking--always in balance with each other. If one emitted a higher than normal amount of carbon, the others could absorb that carbon with little impact. Increases in the amount of carbon fluxing into the atmosphere from the terrestrial pool are higher than can be absorbed by the others. The result? A net yearly increase in the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere. Of this there is no question; it is fact. Our disagreement lies with the results of that increase in carbon.

It boils down to this:

More and more carbon is being released into the atmosphere on a yearly basis. Many people (including myself) believe that increases in atmospheric carbon are having an affect on this planet's climate. You believe otherwise. As I said earlier, neither of us will convince the other of their beliefs.

If you feel the need to have the last post on this subject, you can have it. I've already spent more time than I should have arguing about global warming on an online discussion board.

' last time I looked, humans and human activities are classified as "natural".

I would say this is arguing semantics.

[steve_decker]

Anyone remember the global climate change discussion of about 25 years ago? Back then, science was predicting that we were on the verge of another ice age. More recently, Al Gore starts preaching global warming. Now that concept is being seriously scrutinized, and we have record cold summers in 2009, all of a sudden it's called climate change. I don't know who's right or who's wrong on the topic and, frankly, I don't really care. I also think it's terribly egotistical to think that we have such a tremendous impact on long-term weather patterns and the overall longevity of our planet. Given that, we all have a responsibility to be stewards of Earth. If a better, more environmentally friendly solutions comes along for anything, I'm on board. But, as Bloke pointed out, many of these supposed solutions don't live up to the hype.

[Tundratubast]

Okay, It's October 14, 3 inches of the white spectacular due in tonight, snowing as I type, Darn cold summer, doesn't seem like global warming to me. But than again, no claim here either, at being a weatherologist, cloud watcher, or whatever. It is just an abbynormal year. Just, not a great track record from a scientificologist perspective, spring flooding due to a kickbutt snowfall in the state in '08 and lots of snow early 09. Seems to this old small town country bumpkin, that the polar winds/Alberta Clippers are moving south, not north. I won't debate the weather on a TUBA discussion board, it doesn't seems like a valid place for amicable discussion. For the real truth, I'll just look outside and put on the appropriate coat.
Good Day!

[Tundratubast]

Sorry Bloke, I don't need the newspaper to tell me there's snow in October, I'll just step outside.

[cjk]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/" target="_blank

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 6&Issue_id" target="_blank

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... l-cooling/" target="_blank

[Donn]

Have you guys ever seen a graph?

Every year, there are at least 365 days. Every day, it's either colder or warmer than the same day the year before, or maybe both. A cold day, or a cold month, doesn't make a decades-long trend. As for the "scandal" - some "skeptics" out there sure seem ready to buy anything.

But for anyone who cares about how the weather has been here ... rain. Not like the northwest of England, where I hear it rained like it hasn't rained in about a 1000 years as far as anyone can remember, mostly just light rain, part of the day, overcast all day. For weeks, and I imagine it will be months - they said winter will be warm and wet due to a cycle in the Pacific.

We're paying for this summer, which was freakishly clear and dry while you all drowned. We don't usually get big volumes of rainfall, but usually at least rains on July 4. Not this summer.

[MaryAnn]

It is still belief, bloke. You choose what to believe just like the rest of us. We all decide what evidence is convincing and just go with that.

MA

[Donn]

"Science" does not exist via a "consensus" or a group of dubious consenses. Rather, it is a collection of uncorrupted observations of reality that are tested beyond exhaustion via the scientific method.

Well, really, the history of science is full of struggles over a new theory. It isn't just data, it's the understanding of the world drawn from that data, and understanding is a flawed human thing where "two heads are better than one", and peer review and consensus among the scientific community mean a lot.

For anyone who would like to see various denial points addressed, How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

[Donn]

If not "proof", the pregnant horsefly in the ointment that lubricates the entire dubious presentation of this hoax is that nearly (if not completely) 100% of those who promote and embrace the scam also all embrace the same politics and political agenda.

bloke "*What in the world is there that is more utterly suspect than politics?"

I agree it's politics ... perhaps this is not really the place for it? but I believe you're looking at the picture backwards.

We employ all these meteorologists etc. to tell us what's going on with the earth's climate. While blind faith isn't required, I think we could go so far as to believe them as a starting point, as a majority of Americans of all political persuasions do, and then maybe inquire into the motives of those who claim they have somehow conspired to perpetrate this giant fraud.

When you start looking at correlations between opinions on this matter and political affiliations, the side that's way out on the political fringe - as reflected in election results etc. - is the "in denial" crowd. That isn't new, really. Look at the crowd who thinks the moon landing was a hoax, or who think US political leaders are conspiring to impose Islamic law in the US ... I'm sure someone who pays attention to this stuff would know dozens more. The difference here is the stakes are higher, for everyone. It's in almost everyone's short term personal interest to believe that everything's fine, because to accept the reality is to accept the burden of responsibility. The interests of exploitation of short term benefits have always been well represented in politics, and it's a welcome miracle that right now the US is leaning towards responsibility.

How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic