Thoughts on global warming by Dr. Gray and others

[fwbbreeze]

I did a search and could not find anything on this topic. If it has been posted or needs to go into a different forum then mods please delete or move it.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

Chill out over global warming
By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist


You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it. "Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.


fwbbreeze

[btangy]

Here's Bill Gray's presentation from the AMS Hurricane and Tropical Meteorology Conference this past April in Monterey, CA. I used to have quite a bit of respect for his work, but his recent stuff is just looney... there's very little science in his presentation and it's more like standup. I suppose he is funnier than Al Gore. Watch and be amazed... remember, this is in a room filled with pretty much every hurricane and tropical meteorology expert.

You will be prompted to install a player, WebEx, to view the presentation. You'll see his slides synced with his audio. Unfortunately, you don't hear the questions/comments by Peter Webster and Greg Holland at the end.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/27Hurricanes/ ... gi?id=5470

[Aquawind]

Well Dr Gray has handed off the Tropics to Phil for good reason. He had been through that presentation to many times with most of the conferrences happening prior to that one. The National and Florida were the same. This presentation was not meant for Mets but EOC and Media. He is aging as well so that may be playing a factor in his presentation this year. Time is a factor as well durring these presentations..so details are left out. What's just looney?

[x-y-no]

What's just looney?

For one thing, his completely erroneous concept of what's going on with the thermohaline circulation and how that couples to the atmosphere. Sometime in the last year he mysteriously (andwithout explanation) abandoned his old hypothesis that a faster THC is associated with the active Atlantic phase and substituted an hypothesis which involves a slower THC being associated with the active Atlantic phase. I'm guessing this was because of the recent observational evidence that the THC may have slowed, but since he's not saying I don't know that for sure.

The notion he now puts forth of there being substantial upwelling in the equatorial regions associated with the THC is just flat wrong. The bulk of the upwelling associated with the THC is in the southern ocean in the vicinity of the Drake Passage.

Also, he's got a lot of the physics of the radiative heat budget completely wrong as well. He's applying top-of-atmosphere numbers at the surface, along with numerous other errors.

Finally, I just can't let the nonsense about the alleged consensus in the 70's of an oncoming ice age pass. This is a complete falsehood, and I have a hard time believing Dr. Gray doesn't know that given that he was working actively at the time. The fact that the only backup for this silly claim is an article in Newsweek (and nobody can provide even one piece of research published in the peer-reviewed journals making this claim) ought to clue in any objective reader to the truth.

[NoceoTotus]

Just a question but you all do realize that this very thread of discussion is making the article's point for it right?

"What? He doesn't believe in global warming? Well, we all *know* he has been losing it and going senile so just discount anything he has to say... Yes, yes, we were all singing his praises even just a few weeks ago but he has aged since then and ..."

Just saying...

[Stratosphere747]

Gray did admit to the possiblity of humans being the cause of global warming, albeit only a fraction.

"Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight."

[jasons2k]

Gray did admit to the possiblity of humans being the cause of global warming, albeit only a fraction.

"Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight."

IMO this is probably what's really the case. I think natural forces and cycles far outweigh anything man is (or could be hypothetically) contributing to climate change. But that's just my pseudo-scientific opinion.

Anyway, I saw this article too and didn't post it for fear of it being labeled "political".

[Steve]

The article was stupid. It was a fluff-opinion piece that is being debated elsewhere around the web. I'm fairly neutral on this whole deal as most people know, but I think Dr. Gray is no different from Al Gore in that they are both promoting agendas and are pretty hard-headed.

Can man affect climate? We know we do on the micro and local scale, so ask yourself if we can based on the following examples:

Phoenix, AZ and development resulting in constant + of average daily temperatures over observable periods of time.

The Dust Bowl

Deforestation

Heat in your downtown where the concrete holds more warmth than raw land.

Those are all pretty basic, but it's obvious we can affect climate. Whether nature makes up for this in a balancing act or not is unclear and will be determined at some point in the future. There are bigger environmental issues that we as a planet can deal with today that could set a precedence for better living for and by all in the future so that if the multidisciplinary study (thanks Shawn @ sr) yields more truth than not that the habits of mankind are playing a detrimental role as concerns global warming, we can figure out a way to ease the pressures.

JMO

Steve

[x-y-no]

Just a question but you all do realize that this very thread of discussion is making the article's point for it right?

"What? He doesn't believe in global warming? Well, we all *know* he has been losing it and going senile so just discount anything he has to say... Yes, yes, we were all singing his praises even just a few weeks ago but he has aged since then and ..."

Just saying...

I don't agree at all. I offered specifics about where the things he's been saying are just wrong. Is it now no longer allowed in a scientific forum to point out when assertions of fact are false?

[terstorm1012]

The article was stupid. It was a fluff-opinion piece that is being debated elsewhere around the web. I'm fairly neutral on this whole deal as most people know, but I think Dr. Gray is no different from Al Gore in that they are both promoting agendas and are pretty hard-headed.

Can man affect climate? We know we do on the micro and local scale, so ask yourself if we can based on the following examples:

Phoenix, AZ and development resulting in constant + of average daily temperatures over observable periods of time.

The Dust Bowl

Deforestation

Heat in your downtown where the concrete holds more warmth than raw land.

Those are all pretty basic, but it's obvious we can affect climate. Whether nature makes up for this in a balancing act or not is unclear and will be determined at some point in the future. There are bigger environmental issues that we as a planet can deal with today that could set a precedence for better living for and by all in the future so that if the multidisciplinary study (thanks Shawn @ sr) yields more truth than not that the habits of mankind are playing a detrimental role as concerns global warming, we can figure out a way to ease the pressures.

JMO

Steve

You said it far better than I ever could. Thanks.

[stormtruth]

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Nuclear winter a hoax? What is Dr. Gray talking about. He was way off on the hurricane forecast last year and now he thinks we should listen to him act like he knows something about nuclear winter and global warming?

Prior to and during the 2005 season, Dr. Gray issued four forecasts, each time increasing the predicted level of activity. The NOAA issued two forecasts, one shortly before the season and one two months into the season, drastically increasing the predicted level of activity in the second release. Nonetheless, all forecasts fell far short of the actual activity of the season.

Four forecasts? That's right Dr. Gray gets to keep updating his forecast four times during the season so he has a better and better chance of getting it right and he still failed miserably.

[fwbbreeze]

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Nuclear winter a hoax? What is Dr. Gray talking about. He was way off on the hurricane forecast last year and now he thinks we should listen to him act like he knows something about nuclear winter and global warming?

Prior to and during the 2005 season, Dr. Gray issued four forecasts, each time increasing the predicted level of activity. The NOAA issued two forecasts, one shortly before the season and one two months into the season, drastically increasing the predicted level of activity in the second release. Nonetheless, all forecasts fell far short of the actual activity of the season.

Four forecasts? That's right Dr. Gray gets to keep updating his forecast four times during the season so he has a better and better chance of getting it right and he still failed miserably.

no offense, he might be really off base with his comments, but he is far more qualified to make those statements than you or I.

fwbbreeze

[stormtruth]

no offense, he might be really off base with his comments, but he is far more qualified to make those statements than you or I.
fwbbreeze

Sorry, technically his accuracy last year was really no better than picking numbers from a hat. And he got four picks!

[x-y-no]

Hmmm ... I missed the comment about nuclear winter.

I wonder what he means? As far as I know, the basic premise that a major nuclear exchange would injects so much particulate matter into the stratosphere that it would plunge the Earth into a years-long extreme cold event is unchallenged. One need only look at the effect of major volcanic eruptions to know that the effect is real.

[stormtruth]

Hmmm ... I missed the comment about nuclear winter.

I wonder what he means? As far as I know, the basic premise that a major nuclear exchange would injects so much particulate matter into the stratosphere that it would plunge the Earth into a years-long extreme cold event is unchallenged. One need only look at the effect of major volcanic eruptions to know that the effect is real.

That's what I thought also.

[Scott_inVA]

Sadly, this once interesting, science-based debate has been hijacked by the left, Hollywood and EU Socialists. GW and by extension, hurricanes, have become political agendas and no amount of contrary science is accepted. Review the nonsense spewed at a demonstration at NCEP and one would conclude we're down to days.

Dr. Gray is to be applauded for taking a stand. BTW, I still have the Newsweek "Coming Ice Age" issue...have photocopied and given to dozens of Global Warmingnistas. The actually blame GW on stopping the New Ice Age! Can't argue with pinheads

Scott

[MiamiensisWx]

I am going to try to be as unbiased as possible, so I'll make this rant VERY clear and VERY short... beware...

It is just extremely disappointing how this debate gets trivalized by extremes of both sides of the argument. I'll leave it at that. It is sad how true SCIENCE gets thrown out the door by extremes from left and right on both sides of the argument. It really shows the death of the silent majority. You have the extreme left ranting and hyping on man-made global warming (forget science when you can support your agenda), and then you have the extreme right saying nothing is our fault and that not even the slightest man-made influences exist (the left and their envirowackos better shut up). That's all I have to say on this, and it really makes me mad.



*RANT OVER*

Sorry for getting political, but I find it disappointing what those on the extremes of both sides of the argument are doing, and I bet both of those extremes will try to take what I am saying out of context to support their agendas.

[ProphetCat]

My take on it, for what it's worth.

Do I think global warming is an absolute certainty? Not at all. Not enough solid data to conclude that.

Do I think it exists? Probably, though not to the degree that Al Gore would have us believe.

Is it caused by humans? Not sure. It could very well be, but there is still not enough data to know specifically.

To that end, we still need to do what we can to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. I don't think that we are in such a dire situation, but why chance it. If we can create something that burns cleaner then let's do it. Ignore the politics of it and just make it happen.

[x-y-no]

Sadly, this once interesting, science-based debate has been hijacked by the left, Hollywood and EU Socialists. GW and by extension, hurricanes, have become political agendas and no amount of contrary science is accepted. Review the nonsense spewed at a demonstration at NCEP and one would conclude we're down to days.

If you're saying that the science being done in this area has been so hijacked then I disagree strongly. There's a lot of good science that has been done and continues to be done. And the truth is that this science strongly indicates that anthropogenic global warming is a very significant and real effect.

If the elements you mention seize, selectively or not, on the results of that scientific work, that doesn't invalidate the science nor does it change the results of that science.

Dr. Gray is to be applauded for taking a stand.

Do you care to address specifics I raised regarding where Dr. Gray's recent presentations are seriously wrong on basic scientific issues? Let's discuss his claim of how the thermohaline circulation behaves, for instance. He has (without explanation) reversed himself on whether it is a faster or slower THC which is associated with high storm activity in the Atlantic basin. To support his new hypothesis, he offers a model of the THC which has the primary upwelling region being in the equatorial Indian and Pacific oceans. That's just plain wrong.

I pick that topic first because it's the one I'm most intimately familiar with. But I'd be glad to discuss his errors regarding radiative heat balance too, if you wish.

BTW, I still have the Newsweek "Coming Ice Age" issue...have photocopied and given to dozens of Global Warmingnistas. The actually blame GW on stopping the New Ice Age! Can't argue with pinheads

Scott

One article in the popular press does not constitute a scientific consensus. The fact is that in the mid 70s, the level of understanding in this field was terribly primitive compared to today. A National Geographic article contemporaneous with that Newsweek article did a much better job of expressing the uncertainties as they stood. It discussed everything from significant cooling to very strong warming as possibilities. That the (non-scientist) author of the Newsweek article focused on only part of the ongoing scientific discussion is no fault of climate scientists, and it's unfair (actually I would say dishonest) to portray such speculations which are nowhere expressed in the peer-reviewed literature as the broadly accepted scientific thinking at that time.

[Scott_inVA]

Sadly, this once interesting, science-based debate has been hijacked by the left, Hollywood and EU Socialists. GW and by extension, hurricanes, have become political agendas and no amount of contrary science is accepted. Review the nonsense spewed at a demonstration at NCEP and one would conclude we're down to days.

If you're saying that the science being done in this area has been so hijacked then I disagree strongly. There's a lot of good science that has been done and continues to be done. And the truth is that this science strongly indicates that anthropogenic global warming is a very significant and real effect.


If the elements you mention seize, selectively or not, on the results of that scientific work, that doesn't invalidate the science nor does it change the results of that science.

Much about global warming theories is controversial, particularly whether there exists a scientific consensus sufficient to justify concerted international action to attempt to ameliorate its effects (from Kyoto Protocol).

Dr. Gray is to be applauded for taking a stand.

Do you care to address specifics I raised regarding where Dr. Gray's recent presentations are seriously wrong on basic scientific issues? Let's discuss his claim of how the thermohaline circulation behaves, for instance. He has (without explanation) reversed himself on whether it is a faster or slower THC which is associated with high storm activity in the Atlantic basin. To support his new hypothesis, he offers a model of the THC which has the primary upwelling region being in the equatorial Indian and Pacific oceans. That's just plain wrong.

I pick that topic first because it's the one I'm most intimately familiar with. But I'd be glad to discuss his errors regarding radiative heat balance too, if you wish.


I didn't indicate my agreement with everything he has published. Engage in a debate on GW here in Talkin' Tropics? No. Perhaps the on the OT board, so long as there are no TCs and I'm not excessively busy.

BTW, I still have the Newsweek "Coming Ice Age" issue...have photocopied and given to dozens of Global Warmingnistas. The actually blame GW on stopping the New Ice Age! Can't argue with pinheads

Scott

One article in the popular press does not constitute a scientific consensus. The fact is that in the mid 70s, the level of understanding in this field was terribly primitive compared to today. A National Geographic article contemporaneous with that Newsweek article did a much better job of expressing the uncertainties as they stood. It discussed everything from significant cooling to very strong warming as possibilities. That the (non-scientist) author of the Newsweek article focused on only part of the ongoing scientific discussion is no fault of climate scientists, and it's unfair (actually I would say dishonest) to portray such speculations which are nowhere expressed in the peer-reviewed literature as the broadly accepted scientific thinking at that time.

Your last sentence is incorrect. The early Seventies were a time of near-panic hysteria about Global Cooling...I well recall that debate.

My bottom line is simple. This is evolving science and it is counterfactual to take small trends and turn them to definitive, long-term, irreversable patterns. Dr. Gray's frustration apparently comes from an unrelenting discourse of political tripe. When the lunatic fringe like Al Gore grab more media time than everyone with an opposing view, some become discouraged.

Nowhere do the strident proponents of GW acknowledge any cyclical pattern of warming and cooling (or active/less active TC seasons). Until that happens, this remains a political debate at polar extremes. That is not good for the planet, its' inhabitants, or the study of science.