Thoughts on global warming by Dr. Gray and others

[Audrey2Katrina]

You'll have to give me an example of that knife cutting the other way, because I can't think of one.

I think you do. But equally don't care to go through, what was it? the 20 pages or so of this discussion we had in the Global section. It was enjoyable, though.

A2K

[x-y-no]

It's a site for presenting the science regarding climate change. They do quite a good job of that, IMHO.

And you are certainly welcome to that opinion. I find it a site presenting one SIDE of the "science" and derisive of the other. IMHO.

A2K

Uhhh ... science doesn't have "sides".

What specific piece of research in climate science is it that you think they've unfairly ignored or dismissed?

[x-y-no]

You'll have to give me an example of that knife cutting the other way, because I can't think of one.

I think you do. But equally don't care to go through, what was it? the 20 pages or so of this discussion we had in the Global section. It was enjoyable, though.

A2K

No, I really can't.

I've tried very hard to consider each objection I've seen raised. That they generally turn out to be wrong isn't my fault. And I don't see how pointing out how they're wrong is biased, except in the good sense of a bias towards truth.

In those cases where I think the objections are good, as for instance regarding the questions regarding the quality of early storm data and how that affects the issue of storm intensity correlating to SSTs, I've said so. And so have the folks at realclimate.


This argument seems to boil down to a demand that climate scientists pretend the case for AGW is much weaker than it actually is, and then accusing them of bias when they won't do that.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Uhhh ... science doesn't have "sides".

Semantic argument-- when there are opposing viewpoints within the scientific community, as there have been on any number of theories/issues, there decidedly are "sides" JMHO.

As to what specific research I feel they've "blown off", we've gone over all this before, Jan, and truly I respect your viewpoints--you are very well versed in what you believe. I do, however, stress that I feel some of the alarmists need to temper down their decibel level, as it is beginning to make a few more skeptics. Not to be political here, but strictly on the science of it, Gore is a perfect example. His book Earth in the Balance was, to put it mildly, some genuine science and a lot of junk science to support what I perceive is a "the world is going to end" hysteria. The man is NOT a scientist, but a quintessential politician, and opportunist. I'll let it stop there. You know I said I believe the situation needs continual monitoring--and it does. I just don't subscribe to the "sky is falling" mentality. We have done a LOT in this country to lower emissions, and yet Mr. Gore keeps calling the US the worst offender, meanwhile the sweatshops in China continue to belt out greenhouse gasses ad nauseum and he calls them "on the cutting edge" of being aware of the situation. WTH is wrong with this picture? India, another of the nations exempted from Kyoto, has been only last week called: "The most polluted country on the planet!" Their regard for the environment is truly appalling. Just one example, and forgive the fact that it isn't strictly about GW; but it does make a point: They have allowed the SS Norway, (currently renamed the "Blue Lady") a beautiful old-time classic liner, to be anchored at Alang for "breaking"... with little regard to the thousands of times above the safe levels of asbestos exposure accepted by practically every civilized nation on Earth. Even when Star/NCL TRIED to do the same thing of beaching her in Malaysia, and Bangladesh--they were turned around! While a nation of a population approaching a billion people and set to pass up China in less than 30-50 years, opens their arms widely, exposing all that mess to their poor workers who will be doing the "dismantling" and the environment as well, with callous disregard. I only mention this to illustrate that WE aren't the bad guys--and those who are, are often portrayed as "cutting edge"... the bias is flagrant.

Global warming is REAL, I've said that countless times, and I believe it is a matter of "concern"; but I do NOT subscribe to all those who incessanty rail against the US, and insist all but that the world is going to end because of our nasty SUV's.

/rant

Already said, I respect your views and know they are sincere; all I ask is the same for mine.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

That they generally turn out to be wrong isn't my fault.

No, that they turn out to be "wrong" is your well-educated opinion--and I respect that.

A2K

[jasons2k]

A2K, those are mostly my sentiments on the subject as well, including the respect I have for Jan.

[Scott_inVA]

Sorry! I'm sorry Scott_inVA and fwbbreeze. We were having a good conversation and I ruined it with insults just because I disagreed with you. Bad Stormtruth won't do that again.

Got PM'd you posted this and will jump in long enough to say no problem...you're cool with me

Said all I can, can't "debate" ad nauseam and have Invest 90L to work on, so time for me to bid adieu to GW for now.

Scott

[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...

After reading through all the posts in this thread, I stick by my original statement as there is now an over-abundance of evidence in support of my hypothesis. Maybe not directly at Dr. Gray, but definitely a strong scent of bias and overly strong feelings.

[x-y-no]

Uhhh ... science doesn't have "sides".

Semantic argument-- when there are opposing viewpoints within the scientific community, as there have been on any number of theories/issues, there decidedly are "sides" JMHO.

As to what specific research I feel they've "blown off", we've gone over all this before, Jan, and truly I respect your viewpoints--you are very well versed in what you believe. I do, however, stress that I feel some of the alarmists need to temper down their decibel level, as it is beginning to make a few more skeptics. Not to be political here, but strictly on the science of it, Gore is a perfect example. His book Earth in the Balance was, to put it mildly, some genuine science and a lot of junk science to support what I perceive is a "the world is going to end" hysteria. The man is NOT a scientist, but a quintessential politician, and opportunist. I'll let it stop there. You know I said I believe the situation needs continual monitoring--and it does. I just don't subscribe to the "sky is falling" mentality. We have done a LOT in this country to lower emissions, and yet Mr. Gore keeps calling the US the worst offender, meanwhile the sweatshops in China continue to belt out greenhouse gasses ad nauseum and he calls them "on the cutting edge" of being aware of the situation. WTH is wrong with this picture? India, another of the nations exempted from Kyoto, has been only last week called: "The most polluted country on the planet!" Their regard for the environment is truly appalling. Just one example, and forgive the fact that it isn't strictly about GW; but it does make a point: They have allowed the SS Norway, (currently renamed the "Blue Lady") a beautiful old-time classic liner, to be anchored at Alang for "breaking"... with little regard to the thousands of times above the safe levels of asbestos exposure accepted by practically every civilized nation on Earth. Even when Star/NCL TRIED to do the same thing of beaching her in Malaysia, and Bangladesh--they were turned around! While a nation of a population approaching a billion people and set to pass up China in less than 30-50 years, opens their arms widely, exposing all that mess to their poor workers who will be doing the "dismantling" and the environment as well, with callous disregard. I only mention this to illustrate that WE aren't the bad guys--and those who are, are often portrayed as "cutting edge"... the bias is flagrant.

Global warming is REAL, I've said that countless times, and I believe it is a matter of "concern"; but I do NOT subscribe to all those who incessanty rail against the US, and insist all but that the world is going to end because of our nasty SUV's.

/rant

Already said, I respect your views and know they are sincere; all I ask is the same for mine.

A2K

I don't understand how any of this relates to realclimate.org (which is what we were discussing when the issue of "sides" to science came up) ... they don't do policy advocacy, they certainly don't have a "sky is falling" attitude, they don't rail against the US ... as I said - they present the science.

The problem is there's relatively little science on the skeptics "side". The majority of arguments I've run across are simply false statements. Most of the others are attempts to play up relatively small areas of uncertainty to a level where one can then dismiss the whole body of work, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A few have been serious proposals, such as Lindzen's iris hypothesis, which have received broad attention, been the subject of extensive research, and found to be wrong. A few others, like the objections of Chris Landsea and others regarding the issue of storms and AGW are open questions.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the equivalence you do. There is such a thing as objective truth and it's the job of science to seek that truth. In the field of climate science, we've come a very long way along that road in the last few decades. We never, ever reach the end of that road in any field, but at some point we get far enough along to act on what we do know. That's the case here.

----

I do wish one or more of the folks debating me here would respond to my analogy regarding catastrophic health insurance. I think it's a fairly good analogy in terms of demonstrating how we, in our ordinary lives, regularly act on an uncertain future. We have a fair picture of the range of possible futures regarding climate and the bad end of that range is really quite bad. Does it really make sense to do nothing on the gamble that the future we get won't be towards the bad end of the range?

I'll tell you, I could save myself a fair amount of money if I were willing to gamble that I don't have a serious health problem in the next decade or two. But I'm not willing to take that chance. Why should we take that gamble with climate?

[Audrey2Katrina]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the equivalence you do. There is such a thing as objective truth and it's the job of science to seek that truth. In the field of climate science, we've come a very long way along that road in the last few decades. We never, ever reach the end of that road in any field, but at some point we get far enough along to act on what we do know. That's the case here.

As they claimed in the 1970's, as they are claiming now, and as they will doubtless be claiming in 2050.

PAX

A2K

[x-y-no]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the equivalence you do. There is such a thing as objective truth and it's the job of science to seek that truth. In the field of climate science, we've come a very long way along that road in the last few decades. We never, ever reach the end of that road in any field, but at some point we get far enough along to act on what we do know. That's the case here.

As they claimed in the 1970's, as they are claiming now, and as they will doubtless be claiming in 2050.

PAX

A2K

If you're trying to annoy me, you're doing a real good job.

Do we really have to go through the BS about the mythical consensus in the 70's that we were headed towards an imminent ice age? !@#$%! I WAS THERE! I spoke PERSONALLY to numerous climate scientists, metorologists and oceanographers who were working on these issues at that time. THERE WAS NO SUCH CONSENSUS. It didn't exist! A couple of articles in the popular press where a couple of climate scientists speculated on a possibility for which there was NO research in support IS NOT THE SAME THING AS THE PRODUCT OF THREE AND A HALF DECADES OF SERIOUS WORK!!



Whatever ... you win ... the Earth is flat and anybody who says different is obviously just trying to bilk the public out of their money for the fraudulent space program -- now there's the REAL "biggest hoax ever perpetrated on man".

[Audrey2Katrina]

If you're trying to annoy me,

Actually, I'm not... I'm just trying to ease out and live and let live.

the BS about the mythical consensus

If you'll read my quote again, I said there wasn't what could be termed a "consensus"... that's your choice of words, not mine.

Whatever ... you win ... the Earth is flat

Don't fall off the edge! j/k... I think you've globally warmed a bit too much.

PAX

A2K

[stormchazer]

I thought we did not talk politics on this site?

I find the endless discussion of climate change to be ever changing and somewhat sensationalized. I admit I am no scientist and know only what I read, but it seems we are dealing with a very small amount of Data as it relates to changes in the Earths Climate over a billion years. The data set does not seem extensive enough to promote a theory of disaster in the coming generation. When the subject of global cooling comes up, posters here have said that we know much more now the we did tin the mid-70s. 30 years has made us that much smarter. I would not argue that climate is warming in the past years, but I find it hard to believe that it is mans fault when we can not even control whether or not it rains tomorrow. I find it hard to see a forecast of FL being under water in 20, 30, 100 years, when we do not even know if a Low will form in the BoC by this weekend. Its hard to believe disaster is coming do to Global Warming, when you look at the prior 30-50 years of lower then average temperatures. I think more study is needed, and less politicizing.

My opinion of course but I am not sure this discussion is pertinent to the Talkin' Tropics Forum.

[x-y-no]

It's a legitimate topic for this site, although it belongs in Global Weather, not Talkin Tropics.

EDIT: See some of the discussions we've had there.

Regarding your points:

Being unable to control specific localized weather events doesn't imply not being able to have an impact on climate as a whole.

And modelling climate is not the same as modelling weather. By analogy, a n engineer can calculate with great accuracy the total flow of water though a segment of a river yet be completely unable to predict the location and strength of every eddy. Same thing with climate/weather.

[Jim Hughes]

Whatever ... you win ... the Earth is flat and anybody who says different is obviously just trying to bilk the public out of their money for the fraudulent space program -- now there's the REAL "biggest hoax ever perpetrated on man".

I am still trying to figure out where all that space station money went to? I seem to recall initial estimates being around a 100 billion . Oh yeah. We gave some to Putin and the Russians.

Hmm... I wonder where that paper trail would lead the taxpayers? The superconducting super collider was another big science project that went wayside with tons of money allocated.

I think we got a 23 mile tunnel (which was supposed to in the 80's) under Texas and it still cost us 2 billion dollars. You gotta love the way we get milked every decade or so.

[stormchazer]

And modelling climate is not the same as modelling weather. By analogy, a n engineer can calculate with great accuracy the total flow of water though a segment of a river yet be completely unable to predict the location and strength of every eddy. Same thing with climate/weather.

Okay, lets use your analogy. Can an engineer calculate with certainty the water that will flow through a segment of river 10 years from now? What if the Hoover Dam collapsed? What if the year happens to be wetter then normal and we have floods like in 1993? What if there was an El Nino? Would he accurately predict that? Would the engineer factor in erosion? What if we built a bridge up river, changing the water flow? See, unlike water that flows through a specific spot in a river, there are other totally unforseen events that can happen to change that flow. Weather, and by extension, the climate, is the ultimate example of Chaos Theory where we do not know what event today, will effect climate changes tomorrow, or what event tomorrow, could change things 10 years from now. We have no sense of how the climate may evolve.

Weather may change on a daily basis, but climate changes over geologic time. The history of the planet is marked by cold periods and warm periods that are surprisingly regular. Some scientists suggest that human civilization has thrived in what is no more than a brief warm spell in Earth's history. Like El Niño, ice ages are patterns, not incidents. Seen on a geologic scale, climate is no more stable than weather.

http://www.learner.org/exhibits/weather/

Again, just my opinion.

[Audrey2Katrina]

I am still trying to figure out where all that space station money went to? I seem to recall initial estimates being around a 100 billion . Oh yeah. We gave some to Putin and the Russians.

Hmm... I wonder where that paper trail would lead the taxpayers? The superconducting super collider was another big science project that went wayside with tons of money allocated.

I think we got a 23 mile tunnel (which was supposed to in the 80's) under Texas and it still cost us 2 billion dollars. You gotta love the way we get milked every decade or so.

Okay, not only is this NOT any longer a "tropical" discussion; but we're clearly wandering into the no-man's land of politics.... just a word to the wise.

A2K