Yet another article on global warming

[Hachima]

Originally Posted by Millie

a) What happens on Jupiter has nothing to do with what happens on Earth, and vice versa. Hell, they're not even remotely similar as planets go. Jupiter doesn't even have an atmosphere. The comparison is utterly ludicrous.

b) Nobody has ever said that the burning of fossil fuels is the only way to cause global warming, be it on Earth or anywhere else. On Earth, for instance, it's being caused by any number of man-made factors: fossil fuels, deforestation, widespread cattle ranching, heavy industry, etc.

c) A lot of planets go through cooling and warming cycles, as does Earth. The arguments being made by scientists today are that Earth's current warming trend is 1) above and beyond what we'd expect from a natural cycle, and 2) the result of human activity. We have an abundance of sound science supporting both of these assertions, and basically nothing of any credibility arguing the contrary. This doesn't mean that man-made global warming is a 100% certainty (because nothing ever is), but it means that we are reasonably sure man-made global warming is happening.

I make a joke and you try to make it sound serious... But if you want to start here it goes.

Since when is the research and opinions of 100s of PHD level scientists from respected institutions considered "nothing of any credibility arguing the contrary?" If you think there is no one that disputes these claims you have done very little research into the subject.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...eReport#report

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Hachima

I make a joke and you try to make it sound serious... But if you want to start here it goes.

Since when is the research and opinions of 100s of PHD level scientists from respected institutions considered "nothing of any credibility arguing the contrary?" If you think there is no one that disputes these claims you have done very little research into the subject.



.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

You can nearly count the number of actual climate scientists on that list with your fingers.

The list is largely composed of economists, TV weathermen, social scientists, and people in fields unrelated to climatology. Most of the wittings from these "experts" are things like newspaper articles and editorials in various forms of print media. The few peer reviewed studies coming from the group are mostly published in Energy and Environment, which is not an esteemed publication. It has an absurdly low scholarly circulation, it's peer review process is highly abnormal (namely: authors get to chose who edits and reviews their submissions), and it was founded for the express purpose for publishing contrarian papers on climate change. Those that have published studies in more legitimate and mainstream journals have been seriously criticized for extreme methodological shortcomings. The deniers want you to believe that their work is being supressed, but it's no different than with IDers. They are being ostracized and shunned from the climate community because they are doing crap science.

The more important point though is that no one on that list has offered any serious, legitimate, scientific dissent. A list of names, no matter how qualified, is meaningless if their position isn't justified. Most the people on that list (some of them aren't even deniers and never have been) are rehashing the same old debunked claims that the rest of the climate community moved on from years ago.

[voodoochile78]

Regarding the Ozone Layer problem, do any of you remember how rabid the Republicans were back then about how there was no problem? Remember how George H.W. Bush mocked Al Gore by calling him "The Ozone Man?" Remember how Al Gore was right (as usual), and we went out and fixed the problem and narrowly avoided global disaster?

I agree that a lot of assholes must be getting pretty pissed off about being wrong all the time, and then having to hear about it, but it's a shame that the Earth has to suffer for that.

[Hachima]

Umm are you reading the same link I posted? There is 200 pages of text on that link (100,000 words) It is literally a book. This isn't bs from weathermen. Actually, I'd like you to point out ONE report that is from a 'weatherman' or 'journalist' on that page. Did you just glance at the excerpts from the top that cite examples of the BAD reporting that goes on and not the actual scientists reports? This alone tells me you didn't even read the article.

Nothing serious? Just one of the major problems that is brought up is that the fact that water vapor plays a much larger role than CO2 in the greenhouse effect.

By calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

[slitz]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

You can nearly count the number of actual climate scientists on that list with your fingers.

And yet, it's eight times more people than is responsible for the IPCC report 8)

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Hachima

Umm are you reading the same link I posted? There is 200 pages of text on that link (100,000 words) It is literally a book. This isn't bs from weathermen. Actually, I'd like you to point out ONE report that is from a 'weatherman' or 'journalist' on that page. Did you just glance at the excerpts from the top that cite examples of the BAD reporting that goes on and not the actual scientists reports? This alone tells me you didn't even read the article.

Are you fucking kidding me?

TV Weathermen in the 413 names from Inhofe:

1. Alexandre Aguiar, Meteorologist of Brazil's MetSul Weather Center.

2. David Aldrich, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
MyFoxPhilly

3. Chris Allen, TV weatherman/meteorologist who believes man-made global warming isn't real.
Bjooks, the blog: WBKO's Chris Allen likes boobs, but not global warming
Chris Allen Bio

4. Steve Baskerville, TV weatherman/meteorologist
Steve Baskerville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
cbs2chicago.com - Steve Baskerville

5. Joe Bastardi, Accuweather meteorologist with a bachelor's degree in meteorology from Penn State. Has spent entire career at Accuweather since graduation.
AccuWeather.com - Weather Bloggers Biographies - Weather News - bastardi -
Joe Bastardi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. Justin Berk, TV weatherman/meteorologist
Justin Berk's Weather Talk. Baltimore, Maryland and Beyond.

7. Andre and Sally Bernier, Meteorologists of WJW-TV, in Cleveland, Ohio.
Andre Bernier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8. Bob Breck, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
Bob Breck.com

9. Tom Chisholm, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
Tom Chisholm -- Chief Meteorologist - WMTW News Team Story - WMTW Portland

10. John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, which he was allegedly forced out of within one year.
John Coleman (meteorologist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

11. Larry Cosgrove, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
Larry Cosgrove's WEATHERAmerica

12. Grant Dade, TV weatherman/meteorologist in Texas. A member of both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association.
KLTV 7 News Tyler, Longview, Jacksonville |Grant Dade

13. Gary England, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
Gary England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

14. Bill Evans, TV Weatherman/Meteogologist
Bill Evans (meteorologist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

15. Jesse Ferrell, AccuWeather TV weatherman/meteorologist.
AccuWeather.com - Weather Bloggers Biographies - Weather News - community - bio

16. Dr. Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
NEWS TEAM | KHOU.com | News for Houston, Texas

17. Dick Goddard, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
Dick Goddard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

18. Dr. Mel Goldstein, PhD, TV weathernman/meteorologist.
WTNH.com, Connecticut News and Weather - Dr. Mel Goldstein - Storm Team 8 Mel Goldstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

19. Former California State Climatologist Jim Goodridge, a consultant for the California Department of Water Resources. TV weatherman/meteorologist who now runs this blog:
About « Watts Up With That?

20. Brian van de Graaff, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
Brian van de Graaff

21. Art Horn, meteorologist currently operating The 'Art' of Weather.
weatherplus.com - Weather News - Art Horn

22. Craig James, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
WOODTV.com & WOOD TV8: Grand Rapids news, weather, sports and video | Craig James, Chief Meteorologist

23. John Kettley, formerly of the Met Office and the Fluid Dynamics Department at the Bracknell headquarters TV weatherman/meteorologist
John Kettley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

24. John Loufman, TV weatherman/meteorologist.

25. Rob Marciano, TV weatherman/meteorologist. CNN Programs - Anchors/Reporters - Rob Marciano

26. Bill Meck, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
LEX18 - Lexington, KY - News, Weather, Sports - LEX 18 Storm Tracker Chief Meteorologist Bill Meck

27. Mark Nolan, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
Update your bookmarks -- Channel 3 staff bio

28. Jim Ott, former TV weatherman/meteorologist, WTMJ-TV in Wisconsin.

29. Morgan Palmer of Texas TV's KLTV, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
KLTV 7 News Tyler, Longview, Jacksonville |Our Apologies

30. Bernie Rayno, TV weatherman/meteorologist, Senior Meteorologist with AccuWeather.
News Story - KRXI Reno

31. Rob Roseman, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
Rob "Sunny" Roseman | News | CW2 Colorado | KWGN-TV

32. Mark Scirto, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
KLTV 7 News Tyler, Longview, Jacksonville |Mark Scirto

33. Bruce Schwoegler, former U.S. Navy meteorologist and Boston broadcast meteorologist.

34. Gary Shore, TV weatherman/meteorologist
Gary Shore

35. Dr. Joe Sobel of Accuweather, TV weatherman/meteorologist, winner of the American Meteorological Society 2005 Award for Broadcaster of the Year.
580wdbo.com: Weather WDBO Chief Meteorologist Joe Sobel

36. James Spann, TV weatherman/meteorologist of Alabama ABC TV. Spent the first half of his broadcast meteorology career without a degree.
JamesSpann.com
James Spann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

37. Karl Spring, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
Karl Spring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

38. Bill Steffen, TV weatherman/meteorologist of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
24 Hour News 8 Blogs » Bill’s Blog

39. Herb Stevens, aka "The Skiing Weatherman." TV weatherman/meteorologist.
Ski Reports, Snow Conditions and Weather at Ski/Snowboard Resorts Worldwide - SnoCountry Mountain Reports

40. Kyly Underwood, TV weatherman/meteorologist.

41. George Waldenberger, TV weatherman/meteorologist
Sioux City Journal: Waldenberger VITA

42. Dr. Fred Ward, TV weatherman/meteorologist.

43. Anthony Watts, former meteorologist for KHSL-TV, a CBS-TV affiliate. Founded SurfaceStations.org.
Anthony Watts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

44. Kevin Williams, meteorologist of the New York based WEATHER-TRACK and Chief meteorologist at WHEC-TV in Rochester.
CJBQ - 800am - Kevin Williams

Originally Posted by Hachima

Nothing serious? Just one of the major problems that is brought up is that the fact that water vapor plays a much larger role than CO2 in the greenhouse effect.

Yeah, that's not a serious concern. No one denies that water vapor plays a huge role in climatic temperature, but anyone's who's taken an introductory climate course should be able to tell you the difference between a forcing and a feedback.

Originally Posted by slitz

And yet, it's eight times more people than is responsible for the IPCC report 8)

I know right, only 50 some odd scientists wrote the IPCC SPM. SPM being the operative phrase. You know what that stands for? Summary for Policy Makers. In other words 50 some odds scientists wrote a summary of the rest of the report. Shocking.

A modicum of intellectual rigor goes a long way.

edit: I was going to rip on #43 for being generally ignorant because I occasionally browse through his blog and am thus fairly familiar with his arguments, but I'm reconsidering my entire position in this debate. I'm reconsidering because #3 up there laid out a brilliant argument against global warming on his own blog:

Originally Posted by #3

My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus...did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is "we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US!" I have a huge problem with that.

[Manseed]

me·te·or·ol·o·gy
–noun
1. the science dealing with the atmosphere and its phenomena, including weather and climate.
2. the atmospheric conditions and weather of an area.

[chaos]

Remember that time when one guy was like "Point out EVEN ONE weatherman on that list" and the other guy pointed out 44? Good times, good times.

[slitz]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

I know right, only 50 some odd scientists wrote the IPCC SPM. SPM being the operative phrase. You know what that stands for? Summary for Policy Makers. In other words 50 some odds scientists wrote a summary of the rest of the report. Shocking.

A modicum of intellectual rigor goes a long way.

Lost your sense of humor in all the doomsaying?

[Angerz]

Originally Posted by Millie

But isn't that placing an unfair burden upon the environmentalists? I mean, it's pretty much impossible to "market" environmentalism to the sort of people who will never care about the subject and/or actively despise the subject. Sadly, it'll take a genuine environmental disaster to get those sorts of people off their butts and into action -- and by then it'll be too late.

Probably. And you are probably right. But I bet if he tried, Robert Redford could finance a commercial to tell me something I could do so save my family some money every month.

My post was a little bit joke, but the point still stands. People don't care about saving the world. But if they can do something with immediate positive impact on their lives, that is also good for the environment, I bet they would do it. And that's the information people need.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Manseed

me·te·or·ol·o·gy
–noun
1. the science dealing with the atmosphere and its phenomena, including weather and climate.
2. the atmospheric conditions and weather of an area.

Meteorologists (aka, weathermen) "study" weather patterns in a fixed area (i.e., Seattle, or Philadelphia, or Scranton) for the purposes of predicting upcoming weather for TV viewers. They know jack-all about the global climate, climatology, the actual science behind their fields, etc.

The only skills required to be a meteorologist are being nonthreateningly good-looking and/or congenial, being able to read off of a teleprompter, and being able to gesture at a green screen while describing the chances of rain on the upcoming Memorial Day weekend in Terra Haute. The requirements for obtaining a meteorology degree are ridiculously lax. Back when my father worked for a local TV station, he'd talk about how weathermen and weather girls were basically just pretty faces that the producers sent off to meteorology school for a year or two to get their easy degrees and then come back. They were basically the sort of people deemed too dumb for the anchor's desk and too pretty to do traffic. I'm sure the IQ requirements of the job have dropped even further in recent years, now that the general trend in weather reporting seems to be shifting away from "congenial, slightly older weatherman" to "dumb blonde with a nice rack and a silly laugh."

Comparing legitimate climatologists to meteorologists is a bit like comparing marine biologists to dolphin trainers at SeaWorld. One of them knows almost everything there is to know about dolphins; the other knows that if you hold a fish in the air, you can make a dolphin jump.

[Aamina]

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

[Hachima]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

Are you fucking kidding me?

TV Weathermen in the 413 names from Inhofe:

I'm glad you can cut/paste from thedailygreen. If you actually look into the background of those 'weatherman' they have strong scientific backgrounds. So even those 10% 'weatherman' have credible backgrounds for the type of research needed to understand global warming. More than some hippy journalist or Al Gore that spouts off bad information. And what do you have to say against the other 90% of the participants?

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by Hachima

I'm glad you can cut/paste from thedailygreen. If you actually look into the background of those 'weatherman' they have strong scientific backgrounds. So even those 10% 'weatherman' have credible backgrounds for the type of research needed to understand global warming. More than some hippy journalist or Al Gore that spouts off bad information. And what do you have to say against the other 90% of the participants?

That is some mighty fancy backpedalling.

You asked for one, he gave 44, you narrowed down that well, "they know some science," then you set the goal posts a little further back for him.

Good show.

[Hachima]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

That is some mighty fancy backpedalling.

You asked for one, he gave 44, you narrowed down that well, "they know some science," then you set the goal posts a little further back for him.

Good show.

No, I just made him prove his original statement as false. If you are actually following along he said "The list is largely composed of economists, TV weathermen, social scientists, and people in fields unrelated to climatology. "

So since when was 10% considered largely composed? Not in any science field I know about...And even then those people are in related fields to the issue being discussed and have done years of research on it.

It just makes me think of Tea making a statement like 'I'm so smart, I graduated above the majority of the people in my class" Then asked where he was ranked he says he finished in 89th place out of 100 people...