American Meteorological Survey on Global Warming

[Cannonball]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 ?????