American Meteorological Survey on Global Warming

[fbrissette]

One way to look at it.... in order for co2 to drive temp and have an isomorphic relationship, the co2 must amplify the temp and that can be only be done with positive feedback. This is not seen in the satellite observations, meaning co2 and temp as seen in the real world is no longer isomorphic; co2 still increases but temps have flatline. Christy has been consistent with this message from the great global warming swindle movie you have dismissed and iirc even to his latest testimony to the senate.

I'll try this again..... check out the section where he and other scientists talks about AGW's greenhouse effect and that CO2 is not a dominate factor. If it was a greenhouse effect, increases in temps would be seen in the troposphere.

Do you really think it's that simple ? Do you really think that positive and negative feedbacks have not been studied ? Do you really think that Christy and Williams assertions about the troposphere have not been thoroughly investigated (and proven wrong) ? Do you really think so highly of yourself that without any formal training, self-educating over YouTube, you can outsmart the best climate scientists? Do you at least know that most climate scientists are NOT alarmists ?

Forget about old YouTube videos and go read the real science. In a university library.

 

[fbrissette]

Quite possibly yes, quite possibly no.

It all depends on how self-righteous the individual is about Global Warming.

That's a more balanced view. Jack97 seems to think that everyone who believes in global warming is an alarmist. Among scientists who work in climate science, you have roughly three groups:

- The deniers: it's a very small group. They can't get papers published anymore so they resorted to the web. They are very vocal and have attained celebrity status among the 'non climate-science educated' crowd. Since there are so few of them, they do get a lot of press. I have no idea as to their true motivations. Attention whores to some, superior minds to others... I'll only say that there are lots of intelligent weirdos in academia.

-The alarmists: it's also a relatively small group. They are quick to paint apocalyptic scenarios. Some of them think that painting a dark picture is fair game to level the field against the well-organized anti-climate change lobby. Some of them definitely enjoy the attention.

- the others - By far the largest group. They do solid science but are pragmatic about the potential future impacts. They have a balanced view. Despite the fact the the overall picture is not rosy, they'll grant you that some impacts will be positive. They all know that reducing emissions will be very costly in the short-term. Having studied the sensitivity of the climate system, they all agree that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is not sustainable and they are 'greener' than most. But they have families, they drive cars and some of them even ski. They are pragmatic enough to understand that living their life with a zero-carbon footprint will not do much, and that most changes will have to come from much higher up the food chain.

IME, the MOST "passionate" people about this issue often, if not typically, are in fact the biggest hypocrites. And FWIW, if we're going to go down this road, he didnt touch on the biggest hypocrisy of all, which is eating meat.

If, IF, you're going to believe in this theory, you should know that human meat consumption is about the most destructive behaviour you can practice. Even worse than driving one of those gas-guzzling (*GASP*) SUVs. Thus it is written by the "Church of the IPCC". So why does almost nobody know this?

There are so many examples about why out way of living is not sustainable. Seeing other problems as worse ain't an excuse to bailout on climate change. Climate change is a serious issue. I was in the Maldives last August. Average elevation of the country is 1 foot. Climate change is very real to them. They are slowly losing their land. Not in 50 years. Now. Because of the way we live.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Polar bears are listed as “Threatened” by FWS. He can toss around whatever stats he likes but “threatened” is a legal term that is developed through both science and policy.

Do you mean, like the Alligator, or do you mean, like the Humpback Whale?

Oh.....wait..... I get it....I bet you mean like the Swordfish?

Or maybe the Bald Eagle?

No? Not it?

Oh....okay.... I'll bet you meant the American Wolf!

The fact is, population dynamics is an EXTREMELY difficult thing to gauge, and man ***** it up more often than not.

The reality is these "endangered" populations in general weren't nearly as "endangered" as we once thought they were. As much as we'd love to pat ourselves on the back, we didnt parachute into the environment and "save" them from extinction (SEE: Polar Bear).

 

[jack97]

Do you really think it's that simple ? Do you really think that positive and negative feedbacks have not been studied ? Do you really think that Christy and Williams assertions about the troposphere have not been thoroughly investigated (and proven wrong) ? Do you really think so highly of yourself that without any formal training, self-educating over YouTube, you can outsmart the best climate scientists? Do you at least know that most climate scientists are NOT alarmists ?

another classic misdirect.... I point out a simple way to look at it from a layman's pov and you imply I outsmarted the best climate scientist out there. For the record, the ytube vids imo, are great b/c it records lectures and testimony by the scientist themselves such that it can not be biased or taken out of context by the reporters. Anyone who chooses to click on those vids can make up there own mind.

......go read the real science. In a university library.

haha.... i did that many years ago, the paper chase an all, used to lived in the library. Presently at work, I have access to a technical library for my own field of study. I would strongly suggest you brush up on causal systems. The AGW hypothesis clearly shows a lack of understanding on that subject matter.

 

[jack97]

That's a more balanced view. Jack97 seems to think that everyone who believes in global warming is an alarmist. Among scientists who work in climate science, you have roughly three groups:

- The deniers: it's a very small group. They can't get papers published anymore so they resorted to the web. They are very vocal and have attained celebrity status among the 'non climate-science educated' crowd. Since there are so few of them, they do get a lot of press. I have no idea as to their true motivations. Attention whores to some, superior minds to others... I'll only say that there are lots of intelligent weirdos in academia.

-The alarmists: it's also a relatively small group. They are quick to paint apocalyptic scenarios. Some of them think that painting a dark picture is fair game to level the field against the well-organized anti-climate change lobby. Some of them definitely enjoy the attention.

- the others - By far the largest group. They do solid science but are pragmatic about the potential future impacts. They have a balanced view. Despite the fact the the overall picture is not rosy, they'll grant you that some impacts will be positive. They all know that reducing emissions will be very costly in the short-term. Having studied the sensitivity of the climate system, they all agree that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is not sustainable and they are 'greener' than most. But they have families, they drive cars and some of them even ski. They are pragmatic enough to understand that living their life with a zero-carbon footprint will not do much, and that most changes will have to come from much higher up the food chain.

Again, another misdirect..... I said that you are taking the approach of the alarmist with your smear campaign when talking about Spencer.

And I have said that majority of scientist believe GW is happening whether it's dominated by man made emissions (AGW) is highly contested by some of the best (imo) climate scientist.

 

[jack97]

And I have said that majority of scientist believe GW is happening whether it's dominated by man made emissions (AGW) is highly contested by some of the best (imo) climate scientist.

MIT one of the top technical & science schools in the world and to become an emeritus prof requires a major undertaking from the individual. imo.... when one of them speaks, one has to consider their words and opinions. Lindzen was a leading author of his section in the IPCC report, he may be considered a heretic b/c of his contrarian views. Below is a short interview, check out his testimony/lecture to the UK Parliament if you want more substance in his message.

 

[fbrissette]

haha.... i did that many years ago, the paper chase an all, used to lived in the library.

Why don't you try it again. In the field of climate science this time.

 

[fbrissette]

Again, another misdirect..... I said that you are taking the approach of the alarmist with your smear campaign when talking about Spencer.

So in your view, anyone who believes in climate change is an alarmist ? (and should be forbidden from skiing...)

 

[Big Game]

Notes to mods: Shouldn't this be in a political discussion?

Also, climate is not the same thing as weather. This is misclassified. This topic is not about northeast weather.

It's bad enough we don't have any storms to speculate upon this December, but even worse is a old and busted debate about global warming stinking up what is typically a great weather forum filled with very knowledgable people.

People should be able to freely discuss their opinions, but in the proper place you created for them.

 

[Cannonball]

Wow that Youtube channel really covers all the best conspiracy theories! Wild stuff. I like the ones about "The New World Order", the Illuminati and "Black Propaganda". I can see why you are so worked up. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I watched that stuff all the time.

 

[jack97]

Wow that Youtube channel really covers all the best conspiracy theories! Wild stuff. I like the ones about "The New World Order", the Illuminati and "Black Propaganda". I can see why you are so worked up. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I watched that stuff all the time.

haha.... i stay up at nite to do other things. you like all people who stay in their comfort zone of self arrogance, will come up with mis directs and smear tactics.

 

[jack97]

Notes to mods: Shouldn't this be in a political discussion?

Also, climate is not the same thing as weather. This is misclassified. This topic is not about northeast weather.

It's bad enough we don't have any storms to speculate upon this December, but even worse is a old and busted debate about global warming stinking up what is typically a great weather forum filled with very knowledgable people.

People should be able to freely discuss their opinions, but in the proper place you created for them.

hey sorry about this bud and you are right..... this dec start and other stuff got me tied up at home. I'm most likely finish with the stuff I need to do. I can finally start thinking about skiing.

 

[fbrissette]

Notes to mods: Shouldn't this be in a political discussion?

Also, climate is not the same thing as weather. This is misclassified. This topic is not about northeast weather.

It's bad enough we don't have any storms to speculate upon this December, but even worse is a old and busted debate about global warming stinking up what is typically a great weather forum filled with very knowledgable people.

People should be able to freely discuss their opinions, but in the proper place you created for them.

I'm with you 100%. I'm officially out of this thread since it is quite clear we're not going anywhere anyway.

 

[Cannonball]

Notes to mods: Shouldn't this be in a political discussion?

Also, climate is not the same thing as weather. This is misclassified. This topic is not about northeast weather.

It's bad enough we don't have any storms to speculate upon this December.....

Agreed!! Let's get back to talking about what we are here for....Skiiing weather! No significant stoms so far (a little something coming tonight) but still, it's been a great early season for ski weather. Heading out the door right now to snag day 8. That's one of the best early starts for me. For a change I'll be in mid-season condition once the real snow starts falling.