|
|
Post by arthur123 on Jan 24, 2012 20:08:06 GMT
Hello All, I've been a viewer of this board for many years and know most of the major players. I generally just read and compare my experience and knowledge to those know regularly comment. I am a meteorologist currently employed in NYC area working for an engineering firm. I never have been an advocate of the AGW theory and based on the all the deceptive activities of the IPCC, GISS (data manipulation), Hockey stick, scientific publication discrimination to non AGW authors, the hypocrisy of Al Gore (do as I say not as I do), Climategate1&2 and FOLA data road blocking I see no scientific evidence to support any restrictions on carbon emissions based on weak historical correlation. I find this whole situation sickening and very depressing. Fifty years from now, we may look back at this historical time period (if free expression still exists) as the biggest propaganda hoax since the Nazi’s tried to tell the world they were superior race. What I find so sad, is that this debate has now shifted to the political arena where our President defends man made climate change science as if it real. I would like “Steve” or “Socold” or some other AGW advocate to explain to me how CO2 - a harmless gas (drink a glass of soda to see how tasty it is when combined with sugar) consisting of 0.034 percent (by volume of the atmosphere of which humans attributable contribution of CO2 is only a minor portion of the 0.034 value) can be responsible for any measureable increase in surface temperature? Especially in light of the fact that 18,000 years ago at the peak of the most recent Ice Age the ice thickness was nearly 3,000 feet thick outside my window here in New York City. In fact there was so much water stored in glacial ice that according to USGS Geologists Sevon, Fleeger and Shepps “Pennsylvania and the Ice Age, 1999”) the US east coast extended 60 miles further east from where it is today! Over those 18,000 thousand years (a blink of the eye in geological time) the ice melted and the seas level went up. What caused this fairly rapid rise in surface temperatures? What melted all this glacial ice? I'm sure it was not CO2. I mean good lord, this is real climate change, not that this fudging/data manipulating crap GISS has been doing with the historical climate data. The people running the surfacestation.org should get a Nobel Prize for their findings. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 25, 2012 0:25:53 GMT
arthur 123:
Good luck in your quest to get anyone to explain, without useing a lot of leaway, how co2 is the driver of climate.
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 25, 2012 12:26:12 GMT
Co2, is just one of the pieces, there are dozens if not hundreds of other drivers involved. I am of the opinion that we probably are contributing to the natural warming trend but I do not subscribe to the alarmism. The models suggest warming from .08 C to as much as 5.3 C by the end of the century.
If the warming is on the lower end of that range it will be well within the range of natural variation. However, if the warming is on the upper end of that range we have a problem. I am trying to keep an open mind until I see the effects of a negative AMO on NH temps.
For some on these boards that stance makes me a denialist. For others a cool aid drinker. There are clearly some common sense ways to reduce our carbon footprint without hurting the economy. Natural Gas is much cleaner and we have lots of it, solar and wind will also play a role as fuel prices rise.
sigurdur, ND is much more pleasant with highs in the 30's than it is with highs 15 degrees below zero. I was hoping to witness the northern lights last night but it was not to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 25, 2012 14:19:53 GMT
Co2, is just one of the pieces, there are dozens if not hundreds of other drivers involved. I am of the opinion that we probably are contributing to the natural warming trend but I do not subscribe to the alarmism. The models suggest warming from .08 C to as much as 5.3 C by the end of the century. If the warming is on the lower end of that range it will be well within the range of natural variation. However, if the warming is on the upper end of that range we have a problem. I am trying to keep an open mind until I see the effects of a negative AMO on NH temps. For some on these boards that stance makes me a denialist. For others a cool aid drinker. There are clearly some common sense ways to reduce our carbon footprint without hurting the economy. Natural Gas is much cleaner and we have lots of it, solar and wind will also play a role as fuel prices rise. sigurdur, ND is much more pleasant with highs in the 30's than it is with highs 15 degrees below zero. I was hoping to witness the northern lights last night but it was not to be. Not directed at you, but it is interesting the dominant scenario is that it will be warmer in 100 years and it is all based on an untestable climate sensitivity to CO2. Why won't it be cooler? Until the various cyclical warming/cooling periods of even the last 1000 or even 100 years can be fully explained, the truth is nobody knows. What we do know is models cannot simulate the various climate processes to any degree of accuracy. They are completely useless as predictive tools. Despite pointing out this fact to Warmologists, they still believe modelers have the Key of Knowledge to foresee the future. |
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jan 25, 2012 16:52:21 GMT
What we do know is models cannot simulate the various climate processes to any degree of accuracy.
What we know is that climate processes can be predicted with some accuracy. Our weather forecasts are far better than would be by monkeys throwing darts, and keep on improving.
If "arthur123" really is a meteorologist employed in some professional capacity, I'm the Emperor of Eurasia. The smoke of fake can be seen kilometers away.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 25, 2012 17:44:02 GMT
What we do know is models cannot simulate the various climate processes to any degree of accuracy. What we know is that climate processes can be predicted with some accuracy. Our weather forecasts are far better than would be by monkeys throwing darts, and keep on improving. If "arthur123" really is a meteorologist employed in some professional capacity, I'm the Emperor of Eurasia. The smoke of fake can be seen kilometers away. What we know is that climate processes can be predicted with some accuracy. Start the list. Our weather forecasts are far better than would be by monkeys throwing darts, and keep on improving. I would hope so. |
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jan 25, 2012 20:06:25 GMT
What we know is that climate processes can be predicted with some accuracy. Our weather forecasts are far better than would be by monkeys throwing darts, and keep on improving. If "arthur123" really is a meteorologist employed in some professional capacity, I'm the Emperor of Eurasia. The smoke of fake can be seen kilometers away.  Must be nice being the Emperor of Eurasia... |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 26, 2012 3:46:37 GMT
numerouno:
Can you confirm your Emporship with blood tests please? Isn't there something about bloodlines in the lineage?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 26, 2012 3:56:05 GMT
OK.....back to topic:
1. The models are models that are using the best available knowledge.
2. They have real problems hindcasting the early 20th century warming period. Even with what we think are known parameters, the models don't do well.
3. They have real problems with projections BECAUSE they have real problems with hindcast. When you look at them with a critical eye, which I am sure Numerouno has done, we realize that the degree of certainty is that there will be continued warming because of increased co2. NOTE once again, with the known parameters.
4. The reasons the ranges of temps are so large is BECAUSE of the unknown climate sensativity. When using the close, known, parameters and temperature records, the error bars of the models become very large.
5. There "might" be warming of 1.1C to over 5.0C in the next few hundred years. BUT, because of the uncertainty in the hydro cycles, solar cycles etc, it is raw speculation.
Change the sensativity, and we might see negative temps as well.
The reasons to go to "green energy" are because oil is a finite resource. Take the temperature metrics away from the discussion, the environmental issue that bears closest scrutiny is the potential lowering of ph of the oceans. There are some crutacians that will benifit from this lowered ph, however, in my opinion on balance, there will be more sea species that won't be able to adapt fast enough so the overall benifit is prob negative.
As humans we can adapt, mitigate the results of climate change if there are any that are actually caused by co2. Sea life does not have this luxury.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 26, 2012 13:17:53 GMT
It is incredibly weak to argue against the basic principle of CO2 as a greenhouse gas by referencing its apparently low concentration and the fact that it is beneficial to life. Having reviewed a previous thread started by you, "arthur123" I suggest you stop gish-galloping through these sorts of arguments and focus, perhaps, on why neither Lindzen, Spencer or Christy would agree with you on the relevance of the concentration of CO2, why the folks at your oft-cited rankexploits site tend to disagree with your opinion on the state of the temperature datasets and why even Christopher Monckton has had to admit that the prehistoric link between CO2 and temperature is very strong all the way back for over 400 million years.
|
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jan 27, 2012 1:28:16 GMT
Can you confirm your Emporship with blood tests please? Isn't there something about bloodlines in the lineage?
No need for a lineage in the royalty. In fact the present Swedish royal family for instance originates directly from the King "adopting" a French general Bernadotte into the family after the "real" King was exiled for messing up things and losing Finland to the Russians, in 1809.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 28, 2012 14:10:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jan 29, 2012 22:49:57 GMT
Arthur, the percentage of CO2 is 0.000370 percent or parts per million. In "greenhouse units," that would be the equivalent of 0.000053 percent of water vapor. But water vapor already consists of between 0.001000 and 0.003000 percent of the atmosphere, depending on humidity. So water vapor completely swamps the minor effects of CO2.
If this were a desert planet and everything that could be converted to CO2 were, the total effect would be to add 200 more molecules of water vapor to the 7,000 already in the atmosphere. So no one can explain how piddling amounts of a comparatively ineffective greenhouse gas can raise the global temperature by as much as 15% above the black body temperature of an object in Earth's orbit.
Stranger
|
|
|
|
Post by arthur123 on Jan 30, 2012 20:17:00 GMT
Hello Numerouno (AKA Emperor of Eurasia),  I am a meteorologist. I graduated from the City College of New York (CCNY) in 1981 and completed my masters degree their in 1986. I was an adjunct professor in the Math and Earth Science (Meteorology) department their while pursuing my graduate education. Just curious, are there any CCNY graduates on this message board who were students of Professors Gedzelman, Ulrich, Neumann, or Spar? I am currently work for a NYC based engineering firm. I have been in love with the study of weather since I was about 9 years old. I know weather, its in my bones. If there was any true evidence of excess human generated CO2 causing surface temperatures I would have seen it over the last 4 decades. Historical temperature measurements collected at rural weather station sites show no warming. All the warming reported on the US network is happening primarily at the urban heat island sites which conveniently increased in numbers over the decades while the rural stations are disappearing. Yes I know those true blue souls at GISS "adjust" the temperature records to account for the UHI effect. I just don't believe the adjustments are accurate. Why not simply eliminate all urban monitoring stations when computing temperature change? If there was any warming it would show with any historically long temperature record. The reason they don't eliminate the urban monitoring records is it allows folks like GISS to fudge the numbers the way they want. All you have to do is to review the findings of the surfacestation.org to see how poor our climate monitoring network is. And mind you this in data collected in USA and not some third world country! The only reliable data we have is the satellite data which unfortunately is only a few decades long. However, the satellite data we do have shows very little warming. Not the crazy warming the GISS people try to dump on the world. We have actually very few temperature monitoring locations in the nearest the poles, yet every year GISS publishes these pretty color plots showing the Arctic and Antarctica "on fire". The whole thing is a fraud. This winter has been the first time in several years the US mainland has seen very mild weather patterns. However Alaska and much of Canada has been extremely cold. I can't wait to see the GISS maps for that region. The weather models we have today (GSF, GSFx/MRF AVN, NAM, and ECMWF) can reasonably predict the weather much better than the models we had 25 years ago when I was in school. Their short term accuracy (24 to 48 hours) is very good. And they can pick up general circulation trends 7 t 10 days out in time. But beyond 10 days they are essentially blind. With greater computational power I expect we will see the 10 day limit extended to 15 years over the next 25 years. Beyond that type of accuracy is impossible with the science and computer programming technology we employ today. So any notion that you reliably say that the climate will be X degrees warmer (or colder) if we don't change our energy sources is just pure speculation and hogwash. We have a better chance to reliably predict the future price of gold (knowing more about the psychology of human behavior), than our ability to predict what the world climate will look like 50 years from now. Besides, for me anyway, my bottom line is until someone develops a climate model that can reasonably replicate the past major climate changes (ice ages, medieval warm period, etc ) I would never devise an energy policy which would be based on extremely weak science. Should we develop and pursue alternate energy? Sure, but lets market forces determine which way and at what rate these alternate energy sources should be developed. I personally believe there is enough coal, natural gas, and oil to last at least 2 centuries, but these energy sources will be replaced probably initially be nuclear energy and then later by some unknown alternate energy technology within 100 years from now. Of course wind, solar and hydro-power will be part of the solution, but these energy sources will take decades to improve on their performance on a BTU basis. And don't forget the Earth's population is constantly growing. It will be approaching 8 billion by 2025 and left unabated will probably reach 10 billions by 2050. That's a lot a mouths to feed. Most of those 10 billion people will require significantly more electrical power than they do today. It would be extremely foolish to think that wind and solar power will become to primary energy source for the world. And God forbid a plague or some other disaster strikes mankind. People like Gore, Hanson and Mann will be remembered as greedy, narcissistic bastards who tried to trick the world with their doomsday climate scenarios. But in the end they will fail.......... I see it now that we had this mild winter soon they will proclaim "global warming is upon us" - come see the daffodils are blooming in February! But, wait till next year when the weather patterns get back to normal and we get major US snow storms, frozen orange trees, dead manatees and frozen stiff iguanas falling out of trees. Its true and quite ironic (and sad too) that the world would probably run out of energy if every human being had the opportunity to use (waste) the same amount of energy as our former Vice President (aka "do as I say not as I do") Mr. Al Gore. I can't stand hypocrites, I guess it comes with being a Libra. ;D Steve and Glennkoks please send me a link to an article which explains how 3,000 feet thick glacial ice melted here in NYC. And furthermore, how the "natural" warming we experienced over the last 11,000 years is any different than the "warming" we are experiencing now. God lord do you guys stop and think for a moment and realize that 11,000 years ago was "yesterday" in geological time. Just imagine the amount of energy it took to melt all that glacial ice. That's real climate change. It must be at least one order of magnitude greater than the warming now predicted by Hanson and Mann. In my book, that can only mean one thing, the energy output of our SUN is not constant. The next several solar cycles will tell the tale..... Cheers All, Arthur  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2012 21:16:55 GMT
Arthur: Cutting to the chase here. I have copied my response on another thread on this board, but I think it is applicable on this thread as well: Cap and Trade is an idea that was initiated by Enron, then followed up by Goldman Sachs. It is a lousy deal for any taxpayer......period. There is a discussion about volcanoes and the LIA on WUWT wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/30/ne....little-ice-age/This paper, if published as it appears it will be, confirms Dr. Svalgaards findings that TSI has been flat for a long time. It also explains the LIA, the increase in Arctic Ice etc. The Arctic had much less ice during most of the Holocene. That is why I have a hard time getting excited about lower volumes/area of Arctic ice. It would seem we are finally on the cusp of the MWP temperatures and will need to substain these temperatures for a 100 years to get our clmate back to its "Normal" stage of the Holocene. We do know that variations of the composition of TSI has a weather/climatic effect. This has ben shown in studies done on the stream flow of the Nile and the Mississippi and a river in South America. What that increase/decrease in precip does for temps, one has to speculate as I don't believe the resolution is good enough for temperatures to be somewhat precise on less than century scales. There is also a resolution problem that no one wants to talk about concerning CO2 ice core data. But that is a subject for another time. I have no question that CO2 is a logarithmic green house gas. I have serious questions as to the sensativity of climate to that gas. CO2 catches a bit more radiation in the mesophere that H20 doesn't trap below it. I have tried to find reliable long term RH levels of the globe, but that is wishful thinking as we did not have the ability to measure those with precission across a wide enough area to build a comprehensive data base. The level of H20 in the atmosphere can totally offset what ever C02 would do. There are just too many unanswered scientific questions as of yet. The wide variations within the models show us this. They are actually good at showing us what we do not know, but as far a predictors, nada. The variations are too large to be useful for policy etc. Just my take in a nutshell. |
|
