tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post3741232449023822415..comments2024-03-28T10:16:44.231-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Will we do anything about global warming? Should we?Cliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-36899035499970906192014-10-24T13:52:25.489-07:002014-10-24T13:52:25.489-07:00If you think using more blankets will not warm you...If you think using more blankets will not warm you up, then you are ... <a href="http://heatedblanket.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">heatedblanket.blogspot.com</a><br />Reimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17950113091966166033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-61276675660513628482012-02-21T15:27:27.967-08:002012-02-21T15:27:27.967-08:00John Vidale: Your comprehension seems poor to me b...John Vidale: Your comprehension seems poor to me because I never compared Miskolczi to Einstein. I brought up Einstein to show how silly of an assumption it is to compare the number of papers someone published to how "qualified" someone might be to offer an opinion and be scientifically correct.<br /><br />Quantity does NOT equal quality in the publishing arena and in no way demonstrates the absolute mastery of a subject by anyone.<br /><br /> Miskolczi was not employed in academia, the requirements are different. "Well published" to me speaks more to quality of someones work and I believe Miskolczi's work is profoundly important to what mainstream AGW claims about CO2 and temperature, and it is backed up by accurate radiation calculations of the FIR and MIR spectral regions, of which he derived some new relationships with.<br /><br />Chuck Wiese<br />MeteorologistUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01119609666965649229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-18179165292443512632012-02-21T15:16:00.606-08:002012-02-21T15:16:00.606-08:00Cliff: Your references to discredit Miskolczi and ...Cliff: Your references to discredit Miskolczi and claim his paper is "without merit" are a bit over the top. "Science of Doom?" Who are they and where is their credibility established? <br /><br />Real Climate's response isn't surprising. They even claim he made elementary algebraic mistakes that someones "sophomore physics class" would expose. That was several years ago and they never followed through.<br /><br />I've read all of the critcisms, Cliff, and none are convincing because the counter claim demands that the ideas must become an exact mathematical abstract that can give a precise calculation. You know full well that climate models do no such thing and parameterize many functions to simply and reduce time steps in spite of the parameterization being derived from more precise physical equations. It isn't possible to ever do what this crowd claims and is disengenous for them to demand something that none of them do in practice.<br /><br />Jack Barrett's criticism is a good example of someone eager to discredit the paper without obviously taking the time to even understand the definitions that are used to derive the formulations. He claimed the St/Su relationship had a value too small compared to ratios from MODTRAN and other programs he had used. This is silly, because the IR transfer program used by Miskolczi was one he helped develop and has a much higher spectral resolution and was identified as HARTCODE.The global data was splined and parameterized to develop the equations needed to compute tau, and since that is dimensionless, there is no physical requirement that it match another program, as long as the calculated tau means the same thing in terms of the radiation fields. <br /><br />He then goes on to criticize, claiming that if CO2 goes up and impinges the 10 micron window, St must fall, and therefore Su must decline by an equal amount to maintain the constant tau, which goes against radiation physics. This statement is just as ridiculous because it fails to realize thae Su is converted to the outgoing longwave radiation by way of the calculated transfer function, f, and Su(f)= OLR. There is no magic bullet that automatically assumes that OLR remains constant if the opacity from CO2 is increased, that is assumed in the simultaneous solution of the new relations with the new finite optical depth assumption made in the Eddington equation solved for a semi-grey atmosphere and assuming Tg = Ts or the surface temperature and ground temperature in a thin layer at the surface are equal. The expectation from the simultaneous solution suggests that as CO2 goes up and St decreases, that atmospheric upwelling radiation defined by Eu will increase through the transfer function recomputation of the water vapor optical depth and compensate to maintain the constant tau.<br /><br />You say I should meet with Fu and Ackerman to get the real facts. Miskolczi has offered to meet with them as well to discuss the impirical facts of his measurements that he used to define the relationships in his paper. Perhaps we could all meet. I am open to hearing from Ackerman or Fu but I am not interested in hearing about claims that cannot be proven without some measurements. Dr. Miskolczi would be valuable to such a discussion. His radiation measurements from HARTCODE are very precise and compelling.<br /><br />Chuck Wiese<br />MeteorologistUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01119609666965649229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-40023778717423892432012-02-21T10:53:22.779-08:002012-02-21T10:53:22.779-08:00Actually, we have the technology to solve the CO2 ...Actually, we have the technology to solve the CO2 problem ready to build if the oil/coal companies and politicians would allow it. It's called the Integral Fast Reactor and it will 1. Burn up (recycle) the spent nuclear fuel we fear, 2. Never melt down due to the laws of physics 3. Proliferation resistant, a vast improvement over current nuclear power plants, 4. Is modular (cheaper) built by GE Hitachi who call it their PRISM reactor. It worked flawlessly for 20 years at the Argonne National Lab in Idaho but was shut down in 1994 by Clinton because of political expediency. The UK is looking at it right now to turn their stockpiles of plutonium into safe energy. More info at bravenewclimate.com and thesciencecouncil.comSusan vBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729311954912121935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-5587062256574841422012-02-19T16:42:12.458-08:002012-02-19T16:42:12.458-08:00Chuck,
You claimed your most notable adherent Dr....Chuck,<br /><br />You claimed your most notable adherent Dr. Miskolczi was "well published". So I simply pointed out his lone climate paper is in a dicy journal, with only a single approving citation from a fellow who is similarly unwell published.<br /><br />Your comparison of Dr. Miskolczi with Einstein (note correct spelling) and the dawn of the atomic age is ludicrous.John Vidalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871768524749705799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-15105498730353928422012-02-19T13:18:42.831-08:002012-02-19T13:18:42.831-08:00All,
Chuck Wiese and some other "skeptic"...All,<br />Chuck Wiese and some other "skeptic" types like to quote Dr. Miskolczi. There is quite a number of analyses of his work (several found at the website found below). Essentially his work is without merit and is inconsistent with observations. I read through quite a bit of it and the criticisms of Miskolski are compelling. He has NOT published his work in any major journal and his work is not cited in the literature..cliff<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_MiskolcziCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-77434217363776165052012-02-19T10:47:56.233-08:002012-02-19T10:47:56.233-08:00John Vidale: It is obvious that being "well p...John Vidale: It is obvious that being "well published" means quantity to you independent of quality.<br /><br />Dr. Miskolczi was not employed in academia for the bulk of his career, where it is expected that a certain number of papers be published on average. <br /><br />His work was not about teaching as much as it was development of radiative transfer algorithms used at NASA Langley in the NPOES OMPS ozone retrieval and aerosol retrieval in the O2 band. He also developed retrieval algorithms for the temperature and water vapor bands for the ADEOS II instrumentation and the inter calibration algorithms for the CERES- AIRS satellite for earth infrared measurements and his primary function as a scientist at NASA was to research the spectral greenhouse effect in the FAR IR region.<br /><br />The paper he published concerning the saturated greenhouse effect was a summary of what he discovered during his lifes work at NASA. It is obvious that it has profound implications for what "mainstream climate science" has claimed about the effects of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. He has developed a mathematical theory from the paper whose formulations are currently being tested, but irrespective of this, the real data in his paper is damning to "modern' climate science" claims about CO2. <br /><br />In reality your subterfuge is just another masking of coming up empty with anything of relevance to this discussion. <br /><br />One paper with this physical significance ( that actually ties nicely to the founding principles ) that throws "modern climate science" on its ears is far more valuable than 100 papers published that are "mainstream" but simply reinforce the "consensus dogma".<br /><br />Einsten's singular paper on general relativity threw physics on it's ear and revolutionized ALL of the older work and led to the atomic age.<br /><br />Your comparisons are silly and meaningless in terms of real science but typical of "group think" mentality.<br /><br /><br />Chuck Wiese<br />MeteorologistUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01119609666965649229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-7568389597264326372012-02-18T18:37:22.902-08:002012-02-18T18:37:22.902-08:00WELL-PUBLISHED physicist and radiation expert, Dr....<i>WELL-PUBLISHED physicist and radiation expert, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi</i>?<br /><br />I think you are prone to hyperbole, if not wholesale delusion.<br /><br />These 4 are his ENTIRE opus of first-authored papers according to Web of Science. No second-authorships. Twice as many as on your CV, but only 1 paper in the last 15 years, and only 1 paper since he has started to work on climate, and that issue was specifically edited and reviewed by global warming deniers.<br /><br />The 1 climate paper has only two citations, one disagreeing (entire abstract - This commentary is meant to show that several relationships derived in Miskolczi (2007) are debatable and, in my opinion, based on untenable physics.), and 1 from an Arno Arrack, also in Energy & Environment, who has no other papers.<br /><br />This is not a well-published expert.<br /><br />THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH'S GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS <br />Miskolczi Ferenc M.<br />ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT AUG 2010 <br />Times Cited: 2 <br /><br />Surface radiative fluxes in sub-Sahel Africa <br />Miskolczi F; Aro TO; Iziomon M; et al.<br />J. OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY MAY 1997 <br />Times Cited: 12<br /><br />MODELING OF DOWNWARD SURFACE LONGWAVE FLUX-DENSITY FOR GLOBAL CHANGE APPLICATIONS AND COMPARISON WITH PYRGEOMETER MEASUREMENTS <br />MISKOLCZI F <br />J. ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY 1994 <br />Times Cited: 6<br /><br />EFFECT OF NONUNIFORM SPECTRAL DOME TRANSMITTANCE ON THE ACCURACY OF INFRARED RADIATION MEASUREMENTS USING SHIELDED PYRRADIOMETERS AND PYRGEOMETERS <br />MISKOLCZI F; GUZZI R<br />APPLIED OPTICS 1993 <br />Times Cited: 8John Vidalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871768524749705799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-80244900238765086662012-02-18T12:45:21.550-08:002012-02-18T12:45:21.550-08:00John Vidale: Would some of these comments by a tra...John Vidale: Would some of these comments by a trained, well published physicist and radiation expert, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, written to Cliff Mass raise any red flags in your mind? <br /><br /><b> "What you people bring into the discussion is your ancient radiative transfer knowledge and your belief on how the climate system works. In this sense it is not much different from what the IPCC or some other "recognized" scientist like R. Pierrehumbert, G. Schmidt, A. Lacis, ect. say." </b><br /><br />and:<br /><br /><b> " When there is an issue related to the global warming and the cO2 greenhouse effect,you people ( Mass, et. al ) tend to talk about different things, most preferably about the stochastic components of the climate system, like clouds or hurricanes or referring to climate models. Climate models are expensive toys which are trying to simulate and reproduce the real infinitely complex climate with some of your ad-hoc parameters. Climate models have no "skill" and it is not a surprise that all of them fail the test of reality. Gavin Schmidt keeps repeating that the climate is deterministic, but never demonstrated that the atmospheric humidity field ( the most important GHG ) has any deterministic behavior." </b><br /><br />and: <b> " To make statements about the greenhouse factor, G, and the CO2 greenhouse based global warming without having the slightest knowledge on how much the total atmosphere absorbs and emits is lunatic. So far, all my calculations show that atmospheric absorption minus top of atmosphere ( TOA ) emission is constant and the normalized value is 1/3. It is very unfortunate that you people do not want ( or are simply not able ) to compute the atmospheric absorption. There is no published accurate computation of total absorption or emission in the Science or Nature or JQSRT in the last 60 years. And you cannot get very far with Ramanathan and Trendberth (mathematically wrong) greehouse formula. (see for example their book of Frontiers of Climate Modeling)" </b><br /><br />and : <b> "I highly value the work of Chuck Wiese who is amoung the few who understand the greenhouse effect and is willing to argue and present publicly his opinion which is against the mainstream opinion." </b><br /><br />Mr. Vidale, I note that you are a Ph.D. seismologist and part of the University of Washington faculty.<br /><br />I trust that as a trained scientist yourself, that you should respect the scientific opinions of others until such time as you can prove that they are wrong. I see no proof has been offered by you. But you do seem anxious to degenerate your "opinions" into personal attacks. That raises a red flag in my book because it seems to point at some sort of narcissistic driven insecurity from you that has no bearing on the discussion.<br /><br />Chuck Wiese<br />MeteorologistUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01119609666965649229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-85377122409548637872012-02-17T21:37:56.791-08:002012-02-17T21:37:56.791-08:00Tony,
Do these comments from Cliff not raise at l...Tony,<br /><br />Do these comments from Cliff not raise at least a small red flag in your mind?<br /><br /><i>Your ideas are a complete mash-up for me of incongruous ideas. ... So I have no idea about what your point is about that. If you have a point, you need to write it up in a coherent paper and statement.</i><br /><br />and<br /><br /><i>I read through the comments by a C. Wiese that many of you have discussed. Quite honestly, they make no sense to me. I passed them on to members of my department who are experts in radiation and global atmospheric circulations....they felt they were without merit.</i><br /><br />Chuck Wiese doesn't write papers, has minimal formal training, and is dead certain that he is right. I have decades of professional experience with cranks, if not with climate science, and Wiese shows all the symptoms.<br /><br />My path to climate enlightenment does not go through trying to glean more from Chuck's writing than can Cliff and his colleagues, who I respect. It would take me many years to get to where Cliff and his eminent atmosians already are on climate.<br /><br />But more to the point, I am posting because I am dismayed that many posters would read his emanations and feel informed enough to repeat his jabberwocky. Questioning global warming, questioning evolution, questioning the age of the Earth - I'd like the American populace to better discern what is and isn't known from science.John Vidalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871768524749705799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-82028211169252319662012-02-17T17:28:20.364-08:002012-02-17T17:28:20.364-08:00John Vidale said...
I see no qualifications of Chu...John Vidale said...<br /><i>I see no qualifications of Chuck Wiese, the "meteorologist", to try to lay to waste the consensus opinion of international climate scientists.</i><br />John, leave your religion out of it. Many of us here are "real" scientists - such as physicists - and consider the mere concept of "consensus" in science to be a sign of the Spanish Inquisition in the making. Look at physics over the last 40 years for an example.<br /><br />To the contrary, there is no such thing as a climate "scientist". Maybe a climate "researcher", or "librarian", but not scientist. And they don't all agree; there are way too many examples of "deniers" being attacked for what they said in such a brutal way that the near-cessation of such disagreement is more a tribute to the success of your closed-minded McCarthyism than to any desire to find the truth.<br /><br />Accept alternate viewpoints and study them. Only then can the truth first be found and second be propagated and believed. And if your current view happens to the one that winds up proven... you should be encouraging such efforts rather than engaging in vicious witch hunts.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01714606824444953203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-85865150797920316182012-02-16T09:35:12.898-08:002012-02-16T09:35:12.898-08:00And I suppose had I read all the comments before p...And I suppose had I read all the comments before posting one of my own, I'd have seen that Chuck Weise himself has already commented. My bad!W7ENKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15950108961058228594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-51929528270533940592012-02-16T09:03:39.428-08:002012-02-16T09:03:39.428-08:00I see no qualifications of Chuck Wiese, the "...I see no qualifications of Chuck Wiese, the "meteorologist", to try to lay to waste the consensus opinion of international climate scientists.<br /><br />I see that he wrote one paper in 1978 on "The solubility of aroclor 1254 in seawater", and one paper in 1988 on "A simulation-model for mechanized log harvesting systems". Or maybe he didn't even write those.<br /><br />He says he builds instruments, and has a 25-year-old undergrad degree in meteorology from OSU, yet claims to understand the "foundations" of climate science so well that if the experts can't see what he is trying to say, they must have forgotten what he learned decades ago.<br /><br />It's sad that his undocumented, outdated, and unlikely ramblings can gain an audience in an argument about such a complex, thoroughly modeled, and thoroughly measured system as the Earth's climate.John Vidalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871768524749705799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-53001315759339337672012-02-16T08:52:21.611-08:002012-02-16T08:52:21.611-08:00I hate to argue science with you, but I have a ver...I hate to argue science with you, but I have a very hard time accepting some of your words right off the bat... "greenhouse-induced global warming". It has been proven through ice records going back 450,000 years (and you should know the science behind this as well) that this is quite contrary to reality. Rising greenhouse gasses (at least the one of major concert with regard to the whole GW argument, CO2) is CAUSED BY warming temperatures, NOT the other way around. Basic science (and logic) says that an EFFECT does not CAUSE the CAUSE. To believe and state so is bad practice, based in bad science. Period.<br /><br />It's 2h 45m long, but just watch this <br /><br />Youtube: watch?v=MCW2GrySwf0<br /><br />Particularly Chuck Weise's presentation. I'll admit, his math went a bit over my head at times, but Cliff, you shouldn't have any trouble wrapping your head around it.<br /><br />Supplemental slideshow presentations are available on the Oregon AMS website.<br /><br />Now, this does not mean I believe we should continue polluting our planet per status quo. I whole-heartedly believe we should stop defecating in our living room!W7ENKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15950108961058228594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-91004349128590309362012-02-15T12:29:59.813-08:002012-02-15T12:29:59.813-08:00Cliff Mass Weather Blog said..
To Cliff and those...Cliff Mass Weather Blog said..<br /><br />To Cliff and those entwined in the global warming hype, I warmly recommend a new book at http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/ that deals with the issue in a very clear and concise manner.<br /><br />The issue of radiative transfer is beautifully described by one of the authors Alan Siddons.Boris Winterhalterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18290635132924642637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-88553205194936664372012-02-15T12:09:11.030-08:002012-02-15T12:09:11.030-08:00Cliff: There is no debate about water vapor, CO2 a...Cliff: There is no debate about water vapor, CO2 and cloud absorption of IR radiation or the accuracy of LBL code. I never said there was. <br /><br />The ongoing debate that far too many claim is indisputable and "settled science" is the effect that CO2 has on the earth's temperature in the presence of water vapor and the earth's hydrological cycle.<br /><br />I think you are siding with those and modeling construct that claim water vapor has a positive feedback with respect to atmospheric CO2. The founding work suggests otherwise, and I don't believe there is any proof that the atmosphere is acting in the manner in which the modeling projects it to.<br /><br />The difference in outcome of the expected results is huge if this is true. <br /><br />I have not written up my last presentation I gave to the AMS, but I used the founding ideas along with convincing evidence that modeling has not been correct in it's assumptions. There are many other recent papers that support this including the one I already referenced here, that showed a declining tropospheric cloud height over the last decade.<br /><br />What sort of write up would you like to see? One that uses and points at recent studies ( that have accesss to data that I don't ) and perhaps summarize all of them? I'm not sure quite what you mean. <br /><br />What would it take to convince you that cliamte modeling is on the wrong track and cannot do what is claimed?<br /><br />Chuck Wiese<br />MeteorologistUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01119609666965649229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-24090809584997165292012-02-15T11:50:39.694-08:002012-02-15T11:50:39.694-08:00Mike in Seattle ( Unknown):
You claim you can'...Mike in Seattle ( Unknown):<br /><br />You claim you can't understand how putting 4.5 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per day wouldn't be affecting the climate. <br /><br />If you want to look at this problem in terms of global CO2, last yaers peak at Mauna Loa, HI was 389 ppmv. That is eqiuvalent to a fee air mixing ratio of .595 gKg-1 of CO2. If it is "evenly mixed" throughout the atmosphere as assumed, there is roughly 1.24 E-10 ppmv/tonne of CO2. <br /><br />If you wipe out the entire USA annual emmissions listed as 5.46 billion tonnes per year and is<br />18.1% of the global total listed here:<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions<br /><br />you would only reduce the free air concentration growth by roughly .68ppmv from the annual increase of 2.5 ppmv per year, and annual global emissions of about 4.5 ppmv, the difference taken up by the global oceans. <br /><br />This emission reduction task would be impossible to ever achieve, even if the 18% is spread arround the world. We are second only to China in emissions according to the stats. Think about it. Eliminating USA emissions entirely would mean stoppoing all transporation, coal electricity and fuel use, including natural gas or any wood combustion. So unless the oceans cool off, CO2 will continue upwards for a spell regardless af ANY emission reduction strategy. <br /><br />And since the fee air concentration is what is loaded into climate models for the expected temperature result, it is apparent then that no matter what we do, the earth is about to undergo a very large and damaging temperature rise, apparently caused by the earth itself. Make sense? Of course not!<br /><br />This ought to make anyone suspicious of the accuracy of these models and the claim that they can predict the future climate or that CO2 sensitivity to temperature is anywhere close to correct.<br /><br />Chuck Wiese<br />MeteorologistUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01119609666965649229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-40442757086479631372012-02-15T11:43:08.305-08:002012-02-15T11:43:08.305-08:00Chuck,
Your ideas are a complete mash-up for me...Chuck,<br /> Your ideas are a complete mash-up for me of incongruous ideas. Radiation theory is now a mature subject...there is no debate on the influence of CO2 and water vapor in infrared radiation. So I have no idea about what your point is about that. If you have a point, you need to write it up in a coherent paper and statement. If you think the atmospheric community is going the wrong way, TELL US SPECIFICALLY WHERE THE SCIENCE IS IN ERROR. What in the world do you mean by "climate model construct"? Regarding "founding work"--whatever that is---the study of radiation is now well beyond it. We can do line by line simulations over the entire spectrum that compares well with observations. What more can you want? Again, please write up your ideas in some kind of paper. Please!...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-82210212916401023352012-02-15T11:15:59.630-08:002012-02-15T11:15:59.630-08:00Cliff: In e-mail exchanges with you, I have asked ...Cliff: In e-mail exchanges with you, I have asked that you and Dr. Ackerman explain why it is that my comments "make no sense". My opinions and my "ideas" were established in the founding work done with respect to atmospheric radiation and taught and most major universities in the 1970's.<br />I am not ahead of anyone. But I do think modeling has leaped far ahead of the founding work with either very different assumptions, or a failure by those like Dr. Ackermman and yourself to acknowledge the severe limitations that come from attempting to model the earth's climate. <br /><br />The only thing that separates the founding work ( "my ideas" ) in todays world is climate model construct, which can easily be shown to be in major error with respect to forecasting temperature vs. CO2 concentrations.<br /><br />I trust that you will respond to my request in the near future.<br /><br />Chuck Wiese<br />MeteorologistUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01119609666965649229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-55835952379878501962012-02-14T21:43:07.940-08:002012-02-14T21:43:07.940-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14148186593414981004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-81384354653190853602012-02-14T21:39:46.382-08:002012-02-14T21:39:46.382-08:00Every day cars release about 4.5 million tons of c...Every day cars release about 4.5 million tons of co2 around the world and people still think that has no effect on the climate? If we are filling the atmosphere with millions of tons of gas a day whether its co2, hydrogen, anything gas other than nitrogen (since our atmosphere is 78% nitrogen) there is probably going to be an impact on the environment. The earth is not used to this much co2 being released in the air. I would rather not wait and see what happens in 50 years and instead act on this issue now.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14148186593414981004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-53313630481351607042012-02-14T21:02:09.382-08:002012-02-14T21:02:09.382-08:00I usually find myself the target of attacks becaus...I usually find myself the target of attacks because I am a little skeptical about the merits of global warming. A local weatherman where I live was given a huge amount of negative press after answering a question from a reporter about global warming. All he said was that he was a little skeptical but went on to say that its good to see so many people out there changing their behaviors to save the planet. I'm with the weatherman. I don't really think its as threatening as some scientists say it is but I have no problem doing small things to help the cause anyway. Those are just my 2 cents. Thanks for letting me share them.<br /><br />Scott Cimini<br />www.ctweathergeeks.comScotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14397833789190611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-9293036691815411892012-02-14T18:06:49.569-08:002012-02-14T18:06:49.569-08:00Some interesting comments here, some more open min...Some interesting comments here, some more open minded and resolution oriented than others. No need to be specific. As has already been pointed out by one commenter, attacks ad hominem are wasted energy. And as Cliff pointed out, astutely I think, is that the politicization of this issue may have crippled it, which is a shame. So I think an honest, resolution oriented approach has to make an attempt at objectivity, meaning we will have to leave our pom-poms at the door, if possible. But the truth is, if we have not been able to find any evidence opposing our personal preconceptions about global warming, then we haven't looked very hard. The "believers" vs "deniers" language surrounding this issue is highly dubious for starters. When people are more interested in maintaining a certain worldview than anything else, this is a clear indication that they have been convinced, for whatever reason, not to bother thinking. And when pop-pom waiving replaces thinking, we have a real problem. <br /><br />The trappings of scholarship are being used to put a scientific veneer on BOTH sides of this issue. Big energy firms funding polluter friendly studies are not the only ones guilty of this. There are even larger interests behind the carbon market, which is is widely recognized as having the potential to eclipse even gold and oil, becoming the largest commodity market in existence. Furthermore, the administration of it could give some global, bureaucratic entity the power to control all global industry. This movement, in its current form, is a classic, rhetorical Trojan horse. It smells of a sophist. It reeks of a "better safe than sorry" vaccine profiteer. The eschatological, soap operatic manner in which it is routinely discussed is eerily reminiscent of the end times scenario, urging adherents to fall into a sort of dogmatic slumber where "believing" is the most important thing. This ought to be setting off bs detectors all around. If the movement is going to do any good at all, it will have to reconcile the very inconvenient truths hiding behind it, particularly the ushering in and administrating of what could easily become the largest commodity market the world has ever known. <br />(http://www2.whidbey.net/zipmont/revamp/nextsubprime.html )<br /><br />Corruption in national governments, as well as global, intergovernmental, bodies like the UN, is pretty widely acknowledged or, to be sure, it's not exactly a secret. It isn't at all surprising to find this trend carrying through to our National Academies, which routinely liaise with other learned societies and government policy makers, also playing an important organizational role in academic exchanges and collaborations between countries. No doubt the US National Academies possess the credentials, and therefore the potential, to provide the valuable service of forming legitimate, scientific consensus on important issues, as do the national academies of other countries. Instead, they are being used to advance the usual realpolitik and oligarchic agendas. <br /><br />(http://www2.whidbey.net/zipmont/revamp/NationalAcademies.html )<br /><br />Citizens who genuinely care about the environment, as many do, would like to see a legitimate effort here, not a fake, corrupt one, rife with obvious ulterior motives, and curiously constructed scientific study panels whose findings are a foregone conclusion from the outset. The truth is, most of us have some sensibilities about "global warming" that are progressive and some that are conservative. Too bad we have largely been sold on the maladaptive notion that we must choose one, which in effect keeps public opinion (genuine public opinion ... ) out of the discussion. But then that's the point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-31935744993948946102012-02-14T16:23:26.378-08:002012-02-14T16:23:26.378-08:00Gerry,
Spreading the lie about global cooling in ...Gerry,<br /><br />Spreading the lie about global cooling in the 1970's?<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />You do know that the vast majority of papers done in the 70's were about global warming right?<br /><br />RIGHT?Michael Snyderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230219537755848399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-8336092150082941082012-02-14T16:16:58.252-08:002012-02-14T16:16:58.252-08:00To All who will listen:
Since the Global warming d...To All who will listen:<br />Since the Global warming debate has started, where has the money and power gone?<br /><br />Global warming directly benefits the very scientists that have 'discovered' it. Global warming gives them and their families job security. who can blame them for touting the line? many have invested their lives in this study and without it would not have a job. <br /><br />Governments have implemented new TAXES on the people they govern for the sake of global warming. Governments are also able to give out billions of dollars to 'Green Energy' because of global warming. The idea of population control, which governments love because it gives them more power, is now more easily impressed on the people. <br /><br />These are just a few simple examples that i personally have noticed over the last few years. Whether or not GW is real is irrelevant; People need to acknowledge that there are some very strong motivations for GW to be portrayed as fact even if it is not. <br /><br />To believe in GW is to have FAITH in the government and those scientists who report it is real. No one can deny that both of these parties directly benefit from the GW discussion. if GW is proved to be false scientists will lose millions in grants and the Gov will lose a huge amount of control. <br /><br />Thanks for keeping an open mind.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07140290716136786716noreply@blogger.com