Heartland Institute documents reveal strategy of attacks against climate science

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:15 PM GMT on February 17, 2012

Share this Blog
67
+

Documents illegally leaked from the Heartland Institute, one of the most active groups engaged in attacking the science of climate change, provide an unprecedented look into how these groups operate. The story was broken Tuesday by DeSmogBlog, a website dedicated to exposing false claims about climate change science. The documents reveal that donors to Heartland included oil billionaire Charles Koch, and Heartland has spent several million dollars over the past five years to undermine climate science. Tens of thousands of dollars are slated to go this year to well-known climate contrarians S.Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Anthony Watts of the Watts Up With That? website. Naturally, the leaked documents have lit up the blogosphere, but none of the revelations are particularly surprising. The U.S. has a very successful and well-funded climate change denial industry, primarily funded by fossil fuel companies, that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few decades on a PR campaign against climate change science. I made a lengthy post on the subject in 2009 called, The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy. I won't say more here, but getenergysmartnow.com has compiled a long list of blogs that have interesting posts on the Heartland Institute affair for those interested in following this story.



Eight books challenging the Manufactured Doubt industry
Important scientific findings should always be challenged with the goal of finding flaws and improving our scientific understanding. But there's nothing a scientist hates more than to see good science attacked and the reputations of good scientists smeared in name of protecting corporate profits or ideology. A number of scientists have fought back against the recent unfounded assaults on climate change science by publishing books calling attention to the Manufactured Doubt industry's tactics and goals. Anyone priding themselves on being a open-minded skeptic of human-caused global warming should challenge their skepticism by reading one of these works. I thought so highly of Unscientific America, Merchants of Doubt, and Climate Coverup, that I donated 50 copies of these books to undergraduates at the University of Michigan last year. Here's a short synopsis of eight books published in the past three years defending climate change science against the attacks of the Manufactured Doubt industry:

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. If you're going to read one book on the attacks on climate science, this should probably be the one--Dr. Oreskes, a history professor at UC San Diego, was voted climate change communicator of the year in 2011. A review of Merchants of Doubt and a video of her defending her book against skeptics is at climateprogress.org, my favorite website for staying current on the politics of climate change. From the review: "Make the journey with them, and you’ll see renowned scientists abandon science, you’ll see environmentalism equated with communism, and you’ll discover the connection between the Cold War and climate denial. And for the most part, you’ll be entertained along the way."

Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, by desmogblog.com co-founders James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. It's another fascinating and very readable book.

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future, by science writer Chris Mooney. He writes a blog focusing on science communication called the intersection. This is a fantastic book, and should be required reading for all college science majors.

Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, by Haydn Washington and John Cook. John Cook writes for one of my favorite climate science blogs, skepticalscience.com, which focuses on debunking false skeptic claims about climate science. The book does a great job debunking all the classic climate change denial arguments.

Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, by George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who now heads the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). This meticulously-researched book has just one chapter on climate change, and focuses more on tobacco and hazardous chemicals. About the the tobacco industry's Manufactured Doubt campaigns, Michaels wrote: "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy".

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, by climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann. Dr. Mann is the originator of the much-debated "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years, which looks like a hockey stick due to the sharp increase in temperatures in recent decades. This book just came out last week, and I hope to write a review on it this spring. Dr. Mann is one of the main contributors to my favorite web site for staying current on climate change research, realclimate.org. John Cook of skepticalscience.com wrote a review, calling it "an eye-opening account of the lengths the opponents of climate science will go to in their campaign to slander climate scientists and distract the public from the realities of human caused global warming."

Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America by Shawn Lawrence Otto. I haven't had a chance to read this one yet, but it looks interesting. A review by Katherine O’Konski of Climate Science Watch called the book "a fascinating look at the status of science in American society."

The Inquisition of Climate Science, by Dr. James Lawrence Powell, a geochemist with a distinguished career as a college teacher, college president, museum director, and author of books on earth science for general audiences. I haven't read it, but John Cook of skepticalscience.com wrote a review, calling it "a must-read for anyone who wishes to understand the full scope of the denial industry and their modern day persecution of climate science."

Have a great weekend, everyone! I'll be taking a few vacation days next week, and wunderground meteorologist Angela Fritz will probably be doing most of the blogging for me during the coming week.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 330 - 280

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

[Removed]
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4485
Quoting tampahurricane:
Me and some friends are planing on driving up to Mobile Alabama to chase and video this potential sever weather outbreak. What are the predictions for the severity of this potential outbreak in your guys opinion? Also does Mobile sound like a good spot to be stationed for this event?
If you are going to Alabama only to chase a storm, I would wait until a couple months from now when the more intense fronts will be working through
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
327. wxmod
Dr. Frankenstein's monster off San Francisco today (geoengineering, for those who don't know what it's called yet)

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Moved the severe threat barely into my area. I hope nobody gets anything severe.

SYNOPSIS...
A STALLED FRONTAL BOUNDARY IS LOCATED OVER THE NORTHWEST GULF OF
MEXICO...JUST BEYOND THE COASTAL WATERS WITH MID 60F DEWPOINTS
LOCATED SOUTH OF THE BOUNDARY. MEANWHILE...A POTENT UPPER LEVEL
LOW IS MOVING INTO NORTHERN OLD MEXICO...WITH INCREASING MOIST AND
ACTIVE SOUTHERN BRANCH OF THE JET OVER THE REGION...TAPPING INTO EAST
PACIFIC MOISTURE. THESE FEATURES...ALONG WITH EXPECTED ABUNDANT
GULF MOISTURE...WILL COMBINE FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF HEAVY RAINFALL
FROM WEST TO EAST ACROSS THE FORECAST AREA FROM LATE TONIGHT INTO
SATURDAY. THERE WILL ALSO BE A SLIGHT RISK OF SEVERE STORMS SOUTH
OF AN EXPECTED SURFACE LOW THAT WILL MOVE CLOSE TO THE I-10 CORRIDOR
DURING THAT TIME FRAME.

DISCUSSION...
MOST OF THE DAY HAS BEEN DRY SO FAR...WHICH IS PROBABLY A GOOD
THING CONSIDERING THE POTENTIAL FOR HEAVY RAINFALL THAT WILL EXIST
OVER THE NEXT 18 TO 24 HOURS. JUST BEGINNING TO SEE SOME SCATTERED
SHOWER ACTIVITY DOWN THE TEXAS COAST. THIS ACTIVITY WILL BEGIN TO
GRADUALLY INCREASE OVER THE EVENING HOURS AND BECOME MORE
WIDESPREAD AND HEAVIER IN INTENSITY LATE TONIGHT INTO SATURDAY
MORNING...AS LIFT WITH THE UPPER LEVEL LOW BRINGS ABUNDANT GULF
MOISTURE AND INCREASES LOW LEVEL MOISTURE CONVERGENCE ACROSS THE
STALLED FRONT BOUNDARY...THAT WILL BEGIN TO LIFT TO THE NORTH. THE
BEST CHANCE FOR THE HEAVIEST RAINFALL AND POSSIBLE SEVERE STORMS
WILL BE BETWEEN 6 AM AND NOON.

INGREDIENTS STILL PROGGED TO COME TOGETHER TO PRODUCE HEAVY
RAINFALL OVER THE FORECAST AREA...WHICH COMBINED WITH ANTECEDENT
WET GROUNDS...AND ALREADY SOME HIGH RIVER LEVELS...COULD LEAD TO
FLOODING. HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT WITH PRECIPITABLE WATER VALUES ON
THE RISE TO OVER 1.5 INCHES BY MORNING...WHICH IS TWICE THE
STANDARD DEVIATION OF NORM...AND MEAN RELATIVE HUMIDITY OVER 90
PERCENT. A COUPLED UPPER LEVEL JET FEATURE...SHOULD ALSO PROVIDE
UPPER LEVEL DIVERGENCE TO HELP GROW THE SHOWER AND THUNDERSTORM
ACTIVITY. THE EXPECTED SURFACE LOW DEVELOPING ALONG THE FRONTAL
BOUNDARY OFF OF LOWER SOUTH TEXAS...WILL RIDE THE STALLED FRONTAL
BOUNDARY LIFTING IT TO THE NORTH AND INTO SOUTHERN SECTIONS OF THE
FORECAST AREA...WILL ALSO ACT AS A FOCUSING MECHANISM FOR THE
HEAVY RAINFALL. LOOKING AT BETWEEN 1.25 AND 1.75 INCHES AREA WIDE
OF RAINFALL OVER UPPER SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND NORTH OF HIGHWAY 190 IN
LOUISIANA. ACROSS LOWER SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 190
IN LOUISIANA...AVERAGE RAINFALL AMOUNTS WILL BE BETWEEN 1.5 AND 3
INCHES...WITH ISOLATED HIGHER AMOUNTS OVER 4 INCHES.

THERE WILL ALSO BE A SEVERE POTENTIAL NEAR AND SOUTH OF THE TRACK
OF THE SURFACE LOW...WHERE WARMING SECTORING WILL OCCUR TO PROVIDE
SOME LOW LEVEL INSTABILITY AND POSSIBLY PROVIDE SURFACE ROOTING OF
THE STORMS. THIS AREA WILL ROUGHLY BE SOUTHEAST OF A BEAUMONT TO
OPELOUSAS LINE. DECENT LOW LEVEL JET AND VERY GOOD LOW LEVEL SHEAR
NUMBERS WILL MEAN THE IMPACTS FROM POTENTIAL SEVERE STORMS TO BE
DAMAGING WET MICROBURSTS AND ISOLATED TORNADOES.

HEAVY RAINFALL WILL GRADUALLY END DURING THE AFTERNOON HOURS AS
SURFACE LOW CONTINUES TO MOVE OFF TO THE EAST INTO SOUTHEAST
LOUISIANA. STILL WILL HAVE SOME LINGERING SHOWER ACTIVITY...AND
WRAP AROUND MOISTURE INTO SATURDAY EVENING UNTIL THE UPPER LEVEL
LOW PUSHES EAST OF THE FORECAST AREA.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
if in mobile 6 pm tomorrow evening is highest risk earlier further west later further east
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 171 Comments: 53841
Quoting Dragod66:
anyone see giovanna lately... weakest tropical cyclone with an eye or something else?

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32072
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

That's getting a little too late...This should all be cleared out by midnight tomorrow night.
it starts west of orleans noon tomorrow then traverse over the area and exits the regions from mid night to 6 am sunday morning
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 171 Comments: 53841
anyone see giovanna lately... weakest tropical cyclone with an eye or something else?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Might get a drop or two outta this...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
yes sometime between sat evening before midnight and 6am sunday morning

That's getting a little too late...This should all be cleared out by midnight tomorrow night.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32072
Quoting tampahurricane:
Ok so were actually looking for the event in mobile Alabama in about 30 hours from now.
yes sometime between sat evening before midnight and 6am sunday morning
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 171 Comments: 53841
Everywhere we look these days, we find corruption.... politicians, bankers, religious leaders....

Ibaraki prefecture manipulated the radiation survey
Posted by Mochizuki on February 17th, 2012 · No Comments

Ibaraki prefecture published the radiation survey result on 2/16/2012.....The survey was conducted from 8/4/2011 ~ 10/26/2011.

As the result, Strontium89 and Plutonium238 were under detectable level, Ibaraki prefecture asserted Fukushima did not affect Ibaraki.

However, they manipulated the “detectable level”. It’s turned out by telephone interview to Ibaraki prefecture. The person who confirmed this also took the sample of this article ..Breaking news : 8400 Bq/Kg of lead-210 was measured from sample of Yokohama

@Tomynyo
Sr90:40Bq/m2 Sr89:300Bq/m2 Pu238:0.5Bq/m2 Pu239+240:0.5Bq/kg やっぱり300ですか そりゃ出ないわ ・Source


About the measurement of strontium and plutonium by Ibaraki prefecture, I confirmed the lowest detectable level with them. Here are the minimum amount to detect.

Strontium90 : 40Bq/m2
Strontium89 : 300Bq/m2

Plutonium238 : 0.5Bq/m2
Plutonium239+240 : 0.5Bq/kg


The half life time of strontium89 is only 50.52 days. Measurement of this nuclide is crucial to know if it’s from Fukushima. However, the detectable amount of strontium 89 is set extremely high, which can’t even be compared to the amount of strontium90.
Also, the half life time of Plutonium238 is 87.7 years, which is short compared to plutonium 239 and 240. Knowing the ratio of plutonium 238 and plutonium239+240 is important to see if it’s affected by Fukushima. However, their minimum detectable amounts are Bq/m2 and Bq/Kg, which can’t be compared either.


Iori Mochizuki
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
317. wxmod
The Pacific off California today.MODIS

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tampahurricane:
Ok so were actually looking for the event in mobile Alabama in about 30 hours from now.
at the 30 hr mark of the model time stamp to the right of 30hr mark shows 12am utc feb 19
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 171 Comments: 53841
Ok so were actually looking for the event in mobile Alabama in about 30 hours from now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tampahurricane:
Ok thanks guys what is the estimated time for the sever weather to arrive in Mobile?
new orleans ne ward moving east nor east across entire gulf coast till fla pan han then lifts up and out

30 hrs reaches peak over mobile

Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 171 Comments: 53841
Ok thanks for the support and information everyone if I get any good footage I will share it with you all. Thanks again
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tampahurricane:
Ok thanks guys what is the estimated time for the sever weather to arrive in Mobile?

Saturday afternoon/evening per the National Weather Service in Mobile, Alabama.

Here's my Severe Weather Threat Level chart for Mobile, Alabama:

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32072
Quoting tampahurricane:
Me and some friends are planing on driving up to Mobile Alabama to chase and video this potential sever weather outbreak. What are the predictions for the severity of this potential outbreak in your guys opinion? Also does Mobile sound like a good spot to be stationed for this event?
If I were you, I'd check in with the storm prediction center and read their discussions as well as those of local NWS offices'. They are the experts after all.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Ok thanks guys what is the estimated time for the sever weather to arrive in Mobile?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SPLbeater:
bbl


Carburetor talk? 2 bbl? 4 bbl? I like 4 bbls better. More horsepower ;-).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tampahurricane:
Me and some friends are planing on driving up to Mobile Alabama to chase and video this potential sever weather outbreak. What are the predictions for the severity of this potential outbreak in your guys opinion? Also does Mobile sound like a good spot to be stationed for this event?

I'm not thinking we'll see a major outbreak this weekend... The biggest concern will probably be flash flooding. However, tje Mobile will area will likely be the best place to any catch severe weather in
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tampahurricane:
Me and some friends are planing on driving up to Mobile Alabama to chase and video this potential sever weather outbreak. What are the predictions for the severity of this potential outbreak in your guys opinion? Also does Mobile sound like a good spot to be stationed for this event?

Tomorrow has the potential to be quite a significant day severe weather wise. Wind shear values are impressive, but CAPE is going to be low throughout the duration of this event. What this means is that there will be a very small chance of large hail, but the damaging wind and tornado threat is going to be moderate/high. Given the high wind shear, a few large and long-lived tornadoes will be possible.

Mobile, Alabama sounds like the perfect place to be tomorrow.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32072
Me and some friends are planing on driving up to Mobile Alabama to chase and video this potential sever weather outbreak. What are the predictions for the severity of this potential outbreak in your guys opinion? Also does Mobile sound like a good spot to be stationed for this event?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Yeah..

I wish my NWS would change my forecast. It appears that a brief changeover to snow is likely Sunday night before the storm system moves northward.
there forecast has no bearing on what will actually happen lol

I know what you mean though, on the rare days we get rain in the forecast I always check back the next day hoping they have even more rain in the forecast.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting TomTaylor:
was it now?

Yeah..

I wish my NWS would change my forecast. It appears that a brief changeover to snow is likely Sunday night before the storm system moves northward.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32072
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Although technically the prediction being shown false would be evidence against the theory.
That's assuming greenhouse gases are the only thing influencing global temperatures though. Increased ghgs increase heat trapped, but ghgs are not the only thing influencing global temperatures. Insolation, surface albedo, cloud cover, volcanoes, concentration, of other gases, etcetera, etcetera all influence how much radiation enters Earth's system, how much is absorbed, and how much goes out which in turn determines the total heat within Earth's system.

Aside from that, our ability to measure the heat within Earth's system is incredibly poor so temperature trends in our records do not perfectly reflect the total amount of heat.



If greenhouse gases aren't the only factor acting on global temperatures, we can't control the other factors acting on global temperatures, and our ability to monitor total heat within the Ocean and atmosphere is poor, it's hard to provide accurate evidence proving or disproving the GHG theory based off our global temperature records. Obviously, there is a fairly good correlation when you compare the global temperature graph to the co2 graph over a long period of time, but it's not a perfect correlation and is certainly not enough alone to prove or disprove the ghg theory. That is why cooling in the global temperatures does not disprove the greenhouse gas theory.

...And that is why we have labs where we can control the variables and get much more accurate measurements.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
GFS is showing a huge Damaging Wind event upcoming in about ten/eleven days. It has shown it consecutively, and with the same intensity each run.

120 knot jet.........wow.



Impressive, but that's a 6z run and it's 11 days out. I'd also have to disagree with the consistency you mention.


264hr 06z GFS 500mb heights




264hr 12z GFS 500mb heights




Pretty different solutions from one run to the next.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting TampaSpin:
Dr. Masters.....CLIMATE CHANGE STUFF and nothing about the SEVERE WEATHER THREAT...the agenda is obvious!



What about the "Manufactured Climate Change" industry?
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 564
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

This lollipop was very hard to get into. It's not really good either.
was it now?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting TomTaylor:
zee

get me on to thee
next blog page alreadeee

This lollipop was very hard to get into. It's not really good either.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32072
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

y
zee

get me on to thee
next blog page alreadeee
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting aburttschell:


I can get with this completely.
Good to hear
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting TomTaylor:
x

y
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32072
x
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting weatherh98:
The storm is starting to gear up.... It already looks NASTY

Elevated thunder showers moving rapidly. The one I was under was not nasty. If they keep moving off this fast it will take a whole lot of 'em to cause flooding.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


And that's the same satellite, surface-temp, and ocean-temp data that shows the earth continuing to accumulate heat energy. It is the most credible data that we have that is showing the warming of which you are skeptical. The BEST analysis used even more data - the largest dataset yet, to my knowledge - and it showed the same answer.



No, the IPCC didn't make that prediction. The IPCC conclusions were based on end of the century, average values. The values you are likely referring to are incorrectly extracted from the mean of the climate model ensembles. But it is inaccurate to use a high point of noise and then apply the model trend. If you looked at the big picture, you would know that the ensemble mean of climate models is replicating observations well. Model ensemble used in IPCC AR4, done correctly:

Shown incorrectly:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate -global-warming.htm



Volcanoes emit less CO2 than humans. We also analyze the isotope ratios of CO2 in the atmosphere to determine the source. The predominant source of the CO2 increase is carbon from burning of fossil fuels, not volcanoes.



Sun cycles are discounted because there is no solar cycle ongoing that can explain the energy imbalance. We have satellites that measure both incoming and outgoing energy. The atmosphere is causing the energy imbalance, and its magnitude is larger than the 11yr solar cycle. The sun cycles are not quickly discredited... they were investigated by scientists for years and shown to be not the cause.

These are my reservations when it comes to climate change. I'm not claiming to be as well informed as some as you but I do have some common sense, there are a number of ways to look at the same situation.


Thanks for the insight Scott, you missed my point a bit on underwater volcanoes, I was referring to the heat/energy byproduct not CO2. But I do appreciate the info.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Rain is intensifying rapidly as it heads towards Houston. May have another round behind it forming soon. Not a good night to be driving. The forecast was off about 14 hours but its starting to pan out. May not be as much as forecasted but will still be very heavy/tropical rains
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:
The theory is true and will remain true even if the global temperatures cool. The prediction is what gets proven wrong when global temperatures cool, NOT THE THEORY.


Although technically the prediction being shown false would be evidence against the theory. That's also how you can tell a true scientist - they will tell you what would need to happen for them to believe that their hypothesis/theory may not be right or may need to be adjusted.

Either way, we are not there yet. The oceans, ice, and air continue to accumulate heat from an energy imbalance. This energy imbalance was at least mostly caused by human activities that altered - and continue to alter - the atmosphere.

Quoting schistkicker:


Did anyone else notice that that chart in #222 was completely misdrawn? According to the chart, BOTH the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period were over 1500 years ago. That's not even close to right. I'm sure there's other significant problems with the -data-, let alone trying to say something global using data from one location...


To be honest, I didn't dig into the figure too much because it just took me one glance to realize it was not accurate. When the majority of evidence indicates that global temperatures were about the same, if not lower, during the Medieval Warm Period compared to today, then seeing a graph like that makes me skeptical automatically. Once you become well-versed in a particular field you start noticing BS much more quickly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aburttschell:


A) If the temperatures are going down, that's cooling correct?

B) Okay so picking a date in the 70's or 80's isn't cherry picking. Furthermore, according to most theories we were supposed to be nearing the rapid global warmth, so the fact that there was actually cooling the last decade is pertinent.

C)The European cold snap is not over, in fact Eastern European countries such as Romania are still experiencing chilling temps. Furthermore, over 650 people have died. And to the "two or three month cold snap comment" per chart its obviously been longer than two or three months.

Oh and here is more cherry pickin' for you



Did anyone else notice that that chart in #222 was completely misdrawn? According to the chart, BOTH the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period were over 1500 years ago. That's not even close to right. I'm sure there's other significant problems with the -data-, let alone trying to say something global using data from one location...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weatherh98:


its starting!


Sure is!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aburttschell:


My contention is that the most recent data, albeit a small point in time compared to the earths existence, is the most credible data we have.


And that's the same satellite, surface-temp, and ocean-temp data that shows the earth continuing to accumulate heat energy. It is the most credible data that we have that is showing the warming of which you are skeptical. The BEST analysis used even more data - the largest dataset yet, to my knowledge - and it showed the same answer.

Quoting aburttschell:



The IPCC projected the earth would warm 1 C the first decade of the 21st century and instead it has actually cooled slightly.


No, the IPCC didn't make that prediction. The IPCC conclusions were based on end of the century, average values. The values you are likely referring to are incorrectly extracted from the mean of the climate model ensembles. But it is inaccurate to use a high point of noise and then apply the model trend. If you looked at the big picture, you would know that the ensemble mean of climate models is replicating observations well. Model ensemble used in IPCC AR4, done correctly:

Shown incorrectly:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate -global-warming.htm

Quoting aburttschell:



This, in conjunction with CO2 being the variable that effects climate. There are hundreds of thousands of underwater volcanoes, with the overall increase in volcanic activity above ground is not logical to assume the same could be happening under water?


Volcanoes emit less CO2 than humans. We also analyze the isotope ratios of CO2 in the atmosphere to determine the source. The predominant source of the CO2 increase is carbon from burning of fossil fuels, not volcanoes.

Quoting aburttschell:



And why sun cycles so quickly discredited when past climate events are tied to decreased and increased activity?


Sun cycles are discounted because there is no solar cycle ongoing that can explain the energy imbalance. We have satellites that measure both incoming and outgoing energy. The atmosphere is causing the energy imbalance, and its magnitude is larger than the 11yr solar cycle. The sun cycles are not quickly discredited... they were investigated by scientists for years and shown to be not the cause.

Quoting aburttschell:

These are my reservations when it comes to climate change. I'm not claiming to be as well informed as some as you but I do have some common sense, there are a number of ways to look at the same situation.


There are many sources I might suggest to you if you do actually wish to become more informed. But I can assure you that the information you have discussed thus far likely did not come from official sources and is not accurate. There may be different ways to look at a situation, but that doesn't include exaggerations and misinformation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
GFS is showing a huge Damaging Wind event upcoming in about ten/eleven days. It has shown it consecutively, and with the same intensity each run.

120 knot jet.........wow.



Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32072
GOM IR Loop dee Loop

Click image for Loop






Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128344
The storm is starting to gear up.... It already looks NASTY
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:
Sorry for the intensity, when I wrote that post I was trying to speak to all people who say "the theory says we will warm x degrees in y years and that isn't happening so gw theory is false." The theory describes the relationship between greenhouse gas levels and the amount of heat trapped.

Yes those predictions are always in question. The increased warmth will obviously have some impact, the question is how much...which is really hard to tell since our Earth's systems are so complex. Personally, I don't put too much weight in to those long range forecasts, but I do believe in conserving energy, limiting our use of fossil fuels, and doing anything else to reduce our impact on the environment. That way, even if these predictions are false, we can help protect and preserve our environment in which future generations will have to live in.


I can get with this completely.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aburttschell:


Fine you win. The theory that greenhouse gases trap outgoing long wave radiation is correct. However the prediction that this will have any impact on our climate is in question here.
Sorry for the intensity, when I wrote that post I was trying to speak to all people who say "the theory says we will warm x degrees in y years and that isn't happening so gw theory is false." The theory describes the relationship between greenhouse gas levels and the amount of heat trapped.

Yes those predictions are always in question. The increased warmth will obviously have some impact, the question is how much...which is really hard to tell since our Earth's systems are so complex. Personally, I don't put too much weight in to those long range forecasts, but I do believe in conserving energy, limiting our use of fossil fuels, and doing anything else to reduce our impact on the environment. That way, even if these predictions are false, we can help protect and preserve our environment in which future generations will have to live in.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
281. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)


© Japan Meteorological Agency
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jedkins01:


Here is the link to Tampa rainfall:Link


I'm really hoping the dual pole upgrade will take care of this, I have seen too many rain events be highly underestimated by doppler radar around here for whatever reason. I have also seen radar way overestimate rain totals in different parts of the country, but for some reason it seems to be more often underestimation around here.


This all the more states the importance of additional rain gauge data for the NWS since sometimes doppler radar can be way off like it has been today. For whatever reason rain rates were much heavier than the radar thought.


Dual pol will make an improvement, but it is still just a remote sensing tool. Even though we use rain gauges as the "right" answer, they still have uncertainty as well. This is why we typically use a combination of rain gauges and radar estimates along with forecaster experience to make our QCed best-estimate rainfall products in the NWS for river forecasting.

As far as additional rain gauges... totally agree there. I've heard anecdotes of people thinking that they can remove rain gauges - and even river gauges - based upon radar data and models being able to handle it on their own. I doubt this will ever become possible.

On a side note, one of the better rainfall estimation systems that updates in realtime (as in, not a delayed gauge-radar multisensor product) would be the NMQ data being tested by NSSL/OU:
http://nmq.ou.edu/
Looks like it did slightly better in the Tampa area, showing a few areas near 1.0" accumulation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 330 - 280

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
69 °F
Overcast