Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 8 2007, 07:54 PM) [snapback]536990[/snapback]</div>

maybe i should have said that instead and left it there.

in my world, accusing someone of dishonesty is not done the least bit lightly. i probably overreacted to the original post i quoted.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 8 2007, 05:18 PM) [snapback]537008[/snapback]</div>

No, I don't think you were wrong in your posting. I just felt you covered it thoroughly enough that there was not much I could add to it and viking seems a decent guy despite our disagreements so I didn't feel the need to gang up on him.

Besides, your knowledge on grant writing far surpasses mine so I let you run that that arguement. Hahaha

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 8 2007, 02:49 AM) [snapback]536626[/snapback]</div>

That's the problem with these web sources instead of printed media: I can't use them for wrapping fish or painter's drop clothes like I usually do with paper.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Nov 8 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]536800[/snapback]</div>

I'm not talking about Bush - I'm talking about RealClimate. I'm not saying there is no value there, but besides a number of complaints of censorship I've seen, I think Gavin & Michael (Mann) are a bit too vested in their positions to be desirous of any real debate or discussion that challenges their views.

 

Amped,

If the output of CO2 and other anthropogenic gasses/chemicals only effected global climate change then Mr. Christy may have a point yet I think even he is missing the big picture. So-called greenhouse gasses do not just affect climate, they have a host of effects on the biological world from solar insolation, pH regulation, soil and water chemistry, tonicity, metabolic processes, etc.. These effects may have a huge impact on life on this planet and its effects are on such a grand scale that to ignore them would be a mistake.

My term paper is based on the effects of ocean acidification due to excess CO2 and it's effect on calcifying organisms. There are many papers on the subject and the effects of acidification are not limited to just those organisms that calcify. Since much of our climate and biological life is regulated through oceanic circulations (biotic and abiotic) it would be wise to take the ocean's living organisms into account when deciding how important anthropogenic emissions are. This same reasoning is easily applied to forestry and soils. Simply put, this is not just about "a little bit of warming". Chemistry rules all, muck with it too far in one direction and you will get a reaction.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 8 2007, 10:02 PM) [snapback]537133[/snapback]</div>

CO2s small percentage of atmospheric makeup should not be taken too lightly. Mercury makes up a very small percentage of our soils yet in high enough concentrations it is deadly. In the biological sciences you find that most organisms and processes work efficiently within specific ranges of chemical composition. When you alter that you may have an effect on the organism which in turn can have an effect on it's community and/or ecosystem which in turn can effect the biosphere since life is the predominant reason we have a livable atmosphere and clean drinking water. When the chemical you are adding or reducing contains such critical elements like carbon, you've increased the likelyhood of seeing an effect on life. I'm sure you are aware of all this but I am writing it in the event other readers are not aware of the hidden connections of anthropogenic emissions output.

Evaporation had actually gone down for a portion of the past decade I believe (based on pan evaporation data) but then may have climbed back up to normal or above normal. I do not have the data for that but if you do I would love to read it. You are correct that at the ocean/air interface CO2 is released back into the atmosphere while much of it is also stored in the test of calcifying organisms such as coccolithophores and foraminifera. This is then stored in ocean sediments and on land in uplifted areas or parts of tectonic plates that are no longer under water. So while the arguement concerning evap rates and oceanic release of CO2 seems plausible I would like you to consider that the coeans have increased their CO2 content and thus their acidification and not the opposite. Also, if ocean evap rates increased enough to have such a drastic effect on CO2 output wouldn't there be a measurable drop in sea level instead of the increase that scientists seem to be agreeing on?

Lastly, I would also take into consideration how much "ancient sunlight" we are adding to the atmosphere. This form of carbon has been sequestered for millions of years in the case of fossil fuels, to hundreds of years in the case of living organic material like trees, soils, and peat. Put any of these items through a redox reaction and you end up with CO2. So we are most definately adding more CO2 to the system than has been circulating through the system in recent times. When you degrade the earths natural sequestering systems (forests, soils, coral reefs) you further exacerbate this issue. True we don't know everything or even a 10th of everything but we know enough to realize we are tampering with things that could have a drastic effect on the life on this planet and our own comfort levels.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 8 2007, 08:17 PM) [snapback]537088[/snapback]</div>

Will the real John Christy please stand up:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 8 2007, 08:55 PM) [snapback]537111[/snapback]</div>

Thoughtful response, as usual F8L. Personally I suspect there may be as much, maybe more validity to these arguments for CO2 reductions as there are to "global warming".

Perhaps you should consider posting your term paper, when it is completed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 9 2007, 08:36 AM) [snapback]537270[/snapback]</div>

This is really the laziest of all possible responses. Rather than debate the issue or enlighten further (as F8L has just done) you resort to an ad hominem attack. Remember, Christy is an extremely well qualified individual in the field of climate science, regardless of whether you agree with his views or not:

Ph.D., Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1987
M.S., Atmospheric Sciences, , University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1984
B.A., Mathematics, California State University, Fresno, 1969

Dr. John R. Christy is Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. In November 2000 Gov. Don Siegelman appointed him to be Alabamaâs State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a NASA/Marshall scientist, and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate."

Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994 and 1996) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has or is serving on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 9 2007, 09:27 AM) [snapback]537318[/snapback]</div>

Thank you Tim. It is people like you on this forum that really make me stop and think before posting. Sometimes I don't stop and think and I fortunately get called on it. That you all for helping me grow as an individual.

My term paper is simply a summary report on the subject and not my own personal experiments. It will also be written for lower division biology students. I will post it though as long as you promise not to laugh.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 9 2007, 10:03 AM) [snapback]537340[/snapback]</div>

No laughing here - unless it's at my own ignorance! :lol: :lol: :lol:

BTW - I am humbled by your thoughtful comment and have to say the you've definitely helped me as well. And Tripp too - although I haven't heard much from him lately.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 9 2007, 09:46 AM) [snapback]537330[/snapback]</div>

I could not care less that you think that my response was lazy. I don't always have the time for lengthy dissertations.

The readers of that Op-Ed article are entitled to know the author's background and history as a climate skeptic.

Here are some of his notable quotes:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 9 2007, 11:20 AM) [snapback]537390[/snapback]</div>

His history as a "climate skeptic" doesn't make him any less qualified to comment on climate change. I would say his history as a climate expert has informed his skepticism.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 10 2007, 01:29 AM) [snapback]537642[/snapback]</div>

However his specific comments are the same as all the other skeptics, which is that he changes his tune over time. From we aren't an impact on CO2 to we are (but there is no warming). From there is no warming to, ok, maybe there is (but we aren't causing it, it's all natural). From we aren't causing it to we are causing some of it (but not a lot, really). From we are causing a fair bit of change, but hey, it's really a good thing, just you wait and see.

So he appears to merely be a lagging indicator. I see no added value from him as compared to other informed skeptics, who are similarly lagging indicators.

I do agree with him on our general inability to reliably predict given the current state of our data and models. Though others have said it better, notably Freeman Dyson.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Nov 10 2007, 09:46 AM) [snapback]537704[/snapback]</div>

I don't see these isolated quotes taken without the full context of whatever he was discussing as evidence he is "changing his tune". Regardless, James Hansen himself has been known to "change his tune":
- In 1988 Hansen claimed a climate sensitivity value of 1˚C W/m2.
- In 2001 he claimed a value 0.75˚C W/m2.
- In 2005 he claimed a value 0.67˚C W/m2.

Does this make Hansen a "lagging indicator"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 10 2007, 12:19 PM) [snapback]537712[/snapback]</div>

You're kidding, right?

No, of course that doesn't make him a lagging indicator in any way even vaguely like what I was describing. Those are all saying the same thing, just haggling over the value (if you recall the alluded-to joke), whereas I'm talking about saying qualitatively completely different and opposed things over time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 10 2007, 10:19 AM) [snapback]537712[/snapback]</div>

Keep in mind that the effect of aerosols on solar insolation had yet to be studied prior to 2000 and the IDOEX study headed by Professor V. Ramanathan. So as new information comes in one must adjust his postion or risk being labeled a "person of faith". lol

So many of the effects in ocean acidification and in global climate change seem to be happening faster than models anticipated so something is indeed occuring regardless of the actual values placed on forcings right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Nov 10 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]537763[/snapback]</div>

A bunch of out of context quotes pulled from "ExxonSecrets.org" doesn't prove much. For instance, here's your out of context 2001 quote designed to lead us to believe Christy has dramatically changed his views over time:

"It is our great fortune - because we produce so much of it - that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. In simple terms, carbon dioxide is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric carbon dioxide."


Now here's what he actually said:
"The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing in the atmosphere due primarily to the combustion of fossil fuels. Fortunately (because we produce so much of it) CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is the lifeblood of the biosphere. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet. It is the secondary impact of CO2 that may present challenges to human life in the future. It has been proposed that CO2 increases could cause climate change of a magnitude beyond what naturally occurs that would force costly adaptation or significant ecological stress. For example, enhanced sea level rise and/or reduced rainfall would be two possible effects likely to be costly to those regions so affected. Data from the past and projections from climate models are employed to provide insight on these concerns."

He doesn't deny there is risk to the planet from climate change, but he's hardly the George Soros funded alarmist that James Hansen is. <_<

Now seriously - I will say I respect Hansen as a credible scientist who has done good work, although his intransigence in providing access to and explanation of temperature data is a bit troubling.