Campaign about AMS statement on climate change

[donpaul0]

And there's this, from NASA/JPL and Cal Tech:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/video...a_id=131826971

[PSUWx]

Originally Posted by donpaul0

And there's this, from NASA/JPL and Cal Tech:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/video...a_id=131826971

That NASA GRACE animation perhaps could be better explained here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ins?intcmp=122

Surface ice has indeed been retreating, but 30% less than expected (and the high mountain glacial ice has had a near-zero trend, primarily because melting lower altitude ice has been balanced by increasing snowpack higher up the slopes).

Add to this the current observations getting closer to the lower 95% uncertainty bound on the IPCC AR4 modelling...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...a-comparisons/

...I think climate scientists have a slight problem on their hands that requires a little more-than-typical explanation (although RealClimate does a decent attempt at it in the above link).

One the one hand, the hope is tha the additional arctic data series incorporated into HadCRUT4 will help re-angle the trends slightly enough to make recent years just the slight bit warmer than 1998, but unless we get a new El Nino blast (and no significant volcanic activity), climate scientists will HAVE to have a better answer for why the trends are in a relative plateau beyond short-term (<15 years) noise -- IF that happens. As it is, it should be non-controversial to point out that skepticism among lay-people will only increase regarding long-term projections that require economic intervention if the nearer-term results are already off (and shaded in the less-severe area).

Also, regarding Moberg et al (2005)... It sitll is commonly accepted among climate scientists that expeditions in temperature reconstructions (at a particular confidence and specificity level) prior to AD 1400 are quite problematic and more "for academic eyes only" (and Moberg is only a NH reconstruction).

See another recent RealClimate post
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...at-didnt-bark/

This whole topic fascinates me greatly, and for the record I'm a 'believer' in Global Warming... so don't report me to www.forecastthefacts.org ...

[baldingwxguy]

Originally Posted by donpaul0

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature

I read it. So we "denialists" cherry-pick the data and take money to be against the science, huh?

Honestly, the biggest thing that irked me was that he essentially said "denialists are pretty much the same people as creationists."

I see. So because I'm a man of faith and don't believe I evolved from slime, I'm a denier of evolution too. Well, I guess so. I always thought it took more faith to believe the world and everything in it was an accident.

[vortmaximum]

"This whole topic fascinates me greatly, and for the record I'm a 'believer' in Global Warming"

Fascinates me as well PSU. I'm not a believer, nor a dis-believer. It is an unknown to me. While I have no data and read no study, seems like a lot less record night time lows. Seems like a lot of the record lows date back many decades ago. Seems like most days that are above average aren't so much from the day time highs, but night time lows. For example the days highs within a degree or two of the average, but the night time lows 5 to 10 above average. Diurnal range seems less to me. I noticed there is typically quite a bit of a cirrus veil in the sky from air travel jet engine water emissions. I wonder if this is keeping the temperatures up at night? Maybe it's just urban sprawl tweaking the temps at night, I don't know. Might make for a good study.

All for going green and letting the bastards choke on their oil, but the green technologies can't power the whole grid and the thought of a global tax on carbon emissions is ludicrous. In my opinion it will only shift jobs and pollution across the globe. Some will get rich, some will go broke. Some areas will become cleaner, while others will have to deal with a big increase in pollution. It will be yet another bureaucratic scam IMO.

In any case seems to be a lot of chatter on the subject lately.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...s-than-thought

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ins?intcmp=122

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...813814,00.html

[donpaul0]

For me, while I am very nearly convinced anthropogenic activity is responsible for most of the warming in recent decades, (I disagree with what I believe is cherrypicked data to try to prove warming is in a 15 year lull) it is important to separate that enormous body of evidence from the political and socioeconomic arguments of what can be done about it. On those matters, we have no more expertise than anyone else out there, and those issues are very subjective.

I'm not convinced we CAN do anything to mitigate the greenhouse gas-induced warming, owing to the economic growth in China, India, and other developing nations--more coal-fired plants, more cars, more industry, etc.

The existence of anthropogenic forcing in warming and the mitigation of it are 2 entirely different balls of wax. To oversimplify, one is science, the other is politics.

[PSUWx]

Originally Posted by vortmaximum

"This whole topic fascinates me greatly, and for the record I'm a 'believer' in Global Warming"

Fascinates me as well PSU. I'm not a believer, nor a dis-believer. It is an unknown to me. While I have no data and read no study, seems like a lot less record night time lows. Seems like a lot of the record lows date back many decades ago. Seems like most days that are above average aren't so much from the day time highs, but night time lows. For example the days highs within a degree or two of the average, but the night time lows 5 to 10 above average. Diurnal range seems less to me. I noticed there is typically quite a bit of a cirrus veil in the sky from air travel jet engine water emissions. I wonder if this is keeping the temperatures up at night? Maybe it's just urban sprawl tweaking the temps at night, I don't know. Might make for a good study.

Rest assured that just about everything out there related to climate, climate science, and climate change has been and is being studied by multiple people... So it's probably a good idea to defer to them when wondering what to conclude (although it's also interesting to note that there are some areas of divergence on certain issues, but that divergence is well off the subject of whether or not globally averaged temperatures have increased since 1850, 1950, or 1980 (as you know). This would include the adjustments of UHI effects. The most helpful information for this area of study would be from areas where there is rapid urbanization (the likes of which the US just about has never seen--- really only places like China, India, and to a lesser extent Africa) ... Unfortunately these are the same places that are unlikely to have greatly maintained temperature records, or otherwise are less likely to be willing to share the data (the saga into obtaining Chinese urbanization temperature data is turning into a novel at this point-- it's as if only conclusions based on the data remain, the data itself is misplaced). But regardless, it's the 'trend' of the data that matters, and not the actual numbers... so from 800C to 800C over 100 years is still a flat trend-- thus the reason why the present UHI effects in the US have been negligble for the temperature record here (thus far).

All for going green and letting the bastards choke on their oil, but the green technologies can't power the whole grid and the thought of a global tax on carbon emissions is ludicrous. In my opinion it will only shift jobs and pollution across the globe. Some will get rich, some will go broke. Some areas will become cleaner, while others will have to deal with a big increase in pollution. It will be yet another bureaucratic scam IMO.

I think this is the biggest rub of the whole issue-- which is also why the climate scientists 'try' to refrain as much as possible from endorsing specific policy directives.

With the implementation of any of the new/green energy infrastructure, there is a much more trained-to-be-NIMBY public (another reason why places like China will always be better able to out-distance us in green energy initiatives). The same environmentalists that want all sorts of green energy deployment on un-heard-of scales are the same people who just don't want it near them. The bummer is that the present energy installments can fulfill our energy needs, but it's just from undesirable sources... This brings the NIMBY issue back into play (see "Cape Wind" and several other New England wind energy projects that have been delayed 10 years or more).

The other issue is that with this decarbonized energy and increasing energy efficiency comes the problem of the 'rebound effect'. The math also works out in an unfortunate way: The "savings" always seems to wind up back into the system somehow by increased consumption in other areas. A few examples: The US / UK economies have been able to appear to decarbonize somewhat recently, but only because they've been offloading really dirty energy processes to other areas (like China); another example is the increasing gas mileage breakthroughs in modern cars-- people are 'taking advantage' of it by buying the same cars at now slightly higher mileage, and driving farther. It's all coming out in the wash. Not on a 'local community scale', but when averages out globally.

One recent story about this http://grist.org/energy-efficiency/h...limate-change/ goes down that dark road that implies that one of the few 'real' ways to reduce carbon footprints and energy consumption is by contracting the economy-- good luck with that.

[PSUWx]

Originally Posted by donpaul0

For me, while I am very nearly convinced anthropogenic activity is responsible for most of the warming in recent decades, (I disagree with what I believe is cherrypicked data to try to prove warming is in a 15 year lull) it is important to separate that enormous body of evidence from the political and socioeconomic arguments of what can be done about it. On those matters, we have no more expertise than anyone else out there, and those issues are very subjective.

I'm not convinced we CAN do anything to mitigate the greenhouse gas-induced warming, owing to the economic growth in China, India, and other developing nations--more coal-fired plants, more cars, more industry, etc.

The existence of anthropogenic forcing in warming and the mitigation of it are 2 entirely different balls of wax. To oversimplify, one is science, the other is politics.

While we're entering a regime where there's a large amount of negative-termed forcings in the temperature equation (aerosols, la nina, solar minimum, even clouds in a highly specific context, etc.) ... it's quite something that the global temperature trend has indeed slowed (or taken a not-projected-by-the-IPCC-a-few-years-back turn toward subdued warming).

I'm not saying that Global Warming has ended, but it's smart to acknowledge that this recent trending should encourage a re-evaluation of the uncertainty bounds of various climate variables-- not the least of which is CO2 sensitivity.

Even with all of that said, it also appears clear that the CO2 signal within the temperature equation is a large force (perhaps able to more than match all of the negative contributions of the other factors--- some studies put it at 75%, others nearer to 100%). This would continue to establish CO2 as a main driver of the climate (though perhaps not only dominant force, but it means something that it may be the only long-time-scale force on the 'warming' side of the equation in La Nina years).

I can only imagine the kind of temperture spike that lies in wait given the current understanding of all the physics involved if/when we get another strong El Nino year lined up with increaed solar output, and other facturs such that the CO climate signal can be additive instead of just balancing.

To get a look at an example estimate of the CO2 signal in the temperature data, check out Foster and Rahmstorf's calculations in their recent paper.

[nsj]

Anyone else been contacted by viewers who have "joined" the "Forecast The Facts" campaign? I got this email today — when we're nearly 25° above normal and expecting severe storms, less than a week after our only shot of snow so far this winter...(emphasis mine):

I am a viewer here in A____ and I’m interested in the issue of climate change and how it is affecting our weather. As someone who studies these things, I was hoping to get your opinion.

As I’m sure you’re aware, there’s been a lot of extreme weather recently, and last year set records for severe weather events. From what I have read, climate change is a factor in all of this. Because I’m interested in climate change and weather, I have joined a campaign called Forecast the Facts, which is focused on how broadcast meteorologists report on this important issue. They’ve helped to put me in touch with reporters like you to ask them their views.

I know that the American Meteorological Society says that human-induced climate change is occurring and is largely created by humans. I’m also aware of reports that climate change is likely to have an impact on weather events like heat waves, droughts, and shifting rainfall patterns. Do you agree with the AMS’ position? Do you think climate change is happening? And do you think it will have an impact on weather in A___?

Feels like (a) a form email and (b) a troll to me. Anyone else getting this or something like it?

[Hydrometeor Man]

I asked the website attendant at Forecast the Facts what this was... here's the response:

Thanks for writing, and thank you for your rigorous commitment to communicating the science at NOAA. Allow me to clarify how this survey is working. Last week, we sent out an email to a small group of our supporters, directing them to a webpage where they could look up their local TV meteorologists, and email them through our system. Because we could not actually send an email through users’ individual account, we sent an email on their behalf from an email address that ended @forecastthefacts.org.

You can look at the webpage users saw here:

http://forecastthefacts.org/ask_your_meteorologist/

We are sending meteorologist's responses back to the viewers, and allowing viewers to respond however they choose. To be clear, these are real viewers sending real emails that they have the opportunity to edit before sending. Our tool merely enables them to look up which broadcast meteorologists are in their region, and then sends an email on their behalf. Still, we appreciate the need to stay “above the fray,” and not stoop to tactics that are even perceived as dishonest. From now on, the body of the email will disclose that the user is a member of Forecast the Facts, and was connected to the email recipient through our organization.

[Indiana]

I received an e-mail as well, as did our morning meteorologist. Our "local" viewer's e-mail didn't contain the bold text that was in NSJ's e-mail, making it look much more like an average's viewer's e-mail. The only clue to where this was coming from was by looking at the e-mail address that ended in forecastthefacts.org.

Once I saw that, this raised some warning flags. I just responded that the "viewer" had some interesting questions, and if he wouldn't mind sending me his phone number, I'd be glad to contact him and answer his questions, since this was a complex issue that would be easier to answer by phone rather than by e-mail.

Needless to say, I haven't heard anything back.

[weatherly]

Originally Posted by nsj

Anyone else been contacted by viewers who have "joined" the "Forecast The Facts" campaign? I got this email today — when we're nearly 25° above normal and expecting severe storms, less than a week after our only shot of snow so far this winter...(emphasis mine):



Feels like (a) a form email and (b) a troll to me. Anyone else getting this or something like it?

Yup... I got the same one. Word for word. They are trolling to see who takes an anti-CAGW point of view, and then they will proceed to mount a smear campaign against them with letter writing campaigns to local newspapers and to the apostate's station management. Whatever you do, don't write them back with a position. Offering to call them isn't a bad idea.... I offered to have the "local viewer" (John Lopez was his name as I recall) come down to the station to talk to me face to face. As with others... no response yet. What a surprise.

[Hoser, eh?]

How about collaborating with all the mets from all the stations in your market, writing up a response, and sending it signed by everyone? That's assuming of course everyone in the market is in agreement, but what would the trolling group do if they couldn't play stations off one another?

[PSUWx]

I got my fishing email today... (I was happy! I was beginning to think I was left out...)

Here's what mine said:

As I’m sure you’re aware, there’s been a lot of extreme weather recently, and last year set records for severe weather events. Scientists have identified climate change as a factor in all of this. Because I believe broadcast meteorologists have a role to play in communicating the science of climate change, I have joined a campaign called Forecast the Facts, which is focused on how broadcast meteorologists report on this important issue. They’ve helped to put me in touch with reporters like you to ask them their views on climate change.

I know that the American Meteorological Society says that human-induced climate change is occurring and is largely created by humans. I’m also aware of reports that climate change is likely to have an impact on weather events like droughts, floods, and shifting rainfall patterns. Do you agree with the AMS’ position? Do you think climate change is happening? And do you think it will have an impact on weather in ______?

So I think that their form email has been refined here and there... To me it doesn't seem that difficult to agree with what they want to hear and get off the hook. Climate change certainly is occurring (as it has been)...I don't know about it 'largely created by humans' as if in the absence of man climate wouldn't change (though I believe this part of their email is 'flexible'). A changing climate is certainly going to have at least some impact on weather events... So far it seems like they are still looking for the low-hanging fruit, but the potential for this sort of operation to get out of hand seems great. Especially if some poor met out there gets astroturfed out of a job in a small market somewhere that uses their station's email address for 'viewer/market research'.

[kmfdmatt]

Oooooh!!! I just got mine!!

Hello!

I am a viewer here in xxxxxxx and I’m interested in the issue of climate change and how it is affecting our weather. As someone who studies these things, I was hoping to get your opinion.

As I’m sure you’re aware, there’s been a lot of extreme weather recently, and last year set records for severe weather events. Scientists have identified climate change as a factor in all of this. Because I believe broadcast meteorologists have a role to play in communicating the science of climate change, I have joined a campaign called Forecast the Facts, which is focused on how broadcast meteorologists report on this important issue. They’ve helped to put me in touch with reporters like you to ask them their views on climate change.

I know that the American Meteorological Society says that human-induced climate change is occurring and is largely created by humans. I’m also aware of reports that climate change is likely to have an impact on weather events like droughts, floods, and shifting rainfall patterns. Do you agree with the AMS’ position? Do you think climate change is happening? And do you think it will have an impact on weather in xxxxx?

Sincerely,
xxxxxxxx
___________________________________
To be blunt, whether it's occuring and why or why not is not my concern at my job. I forecast the weather, good or bad, no matter what it looks like to be. I am not the sounding board for any politics be them conservative, liberal, or independent.

[vortmaximum]

We should work together to craft the perfect 'form-mail' response

[slipstream]

I got the same form email word for word a few days ago. Deleted it and didn't respond.

[sleet10]

Yeah: I got it twice, reponsed to the first one, very generic in my response, basically said, read everything you can on both sides of the issue,, then you can make an "iniformed" position, maybe, really did not give them my position. Second one I deleted because as you say someone is fishing. Got the first one last month, second one just recently.

[baldingwxguy]

Originally Posted by PSUWx

While we're entering a regime where there's a large amount of negative-termed forcings in the temperature equation (aerosols, la nina, solar minimum, even clouds in a highly specific context, etc.) ... it's quite something that the global temperature trend has indeed slowed (or taken a not-projected-by-the-IPCC-a-few-years-back turn toward subdued warming).

I'm not saying that Global Warming has ended, but it's smart to acknowledge that this recent trending should encourage a re-evaluation of the uncertainty bounds of various climate variables-- not the least of which is CO2 sensitivity.

Even with all of that said, it also appears clear that the CO2 signal within the temperature equation is a large force (perhaps able to more than match all of the negative contributions of the other factors--- some studies put it at 75%, others nearer to 100%). This would continue to establish CO2 as a main driver of the climate (though perhaps not only dominant force, but it means something that it may be the only long-time-scale force on the 'warming' side of the equation in La Nina years).

I can only imagine the kind of temperture spike that lies in wait given the current understanding of all the physics involved if/when we get another strong El Nino year lined up with increaed solar output, and other facturs such that the CO climate signal can be additive instead of just balancing.

To get a look at an example estimate of the CO2 signal in the temperature data, check out Foster and Rahmstorf's calculations in their recent paper.

I think it was on Watts' site recently I read that in the upcoming IPCC AR5, CO2 is given an increased sensitivity in models. As compared to the sun in AR4, it was 14:1. In AR5, it's supposedly 40:1. If that's the case, how the heck can something like that be proven?

Oh yes, here it is, a guest post from Eric Rawls.

[vortmaximum]

From Hansen himself. http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hanse...te_change.html

[vortmaximum]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...emissions.html

[PSUWx]

That astroturf organization called "ForecasttheFacts.Org" has succeeded in getting GM to pull it's support funding for the Heartland institute over the issue of climate change. They have developed targets and ways to mobilize their members toward action, similar to many other "grassroots" groups that are funded by big money activists.

I just feel like getting this off my chest here rather than my professional blog, because posting it there is just going to make me be a target.

I don't mind that GM is pulling its funding from the Heartland Institute regarding climate change. It's their right to do what they want with their money, even if their relationship has been decades long and that the Heartland Institute hasn't been (to my knowledge) clandestine about what they do.

Here's a recent tactic review undertaken by advocates in the arena of climate-change / environmental issues, designed to refocus their efforts for greater success:

http://www.ncrp.org/news-room/press-...und-grassroots

Here we see that "more funding must go" (from wealthy philanthropic donors) to groups that need the money for "grassroots organization and advocacy" ... For every Koch, there is a Soros, but ironically the same urgings that compel Soros to do his thing are apparently what villifies the Koch brothers... For the record, I'm rather ambivalent toward astroturfing (fake grassroots efforts) because it seems like it's been around for a while, and may well be the name of the game in the future for small local advocacy groups to have an impact or the right know-how.

So anyway, back to www.forecastthefacts.org (a Soros-funded astroturf organization, rather than a Koch funded one). So GM has made their decision, and that's fine, but my pet peeve beef is this:

Here's their press release: http://pastebin.com/xiuc79wz (it came into my email account at work, so it may have yours as well.

The key quote that annoyed me:

GM’s funding of Heartland came to light in February via leaked documents that also revealed Heartland’s plan to insert climate change denial into public education.

So the LA Times picked up the story, but they at least put a little journalism into it:

From http://www.latimes.com/news/local/en...%3A+latimes%2F

The development is fallout from the release of Heartland Institute funding documents in February, which showed that GM contributed $15,000 to Heartland in 2010 and 2011. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute and a MacArthur “genius” grant recipient, revealed in February that he had assumed a false identity to obtain some of those documents.

If any of you have been following this saga with Peter Gleick, you already know what I'm talking about. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that a group with "facts" in its name wants to create alternative realities, or mis-idenitfy fraud with whistleblowing, but it's got my dander up because its resulted in large organizations making changes in how they do things.

What happens when the same type of tactics are applied to under-handedly remove you from your job based on twitter tweets they determine to be "anti-climate" or whatever else they're looking for?

[Cumulo-nimbus]

This is yet another reason to leave the AMS.

Global warming, now called "climate-change" so pretty much any weather event can be blamed on it, is the biggest scientific fraud of the last century, even bigger than the lipid hypothesis.

Here is my opinion after having studied the issue in great detail over the last few years.

Humans probably have some minute impact on climate, but the entire argument is about CO2 in the global warming debate.

1.) We simply can't produce enough of it to reach even historical levels. (The present atmosphere is CO2-starved when compared to every other geological time period in Earth's history since the Cambrian Explosion.)

2.) The "effects" on people have more to do with the fact the population in the United States has increased by 80 million people in the last 30 years, and we've added a couple of BILLION people to the entire world. Of course there will be more people impacted by bad weather, because there are more people on the planet PERIOD.

3.) The CO2 being released CAME FROM THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE. It isn't being created by humans. It was taken in by plants that became fossil fuels and we are releasing what was already present in the past atmosphere of the planet.

4.) Other much more significant factors like cosmic radiation and solar cycles are being completely ignored.

5.) Solutions to the problem cause so much economic damage as to be unsupportable, and the people pushing this fraud think taxing the entire planet is a solution. A tax cannot solve a problem like this, even if there was one.

The entire global warming debate infuriates me because it is a distraction from other, much more important issues we face.

[vortmaximum]

"The present spat could be a sign of things to come in climate politics, where progressive countries unite from the bottom up, at least until an over-arching treaty comes into force at the end of the decade."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1367155.html

[Ping-Pong Ball]

Originally Posted by vortmaximum

"The present spat could be a sign of things to come in climate politics, where progressive countries unite from the bottom up, at least until an over-arching treaty comes into force at the end of the decade."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1367155.html

The EU doesn't care about global warming/climate change or whatever you want to call it. The EU needs money & they need it fast! Any type of fee or tax they can create out of thin air to generate tax they will. How brook is the EU? If they can't fix their monetary issues quick, it won't matter about what kind of treaties the EU passes because the EU won't be around in 5 years.

At this point, the only thing keeping the EU together are the manufacturing economies of countries like Germany. The EU won't be able to institute any type of environmental regulations which will hurt the economies of their industrial bread winners. After all if they do, who bails out Greece, Spain, Italy, & Ireland? Or where does the cash come from? One thing European countries don't like is being told what to do by Germany. Since Germany is the only EU country with a balanced budget, a huge surplus of cash, & a hard working manufacturing industry; the EU has bigger issues to fix than making strict Climate Change treaties. If I'm wrong, and they do, the EU will collapse under the mountain of debt with in the next 5 years, more likely in 2 years.

[donpaul0]

Originally Posted by Cumulo-nimbus

This is yet another reason to leave the AMS.

Global warming, now called "climate-change" so pretty much any weather event can be blamed on it, is the biggest scientific fraud of the last century, even bigger than the lipid hypothesis.

Here is my opinion after having studied the issue in great detail over the last few years.

Humans probably have some minute impact on climate, but the entire argument is about CO2 in the global warming debate.

1.) We simply can't produce enough of it to reach even historical levels. (The present atmosphere is CO2-starved when compared to every other geological time period in Earth's history since the Cambrian Explosion.)

2.) The "effects" on people have more to do with the fact the population in the United States has increased by 80 million people in the last 30 years, and we've added a couple of BILLION people to the entire world. Of course there will be more people impacted by bad weather, because there are more people on the planet PERIOD.

3.) The CO2 being released CAME FROM THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE. It isn't being created by humans. It was taken in by plants that became fossil fuels and we are releasing what was already present in the past atmosphere of the planet.

4.) Other much more significant factors like cosmic radiation and solar cycles are being completely ignored.

5.) Solutions to the problem cause so much economic damage as to be unsupportable, and the people pushing this fraud think taxing the entire planet is a solution. A tax cannot solve a problem like this, even if there was one.

The entire global warming debate infuriates me because it is a distraction from other, much more important issues we face.

I find it pretty discouraging that any meteorologist thinks global warming is a sham. I don't know where you've been doing your researching, but it sure as hell isn't in mainstream scientific sources. By the way, go and check the CO2 levels from the early 20th century and compare them to the current levels. If you think that's "minute", you need to skip the calc and go back and do some basic math.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...ls-111074.aspx