Thoughts on global warming by Dr. Gray and others

[stormtruth]

Sadly, this once interesting, science-based debate has been hijacked by the left, Hollywood and EU Socialists. GW and by extension, hurricanes, have become political agendas and no amount of contrary science is accepted. Review the nonsense spewed at a demonstration at NCEP and one would conclude we're down to days.

Dr. Gray is to be applauded for taking a stand. BTW, I still have the Newsweek "Coming Ice Age" issue...have photocopied and given to dozens of Global Warmingnistas. The actually blame GW on stopping the New Ice Age! Can't argue with pinheads

Scott

Since global warming could possibly make the future much more difficult for our grandchildren applauding Dr. Gray for ignoring the probem and making ignorant statements like nuclear winter is a hoax sounds like a really stupid thing to do.

[Scott_inVA]

Since global warming could possibly make the future much more difficult for our grandchildren applauding Dr. Gray for ignoring the probem and making ignorant statements like nuclear winter is a hoax sounds like a really stupid thing to do.

This illustrates how emotive the subject is and why discourse is arduous. I applaud Dr. Gray for standing chin into the wind. He is saying the rapid and ruinous scenarios are, in his opinion, a hoax. He presents data in support of his hypothesis and gets nuked by the media and Chicken Little eco-nutcases. Obviously, he has done more research on the subject than has the collective wisdom of this board and therefore he is to be congratulated for presenting his findings to the contrary. I don't necessarily agree with everything he writes, but, I do applaud a scientist capable of advancing opposing data and opinion. Gee, there was a time that was welcomed and helpful.

Research and dialogue on both views is hampered when politicians, the media and agenda driven "science" think tanks are telling us the World Trade Center Memorial and 60% of Florida will be underwater in less than 50 years.

[fwbbreeze]

Since global warming could possibly make the future much more difficult for our grandchildren applauding Dr. Gray for ignoring the probem and making ignorant statements like nuclear winter is a hoax sounds like a really stupid thing to do.

This illustrates how emotive the subject is and why discourse is arduous. I applaud Dr. Gray for standing chin into the wind. He is saying the rapid and ruinous scenarios are, in his opinion, a hoax. He presents data in support of his hypothesis and gets nuked by the media and Chicken Little eco-nutcases. Obviously, he has done more research on the subject than has the collective wisdom of this board and therefore he is to be congratulated for presenting his findings to the contrary. I don't necessarily agree with everything he writes, but, I do applaud a scientist capable of advancing opposing data and opinion. Gee, there was a time that was welcomed and helpful.

Research and dialogue on both views is hampered when politicians, the media and agenda driven "science" think tanks are telling us the World Trade Center Memorial and 60% of Florida will be underwater in less than 50 years.

fwbbreeze

[timNms]

Hey Scott, I agree with you. While there may be truth in that the earth has warmed some in the last few yrs, I wonder if it doesn't have more to do with natural cycles rather than something permanent and man-made?
I also remember hearing about the coming ice age in the 70's. I'm still waiting on it

[fwbbreeze]

It will just be thousands of idiots clapping together including Scott and fwbbreeze.

Well, let's recap...I disagree with you and others while supporting Dr. Gray's right to present his research and to enter the discourse.
Therefore, I am an idiot.

As I previously noted:
This illustrates how emotive the subject is and why discourse is arduous.

Scott

To Scott I say once again......

To Stormtruth I say.....


fwbbreeze

[Stephanie]

Okay, let's get back on topic guys. This is being handled.

[Jim Hughes]

Hmmm ... I missed the comment about nuclear winter.

I wonder what he means? As far as I know, the basic premise that a major nuclear exchange would injects so much particulate matter into the stratosphere that it would plunge the Earth into a years-long extreme cold event is unchallenged. One need only look at the effect of major volcanic eruptions to know that the effect is real.

Yes and some people have tried to the this theory into the cooler periods several decades ago when all the major nuclear testing was going on. Both us and Russia were cranking out some big ones prior to the stoppage.

I know one (in 62?) created a third electron belt. Those upper level atmospheric ones were not to smart. Not to sure what kind of effect that had on the ozone levels either. Had to bring up some kind of water vapor besides the NOx. (? think NOx is right here.)

[bocadad]

Scott_inVA wrote:
Sadly, this once interesting, science-based debate has been hijacked by the left, Hollywood and EU Socialists. GW and by extension, hurricanes, have become political agendas and no amount of contrary science is accepted. Review the nonsense spewed at a demonstration at NCEP and one would conclude we're down to days

Dr. Gray has called global warming a "hoax." This is insulting to scientists around the world who are doing what they are supposed to do, collect data and make hypothesis. It is also downright silly, to be blunt. We have 400,000 years at least of co2 data from core samples. We know that there is a strong correlation between co2 levels in the atmosphere and global warming. We also know that the ecosystem is quite sensitive to imbalances. There is overwhelming evidence for global warming as a phenomena due, at least in part , to mankind's interaction with the environment. We still do not fully understand what is happening and that is why we need to continue to research this issue. Hollywood and the so called left are simply straw men for your own frustrations. They are simply responding to what mainstream science is reporting. The earth is getting warmer and there will be consequences. And we have a role in what is happening and we will have a role in how this develops. What is at stake is too important to have agenda driven ideologues dictate the parameters of this debate. People like Rush Limbaugh, who is proud to say he opposed global warming ten years ago, but neglects to point out that 10 years ago, we knew very little about the process. In other words, his own agenda dictated a position based not on science but something else.
This debate reminds me a little over the current firestorm over evolution, with one huge difference. There is potentially a lot more at stake here and we can't afford to get it wrong. This is not something we can fix at the last minute. My life does not improve one iota if global warming turns out to be true. I will be more than happy to turn to other pressing matters. There is no agenda here for me. However, we all share responsibility for the state of our planet. We are the stewards here. God did not give us dominion so that we could muck it up. Saying something is not so because you don't like the idea is not science. And even if pollution were not responsible in any way for global warming who could possibly be against reducing it? How many of you have or know someone who suffers from allergies or other conditions made worse by pollution? Why is it ok that I can't even drink the tap water. I have to pay more for bottled water. It was not always this way. It does not have to be this way.

[jasons2k]

Scott_inVA wrote:
Sadly, this once interesting, science-based debate has been hijacked by the left, Hollywood and EU Socialists. GW and by extension, hurricanes, have become political agendas and no amount of contrary science is accepted. Review the nonsense spewed at a demonstration at NCEP and one would conclude we're down to days

Dr. Gray has called global warming a "hoax." This is insulting to scientists around the world who are doing what they are supposed to do, collect data and make hypothesis. It is also downright silly, to be blunt. We have 400,000 years at least of co2 data from core samples. We know that there is a strong correlation between co2 levels in the atmosphere and global warming. We also know that the ecosystem is quite sensitive to imbalances. There is overwhelming evidence for global warming as a phenomena due, at least in part , to mankind's interaction with the environment. We still do not fully understand what is happening and that is why we need to continue to research this issue. Hollywood and the so called left are simply straw men for your own frustrations. They are simply responding to what mainstream science is reporting. The earth is getting warmer and there will be consequences. And we have a role in what is happening and we will have a role in how this develops. What is at stake is too important to have agenda driven ideologues dictate the parameters of this debate. People like Rush Limbaugh, who is proud to say he opposed global warming ten years ago, but neglects to point out that 10 years ago, we knew very little about the process. In other words, his own agenda dictated a position based not on science but something else.
This debate reminds me a little over the current firestorm over evolution, with one huge difference. There is potentially a lot more at stake here and we can't afford to get it wrong. This is not something we can fix at the last minute. My life does not improve one iota if global warming turns out to be true. I will be more than happy to turn to other pressing matters. There is no agenda here for me. However, we all share responsibility for the state of our planet. We are the stewards here. God did not give us dominion so that we could muck it up. Saying something is not so because you don't like the idea is not science. And even if pollution were not responsible in any way for global warming who could possibly be against reducing it? How many of you have or know someone who suffers from allergies or other conditions made worse by pollution? Why is it ok that I can't even drink the tap water. I have to pay more for bottled water. It was not always this way. It does not have to be this way.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding to what Dr. Gray is saying. He is not saying that Global Warming itself is a "hoax".

The hoax is the tendency for some groups to play chicken little and present only one side of the argument. They ignore facts or opinions from experts that don't agree with their agenda. If they become "straw men" by doing so, it's deserved.

It's a lot like Y2K. People call the Y2K scare a big "hoax". The problem itself wasn't a hoax, but the dire predictions that embedded chips would fail, the power grid would collapse, we'd see a breakdown of the food & water supply, and eventually society itself would break down and it would be the end of the world as we know it, etc., obviously did not happen - THAT was the hoax.

Experts who dissented from those "in the know" about Y2K were veiwed as inferior, less intelligent, and unwilling to "accept reality" that Y2K was the most pressing issue in the history of mankind - it was capabale of doing more harm than any arsenal of atomic weapons.

Obviously, we learned the dissenters weren't so naive after all.

[MiamiensisWx]

It's a lot like Y2K. People call the Y2K scare a big "hoax". The problem itself wasn't a hoax, but the dire predictions that embedded chips would fail, the power grid would collapse, we'd see a breakdown of the food & water supply, and eventually society itself would break down and it would be the end of the world as we know it, etc., obviously did not happen - THAT was the hoax.

I have mostly avoided this topic, but I'll respond to this...

That is a good analogy, jschlitz. Thanks for summing it up VERY well. I think global warming is occurring, but I don't think it will have such disastrous climatological effects as many think. It's effects, I think, will be more ecological.

Good analogy, at last without the typical rhetoric and poor explanation this hot topic usually brings from both sides of the argument. Kudos!

[bocadad]

think there is a fundamental misunderstanding to what Dr. Gray is saying. He is not saying that Global Warming itself is a "hoax".

The hoax is the tendency for some groups to play chicken little and present only one side of the argument. They ignore facts or opinions from experts that don't agree with their agenda. If they become "straw men" by doing so, it's deserved.

It's a lot like Y2K. People call the Y2K scare a big "hoax". The problem itself wasn't a hoax, but the dire predictions that embedded chips would fail, the power grid would collapse, we'd see a breakdown of the food & water supply, and eventually society itself would break down and it would be the end of the world as we know it, etc., obviously did not happen - THAT was the hoax.

Experts who dissented from those "in the know" about Y2K were viewed as inferior, less intelligent, and unwilling to "accept reality" that Y2K was the most pressing issue in the history of mankind - it was capable of doing more harm than any arsenal of atomic weapons.

Obviously, we learned the dissenters weren't so naive after all.

jschlitz

Really. In a meeting paper Dr. Gray provided prior to the 2006 Conference of Hurricanes and Meteorology he quotes at the top of the page prior to his introduction a quote from Senator James Inhofe, a long time critic of global warming. "Global warming caused by human activity might be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
Perhaps I lack your insight, but that sounds like an unequivocal endorsement of a position to me. You can dilute it all you want, it is meaningless as it is your feelings, not Dr. Gray's.
A hoax is an act meant to deceive or trick. To accuse people who genuinely believe in global warming as perpetrating a hoax is inaccurate as well as potentially dishonest. If I know the sky is falling and have the evidence to back it up, I am not required to be politically correct and provide equal time to those who disagree. They can argue on their own time. It is a fundamentally flawed argument and one sided as you clearly don't apply that line of reasoning to all sides of the argument, just the ones you find alarmist and not to your liking.

[jasons2k]

A lot of computer scientists and engineers "genuinely believed" the sky was falling back in 1999, and they had mountains of evidence to back it up. That still didn't mean they were right.

[bocadad]

A lot of computer scientists and engineers "genuinely believed" the sky was falling back in 1999, and they had mountains of evidence to back it up. That still didn't mean they were right.

jschlitz

This has nothing to do with hoaxes. What is your point.

[Scott_inVA]

think there is a fundamental misunderstanding to what Dr. Gray is saying. He is not saying that Global Warming itself is a "hoax".

The hoax is the tendency for some groups to play chicken little and present only one side of the argument. They ignore facts or opinions from experts that don't agree with their agenda. If they become "straw men" by doing so, it's deserved.

It's a lot like Y2K. People call the Y2K scare a big "hoax". The problem itself wasn't a hoax, but the dire predictions that embedded chips would fail, the power grid would collapse, we'd see a breakdown of the food & water supply, and eventually society itself would break down and it would be the end of the world as we know it, etc., obviously did not happen - THAT was the hoax.

Experts who dissented from those "in the know" about Y2K were viewed as inferior, less intelligent, and unwilling to "accept reality" that Y2K was the most pressing issue in the history of mankind - it was capable of doing more harm than any arsenal of atomic weapons.

Obviously, we learned the dissenters weren't so naive after all.

jschlitz

Really. In a meeting paper Dr. Gray provided prior to the 2006 Conference of Hurricanes and Meteorology he quotes at the top of the page prior to his introduction a quote from Senator James Inhofe, a long time critic of global warming. "Global warming caused by human activity might be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
Perhaps I lack your insight, but that sounds like an unequivocal endorsement of a position to me. You can dilute it all you want, it is meaningless as it is your feelings, not Dr. Gray's.
A hoax is an act meant to deceive or trick. To accuse people who genuinely believe in global warming as perpetrating a hoax is inaccurate as well as potentially dishonest. If I know the sky is falling and have the evidence to back it up, I am not required to be politically correct and provide equal time to those who disagree. They can argue on their own time. It is a fundamentally flawed argument and one sided as you clearly don't apply that line of reasoning to all sides of the argument, just the ones you find alarmist and not to your liking.

You are incorrect. Really.

Dr. Gray is on record affirming the planet has warmed: "I don't question that". Indeed his position is humans are responsible for a small percentage of global warming. He has staked out the UNpopular position that such temperature cycles (like TC cycles) are a dynamic of climatology.

If one has listened to his presentation or read his meeting paper (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/107533.pdf) one can discern his contention is politicians and those with agendas have "hijacked" the topic to their own benefit.

Such comments come with a price, witness Gray's invitation being rescinded to speak at the Atlanta tropical meteorology conference. So much for a free and open exchange of ideas.

Scott
Mid-Atlantic WX.com
Lexington, VA

[Aquawind]

Dr. Gray is on record affirming the planet has warmed: "I don't question that". Indeed his position is humans are responsible for a small percentage of global warming. He has staked out the UNpopular position that such temperature cycles (like TC cycles) are a dynamic of climatology.

If one has listened to his presentation or read his meeting paper (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/107533.pdf) one can discern his contention is politicians and those with agendas have "hijacked" the topic to their own benefit.

At both the National Hurricane Conference and Florida Governor's Conference that is what he said numerous times when I saw him durring the presentations and our interviews. He does not deny global warming and that some of it is the result of humans.

[Extremeweatherguy]

It is going to be really funny when in 50 years the world has not warmed, the seas have not risen, and virtually nothing is different. By then, we will probably be back to a global cooling scare as well (with everybody forgetting about GW). These "theories" change around so often that it is really hard to believe them anymore. Yes, I agree on the fact that the world has warmed over the last 100 years..but that does not mean it will continue.

BTW, another thing that REALLY annoys me is when you see comparison pictures and the two years of comparison are 1932 and 1988. Do they not realize that 1988 was 18 years ago! If they are going to compare they need to do something like 1932 and 2006 as the comparison. I want to see what the glacier looks like TODAY not alomst 20 years ago!

[bocadad]

You are incorrect. Really.

Dr. Gray is on record affirming the planet has warmed: "I don't question that". Indeed his position is humans are responsible for a small percentage of global warming. He has staked out the UNpopular position that such temperature cycles (like TC cycles) are a dynamic of climatology.

If one has listened to his presentation or read his meeting paper (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/107533.pdf) one can discern his contention is politicians and those with agendas have "hijacked" the topic to their own benefit.

Such comments come with a price, witness Gray's invitation being rescinded to speak at the Atlanta tropical meteorology conference. So much for a free and open exchange of ideas.

scott inVa

It is funny how an agenda is usually defined as the views of someone whose opinion one does not like. It is really big of Dr. Gray to acknowledge global warming. I am really impressed that he even allows that a tiny fraction of that may be caused by us. And of course, the quote by Sen. Inhofe calling global warming a hoax and prominently displayed by Dr. Gray was not in any way meant to reflect his personal affinity to that remark. Or perhaps he speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
There is nothing wrong with claiming climatology is responsible for global warming. It would be nice if you have the data to support it. What is not nice are the constant personal attacks on people who happen to believe in global warming, like referring to Al Gore as part of the lunatic fringe of environmentalists. Conservatives don't like global warming. They didn't like it before we had any understanding of it and they are not about to change their minds now. And they are perfectly willing and used to throwing paranoid charges of left wing conspiracy and whatever else furthers their own agenda. I say let the scientists alone to do their work and if we have any sense we will hope for the best and prepare for the worst. And isn't that the kind of advice you would give to anyone preparing for a hurricane season? Why should this be any different?

[btangy]

Everyone (Dr. Gray especially) keeps mentioning the ice age predictions in the 70s... but one must take into consideration that those predictions were based on really simple one dimensional climate models from Budyko and Sellers. Like all simple models, they are great tools for understanding aspects of the climate system (like feedbacks), but cannot be taken seriously to model reality. The science and the models have greatly progressed since the early 70s and to say that the field is simply hemming and hawing is a great misrepresentation because climate models have progressed from one dimensional to fully coupled 3D General Circulation Models (GCMs). I'm not saying the current GCMs are flawless, but given that many of them can simulate the past climate reasonably well, I'd like to think, unlike Dr. Gray, that GCMs are worth the time and effort.

What disturbed greatly at the AMS conference was Dr. Gray's outright dismissal that climate models are worthless and he even said that -- and I paraphrase -- that if global warming is occuring, there is nothing we can do about it, so we should concentrate on more important problems. I think that is a very dangerous message to be sending to the public in general (I say this because there was a TV crew filming his presentation and only his presentation). He says everybody extrapolates, yet he himself does the same thing to make his predictions. He claims the water vapor feedback is bogus without presenting any data.

I have no problem with Dr. Gray trying to argue against the consensus because disagreement and debate is always good for the science, but I see many flaws in Dr. Gray's arguments, and I wish he would be more robust, especially in front of his peers.

If you want to be kept up to date with global climate change science. I suggest

http://www.realclimate.org/

It's maintained by scientists to educate the public about the latest advances in climate research. The scientists contributing to this site are very well respected in the field.

[Sanibel]

There was a National Geographic article a year or two ago detailing all the core sample evidence and putting it into perspective with charts, graphs, and figures. National Geographic, a fairly conservative Washington-based group, came down squarely on the side of man-caused Global Warming being true and warned of trends trying to minimize or deny it. They squarely said the facts lie with Global Warming advocates.

In another Storm2k thread on the issue I asked any skeptic to answer what they thought the present CO2 spike that is 3 times greater than any previous natural recorded CO2 spike meant? Nobody answered. There's only one reasonable source for that 3 times spike. That almost has to be man-caused CO2. If anyone has proof that it is otherwise I would like to see it. But let's not forget the billions of tons of CO2 we have injected into the atmosphere in the last century. Hmm, that could be it eh? Good chance.

Reading these posts I think some fail to realize that Global Warming effects are taking place right now. Glaciers are melting world wide and climate shifts are happening at accelerated rates at the poles. I see people saying "in 50 years we will see" forgetting the fact that you can see it right now! There are many polar bears being found drowned in the Arctic. They are drowning because the ice is receeding so fast they can't get to shore from their hunting ice flows. Since polar bears exist we know that no previous natural Global Warming event made them go extinct. Some say they could go extinct from this one though. I wonder why?


I wonder what Dr Gray's specific opinion is on the record low pressures seen in the Atlantic last year? It is one thing to have record low pressures, but another to have them combined with a record year well above any previous one. Not to mention a record south China Sea cyclone for May and a monster Australian cyclone. To me saying "hysteria" doesn't quite answer for all this.

[btangy]

There is a rebuttal on this site as well to Gray's extended abstract from the AMS conference. Remember, rebuttals are standard to anything controversial in the science community, so there isn't anything politically motivated about this piece.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ay-on-agw/