This is from a website which doesn't seem to understand the difference between journalism and propaganda.

"the biggest question about climate change - substantially human-caused or not?"

It doesn't make much difference whether it's human caused or not. What makes a difference is whether it can be human controlled or not.

Mr. Dawson's making excuses before the results of the survey are released. Sounds like they are not what he expected or wanted. Can't wait to read the surveys in full, without the misguided commentary by Mr. Dawson.

Gee whiz, guys. TV weathercasters are not climatologists. They are meteorologists! And some aren't even that. They are good looking beefcake and twinkies who think they know weather. Who cares what they think. (unless your name is Cullen). Remember, climate and weather are two different things. Just like meat loaf and hamburger. C'mon, what's the matter with you? They should just stick to forecasting the weather. And leave the climatology to the politicians...er um...I mean the Sierra Club....uh oooh.....I mean Al Gore....ummm...I mean the professional climatologists on the left wing/IPCC/Jim Hansen payroll.

By the by, Brett. Again, have to re-iterate. I am not amused with this forecast! In mid June, 2008 I am now running a space heater in my office. I WANT MY SUMMER BACK!!!!

Reply: yea Oiz. I figured you would hate the weather for this week. Hey, The days start getting gradually shorter this weekend.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!

It's great to be skeptical and wonder and educate yourselves on the details. What's not great is if those in power and those with the $ decide it doesn't suit their purposes, so they don't educate themselves or others on the facts and they actually edit scientific findings to suit their dogmas (sound familiar?)

Another factor that TV weathercasters may not wish to discuss, is that they typically have trouble forecasting the weather 2 days from now and are therefore incredilous that long range forecast of the climate could ever be made.

What they are over looking is that CO2 has a scientifically reproducable impact on the heat retention properties of the atmosphere.

In addition, the amount of predicted warming is slight compared to hourly, daily and seasonal temperature variations.

Finally, the global warming forcast is extremely vague: "It's going to be a few degrees warmer on average in 40 years with increased precepitation is some, but not all places."

"Sea levels will rise a few millimeter each year and the amount of ice will decrease."

Why wouldn't they be. After all TV weathercasters see time and time again how difficult it is to correctly predict the weather accurately over periods of time as short as 5 days or less. Yet the climatologists who have no practical experience in predicting the weather claim to be able to accurately predict the global average temperature a century in advance. That sort of arrogance makes a person want to LOL.

Don't Panic,

"It doesn't make much difference whether it's human caused or not. What makes a difference is whether it can be human controlled or not."

If we could control the climate then you have to ask yourself who gets to decide what temperature we set the thermostat at. After all people living in places like Canada or Russia might like to have it set a couple of degrees warmer and people living in the tropics might like it to be set a couple of degrees cooler.

This sounds more like a sales campaign than a search for scientific truths. TV weathermen are mostly skeptics so let's "educate" (indoctrinate) them into our way of thinking. But first, let's insult them and call them stupid and uneducated.

If the AMS was really interested in finding the scientific validity of AGW they would welcome scientists whose views rejected the theory. Instead, they have embraced the politically poisoned IPCC version of climate change. We already know that the IPCC has gotten it wrong when they accepted Mann's Hockey Stick without challenging its accuracy. That's pretty shoddy work on the part of a group who claims to be the best and brightest in the world of climate science.

If the AMS was intersted in genuine education for their members they would invite the leading scientists among the 31,072 who have signed the following petiton which states, in part:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

You can read the entire petition here:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Maybe the skeptical TV meteorologists have done their homework and concluded that you cannot subscribe to a theory based almost entirely on fatally flawed computer simulations of earth's climate. After all, they deal with real data every day and they know how inaccurate computers can be. If so, then they are not as dumb as the AMS thinks they are.

But, if you are an AGW true believer, just think of the power you would command if you could recruit all of the TV meteorologists to the cause. The authors shouldn't criticize religious fundamentalism when their religion is AGW and is based on faith, not science.

Hey Oiz,

Yeh, let's have all the skeptic-denier-climatologist-wannabees make all the decisions since they have all the education, background, knowledge and experience necessary to tell us what is really going on. Who needs degrees in meteorology/climatology when we can learn everything we need to know about climate research on the web.

Maybe you can convince Exxon-Mobil to fund scholarships for the Exxon-Mobil School of Climate Skeptics. Just sign in and send your hard earned money to ICECAP.US. In 2 short months you earn your Phd from the Chief-Denier Department and can publish your own research papers (co-authored by John Coleman - the founder of the Weather Channel) on the ICECAP.US web site on such topics as "Computer Models are all Bunk", "Melting Arctic Sea Ice is Really Caused by an Increasing Polar Bear Population Emitting Higher Levels of CO2 and Methane", or "The Correlation of Everything, Including the Kitchen Sink, Works Except for CO2".

JIM T
The arrogance of some people continue to astound me. Anyone who is skeptical or asks questions is labeled an uniformed idiot or a religious zealot. Thats really funny coming from a group of people who's spokesman is a Al Gore.

jim t.

Yeah, Adamant, it must be a conspiracy instigated by those evil Republicans and BIG Oil!!

Hey, I do have some tin foil hats for you and your friends, just in case.

It seems to me if weathercasters are skeptical, that's something we should respect, not explain away. People like Drs. Gray, Singer, and Bastardi have my respect and I look at what they say with interest, unlike others who make a profession of denial.

Nonetheless, from my own observation of weather trends over the last 5 decades, it seems to me odd that those who present the weather ignore the preponderance and increase of disastrous events. The use of key buzzwords like global cooling identifies people who are hooked in to a machine whose parts are out of date.

As someone who only recently starting watching regular TV, network forecasters appear to me to have accepted climate change and moved on, like rational human beings.

The most telling statement is "Longer-term climate science is still a relatively new field."
While admitting to the world that this is a very young field they forgot to mention the caveat of , "..and completely unproven."
Up until the last 30 years climate research was all theoretical and it really didn’t matter if they should include this proxy or throw that proxy out. Their postulates had no impact on society. (Kind of like how fast could a tyrannosaurus run? Nice idea for a debate but if they got it wrong it matters not.) So the folks in this very small field became “experts” without actually knowing if they were right or not. There were not challenged because it meant very little. Now that they are telling the world to change many folks in other sciences started to read, question and think. The more we read the more we are amazed at the lack scientific principles being used. Conjecture and supposition is not science fact. Having read their articles and looked at their “peer review” process many are beginning to say this lacks scientific credibility. As such we are beginning to question the very dubious "science" their theories are based on and becoming more vocal when answers to legitimate questions are not forthcoming. If climate science wants respect I would suggest you become a science and quit whining about all the questions.
1. Have an honest peer review process instead of a clich� of cronies reviewing each others works.
2. To the reviewers I suggest you actually read the articles and clean up the grammar. Obfuscation only tends to raise questions about the articles actual worth.
2. Quit using peer reviewed qualifiers in all your works and then postulating gloom and doom based on previous paragraphs using “If” , “maybe”, “could be” and “possibly”.
3. Have your programs and methods validated from those outside the field in an open and transparent way.
4. If your statistical methods are challenged answer the questions instead of saying, “Why should I?”
5. Open your code so it can be looked at.
6. Explain why and answer questions with logic. Prove why you are disregarding real data and instead replacing it with statistically generated computer guesses.
7. Explain and validate why previous data is constantly being revised.
8. Quit confusing the legitimate issues of pollution, renewable energy, conspicuous consumption, and population control with the cuase of AGW. They can be mutually exclusive.
9. Quit using “consensus” as the magic wand to make nonsense seem valid.

If you do these seemingly simple tasks maybe others with knowledge of scientific principles will actually start to believe. Until then skepticism from many will remain and begin to grow louder from all.

I believe Mr. Dawsons comments could use some deconstructing. Here goes,

--Many TV weathercasters have no background in climate science or degrees in meteorology.

Translation: They are too stupid to understand climate.

--There is little discussion between TV weathercasters and climatologists.

Translation: We have not yet enlightened these rubes on the subject of climate.

--Many TV weathercasters were not satisfied by answers to some of their questions when climate scients presented data in last year's AMS meeting.

Translation: THEY questioned US? How dare they.

--Since most TV weathercasters have very little time preparing their own short term forecasts they just do not have time to learn about the latest scientific developments in regards to long-term climate.

Translation: They are too lazy to take the time to read our propaganda errr studies.

--Some TV weathercasters think that climate change policies will hurt the economy and a
a few are putting fundamentalist religious beliefs first.

Translation: Achtung: Christians verboten.

--There is a disdain from TV weathercasters who are predicting the weather for those who pontificate about what their climate models show.

Translation: They hate us because we are so brilliant.

--Some TV weathercasters are skeptical only because they feel they have asked questions and raised issues then told to be quiet and this is the truth.

Translation: They questioned us and we told them to stick it. Whats wrong with that?

Hope these translations help.

If they're skeptical it's because they're too stupid, too busy, or both!
How typical a response.
Skepticism is healthy, but these morons want blind faith.
Maybe their skepticism lies in the fact that they see every day how hard it is to get a 48 hr. forecast right and therefore have little faith in a 50 year one!!

I'm a DENIER...
Oh well I have company now.
I love the explanations for skeptics..
reminds me of a bad ad they used to run in my area.
Guy comes home and finds his car insurance has been canceled, a voice says
"canceled insurance? due to tickets, accidents OR JUST BAD LUCK?"
like someone else was responsible.

The problem with GW's skeptics is fundamental.
They do not belong to the faithful cult of man made GW, period.
Unless Al Gore sprouts wings and gains a halo they won't be converted by calling them names, saying they are idiots, only "tv weathermen (and ladies)" or getting paid off by energy companies.
The case for GW is weak, and getting weaker as the data gets better.
That's not surprising, they never had enough climate data to make a decent baseline to start.
For goodness sakes some the cultists are still arguing that variables in solar output have no impact on their theories!
Lord help us after November because McCain and Obama both have been riding the Al Gore tour bus , "Disaster Is Here NOW..HONEST...NOT KIDDING!! Don't ask for Proof and Take it on FAITH!"

Oh PLEASE>>>>>>>>>

Adamant wrote:

It's great to be skeptical and wonder and educate yourselves on the details. What's not great is if those in power and those with the $ decide it doesn't suit their purposes, so they don't educate themselves or others on the facts and they actually edit scientific findings to suit their dogmas (sound familiar?)

Actually, it sounds like global warming dogma you're criticizing. The IPCC, Hansen, et al, have altered data, reject contradictory studies and suppressed critics by withholding funding to studies that do not support the predetermined verdict of AGW.

You see, it only takes one fact or one study to topple the entire AGW house of cards. This is why AGW is a cult and not science. It requires you to believe unquestioningly and you had better not contradict your betters!

nice picture brett of the "anvil" of what appears to be a serious cumulus nimbi as indicated by the well developed mammatus features...has that for meteorology 101?...as to why a "consensus" of meteorologists are skeptical? perhaps it has something to do with 1) having to work with weather modeling daily, 2) understanding the climatologists' manipulation of historical climatic datasets to produce a fever, 3) having had to take some science courses involving earths climatic and geologic history as well as 4) an understanding of the limitations of predicting the future thru practical experience on a daily basis...if your not sitting in some tenured government sponsored chair pontificating imminent doom making a grab for taxpayer funding, who better than a weather peer, would be the first to smell a climate rat...that picture is perfect for the article, it hints there is a storm brewing for the AGW scam...have a nice day, dudes!!!

They failed to co-opt the meteorologists into being the propaganda arm of the AGW crowd so they have to belittle them. Personally, I trust any meteorologist more than I do a certain rocket scientist and a lot more than a journalist cum politician - not to mention the computer modellers who have more knowledge of bits and bytes than climate. Another study to consign to the rubbish bin.

>>Remember, climate and weather are two different things.

Yes, oiznop, they are, and what you and I are experiencing is just weird weather. It's truly unfortunate that "global warming" has become such a buzzword when all of the models used to support what might be called the "anthropogenic climate change hypothesis" indicate that while global mean temperatures will indeed increase, some areas will increase more than others and some will actually experience cooling as global circulation patterns (both atmospheric and marine) change.

A better gauge as to whether or not climate change is taking place might be the relative frequency of "weird" or "unseasonable" weather. Strange weather will always be with us, but if the climate is changing, then by definition (climate = average weather) the local averages will be changing, and this should show up as an increase in record events.

Misguided commentary?? I must have read the wrong article. Yeah, if it's not what you want to read or hear, certainly it must be manipulated, made up or misguided.

This is misguided? (an excerpt from the article)

Knight summed up his own view of climate change this way: "There's no question that warming is going on. To say it's a hoax is to deny the data. To say it's all human-caused is foolish, too."

Common sense suggests that both factors are in play, he added. "Then the question is, to what degree? How do we differentiate? The more that folks are willing to admit that, we'll get to a good policy decision and there will be less polarization."

Makes sense to me. I don't see how this story is misguided. Did you read the whole article Bob? Maybe you could explain how it is misguided?

Brett, could you go into a bit more detail about what you mean by "a good deal of atmospheric science eduaction/professional background"? Thanks.

Reply: yes, BS or higher degrees in atmospheric science and many years of professional weather forecasting experience.

What! Someone skeptical of global warming? I dare they! I mean c'mon it the middle of June and its 3.15 p.m and the temp is all the way into the upper 50's, ice wouldn't form for another 26 degrees. Good grief also, what would a meteorologist know about climate, thats Al Gores department.

Upon reading further, does anyone else find this Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program from the AMS to be a bit disturbing?

Admittedly, I am a skeptic and am quite wary of all things related to "global warming" AKA "climate change" AKA "whatever new term is deemed necessary in the future to cover up the fact that global climate may not be warming, or changing uniformly in the future."

As a skeptic, this CBM program seems to set up a framework that can be used to essentially FORCE broadcast meteorologists to toe the line of AGW in order to keep their certification intact - a litmus test if you will. Brett, obviously you are more aware of the content of this program and could shed more light on the content of the continuing education courses related to global climate. Do these courses more or less take their cues from the IPCC, Hansen, et.al.? Or, conversely, do they simply discuss the general theories of climate change while acknowledging that these theories are awash with conjecture and unknowable input assumptions?

What? I thought that the TV weather people know everything about the climate. Don't you people watch the anchors asking the "beefcake/twinkie" something and then look at them as though they are they are Galileo espousing from the mountaintop.

Always cracks me up, and they act SO serious about it.

The local TV METS here in Columbus are a hoot whenever the odd storm pops up. I must admit though, one of the stations is getting much better educated and use terms that I hear here on the PRO side of the site. I also think they know what they mean when they say it.

Brett:

Thanks for the reminder on the days getting shorter. Rats.

You know, it is an interesting item though with the lagtime related to temps. Can anybody say Sun input over the last several years?

i am interested to see the names of the tv meteorolgists they query here in the sf bay area. i know where brian sussman stands so i hope hes selected ans well as a former bay area standout pete giddings whos is now in reno. i also would be curious to know how anothe local tv meteorologist bill martin stands am not sure how to read him-hope these results will be available for me to see

any tv meteorologist who has worked his area for
15 or more years should be familiar with the climatology of that area by now. having a degree in meteorology that included climatology classes im pretty sure that most meteorolgist have better knowledge of climatology than climatologists have of day to day forecasting

also it takes a lot more courage to try to predict whats going to happen 5-7 days from now and face the criticism if your wrong as opposed to being wrong on a 50-100 year forecast but not being around to face the music

hooray for the tv meteorologis from
loub wanabee tv meteorologist

dennis hinka,

i'm curious dude...since you seem to enjoy bashing exxon-mobil, deniers and anyone who recognizes the liberal media for what it is, where do you think the energy required to type your political rant came from and since you seem to give the "web" little credit, why are you so adamant about using it to call people names?Let me guess, you have a peer reviewed/tested carbon calculator that makes everything ok???...or does it still bother you free speech, truth and the pursuit of happiness is having an effect on the pontificated lie of AGW?...peace, bros!!!

Brett replied: "yes, BS or higher degrees in atmospheric science and many years of professional weather forecasting experience."

OK, but that raises a few more questions:

Isn't it the case that most of the curricula for atmospheric science degrees didn't have much on climate science as such until fairly recently? (Reply: Not totally sure Steve, but I would suspect you are on the right track.)Wouldn't this mean that AS degree holders with a lot of broadcast experience would tend to have missed that material? Reply: There is a lot of new information on Climate science that is found every year. I am sure some of the veterans did not see this info. in school, but have learned it through their professional experience.

My impression is that the basic issue the AMS is trying to address with the CBM requirements is that the broadcast meteorology skillset doesn't overlap much with climate science (although I'm sure that for many individuals it does). Do you differ with that view? (Reply: I won't dispute that, but I am not a member of the AMS and not familiar with their requirements.)

Answering "Denier-in-Chief's" questions:

No.
I would certainly hope so.
No.

If you don't like it, maybe you should start up a competing Patriotic Meterological Society. You sound like you're in need of a last refuge along those lines. The acronym is catchy too, although perhaps not something you could trademark.

Actually, regarding the CBM, there's a slight possibility I can take credit for the idea, although probably it was an obvious thought that occurred to lots of people following the Drudge/Limbaugh internet attack on Heidi Cullen.

"Denier-in-Chief:
Hope these translations help."

LOL SPOT ON!

People are getting jobs based on their belief that the climate is warming, and so it stands to reason that those disagreeing will find a pink slip waiting for them. More than anything global warming is about making money which starts at the top with Al Gore. I can't blame others for jumping on that train before it leaves the station. I would certainly think it would be political suicide to be a weather skeptic. It really is no different in any industry. If you want to keep your job and hope to ever get promoted you quickly figure out what agendas to push and which ones to leave alone. We really aren't such a tolerant society in actuality as often evidenced by such backhanded remarks such as this one.

"As someone who only recently starting watching regular TV, network forecasters appear to me to have accepted climate change and moved on, like rational human beings."

BTW, I had to wear a winter jacket this morning when I went out to feed the horses. There was a heavy dew with the air temps in the 40s. Brrrr.

steve in eugene,

just weird weather huhhh...what exactly do you call normal weather, average weather is not normal as it may have been 100 on this date one year 50 the next average 75 and neither year was 75, everything is an average of the "weather" taken from years put together and that gives an area its climate, weather over a period of years = climate. Every years weather is different and you could call it weird every year. Also local averages change as the years go by, cooler or warmer. As for record events the earth is 5 billion years old, accurate records kept a max a few hundred years, so sure we may continually break records, big whoop..more extremes for sure have been reached longer than records have been kept and in the time that records have been kept it sure is amazing how mant times the record highs for a certain date are 75-100+ years old. You can not base anything on records, and really need to be careful of where the reports come from as now many are geared to dramatizing everything to make it look extreme, like the earth is ready to burst into flames. Is it ..no, but anywhere on the lefty t.v they are geared to brainwash people that way, this spring in most of the U.S it has been colder, wetter than most years and you don't here alot about it, but imagine for a moment if it had been dry, hot, they would portray it as the end unless we convert to the Gore religion immediately. This has been the coolest spring that I have seen and I'm in the mid atlantic area and I know out west areas that are normally snow free and people hunted were cut off this year due to too much snow. Next spring it might be completly different{lets hope}. But hey thats just the weather we have around here because that is the "climate" we are in, wait can I use those two words together in a sentence?

I remember Dr. Heidi Cullen of TWC saying that any TV meteorologist who was skeptical of AGW should be stripped of their AMS certification. This did not sit well many TV meteorologists, and many called for a formal apology. She never did apologize. All she did was issue a statement saying that it was time to move on. I'm guessing that she still stands by what she said. I wonder if she will be attending the upcoming conference.

TWC's chief meteorologist, Stu Ostro, was a skeptic of AGW, then made a 180 degree turn and is now pro AGW. He is still employed there. Around the same time, Paul Kocin, who was their winter weather expert, and who was also a skeptic, did not make that 180 degree turn. His job was eliminated. Just an interesting observation.

I wasn't sure I was remembering my moment of inspiration correctly, so I went back and found it (in comments to a post on the Gristmill blog):

Me:

"AMS certification standards and a modest proposal

"According to the AMS site, there's a pretty low bar in terms of the written test for broadcast meteorologist certification (75% correct true/false answers on a test with 100 questions). Given that climate questions probably couldn't be more than 5% of the test, one could get all of those wrong and still have plenty of room to pass.

"Since meteorologists will be increasingly called upon to discuss climate directly as well as interpret weather events in terms of climate change, I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the AMS to change the testing regime so as to ensure that certificate holders know at least the basics. AMS certifications are really just advice to employers, so a less controversial alternative to modifying the main test might be to have a separate test with an added certification. For broadcast meteorologists, this would then entitle those who passed the separate test to add CBC(C) to the existing CBC appellation. Pressure from employers, peers and informed viewers might be expected to do the rest."

Response by noted climate scientist Andrew Dessler:

"Good idea

"Steve-

"That's a great idea ... put more climate change questions on the certification test. I'll drop an e-mail to Franco Einaudi, AMS president, suggesting that.

"Thanks!"

Note that the AMS ultimately decided to set up a new certification rather than amend the prior one (less confusing that way), but the concept is the same.

Don't everyone thank me all at once.

Oops, missed the name/address info on that last one. C'est moi.

The Earth Gauge� program works to convey environmental information to the public through a trusted media source � TV meteorologists. � Excuse me if this doesn�t sound like meteorologists being set up to be used as �trusted� bull horns for the AGW agenda (e.g., they�ll have to pass the online �course,� undoubtedly loaded with AGW propaganda, to �earn credits for AMS certification programs�). This sounds telling: �The climate course will help weathercasters answer questions directed to them about whether a particular weather event is linked to climate change, Sliter said.� Sounds like an attempt to gain control over the content of the message to me! If that is not enough to convince you of the attempt to silence any disagreement with the AGW Agenda, then you can just read the AMS statement, dripping with the typical �science is settled� garbage: �Despite uncertainties, the AMS statement says, "there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond.� Finally, to erase any doubt you could possibly have left: �Norman, like others, said a good part of the skepticism among weathercasters stems from the reactions their questions have elicited in the past. "Quite a few on television around the country are skeptical only because they feel they have asked questions and raised issues and been told to be quiet, this is the truth," he said.� So, to summarize, another broad and sickening indication of the Climate Fascists' attempt to control the message, silence questions and alternative views, and push The Agenda.

Being a met student and knowing a lot of graduates that are TV weathercasters I must say that 95% of them like me are skeptical, I'm not a TV weathercaster yet but I hope to be one day.

Not all to related here is my first weathercast,I didn't do to well because of clicker problems and the fact that pollen made me take out my contacts so I couldn't see myself on the green screen. Anyway, hopefully in my next few years (with a lot more practice) I'll do better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHyF7WysOJA

Denier-in-Chief, wtf are you talking about? The CBM Program and CCM Program offered by the AMS are extremely prestigious awards reserved for those meteorologists who are taking an active part in expanding the science and communicating it to the lay people in an effort to help save lives and money.

Despite what you and many other skeptics (denier in your case, I suppose) believe, there is not some "Protocols of the Elders of AGW" cult or conspiracy theory going on here - just peer reviewed research by respectable men and women. Al Gore aside (I find it laughable that he is considered our "patron saint" when AGW'ers rarely, if ever bring him up in discussion), we're not out for your brains or your wallet - we're out for the science.

The two things to watch which will greatly dissappoint the AGW crowd is this graph of NH ice
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
which is not showing signs of melt like last year
and the Satellite RSS data
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
which is about to take a dive again

Brett,

This is a little bit off the topic here, but related to an earlier posting. It seems that Al Gore's electricity consumption is up by %10:

Reply: Yea, probably because Tennessee has been running 5 degrees above normal this month, which means a higher demand for cooling. Not much of story.

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

Denier-In-Chief:

I also have concerns about the climate change indoctrination being suggested for AMS certification credit. It's obvious not intended to educate and inform and allow people to make up their own minds.

I'm also concerned about the AMS formal statement on climate change. Anybody who uses computer projections and simulations as part of their reasons needs to be reeducated themselves. Even the IPCC doesn't claim to make projections.

BTW: It was a local TV meteorologist who first enlightened me with this inconvenient fact: a small increase in relative humidity (a few per cent) has the same effect as doubling CO2.

Very good Anonymous........yes, most media weather folks can't predict the weather two days out. But most get their info from either the NWS or some other forecast provider. So, if they can't do this two days out, I'm supposed to buy this crap that they know what's going to happen 10 years from now? 20? 30? 100? They don't even know what caused the previous warmings of the planet. But now they know everything. Oh, did you see there is very little sunspot activity lately? What will that do? Last time that happened over a prolonged period, we had a cool down. Hmmm.....better start pumping that greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. We might need a man-made warmup. Color me totally skeptical of all this garbage.

Interesting Mr. Bloom. You are wondering about these Mets and if they had climatology classes in their studies. Very good line of thought, of course, how many of the people whom you suckle from and quote and paste and stuff here received their schooling around the same timeframe as these mets you called into question. How many of them from earlier times?

Just curious, ya know, cause I like to be consistant here.

The Delmarva Johnster Monster wrote: "I remember Dr. Heidi Cullen of TWC saying that any TV meteorologist who was skeptical of AGW should be stripped of their AMS certification. This did not sit well many TV meteorologists, and many called for a formal apology. She never did apologize."

Check those facts, DJM! She did not apologize because (among other reasons) that's not what she said.

"Isn't it the case that most of the curricula for atmospheric science degrees didn't have much on climate science as such until fairly recently? (Reply: Not totally sure Steve, but I would suspect you are on the right track.)Wouldn't this mean that AS degree holders with a lot of broadcast experience would tend to have missed that material? Reply: There is a lot of new information on Climate science that is found every year. I am sure some of the veterans did not see this info. in school, but have learned it through their professional experience."

As I was reading this and realizing where Steve Bloom was going with this line of questioning, I was thinking about all the aged medical doctors I have known during my life that are revered in many communities although clearly their course curriculum would have been different(way back then) from those currently in med school. Professionals in all walks of life Steve do course work throughout their career to keep them on top of their game otherwise they get left behind.

Thanks for the reply Steve Bloom. I am glad you like my acronym but I would suggest that it is the AGW proponents who may be looking for a last refuge in the not so distant future.

Could you please provide some examples of the scientific proof of AGW and/or raw data these weathercasters would need to be familiar with in order to be certified? Seems to me that in order to require a certification test the certifying body would need to use established scientific facts as the basis for testing. Here are some suggestions for information that all weathercasters might need to know:

1. Man-made CO2 emissions contribute (fill in the blank) degrees to current global temperature.

2. An atmospheric CO2 concentration of (fill in the blank) percent is ideal because it leads to (fill in the blank)

3. A reduction of (fill in the blank) tons of CO2 emissions will cool the earth by (fill in the blank) degrees.

4. Had humans not been around to foul things up, global average temperature would currently be (fill in the blank)

Can you provide the missing information for these statements? If not can you tell us what an up and coming weathercaster would need to know about AGW in order to be deemed certifiable? :)

Brett, you said;
Reply: Yea, probably because Tennessee has been running 5 degrees above normal this month, which means a higher demand for cooling. Not much of story.

So all the things he did to conserve energy, solar, geothermal, CFL's were basically rubbed out by a 5 degrees above normal month?

Reply: A +5 degree departure in a summer month is a lot believe it or not. A 10% increase in my energy bill is not that significant in my opinion.

Sorry Brett, I meant to say that Al Gore's electricity consumption for the past 12 months was up by 10%. For the past 12 months, he used 213,210 kWh. I used 5,197, although I heat by gas and wood.

Hi Sammy K,

I am only trying to have fun. Isn't what I did the same thing your side does when you continually put down Al Gore and Hansen with your critically biased comments at their expense? Does free speech (or as you call it: "political rant") only work on the skeptic side on this web site?

I strongly feel that the questioning of the true motives of the energy companies and "privately" funded sites like ICECAP is a very patriotic "free speech" thing to do. Because they should not have any more control over our country's policies then we as regular (albeit increasingly poorer) citizens.

I think it is more patriotic as a U.S. citizen to demand that we get off the oil-based economy and not have to cow-tow to the energy companies or to wait for them to accumulate their fortunes at our expense before they find it in their hearts to help build an alternative energy infrastructure. What incentive does Exxon-Mobil have to help build these alternative energy sources when they can easily make their fortunes with the current setup? The energy companies obviously want things to remain the same so they are doing everything in their power (both politically and financially) to keep it that way. Groups like ICECAP who say they are looking out for us are just offshoots of the energy company's financial power.

The Saudi's just indicated they will pump out another 400,000 barrels/day and yet the price of oil continues to go up despite that proposed increase in oil production. All of the government numbers on how much oil we would get from ANWR and other domestic offshore drill sites would amount to the same amount the Saudi's just said they would increase their production by. The U.S. is consuming over 20 million barrels/day. So all these arguments that we should pump our oil domestically will not make any difference to the world oil price and what we are paying at the pump. We can't drill ourselves out of this problem. So why are we waiting for companies like Exxon-Mobil to hopefully give us other energy alternatives?

Since when is it necessary to bow down to the energy gods like Exxon-Mobil? Aren't we already bowing down a certain direction when we continue to dish over $4/gallon for gasoline?

What used to be good for General Motors is no longer good for the U.S. So why is the same mantra being applied to Exxon-Mobil?

Steve Bloom and Dennis,
Have either of you either produced an operational weather forecast? Could either of you analyze a 500mb constant pressure chart? Plot and analyze a skew-T log p chart? Can either of you do a streamline analysis of the surface of the tropics? Have any of you done a Dvorak analysis of tropical cyclones using satellite data? Could either of you tell the difference between a baroclinic model and the spectral model? Could either of you construct a forecast of severe weather? For that matter could Heidi Cullen do any of these?

Before you denigrate the skill of professionals, who BTW see weather more than just a set of abstract ideas, you should go out and put your own reputations on the line and make a forecast for a living.

Paul- I think you're right about the Republicans and oil.

A little full of yourself perhaps?

Ok guys, here is what Heidi Cullen said, compliments of her 12/21/06 posting on that "other blog" (which by the way is hard to find and seems to generate little discussion).

"....I'd like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.)

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.

I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that's why talking about the science is so important!...."end of post

I didn't have time to read all 1,800 comments to this post, but you better beleive many were not happy about it.

Steve Bloom:
As a young kid my Dad, was on CBS. He was GLENN MILLERS Base Player, as well as Frank Sinatra's. Also Artie Shaw, Miles Davis and Stan Getz. His first name was Trigger. Google it if you like! I saw first hand, TV on The Carol Burnett show. I also have seen newscasts, and there are always sponsors lurking around.TV is a business. In New York, a meteorologist first,must be good looking. Then they must have charisma. Then they should have a good repour with the audience. Then they must be funny and verbose with there fellow team players. And finally they have to stand in front of a blue screen and pretend they are looking at something. Finally, they must read the weather report on the teleprompter. I am sure they must know somethings about weather,and I wouldn't put Brett with this group.
KIPP

DMJ, will you believe anything at all anyone tells you? Apparently. It turns out Gore's electricity usage is *down*. Deltoid has the details. Bote that the energy efficiency renovations on the house weren't complete until November, so an added reduction in annual usage can be expected.

Thanks for fetching that, randy. Note that nowhere in those remarks did Heidi suggest taking away an *existing* certification. You're right that some weren't happy, but then again they're not known for independent thought.

JP, at no point have I questioned the competence of weather forecasters within their field. I have simply pointed out that there's not much overlap between forecasting and climate science. Obviously the AMS has drawn the same conclusion and is doing something about it.

I think Brett is right that any forecaster who pays attention to their own continuing education can pick up sufficient climate science, but as things stand it's obvious that many forecasters don't do so.

randy:
Heidi Cullen of TWC also said this on Larry King Jan. 31, 2007 when asked to comment on Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth", the scientifically false documentary:

"I think the documentary is very well done and he really hits the science issues and he captures them very nicely."

Stick a fork in Heidi because as a "climate expert" she's done!

Adamant,

I still have a tin-foil hat for you.

Hmmm...

So if a 10% increase in someone's electricity usage is not significant, what is? I have an all electric house, 10% is a big deal. Who cares if the temp is up? Couldn't he turn the thermostat up like he tells the rest of us? What a hypocrite. Reply: I guess it is a matter of opinion.

What a lame idea that this increase in usage is dismissed as no big deal. Gore is the most visible posterchild for saving the planet from humans and HE uses more energy than just about anybody around. Reply: Really, do you have proof of that. I doubt it. I am sure a large % of wealthy people with large homes and many cars use a lot of energy compared to the middle class.

AS far as Cullen and TWC, they are betting on AGW as a cause and trying to ride the publicity wave (just like everyone else for that matter). I mean they play ominous undertones when there are storms battering some part of the country. Their forecasts are a joke and the only redeeming value of the network is how they've dolled up Michelle Abrams. Look at Dr. Cullen. Anybody notice her makeover?

Dennis:

You are entirely incorrect that we could not "drill" our way out of this problem. This "problem" has been created by Democrats, Liberals, and greenpeacers who have consistently stood in the way of responsible energy development. According to them, they would prefer that we use outdated, inefficient, and wasteful technology by which to produce the predominant fuel we use. They also do not "like" other energy sources because of things they perceive as a problem. They would rather reach for a utopian view in which energy is just pulled from the air. Look at Obama, he wants gas to be a minimum of $4 and thinks it should be higher. And, he seemingly is against nuclear power. Someday we will be there but not now.

The idea that the planet is running out of raw fuel material is simply wrong and short sighted. It is a statement that is intended solely as means by which to push an agenda not based in fact. Fact is, NO ONE, has any idea how much carbon based fuel is on this planet. I do know one thing, though, the numbers keep going up.

And yes, Republicans are just as guilty because they do things that don't help the problem.

Steven Bloom, you responded to everyone but me?

Why did you leave me out?

Regarding the issues of overlap (or lack thereof) of climatologist and professional weather forecasting.

I am not a scientist, but I am having a lot of difficulty buying into the notion that these are mutually exclusive disciplines. In order to be an expert in one area, don't you have to have a complete understanding of the other? If not, then it would appear to me that the scientists who study global warming are disregarding the dynamics of mother earth. Kinda like a drug company who develops a new product, but fails to properly test it on the human body (over an extended period of time) before rolling it out.

As for Steve Blooms comment - "You're right that some weren't happy, but then again they're not known for independent thought.", sounds to me you are making reference to weather forecasters and skeptics in general...Not a very enlightening comment. I dare say there is more of a herd mentality with the masses of AGW proponents than there are with skeptics!

JP: "Have either of you either produced an operational weather forecast? Could either of you analyze a 500mb constant pressure chart? Plot and analyze a skew-T log p chart? Can either of you do a streamline analysis of the surface of the tropics? Have any of you done a Dvorak analysis of tropical cyclones using satellite data? Could either of you tell the difference between a baroclinic model and the spectral model? Could either of you construct a forecast of severe weather?"

Well JP for your information I have a Bachelors Degree in Meteorology and I am a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. I have over 30 years of weather forecasting experience, even for the worldwide offshore oil drilling platforms. Does that qualify me enough in your eyes to be able to provide my professional opinions here?

So my answer to you JP is yes to all of the above.

In response to your other point, I was not denigrating the professional meteorologist. Why would I do that since I am one. I was pointing my earlier disdain (through a little sarcasm) at those that try to proclaim themselves as "experts" in the global climatological field simply because they know how to read articles on the web and can recite verbatim the current talking points from conservative talk shows and biased web sites like ICECAP. Does that tidbit of extra knowledge from the web articles give them the right to chastise the professionals in the IPCC/NASA arena? You question me, but why do they get a free pass from you - because they are on your side? Using Al Gore and Hansen as punching bags for their amusement may be OK for you, but does nothing in pushing the actual scientific debate forward.

I can read and hear those articles too and the debate is good for both sides, but I find many times that when I research the data behind those same graphs presented by the "professional" skeptics, I find issues that don't match physical reality or that the data is cherry picked or is limited to a localized region that has nothing to do with how the long-term global pattern is evolving.

When I discover those discrepancies and I question the motives in what the skeptics are trying to portray, I find it necessary to set the record straight. I try to make my points here by attaching those same charts and graphs from the skeptic web sites and point out the problems with their assumptions and conclusions. I don't simply rely on what the biased web sites are presenting and taking them at their word, I question what they are presenting and provide supporting documentation to back up my statements and opinions. Your side can do the same, but with a little less denigration of the professionals would be a plus.

A lot of you may question why, as a professional meteorologist, do I waste my time in this web blog when the debate often just falls on what side you were originally on in the first place. When I see how this type of forum is being used by those with political power and means to manipulate the minions to their advantage, then I find it necessary to question those motives of those in the positions of power. Through my questioning and debating I have learned a lot here and if only one other person sees things in a different light after my discussions, then it was worth it.

"In order to be an expert in one area, don't you have to have a complete understanding of the other?"

No.

Re the 1800 commenters, I meant them in particular since they'd been referred there via the Limbaugh site. Heck, even Limbaugh calls them "dittoheads."

Nobody wants to think they're part of a herd, Randy. I'm sure you don't. I'm still waiting for you to say something original, BTW.

Bad news Dennis, Steve Bloom does not think you are qualified to talk about climate change because your degree in meterology is too old.

Dennis,

Your 19 June 08, 12:06 PM post was well said.

Darren,

If your electric bill is $200 per month, (ours rarely is, more like $120/month), that is $2400 per year. A 10% increase is only $240. Divide that by 12 = only $20 per month more. That is insignificant to most people. Granted this is a simple equation, since I don't take into account price per KwH, etc, but I think you see the point of the argument.

Josh B - If you are saying that there is no such thing as "normal" temperatures, then saying that it is "normally" snow free in the west is just as moot. You can't have it both ways.

Daniel,

If your final statement were true:

"we're not out for your brains or your wallet - we're out for the science"

then I wouldn't be very worried about the implications of AGW theory.

Have you or have you not seen and/or heard of the minions lining up across the globe to limit human freedom and take our money in the name of AGW?

I have no doubt that there are many concerned scientists with mankind's best interest at heart. Problem is, there are many who have their own best interest, their own ego, their own careers and their own wallets at heart and harbor utter contempt for human freedom.

To be sure, ANY person who makes unequivocal statements as to the existence, mechanics or effects of AGW has checked their objectivity at the curb. Are there compelling arguments behind many of the aspects of AGW? Sure. There are also equally compelling arguments to the contrary.

The best thing to come out of this march toward regulation and taxation is that it finally got more people asking tough questions about the science behind the AGW theory. If we are to proceed with regulation and taxation based on AGW theory then the leading proponents of the theory must, at a bare minimum, open their research - including all source code, all input assumptions, all modeling mechanics, all unknowns (read ignored factors) etc. - to full access and scrutiny. Any scientist worth his oxygen intake should be willing to submit to this type of scrutiny.

Dennis Hlinka:
You have always contributed much to this blog.You are the first person I read,and you talk science not negative insults. You must stay here and fight the good fight ,because there is too much at stake. I don't think that some know the gravity of what we are talking about, and some don't care. Taking a position because of your politics's, religion, or inability to believe that the world is not self correcting anymore is foolish.I wish some bloggers would study more and blog less. I am always criticized, but seldom do I hear an opposing scenario against GW, or a reason why Greenland is melting at an alarming rate,or a belief that we are in a cooling trend.
It's easier to insult and tear another down, than provide an alternate thesis to Global Warming!
Thanks, KIPP

Actually a perfect example of how climate science doesn't overlap much with forecasting skills just came up in the last day or so.

I'm sure Anthony Watts is a perfectly competent forecaster, but he doesn't know the first thing about climate science. This error proves it perfectly.

Whem I looked at his post for the first time (before the correction note was appended) I thought to myself (words to the effect):

"That's weird, I've read multiple papers finding the exact opposite. And wait, Watts claims this is from the *NCEP reanalysis data*, which is probably the most worked-over set of climate data in existence, and he claims to have spotted something important that not only contradicts a multitude of recent papers but was obtained through a NOAA graph-generating interface rather than through direct data analysis? And on top of that *according to the label on the graph* he appears to have selected only the highest-altitude portion of the dataset (which is supposed to be losing water vapor)?"

Then I had a look at the page he used to generate the graph and realized that he had made the mistake by selecting "300 mb and up," not realizing that "and up" referred to altitude and not numerical pressure.

IOW, for me alarm bells went off at every single-step, and my knowledge of climate science is strictly amateur.

The mistake is fine. Not so fine was getting all excited and posting on it without first taking the simple step of emailing the person responsible for the page and asking if he had filled in the boxes correctly.

All of that said, I wouldn't rely on a climate scientist for a weather forecast. Which is very convenient, BTW, since I've never heard a climate scientist claim to be a competent forecaster.

Dennis Hlinka's 12:06 pm comment should be cut out and framed.

Mr. Bloom, thanks for the -nice- BTW, while the thought of taking the hits further below the belt are tempting, I'll take a pass....

I did go back and read as many of those posts as I could before my eyes stopped working. Clearly, someone suggested an all out assault on January 17, causing probably 1,500 posts over a three day period (you say it was Rush, and will take you for your word). However, the posts preceding that call in were insightful. Yes, there were more in the skeptic category, but plenty on the other side. None lacked independent thought (and for that matter, neither did half of the others).

One was particularly interesting, and at the risk of being called out again as un-original, I will paste it in here. It was a rebuttal to a post by an individual who claimed to be a climate scientist, and who essentially stated "the debate is over..."

----You claim to be a climate scientist. If that is true, you would have NEVER made the statement that there is no controversy about global warming. Most scientists would review other studies of the earth's climate, the most dynamic environment known to man. And within that discipline there are many opinions of climate change and warming. I assume you read other scientist's work, don't you?

Furthermore, accusing people with an opposing opinion as right-wing, exposes your own agenda.

Take another run at it, from a scientist's perspective, so you can reclaim some credibility.---

Amen, and have a nice day. Randy

Randy, it's as if you don't want to get it. There are many details that are unresolved, but there really is a consensus on the basics. Wishing it otherwise won't make it so.

What is that consensus, you ask? Pasted below is a good description of it by a chemistry professor of my acquaintance. Alternatively, you can look up one of the statements from the National Academy of Science or similar organizations, although I prefer the one below since it touches on the key scientific components.

What's missing from it is the longer discussion about what bad things will happen depending on how warm we let it get, but just to mention one outcome a planet a couple of degrees warmer than present is, after a while, a planet without much permanent ice, which is to say one with much higher sea levels (on the order of a hundred feet plus). OTOH I suppose you can take solace from the lack of a consensus on how fast that's likely to happen.

--------------------------------

The total energy emitted by the earth has to equal the total energy absorbed from the sun. All this energy comes and goes as light.

The earth radiates in the infrared, the sun radiates at much shorter wavelengths, principally in the visible.

It gets colder the higher you go in the troposphere and the density of molecules is lower.

From 3 the rate of radiation from IR active (greenhouse gas, GHG) molecules (CO2, H2O, CH4) is lower the higher you go (hotter things radiate more, see Stefan-Boltzmann law, more molecules radiate more).

In the atmosphere below 100 km the ability of GHG molecules to absorb radiation equals their ability to emit radiation (Kirchhoff's law)
Greenhouse gases are IR absorbers/emitters. They effectively block radiation escaping to space at wavelengths they absorb EXCEPT at high enough levels where the gas density is low and the radiation can escape directly to space without being absorbed (about 7 km which is still in the troposphere).

Because radiation to space is blocked at IR wavelengths where GHGs (and clouds) absorb, the surface has to warm so that radiation can increase in unblocked areas of the spectrum and escape to space.

This means that there will also be increased radiation in regions of the spectrum where greenhouse gases absorb which, in turn, will warm the atmosphere but cannot escape to space. Radiation absorbed in the atmosphere and scattered back to the surface warms the surface yet further.

As the atmosphere warms, the areas of the spectrum where the greenhouse gas molecules absorb widens as more energetic levels of the GHG are populated (The link points to on line software, which you can model this yourself).

There are two complementary mechanisms

Walking Mechanism. Increasing the amount of GHGs widens the spectral regions where they absorb and narrows the windows where radiation can escape to space. To maintain balance with incoming solar, the atmosphere and surface warm further

and Chewing Gum Mechanism. As the GHG mixing ratio increases, the effective level at which the Earth can radiate to space at the wavelengths emitted by the GHGs climbs, but because of the cooling with altitude and the lower density of molecule, to maintain the same radiation rate and balance the solar input, the new higher level at which the earth radiates has to warm, and to do this the entire troposphere and the surface have to warm.

Humans have increased the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides and other GHGs in the atmosphere. Increasing the concentration of CO2 by a factor of two will increase global temperature by a bit more than 1 C (~1.8 F). This is a forcing.

This increase in global temperature warm the oceans and thus increases atmospheric water vapor (also a GHG) enough that the total rise in global temperature will be ~3 C (best estimate range is btw 2 and 5 C for 2x CO2). This is a feedback.

Since the increase of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and other GHGs are known to be caused by humans, so must an increase in surface temperature driven by these mechanisms.

Does the greenhouse effect operate by the same mechanism as greenhouses? No (except if you think of one blocking off energy loss by closing regions of the spectrum for radiative loss, and the other blocking off energy loss by stopping convection).

Steve Bloom: Whem I looked at his post for the first time (before the correction note was appended) I thought to myself (words to the effect):

"That's weird, I've read multiple papers finding the exact opposite. And wait, Watts claims this is from the *NCEP reanalysis data*, which is probably the most worked-over set of climate data in existence, and he claims to have spotted something important that not only contradicts a multitude of recent papers but was obtained through a NOAA graph-generating interface rather than through direct data analysis? And on top of that *according to the label on the graph* he appears to have selected only the highest-altitude portion of the dataset (which is supposed to be losing water vapor)?"

Then I had a look at the page he used to generate the graph and realized that he had made the mistake by selecting "300 mb and up," not realizing that "and up" referred to altitude and not numerical pressure.

IOW, for me alarm bells went off at every single-step, and my knowledge of climate science is strictly amateur.

So let me get Bloom's story straight. He saw Watts' post, went to the page used to generate the graph, realized Watts had made a mistake, then -- milquetoast that he is -- didn't mention it until after, oddly enough, several comments on Watts' blog pointed it out, and Watts posted a correction. At which time, Bloom presumably decided his compassionate silence could no longer spare Watts from embarrassment, so he mentioned the error in at least two separate threads on this blog.

In case anyone is still inclined to give Bloom the benefit of the doubt, consider that he didn't even describe the problem correctly. As you can see by looking at the page that generated the data, there's no selection "300 mb and up." Watts' mistake was interpreting the graph label "Specific Humidity (up to 300mb only)" as indicating the altitude range over which the graph was calculated. It actually just gives the limit of the available input data. There is no "label on the graph" specifying the pressure level at which the graph was computed.

Bloom says his "knowledge of climate science is strictly amateur." Clearly, though, by his fairytale of spotting Watts' error, he wants to give the impression that he's just being modest.

Daniel, that anonymous post at 4:57 was me.

I agree, Dennis brings a good amount of knowledge to the table. All though Kipp is incorrect, he did spout off this week on someone. I was quite surprised by that post.

I also find it amusing that Steve Bloom likes his one post so much, even though Steve Bloom thinks his degree is worthless when it comes to climate science.

Steve Bloom ignores my questions, and I am sure if he responds to this it will be some mean-spirited reply, about how I don't want to learn, blah blah blah, so why bother explaning, I provide the links with the answers to life, you choose what to do with them.

However, you have not posted a link, or addressed my question to you.

Dennis, I am sorry Steve Bloom does not think you are qualified to talk on climate change, cause to me you seem to have a good amount of knowledge.

Anonymous and others,

Just a note - Congress (government, with a democratic majority) recently DID NOT pass legislation on controlling/limiting CO2 emissions and enacting carbon taxes. The reason? They are worried that legislation of this type would adversely affect the American public. Even some Democrats voted againt the bill!

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNv-MFtVtkVdwOvTJ3iV7jq7VIPgD914KAPG0

See government does work for the people sometimes.

Sorry, for being off topic Brett, but I had to mention it.

Darren: "The idea that the planet is running out of raw fuel material is simply wrong and short sighted. It is a statement that is intended solely as means by which to push an agenda not based in fact. Fact is, NO ONE, has any idea how much carbon based fuel is on this planet. I do know one thing, though, the numbers keep going up."

OK give me the actual number and sources of your argument that "the numbers keep going up." You said NO ONE knows how much oil is out there, but somehow you have this miraculous "feeling" that there is more to be found. If there are 20 million barrels/day of oil off our own coasts, the Energy Department is certainly unaware of it. I think they have more sophisticated data gathering equipment to determine what is down there then just relying on your hunch that there "could" be more out there somewhere.

This enlightening bit of information comes from the side of the deniers that require that the climate models need to be 100% accurate and an climate event actually has to occur to confirm that accuracy before they believe it. But let's just go with our hunches that there is more oil out there even though the experts and there scientific equipment say there isn't any big oil field out there domestically.

There seems to be a pattern here on this web site about not trusting actual scientific data and information but just going with our hunches and misconceptions because we don't trust the experts.

Brett:

Sure you can make the argument that the wealthy probably use more power as a group. My point is that Gore is a figurehead for this "movement". I would expect him to do, as he says to do, not the other way around. I would simply say that as typical for all politicians, they tell others what to do and then they do the opposite.

Sure, maybe Gore can be his salvation in the form of carbon credits from his company, but that's a different matter all together.

Oh and Brett, your statement proves my point, there are a lot more middle and lower class people than wealthy, my comment was that Gore uses more energy than just about "anybody" not "EVERYBODY". A large % of wealthy means nothing to this debate.

Gary B./Brett:

A guess it is a matter of opinion, a 10% increase is large when you support a cause in which you promote the idea of using less energy.

And no Gary, the additional $240 is not a big deal, would you like to write me a check for that?

Dennis:

Well put, but I'm curious, have you found the same discrepancies in the information put forth by those who suport the theory of AGW?

I'm not a professional metereologist, but I see lots of potential cracks in the research and data. And when I see others note the "massaging" that happens I just have to wonder.

Nice try, MJW, but please explain why I would have wanted to correct Watts at an early stage. I can't think of a reason.

As for what I knew and when, see my 6/19 7:12 AM and 8:16 AM comments here (noting that this is New Zealand time and the Watts blog is California time). This first shows that I knew there was something wrong before I even looked at the Watts post, and the second one shows that I knew enough about the NCEP reanalysis data to be sure that it couldn't contain an error of the type Watts thought he had found. Obviously others had begun pointing out the problem before I made either comment, which is to say I can't prove that the rest was completely independent thinking. Instead, given all of the circumstances, I think it's reasonable for you to take my word for it. TIA.

Re the graph, you're correct that "300 mb and up" can't be selected, but have a look at the "Variable?" box. The point is that's what Watts thought he was selecting, as is entirely clear from his comments.

In terms of the label, you're correct that it doesn't say what pressure has been selected, so it's better to say that the label combined with my knowledge of what the result should be told me the kind of error Watts had made. Of course it should have told him the same thing.

Let me know if there's anything else you need clarified.

**Just a note - Congress (government, with a democratic majority) recently DID NOT pass legislation on controlling/limiting CO2 emissions and enacting carbon taxes. The reason? They are worried that legislation of this type would adversely affect the American public. Even some Democrats voted againt the bill!**

Noooooo, they are thinking of votes for November. They don't want to tick off Americans right now because we Americans really aren't truly understanding how these carbon taxes would really affect us. And if they did it this year, and we realized how stupid it is, they think we may not vote for them. But the reality is most Americans nowadays are not that bright, they will still vote for the democrats, and keep hoping something will change. But not to worry, the democrats are going to pass it next year and then stick it to us and tell us it is for our own good.

They don't give a hoot for the American people, it's all about the politics, baby.

**Through my questioning and debating I have learned a lot here and if only one other person sees things in a different light after my discussions, then it was worth it.**

Actually, you, bloom, mark, gary b, bt, kipp, etc. have help to make me EVEN MORE skeptical, which I didn't think possible, and downright ornery. I'm at the point now, if I look out my window and see the ocean lapping at my driveway, I'm still going to deny agw just to be a bugger. Thanks for the personality change.

Oops, pressed the post key too soon in responding to MJW just now: I believe I failed to drop in the link and it may show as anonymous as well.

Really...Oh gosh, Gary...Is it normal to normally critize and nick pick an average sentence. I don't know if it is normal to normally do that or not. I don't think its normal but some do normally do that. I normally like to have it both ways as that is usually normal for me, but hey this wasn't a normal blog and that normally does not happen. I normally would write more but I'm not on my normal time schedule so I got to go because the game normally starts in a few minutes, but not all the time, but for them to be late would not be normal. I'll write more later when I'm back on my normal schedule as I normally am at home at this time.

The content of the article seems strange. If one can poll weathermen as to their opinions of GW, why not ask them why they have those opinions. Mind reading seems to be becoming more popular.

Steve Bloom: Nice try, MJW, but please explain why I would have wanted to correct Watts at an early stage. I can't think of a reason.

To show how clever you are, and to rub Watts' nose in it, as is you're unvarying pattern whenever you find someone you disagree with has made an error?

As for what I knew and when, see my 6/19 7:12 AM and 8:16 AM comments here...

The link proves my point. Though you expressed skepticism about Watts' claim, it was "CobbyWorlds," not you, who figured out what was going on. So your tale of going to the NOAA website and spotting the error is fiction.

Let me know if there's anything else you need clarified.

No, I think everything's pretty clear.

alchemist, I believe there's a subsequent article that will cover that. IIRC this is a three-part series.

Well, Mary, that's... completely irrational. I'd like to get you to change your mind, so do suppose I could persuade you to spend some time reading Joe Bastardi's blog?

"Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions

"Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change."

"More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes."

...as is you're unvarying pattern...

Believe it or not, I do know the difference between you're and your. It's just my fingers that get confused. Stupid fingers!

Dennis:

AS I noted, I don't have a source other than what I read in the media. I do recall that the world would be OUT of oil in the mid 1990's (as written in the late 70's) and the proven reserve at the time was not very large.

Just in recent weeks, I have seen the amount of reserve vary from 8 billion barrels to 40 billion barrels.

So, I have come to the conclusion that no one knows the total amount left. And frankly, how could they? The world is a big place. As far as my "feeling", it's just a hunch. Kinda like calling for rain when none is apparent other than it just feels rainy.

As far as the Energy Department not knowing of large domestic sources of Energy, well, I'm not surprised. I can't think of a single government agency or department that it really good at actually thinking through a problem or question. They are all reactionary not proactive. The people who make up the government have ALL been trained to be that way. They are in job protection mode, not look forward mode or solve a problem mode. At least for me, that's what I find so aggravating about government, they never go out on a limb or actually make a decision or solve something.

No, I don't require climate models to be 100% right. In fact I know that weather models are consistently inaccurate at a mere 5 days. My question is why the followers of the Gore feel they are 100% reliable when they show temps up a degree and, just a guess, if they show temps going down. Or more exactly, if a climate model shows a temp going down, the followers "adjust" the temp up.

I trust scientific data when I know that the all of the data are in. Simply put, there is no way that all of the data on the climate are in. Think about it, you are basing your opinion on a very limited knowledge base. Sure it might be the best we have, but it certainly is not all of the applicable and pertinent data. In my mind, it is like trying to make a forecast based upon yesterday's temperature alone. Tell me how well that would work.

And then, when you factor in that many of the researchers seem to be more interested in proving the theory with their findings rather than letting their findings modify the theory, it makes me a just a bit skeptical. Won't even go into the ideological mindset of the researchers.

FYI, MJW, one of the things I like about Watts is that he invariably gets in deeper if given enough rope. Why not let him maximize his own humiliation?

Also, you said I "expressed skepticism about Watts' claim." Skepticism just means doubt, i.e, it allows for the possibility that the idea being criticized may yet turn out to be correct. IOW, your language implies that I wasn't very sure about ut.

What I actually said (before I knew the source for the claim) was "I don�t think that�s correct about the water vapor." That seems a bit stronger, don't you think?

"As far as the Energy Department not knowing of large domestic sources of Energy, well, I'm not surprised. I can't think of a single government agency or department that it really good at actually thinking through a problem or question."

Nice try. Of course, you never have let facts get in the way of a nice story. If you did, then you'd know that the idea of the scarcity of oil, historically, been spread by THE OIL COMPANIES. They've had people believing the oil supply was much smaller that what their internal data was showing. Some of this is for competitive advantages, and some of this is to keep oil prices a little higher than what they should be had the markets had access to their internal data.

But, hey, this is what corporate apologists do. Large corporations are benevolent entities who are looking out for the rights of individuals, and the big, bad government is the source of all of our problems. Right, Darren?

Josh B - I wasn't nit picking. I was pointing to the fact that you were pointing out that there is no "normal" temperature. Or, better yet, you were enlightening us all to the reason why there should be no "normal" temperature. I'm guessing here, your post was hard to follow.

I was merely pointing out the fact to you that if it is true that there are no "normal" temperatures, then truly there could be no "normal" weather as well.

If it "normally" does not snow in Vail this time of year and this year they got snow, well then that would be "abnormal" wouldn't it? But, then I must say that it has surely snowed in Vail in June in the past. Records have shown it. So, would that then be considered "normal"?

If you take the number of times that it snowed and didn't snow in June in Vail and divide by the number of years that the records were kept, lets say 50 years as an hypothetical amount, just for this excercise, then you would get "X" amount of years with snow versus without snow. That would be the average. Interesting. So, I would say that "normally" there is a 50% chance that there will be no snow on the ground in Vail in June. But certainly, it is by all means "normal" for it to snow in those locations, based on past weather as a guide when determining what "normal" weather would be for any given location. Cheers to you Josh.

Well Mary - Thanks for including me in your thoughtful response. I know that I will sleep better tonight knowing that you are thinking about me. :) On another note, it's your type of cynicism that keeps this country going backwards. Instead of joining in making this country better, you march in lockstep with those who complain, get bitter and blame all of our problems on someone else. Thanks for all that you do!

Oh, by the way, come down off of your ivory tower for a sec and realize that not everyone who votes differently than you is less intelligent.

Warmest regards.

Brett - Sorry for the rant, but, I really tire of people on this blog who think that the world revolves around them. Those that think that they can do whatever they want to do without any remorse or responsibility that their actions just might affect someone else.

I live on this planet too. If they can't control themselves then it's not just those people that will pay. It is all of us that will pay for their selfish stupidity.

Steve Bloom: FYI, MJW, one of the things I like about Watts is that he invariably gets in deeper if given enough rope. Why not let him maximize his own humiliation?

That's good spin, but that's all it is. Even though we all know that scoring rhetorical points and embarrassing people matters more to you than getting out the truth, your version still makes no sense. First, because by not correcting Watts, you risk having someone less hostile than you (i.e., just about anyone) correct the error in a much gentler manner. Second, because you couldn't resist getting credit.

But that's all academic, since the link you provided clearly showed that you learned the cause of the problem from CobbyWorlds.

Also, you said I "expressed skepticism about Watts' claim." Skepticism just means doubt, i.e, it allows for the possibility that the idea being criticized may yet turn out to be correct. IOW, your language implies that I wasn't very sure about it.

What I actually said (before I knew the source for the claim) was "I don't think that's correct about the water vapor." That seems a bit stronger, don't you think?

Wow. "I don't think that's correct"! Really laid it on the line with that bold declaration!

By Jobe, you have it Mark, you are absolutely correct. Thank goodness you finally get it

LOL,

I actually never said that corps are benevolent nor that all regulation is bad. Like many skeptics, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle part of the problem with the AGW crowd is that you go from one end of the teeter totter to the other. I simply cannot wait for 15 years from now, when Hansen is teetering around Washington telling Congress that the world has a cold and that if we don't warm it up, we will all freeze.

This is all too painful.

True scientists look at global climage behavior over the millions of years, and millenia, and at multi-hundred year cycles. The results: we have ice ages, warming periods, and the the swings are so dramatic that there is NOTHING that man could do to affect them.

On a recent vacation in Canada, this was driven home very succinctly, as I read that one of the key glaciers in the Jasper ice field had started its retreat over 140 years ago - before extreme urbanization or even industrialization occurred.

Watch how the number of forest fires this year contribute to ash in the atmosphere and a temporary global cooling, much as Krakatoa, and more recently Pinatubo in the Phillipines did. And, we are likely to see our good earth's temperatures decline from the atmospheric changes, despite the marked increase in CO2 that will result from the fires.

Why is it that earth's ice caps are shrinking at the same time as the ones on Mars?

Should we be doing things to cut pollution, waste, and abuse? Absolutely.

Is mankind causing any significant shift in global climate? Highly dubious.

Is humankind likely to be able to mitigate the effects of any natural earthly events: magnetic shifts, volcanoes, sun-spots, ice-melts? Virtually impossible.

So,
DO buy greener vehicles.

DO conserve fuels of all sorts.

DO use alternative energy sources.

DO conserve Amazon rain-forests

DO keep animals on the endangered species list.

DO ascribe to many significant, earth changing, and highly noble causes.

But, DON'T get swept up in a ludicrous wave of blaming man for the temperature of the earth. Even if it were true, our impacts would be swept away by the next major earth event, much as waves washing away our footprints in the sand.

Q: Whats the difference between a Climatologist and a meteorologist? A: One talks directly to the public and the other doesn't.

Maybe this has something to do with the skepticism. They are always being judged by us and are afraid to rock the boat. Why they do not discuss long term trends in the weather and its impact on us more is a mystery.

It is surprising to note that the official statement of the American Meteorological Society on Climate Change is very strong:

Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond.

Brett, any update on Accuweather's statement on climate change yet? Reply: What update? The statement is the same as it has been for a awhile now.

Global Temperature Record
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

I know... here it is...

http://www.accuweather.com/global-warming/global-warming-position.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0

Global climate change is a matter of intense concern and public importance. There can be little doubt that human beings influence the world's climate. At the same time, our knowledge of the extent, progress, mechanisms and results of global climate change is still incomplete. New data are becoming available every day - from tree rings to deep sea samples, ice cores, glacial changes and climatological models - while the greatest minds all over the world are working to better understand climate change and its impact on life on earth.

Pretty weak and wafflely, with out purpose. How about it amplifying the line of your professional society...American Meteorological Society with a strong statement like theirs...

Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond.

I guess you guys at Accuweather are still unsure about AGW.