Okay.. this article shows the fear mongers in high gear

[Renae]

Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

The cold is cause the world is warming...

Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding "tipping points."

"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct."

U.S. emissions have increased by 20 percent since 1992. China has more than doubled its carbon dioxide pollution in that time. World carbon dioxide emissions have grown faster than scientists' worst-case scenarios. Methane, the next most potent greenhouse gas, suddenly is on the rise again and scientists fear that vast amounts of the trapped gas will escape from thawing Arctic permafrost.

The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has already pushed past what some scientists say is the safe level.

Notice no names, no solid information, just a lot of "some scientist" "some experts" some some some...

Yeah, hey folks, this is propaganda at work.

Scientists fear that what's happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.

(all above come from: My Way News - Obama left with little time to curb global warming )


Golly last time I checked the arctic sea ice was growing rapidly again... damn that sea ice.. so warm it's cold!


Seriously though, this article reads like a bad press release from an advocacy group. There is no attempt at objectivity, no attempt to explain anything, just fears, fears, and what we have to do to save ourselves.

Like a bad door to door salesman pushing a miracle tonic.

 

[MachuPicchu]

The cold is cause the world is warming...

I'm not even sure I know what this is supposed to mean, but this year has been the 10th hottest in recorded history, with 2005 being the hottest ever recorded (1998 depending on your weather source). La Nina is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why we're experiencing a "cool down" right now.

Which part of this graph brings you comfort:

Notice no names, no solid information, just a lot of "some scientist" "some experts" some some some...

Yeah, hey folks, this is propaganda at work.

Or, this is a news article, not a scientific paper.

Golly last time I checked the arctic sea ice was growing rapidly again... damn that sea ice.. so warm it's cold!

Your own posts are showing that the southern pole is the only area on the earth experiencing some cooling while the overall effect is warming. What's your point?

Seriously though, this article reads like a bad press release from an advocacy group. There is no attempt at objectivity, no attempt to explain anything, just fears, fears, and what we have to do to save ourselves.

Like a bad door to door salesman pushing a miracle tonic.

Well maybe they're taking a play out of Bush's book, except this time they have the intelligence to back it up.

 

[Renae]

I find it interesting that we are not warmer then we were cooler according to your cute littel graph there... see up and down, cycles.. that's how this all works. We're still cooler then during the MEWP, and nothing man did caused that.

 

[MachuPicchu]

I find it interesting that we are not warmer then we were cooler according to your cute littel graph there... see up and down, cycles.. that's how this all works. We're still cooler then during the MEWP, and nothing man did caused that.

How you can see anything besides an upward trend from 1910 on is beyond me. You can't expect a perfectly straight line...

Edit: And no, there's no good evidence the world was warmer during the MEWP.

 

[Renae]

How you can see anything besides an upward trend from 1910 on is besides me. You can't expect a perfectly straight line...

But you want one... "equilibrium!" Natures always in flux. It gets cold, it gets warm. It gets windy, it gets calm.

I don't get excited by politically driven hypes. Remember Y2K? They had the science! There were "experts" and "Scientist" making all sorts of claims. Millions were spent to protect us...

And for nothing.

I bet you had food and water stored that year didn't you?

 

[MachuPicchu]

But you want one... "equilibrium!" Natures always in flux. It gets cold, it gets warm. It gets windy, it gets calm.

I don't get excited by politically driven hypes. Remember Y2K? They had the science! There were "experts" and "Scientist" making all sorts of claims. Millions were spent to protect us...

And for nothing.

I bet you had food and water stored that year didn't you?

No. It's not even on the same magnitude.

Edit: And along the same lines, how can you claim that money WASN'T well spent? Do you have any evidence that it was wasted?

 

[Renae]

No. It's not even on the same magnitude.

Edit: And along the same lines, how can you claim that money WASN'T well spent? Do you have any evidence that it was wasted?

Yeah, nothing happened.

Anyway, the point is the fear mongering in the AP Article.

Did you read it? Did you find it:

1. A Good informative article
2. A somewhat informative, somewhat alarmist article
3. A Bad article full of fear mongering.

 

[jfuh]

One per day now I see, you're just about to rival rev and his antics against Obama during the primaries then general election.

Some advice though vic - you can post the same tried old stuff over and over again, but just because it's posted multiple times doesn't mean it's going to be so.

Tell you what vic, you really want to make an impact, I suggest you go to a library that carries scientific literature - not popular science - but Nature, Science or some other high impact literature and have a read on climate issue publications. Then get back to us after you've finished your research.

 

[Renae]

One per day now I see, you're just about to rival rev and his antics against Obama during the primaries then general election.

Some advice though vic - you can post the same tried old stuff over and over again, but just because it's posted multiple times doesn't mean it's going to be so.

Tell you what vic, you really want to make an impact, I suggest you go to a library that carries scientific literature - not popular science - but Nature, Science or some other high impact literature and have a read on climate issue publications. Then get back to us after you've finished your research.

Jfuh,

I'm trained in meteorology, weather, climate, all that stuff... I have the training. I was PAID to know this stuff.

YOU however, are a forum genius. You think, because you point to certain papers, you are some how in the know. Here's a clue buddy, Stalin had a term for people like you, it applies.

You don't KNOW anything, you merely parrot what papers, articles and other web sites you find say what you want to hear. And you berate, attack and insult anyone that has a different view or thought then agreeing that you are the "expert" on this.

You come back to ME after you have spent 10 YEARS in the field of Meteorological study and work. After you have been drilled on how weather WORKS, how to apply climate history to current trends to forecast tomorrows weather.

Talk to me after you've got your certification to use the equipment these measurements are taken from. Talk to me after you've done a few thousand weather observations and forecasts. Take ocean SST from around the world.

You can try to THINK you know what's going on Jfuh, but you don't. You're like a kid that watched Doogie Howser and that made you a doctor... a jury member that watches CSI so you're a forensic expert.

You Jfuh, know only what the papers, articles and web sites you choose to read, tell you to think. However, you have ZERO first hand knowledge of weather. So spare us the high and mighty bit, you wouldn't last one day actually working professionally in the field of meteorology.

Do you know what the "Unified Polar Front" theory is? Why it's contentious, and how it effects climate and weather forecasts? No, doubt you've ever heard of it. What has it do with this, just a small example of how much you don't know.

 

[Middleground]

Jfuh,

I'm trained in meteorology, weather, climate, all that stuff... I have the training. I was PAID to know this stuff.

YOU however, are a forum genius. You think, because you point to certain papers, you are some how in the know. Here's a clue buddy, Stalin had a term for people like you, it applies.

You don't KNOW anything, you merely parrot what papers, articles and other web sites you find say what you want to hear. And you berate, attack and insult anyone that has a different view or thought then agreeing that you are the "expert" on this.

You come back to ME after you have spent 10 YEARS in the field of Meteorological study and work. After you have been drilled on how weather WORKS, how to apply climate history to current trends to forecast tomorrows weather.

Talk to me after you've got your certification to use the equipment these measurements are taken from. Talk to me after you've done a few thousand weather observations and forecasts. Take ocean SST from around the world.

You can try to THINK you know what's going on Jfuh, but you don't. You're like a kid that watched Doogie Howser and that made you a doctor... a jury member that watches CSI so you're a forensic expert.

You Jfuh, know only what the papers, articles and web sites you choose to read, tell you to think. However, you have ZERO first hand knowledge of weather. So spare us the high and mighty bit, you wouldn't last one day actually working professionally in the field of meteorology.

Do you know what the "Unified Polar Front" theory is? Why it's contentious, and how it effects climate and weather forecasts? No, doubt you've ever heard of it. What has it do with this, just a small example of how much you don't know.

All of that training, yet you have no concept between weather and climate???

 

[MachuPicchu]

Jfuh,

I'm trained in meteorology, weather, climate, all that stuff... I have the training. I was PAID to know this stuff.

YOU however, are a forum genius. You think, because you point to certain papers, you are some how in the know. Here's a clue buddy, Stalin had a term for people like you, it applies.

You don't KNOW anything, you merely parrot what papers, articles and other web sites you find say what you want to hear. And you berate, attack and insult anyone that has a different view or thought then agreeing that you are the "expert" on this.

You come back to ME after you have spent 10 YEARS in the field of Meteorological study and work. After you have been drilled on how weather WORKS, how to apply climate history to current trends to forecast tomorrows weather.

Talk to me after you've got your certification to use the equipment these measurements are taken from. Talk to me after you've done a few thousand weather observations and forecasts. Take ocean SST from around the world.

You can try to THINK you know what's going on Jfuh, but you don't. You're like a kid that watched Doogie Howser and that made you a doctor... a jury member that watches CSI so you're a forensic expert.

You Jfuh, know only what the papers, articles and web sites you choose to read, tell you to think. However, you have ZERO first hand knowledge of weather. So spare us the high and mighty bit, you wouldn't last one day actually working professionally in the field of meteorology.

Do you know what the "Unified Polar Front" theory is? Why it's contentious, and how it effects climate and weather forecasts? No, doubt you've ever heard of it. What has it do with this, just a small example of how much you don't know.

Well that makes more sense. You are absolutely not qualified to predict the weather/climate decades from now but I can see why you might jump to that conclusion. Go back and have them give you some training in climatology so we can have a sensible discussion.

 

[Gill]

Well that makes more sense. You are absolutely not qualified to predict the weather/climate decades from now but I can see why you might jump to that conclusion.

That's the problem. No one is qualified to predict climate decades from now.

Go back and have them give you some training in climatology so we can have a sensible discussion.

Ahh, then I take it that you have training in climatology?

 

[donsutherland1]

MrVicchio,

Three quick things:

1) Meteorology and climatology are separate fields.

2) Polar front theory deals with cyclogenesis (storm formation for those who are not familiar with the term), not climate change.

3) Applying climate to forecasting longer-range patterns, e.g., identifying analogs from past seasons and drawing some insights from those seasons, is also distinct from analyzing climate change.

 

[MachuPicchu]

That's the problem. No one is qualified to predict climate decades from now.

Correct, but a conglomerate of sensible people in multiple fields are. To give you an example, think of a plane. There are hundreds of people involved in the design of a Boeing, and not a single one is qualified to design a commercial airliner. However, the collective set of engineers who have an extremely precise skill set can work together to design a plane. Much the same that the IPCC consists of thousands of scientists in a wide variety of fields all working together to give a final recommendation. Vic claiming his training (and I'm not trying to take anything away from that training) gives him adequate background as an expert in the field is tantamount to a pilot telling the engineers how to best design their plane.

Ahh, then I take it that you have training in climatology?

No, and that wasn't my point. He was claiming to be an authority due to his training. I was merely telling him to get some more training if he wants to portrait his expertise as pertinent.

 

[Gill]

Correct, but a conglomerate of sensible people in multiple fields are. To give you an example, think of a plane. There are hundreds of people involved in the design of a Boeing, and not a single one is qualified to design a commercial airliner. However, the collective set of engineers who have an extremely precise skill set can work together to design a plane. Much the same that the IPCC consists of thousands of scientists in a wide variety of fields all working together to give a final recommendation. Vic claiming his training (and I'm not trying to take anything away from that training) gives him adequate background as an expert in the field is tantamount to a pilot telling the engineers how to best design their plane.


No, and that wasn't my point. He was claiming to be an authority due to his training. I was merely telling him to get some more training if he wants to portrait his expertise as pertinent.

I would say that, although Vic is not a climatologist, he has vastly more knowledge of the weather AND the climate than just about anyone else on this forum. Knowledge of climate IS a required skill set for meteorologists.

By the way, the IPCC reports are NOT written by "thousands" of scientists. It is actually written by only a couple hundred.

 

[MachuPicchu]

I would say that, although Vic is not a climatologist, he has vastly more knowledge of the weather AND the climate than just about anyone else on this forum. Knowledge of climate IS a required skill set for meteorologists.

So, what you're saying is that we could reasonably expect a pilot to design a plane? He might have a better broad stroke understanding of what these concepts are, but that hardly leads to him being a more credible authority on the subject.

By the way, the IPCC reports are NOT written by "thousands" of scientists. It is actually written by only a couple hundred.

They compile data and information from thousands of scientists. Regardless, how is this technicality pertinent?

 

[Renae]

All of that training, yet you have no concept between weather and climate???

You are SOOO right MG, I don't know. It couldn't be that you guys throw that line out there because you have NOTHING ELSE but a lame snide remark, like "Well my Daddy can beat up your daddy!".

But keep using it if you must, show us all how much you OH SO understand what's being discussed. :roll::roll::roll:

 

[Renae]

Well that makes more sense. You are absolutely not qualified to predict the weather/climate decades from now but I can see why you might jump to that conclusion. Go back and have them give you some training in climatology so we can have a sensible discussion.

If that stands as reason, then you have nothing to add either.

And for your information, climatology, and meteorology, are intimately intertwined. You cannot do one... without the other.

OH, that' right.. that's such a witty line to use, makes you look ever so smart and snappy...

Maybe you've read the the AMS journal.. the

Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology

Yeah see, two separate sciences, obviously. the descriptor of the journal proves you can only have experience in one field or the other and never the twain shall meet!

Published monthly by the American Meteorological Society, the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology covers applied research related to physical meteorology, weather modification, satellite meteorology, radar meteorology, boundary layer processes, air pollution meteorology (including dispersion and chemical processes), agricultural and forest meteorology, and applied meteorological numerical models. The journal also covers applied climatology research related to the use of climate information in decision making, impact assessments, seasonal climate forecast applications and verification, climate risk and vulnerability, development of climate monitoring tools, urban and local climates, and climate as it relates to the environment and society.

 

[Renae]

MrVicchio,

Three quick things:

1) Meteorology and climatology are separate fields.

2) Polar front theory deals with cyclogenesis (storm formation for those who are not familiar with the term), not climate change.

3) Applying climate to forecasting longer-range patterns, e.g., identifying analogs from past seasons and drawing some insights from those seasons, is also distinct from analyzing climate change.

1. Separate fields of study... it's just prognostication, (or mostly study of past weather) on a larger scale over a bigger period of time.


2. That's an interesting conclusion to draw, why is it controversial?

3. While you do have a point, you gotta understand one, before you can make any thought on the other...

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

One per day now I see, you're just about to rival rev and his antics against Obama during the primaries then general election.

Oooh poor Jfuh, gotta get a mantrum trolling hissy fit in on the rev for posting about a political figure on a debate forum.


Do you need a tissue? :roll::rofl

 

[MachuPicchu]

If that stands as reason, then you have nothing to add either.

Please see my response to Gill. I was not the one trying to cement myself as an expert in the field.

And for your information, climatology, and meteorology, are intimately intertwined. You cannot do one... without the other.

And? Pilots fly a plane that engineers designed. That doesn't make Aviation and Aeronautical Engineering interchangeable fields.

 

[donsutherland1]

1. Separate fields of study... it's just prognostication, (or mostly study of past weather) on a larger scale over a bigger period of time.

It's not just the study of past weather, but also the dynamics responsible for long-term shifts e.g., forcings. If it were strictly a matter of the past, one would be locked into the idea that natural forcings, alone, can only explain climate change. The fact is, the relationship between natural forcings and global temperatures has deteriorated after 1950. Some additional factor has been contributing. The rise in greenhouse gas concentrations appears to reasonably explain what has happened. That rise has not been solely due to natural factors. There is an anthropogenic contribution.

2. That's an interesting conclusion to draw, why is it controversial?

Polar front theory is a foundation of synoptic meteorology. Yes, the theory is two-dimensional so to speak--and it had to be, as the tools to study the atmospheric circulation in three dimensions did not exist at the time Vilhelm Bjerknes developed the idea--it applies to mid-latitude cyclogenesis, it does not consider ocean-atmosphere feedbacks, but its limitations are not relevant to the climate change issue. Polar front theory does not address climate change.

 

[Renae]

Please see my response to Gill. I was not the one trying to cement myself as an expert in the field.

Neither am I. I just get really irked when a forum genius like Jfuh, tells me to go to the library and get learned on the subject because I happen to disagree with him. See, I don't portend to be the end all of knowledge on the subject. I merely hold a point of view shared by many, based on personal and professional experience.

And? Pilots fly a plane that engineers designed. That doesn't make Aviation and Aeronautical Engineering interchangeable fields.

Your right it doesn't, but you refuse, REFUSE to concede the point, you're just being obtuse now.

 

[Renae]

It's not just the study of past weather, but also the dynamics responsible for long-term shifts e.g., forcings. If it were strictly a matter of the past, one would be locked into the idea that natural forcings, alone, can only explain climate change. The fact is, the relationship between natural forcings and global temperatures has deteriorated after 1950. Some additional factor has been contributing. The rise in greenhouse gas concentrations appears to reasonably explain what has happened. That rise has not been solely due to natural factors. There is an anthropogenic contribution.

Not bad, but you are also drawing a conclusion based on limited data. There is ample climate data out there, like say the midevil warming period, to show how temps can rise without mans input.

We "assume" it's man that is the culprit, what if were wrong?

Polar front theory is a foundation of synoptic meteorology. Yes, the theory is two-dimensional so to speak--and it had to be, as the tools to study the atmospheric circulation in three dimensions did not exist at the time Vilhelm Bjerknes developed the idea--it applies to mid-latitude cyclogenesis, it does not consider ocean-atmosphere feedbacks, but its limitations are not relevant to the climate change issue. Polar front theory does not address climate change.

I never said it did, I merely was being fancy I also know plenty of forecasters that detest the Polar Front line of thought all together. Fun watching em argue over it at a pub.

 

[MachuPicchu]

Neither am I. I just get really irked when a forum genius like Jfuh, tells me to go to the library and get learned on the subject because I happen to disagree with him. See, I don't portend to be the end all of knowledge on the subject. I merely hold a point of view shared by many, based on personal and professional experience.

Fair enough.

Your right it doesn't, but you refuse, REFUSE to concede the point, you're just being obtuse now.

What point? That meteorology and climatology are interrelated? At no point was I refusing to concede that point and it is absurd to make that claim. I just wanted to be clear that experts in meteorology aren't any more qualified to make educated assertions than the rest of us just because of a familiarity with some of the subject matter.

If all you want is an apology from Jfuh for claiming that you should read some more information on the subject matter, then your beef is with him. However, with your training it seems perfectly reasonable to ask you to familiarize yourself with the science before debating and to not just assume your background qualifies you as an expert.