Forecasting Denial: Why Are TV Weathercasters Ignoring Climate Change?

[skierinvermont]

I cannot agree with this. GCM's are a fundamental part of future climate predictions - which range from relatively mild and inconvenient, to undoubtedly catastrophic. So to argue that catastrophic AGW theories are not really dependent on climate models, which attempt to show the effects of different sensitivities, is just not true.

Climate models are widely used to simulate climate, yes. But estimates of climate sensitivity are not reliant upon models (which is what I said and what you say you are disagreeing with). Estimates of climate sensitivity range from 2-4.5C with or without the use of climate models. Thus far, climate models have not signficantly assisted in narrowing the range of uncertainty. They are one of many lines of corroborating evidence.

[WeatherRusty]

I read those papers and I am not lying. I really still think the ice-albedo effect is dominate and CO2 passively follows the temperature trends in the ice core data. Again, these are my thoughts and who I am? I think looking at the Vostok Ice cores tells it all...CO2 passively follows temperatures due to oceanic temperature changes which becomes more soluble during cold times. Nothing I have read has convinced me otherwise....have any more papers??? Seriously I am trying to understand this more and you did provide excellent information before but not convincing to me. I will check the great references above at the top of this forum for now.

Also someone else above stated that H20 is the dominate GHG. YES I KNOW this but then how does a minor GHG somehow dominate over the major GHG. I know CO2 is long-lived and H20 isn't. But if H20 vapor rains out more as an example, we lose GHGs. We need to be measuring the total GHG effect in the atmosphere with satellites and see if the trends are positive. It needs to be measured then I will become more convinced. I prefer measurements. Are there good measurements of precipitable water trends? I know the upper troposphere is where the uncertainty lies here and this is problematic. Also are there any good datasets that show the variations in cloud cover vs temperature in the long term? That would answer a lot of questions I believe. But I don't think we have any reliable datasets on this either.

Look guys and gals, I am TRYING to get on board here as I give outreach talks on climate change and they are very well received. I always stick to NOAAs computer modeling as the "evidence" of major AGW because my audiences who are general public would not understand a lot of the glacial-interglacial feedback estimates. I actually enjoy showing how our climate has changed in the last 50-100 years and what this has done locally. That is the main part of my outreach and then I go into the computer model projections and what it could mean. I never offer my own opinions as I stated above. Its not my place as long as I work for NOAA of which I plan to do for a long time.

Yes, rising CO2 follows warming in the ice cores by typically 800 years. CO2 is acting initially as a feedback to a warming climate. Of course once in the atmosphere the CO2 then adds to the warming.

Near constant RH is an emergent quality of all climate models. So as temp rises so does global specific humidity and water vapor. With water vapor so tied to temperature, the growing long lived greenhouse gases are exerting their global warming potential on the system which should increase temperature and the saturation vapor pressure of water. Just a small rise in temp causes an exponential increase in saturation vapor pressure, and under the assumption of constant RH an increase in water vapor.

The increasing greenhouse effect has been observed spectroscopically from both the surface and satellite, with the increasing absorption by CO2 and CH4 clearly evident in the absorption spectrum.

[LocoAko]

You are correct here. But there are people who say the science is settled even on this forum and those who want to dig deeper and learn

or convince themselves of potential major issued are chided. I agree anything over 2-3C would be bad for many people world wide.

I agree that we should not take chances either and I am worried that if these theories are true my children's and grandchildren's world

will be a different place. But I am very fearful of the developing world and their increased burning of fossil fuels, particularly coal.

If these theories are true and the models are on target, it is going to get ugly. But it is decades away (possibly) and that is why

there likely will be inaction, unfortunately as that is what society does. Looks at the national debt or how many people smoke who know

long term it can be fatal but still do because it is not noticeable now.

Yes, there are crackpots on both sides I agree. I agree that on this forum we should strive to discuss science only and leave anger, hostility, name calling out of the discussions. Right now, my position IS a "lukewarmer"...maybe another 1C or so by the end the century. That's my "forecast". I hope I am right but of course I am not certain of this by no means. I think the feedbacks are overdone...just my opinion. So I am not that far off from many of you. Thanks.

Just curious - why?

[LocoAko]

But as meteorologists (and this only refers to actual degreed mets, which as we have all acknowledged is far from everyone on TV), your specialty is in one type of science - meteorlogy. That doesn't make you qualified to explain climate change to the masses, just as a climatology degree doesn't qualify one to make weather forecasts. And in both cases, that's not the job description.

Some TV mets are no doubt well informed on climate science. But it's just not their job to communicate climate science to their audience. Just as it's not their job to explain biology, astronomy, chemistry, or other fields of science. It's a freakin' newscast, and the weather man is supposed to tell the public what the weather will be.

But you and I both know this isn't true. Have you never seen a news broadcast during an earthquake/tsunami/meteor shower/volcano/anything Earth related? The first person they go to is the meteorologist. Now we could argue all night about whether that is the right response, but it is what happens... it IS their job to explain those things when they come up.

[QVectorman]

You realize that first and foremost, TV News/weather is show business and the TV Newscast is a moneymaking enterprise, right? Its purpose is NOT to educate the public.

She already proved that she has no clue how tv works a few days ago. She needs to crawl back under her rock.

[skierinvermont]

"I read those papers and I am not lying. I really still think the ice-albedo effect is dominate and CO2 passively follows the temperature trends in the ice core data. Again, these are my thoughts and who I am? I think looking at the Vostok Ice cores tells it all...CO2 passively follows temperatures due to oceanic temperature changes which becomes more soluble during cold times. Nothing I have read has convinced me otherwise....have any more papers??? Seriously I am trying to understand this more and you did provide excellent information before but not convincing to me. I will check the great references above at the top of this forum for now.

Also someone else above stated that H20 is the dominate GHG. YES I KNOW this but then how does a minor GHG somehow dominate over the major GHG. I know CO2 is long-lived and H20 isn't. But if H20 vapor rains out more as an example, we lose GHGs. We need to be measuring the total GHG effect in the atmosphere with satellites and see if the trends are positive. It needs to be measured then I will become more convinced. I prefer measurements. Are there good measurements of precipitable water trends? I know the upper troposphere is where the uncertainty lies here and this is problematic. Also are there any good datasets that show the variations in cloud cover vs temperature in the long term? That would answer a lot of questions I believe. But I don't think we have any reliable datasets on this either.

Look guys and gals, I am TRYING to get on board here as I give outreach talks on climate change and they are very well received. I always stick to NOAAs computer modeling as the "evidence" of major AGW because my audiences who are general public would not understand a lot of the glacial-interglacial feedback estimates. I actually enjoy showing how our climate has changed in the last 50-100 years and what this has done locally. That is the main part of my outreach and then I go into the computer model projections and what it could mean. I never offer my own opinions as I stated above. Its not my place as long as I work for NOAA of which I plan to do for a long time."

Probably a good thing you deleted this post but I will respond anyways. You're still on this trip about the ice feedback being solely responsible for the interglacials? What do you mean you are not convinced? I provided you with basic calculations showing that the albedo change is not large enough to warm the earth by that magnitude. You can perform this calculation on the back of an envelope. All you need to know is the albedo of snow and ice vs land, the change in area of ice, and the average solar insolation hitting these places. The answer is about 3.5W/m2, a forcing not nearly large enough to cause the temperature variations between glacial and interglacial.

There is very good data showing an increase in tropospheric water vapor. And there is good data showing an increase in the greenhouse effect in the CO2 and CH4 emission spectrums. CO2 does not dominate over H2O. Nobody has said this. Climate science tells us the opposite. H2O dominates over CO2, in the sense that it comprises a larger portion of the greenhouse effect. Without water vapor, the earth would be much colder. Without CO2, the earth would only be moderately colder. This is simply because there is way more H2O than CO2. The H2O greenhouse effect is more saturated, so additions of H2O make a smaller marginal difference than additions of CO2.

[tacoman25]

Climate models are widely used to simulate climate, yes. But estimates of climate sensitivity are not reliant upon models (which is what I said and what you say you are disagreeing with). Estimates of climate sensitivity range from 2-4.5C with or without the use of climate models. Thus far, climate models have not signficantly assisted in narrowing the range of uncertainty. They are one of many lines of corroborating evidence.

This is what you were responding to, and what my statement pertained to:

The whole Catastrophic AGW IS based on computer models.

[tacoman25]

The science of feedbacks is not settled and no one in the science claims as much.

But those of us who question the more alarming feedback scenarios are often labeled "deniers". Or if we point out any other number of uncertainties. It's just reality, but it really seems to offend some people.

[tacoman25]

But you and I both know this isn't true. Have you never seen a news broadcast during an earthquake/tsunami/meteor shower/volcano/anything Earth related? The first person they go to is the meteorologist. Now we could argue all night about whether that is the right response, but it is what happens... it IS their job to explain those things when they come up.

I'm not sure about that...I honestly haven't noticed that, except when there is a meteor shower and the weather person comes on to talk about the viewing weather.

The general public may be dumb, but I think they are actually smart enough to realize the difference between a TV weather man and a volcanologist.

[TerryM]

Just like how everyone thought that the brontosaurus was real for 100 years.

As opposed to those who believed that they were the bones of giants & therefor proved Genesis to be a factual historic account.

The problems we discus in the forum are scientific in nature, the proof of this is that even the science deniers claim high scientific credentials. Expecting respectful responses to disrespectful questions exhibits an element of hubris usually found only in the very young or those very estranged from reality.

Part of me is inclined to feel that those who pay attention to Talking Heads are deserving of all the disinformation they ingest. Another thought is that entertainment conglomerates owe their viewers a modicum of truth when presenting subjects in which actions by the viewers might be able mitigate some of the more damaging outcomes.

If a Talking Head in LA broadcast that earthquakes were no longer a problem and that dollars spent in up grading your home to make it more quake resistant were wasted, if they insisted that State funding to reinforce bridges and tsunami warning systems were just lining politicians pockets and buying them votes, most reasonable people would be offended.

When TV Weathermen dismiss AGW, I am offended

Terry

[skierinvermont]

This is what you were responding to, and what my statement pertained to:

And that statement is true. The higher estimates of climate sensitivity, which would be catastrophic, do not rely solely upon models. Models are only one of many lines of evidence indicating the possibility of high climate sensitivity.

[LocoAko]

I'm not sure about that...I honestly haven't noticed that, except when there is a meteor shower and the weather person comes on to talk about the viewing weather.

The general public may be dumb, but I think they are actually smart enough to realize the difference between a TV weather man and a volcanologist.

Well yeah, they know the difference... it's more like, the met is treated as an "in-house scientist" rather than just a meteorologist, for better or worse. The Northeast earthquake last year had all the on-air mets talking about it... Chad Myers on CNN always talks about Earth-related things, etc.

[Dsnowx53]

can the religion stuff please be moved out of this thread? thanks.

Done.

[Ed Lizard]

I don't post much in the forum because I'm not a climate scientist, or even a met. I do have a bachelor of science degree, more than I suspect most of the non-red taggers who say the science is settled have.

If Donald Sutherland, who isn't overtly political, thinks AGW is real, I have to at least consider it. But it does seem primarily politically driven, and most of the non-taggers are scarce in the main weather forum. They seem to exist for a single forum.

And the use of "deniers" is an obnoxious attempt to compare people to Holocaust Deniers, ie, nuts, neo-Nazis, Klansman, etc.

[blizzard1024]

Probably a good thing you deleted this post but I will respond anyways. You're still on this trip about the ice feedback being solely responsible for the interglacials? What do you mean you are not convinced? I provided you with basic calculations showing that the albedo change is not large enough to warm the earth by that magnitude. You can perform this calculation on the back of an envelope. All you need to know is the albedo of snow and ice vs land, the change in area of ice, and the average solar insolation hitting these places. The answer is about 3.5W/m2, a forcing not nearly large enough to cause the temperature variations between glacial and interglacial.

There is very good data showing an increase in tropospheric water vapor. And there is good data showing an increase in the greenhouse effect in the CO2 and CH4 emission spectrums. CO2 does not dominate over H2O. Nobody has said this. Climate science tells us the opposite. H2O dominates over CO2, in the sense that it comprises a larger portion of the greenhouse effect. Without water vapor, the earth would be much colder. Without CO2, the earth would only be moderately colder. This is simply because there is way more H2O than CO2. The H2O greenhouse effect is more saturated, so additions of H2O make a smaller marginal difference than additions of CO2.

I am done on this forum. These are the same arguments over and over without conclusive proof. "CO2 does not dominate over H20" that was my point all along. So how does a minor GHG then take over the climate system? Logarithimic response to increasing GHGs is well known and also comes into play for CO2 too which has that one absorption band at 5 microns or about -50C. This forum is futile and dominated by close minded people who are "believers" in a science that is far from settled in my opinion.

[FloridaJohn]

it's more like, the met is treated as an "in-house scientist" rather than just a meteorologist, for better or worse. The Northeast earthquake last year had all the on-air mets talking about it... Chad Myers on CNN always talks about Earth-related things, etc.

Confiming that point was this question in the survey:

13. I am comfortable serving in the role as my “station’s scientist."

Strongly Agree: 34.1%

Agree: 44.9%

Neutral: 14.0%

Disagree: 5.3%

Strongly Disagree: 1.6%

[WeatherRusty]

I don't post much in the forum because I'm not a climate scientist, or even a met. I do have a bachelor of science degree, more than I suspect most of the non-red taggers who say the science is settled have.

If Donald Sutherland, who isn't overtly political, thinks AGW is real, I have to at least consider it. But it does seem primarily politically driven, and most of the non-taggers are scarce in the main weather forum. They seem to exist for a single forum.

And the use of "deniers" is an obnoxious attempt to compare people to Holocaust Deniers, ie, nuts, neo-Nazis, Klansman, etc.

When I use the term "denier" nothing is implied other than the basic definition of the word.

The goal of mitigation is politically driven, the understanding of the science is knowledge driven. There are many resources available to the lay person from which to improve their knowledge of the scientific basis for AGW.

Finally, the science IS "settled". What science you ask? The science which backs up this statement:

"The Earth is warming and human activities are the primary cause of that warming."

Notice that the statement is very general in nature and lacking in detail. All the details are not settled, but the statement is true to a near certainty.

[WeatherRusty]

I am done on this forum. These are the same arguments over and over without conclusive proof. "CO2 does not dominate over H20" that was my point all along. So how does a minor GHG then take over the climate system? Logarithimic response to increasing GHGs is well known and also comes into play for CO2 too which has that one absorption band at 5 microns or about -50C. This forum is futile and dominated by close minded people who are "believers" in a science that is far from settled in my opinion.

Here is the breakdown in contribution to the greenhouse effect by rough percentage:

water vapor: 50%

clouds: 25%

CO2: 20%

Everything else 5%

CO2 does not dominate the instantaneous greenhouse effect. It is the primary long lived greenhouse has which provides the scaffolding holding up the greenhouse effect. Without CO2 the atmospheric greenhouse effect would collapse.

[Ed Lizard]

When I use the term "denier" nothing is implied other than the basic definition of the word.

The goal of mitigation is politically driven, the understanding of the science is knowledge driven. There are many resources available to the lay person from which to improve their knowledge of the scientific basis for AGW.

Finally, the science IS "settled". What science you ask? The science which backs up this statement:

"The Earth is warming and human activities are the primary cause of that warming."

Notice that the statement is very general in nature and lacking in detail. All the details are not settled, but the statement is true to a near certainty.

Blizzard 1024 has, at minimum, a bachelor of science degree. Your credentials?

[LocoAko]

Blizzard 1024 has, at minimum, a bachelor of science degree. Your credentials?

If level of scientific education is all you care about, then what about all of the climatologists who have doctorates who strongly agree in AGW and that the "science is settled"? They have more than non-scientists do, and they have more than you do..

[WeatherRusty]

Blizzard 1024 has, at minimum, a bachelor of science degree. Your credentials?

My scientific credentials go back four decades in time. At 62 years of age I can assure you I have reading comprehension with regard to the primary literature which enables me to assimilate the many convergent individual sciences which come together to formulate AGW theory. This is a very tight, comprehensive and coherent science which makes logical sense when you gather a broad scope of information.

No one individual holds the scientific knowledge, expertise or pedigree to claim total understanding of everything....we depend on each other to bring it all together. If I can do it so can you.

[donsutherland1]

For purposes of reference, the following are the IPCC's attributions associated with temperature trends:

The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing, particularly that due to greenhouse gas increases and stratospheric ozone depletion. New analyses since the TAR show that this pattern corresponds to an increase in the height of the tropopause that is likely due largely to greenhouse gas and stratospheric ozone changes. Significant uncertainty remains in the estimation of tropospheric temperature trends, particularly from the radiosonde record. {3.2, 3.4, 9.4}

It is likely that there has been a substantial anthropogenic contribution to surface temperature increases averaged over every continent except Antarctica since the middle of the 20th century. Antarctica has insufficient observational coverage to make an assessment. Anthropogenic warming has also been identified in some sub-continental land areas. The ability of coupled climate models to simulate the temperature evolution on each of six continents provides stronger evidence of human influence on the global climate than was available in the TAR. No coupled global climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend, or the continental mean warming trends in individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century. {9.4}

Difficulties remain in attributing temperature changes at smaller than continental scales and over time scales of less than 50 years. Attribution results at these scales have, with limited exceptions, not been established. Averaging over smaller regions reduces the natural variability less than does averaging over large regions, making it more difficult to distinguish between changes expected from external forcing and variability. In addition, temperature changes associated with some modes of variability are poorly simulated by models in some regions and seasons. Furthermore, the small-scale details of external forcing and the response simulated by models are less credible than large-scale features. {8.3, 9.4}

Surface temperature extremes have likely been affected by anthropogenic forcing. Many indicators of extremes, including the annual numbers and most extreme values of warm and cold days and nights, as well as numbers of frost days, show changes that are consistent with warming. Anthropogenic influence has been detected in some of these indices, and there is evidence that anthropogenic forcing may have substantially increased the risk of extremely warm summer conditions regionally, such as the 2003 European heat wave. {9.4}

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-4-2.html

[Ed Lizard]

My scientific credentials go back four decades in time. At 62 years of age I can assure you I have reading comprehension with regard to the primary literature which enables me to assimilate the many convergent individual sciences which come together to formulate AGW theory. This is a very tight, comprehensive and coherent science which makes logical sense when you gather a broad scope of information.

No one individual holds the scientific knowledge, expertise or pedigree to claim total understanding of everything....we depend on each other to bring it all together. If I can do it so can you.

You can read propaganda and assimilate it.

I do take Donald Sutherland somewhat seriously, he obviously has looked into it and since he bothers to post weatherside it is clear he is informed. I don't accept the IPCC automatically as a panel of unbiased experts, it is a member of a political organization, the parent organization made up mostly of members that would like to see the United States diminished as a world power. As an example of someone with a science background, Jeff Master's PhD is in "pollution meteorology". No doubt real research was involved, and he has undergraduate science degrees, But the choice of major would seem to indicate he already had a strong leaning, and I'm sure his supervisors shared that leaning. If I saw you posting in the main weather threads, and saw you were a quality poster, rather than noting some people seem to be confined to climate change (and, if I had to guess, PR) I might be more inclined to accept their opinions.

But the point was non-scientists who read articles put out by people who may be reporting science or may have an agenda, ie, you, and the fact that the issue is so politically polarizing, put me in the 'don't know' camp. As I said, I don't pretend to know the actual science of climate change, or whether it is predominantly anthropogenic, but when there are scientists who don't agree, the 'science is settled'/Heidi Cullen take away their livelihoods techniques would seem to indicate either we're all going to die really soon unless we return to a medieval lifestyle or people don't like where the debate is going.

And you can claim "Denier" is not meant as a pejorative, akin to Holocaust Denier, or flat-Earther, but you are ever lying or very naive.

[Ed Lizard]

If level of scientific education is all you care about, then what about all of the climatologists who have doctorates who strongly agree in AGW and that the "science is settled"? They have more than non-scientists do, and they have more than you do..

You do have a science degree, but I know enough of your politics before Randy banned the heretic from AP when you were a student in New Jersey that I sort of put you in the camp of Jeff Masters, someone who obviously already thought he knew something. BTW, if you still can't find a job with an MS, Michigan has the PhD program in pollution meteorology.

I am a fan of the OU/severe posting, however. No snark there, either. Seriously, if I ever bought a Powerball ticket and won, I'd seriously consider applying.

I should stop now, lest I get banned from CC, although since this does mainly seem to be a proxy for AP for about half the posters, it'd be more like an extension of the AP ban.

[skierinvermont]

I don't post much in the forum because I'm not a climate scientist, or even a met. I do have a bachelor of science degree, more than I suspect most of the non-red taggers who say the science is settled have.

If Donald Sutherland, who isn't overtly political, thinks AGW is real, I have to at least consider it. But it does seem primarily politically driven, and most of the non-taggers are scarce in the main weather forum. They seem to exist for a single forum.

And the use of "deniers" is an obnoxious attempt to compare people to Holocaust Deniers, ie, nuts, neo-Nazis, Klansman, etc.

Just to point out, i do have a bachelors in science, and I do post regularly in the main forum.

Agree about Don S. Don has a very non-political, academic, systematic approach to issues. For those less experienced and who have a hard time deciphering what is and is not a reliable source on their own, Don's posts should be a major clue.

You may not know this, but I would say Rusty also falls in that camp and learns and gets his information in a very similar manner to Don S.

I've never thought of the term denier as a comparison to Nazis or Klansmen. I've always thought of it as just someone who denies the science of climate change. I've never made a Nazi comparison, and when I have seen them (by both sides) I have rejected them.

[WeatherRusty]

I am done on this forum. These are the same arguments over and over without conclusive proof. "CO2 does not dominate over H20" that was my point all along. So how does a minor GHG then take over the climate system? Logarithimic response to increasing GHGs is well known and also comes into play for CO2 too which has that one absorption band at 5 microns or about -50C. This forum is futile and dominated by close minded people who are "believers" in a science that is far from settled in my opinion.

To further my response to this post, rising CO2 concentration "takes over the climate system" by adding to radiative forcing in a sustainable way. The Earth warms when there exists a positive energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere. Adding any long term resident greenhouse gas increases that energy imbalance. On average the Earth will emit exactly the same total energy it receives from the Sun, unless that balance is perturbed as it is when adding greenhouse gases.

The temperature of the surface is forced to rise in order to restore the energy imbalance at the TOA according to the Planck Law.

[LocoAko]

You can read propaganda and assimilate it.

I do take Donald Sutherland somewhat seriously, he obviously has looked into it and since he bothers to post weatherside it is clear he is informed. I don't accept the IPCC automatically as a panel of unbiased experts, it is a member of a political organization, the parent organization made up mostly of members that would like to see the United States diminished as a world power. As an example of someone with a science background, Jeff Master's PhD is in "pollution meteorology". No doubt real research was involved, and he has undergraduate science degrees, But the choice of major would seem to indicate he already had a strong leaning, and I'm sure his supervisors shared that leaning. If I saw you posting in the main weather threads, and saw you were a quality poster, rather than noting some people seem to be confined to climate change (and, if I had to guess, PR) I might be more inclined to accept their opinions.

But the point was non-scientists who read articles put out by people who may be reporting science or may have an agenda, ie, you, and the fact that the issue is so politically polarizing, put me in the 'don't know' camp. As I said, I don't pretend to know the actual science of climate change, or whether it is predominantly anthropogenic, but when there are scientists who don't agree, the 'science is settled'/Heidi Cullen take away their livelihoods techniques would seem to indicate either we're all going to die really soon unless we return to a medieval lifestyle or people don't like where the debate is going.

And you can claim "Denier" is not meant as a pejorative, akin to Holocaust Denier, or flat-Earther, but you are ever lying or very naive.

Air pollution meteorology is a very real field, and contrary to your tone is NOT just about advocacy or environmentalism. There is plenty of modeling, research, etc. that goes on about atmospheric pollutants.

Furthermore, @ the person with the petroleum engineering degree insinuating that other people's degrees have influenced their politics and their view on AGW. That's just too good.... too good.

You do have a science degree, but I know enough of your politics before Randy banned the heretic from AP when you were a student in New Jersey that I sort of put you in the camp of Jeff Masters, someone who obviously already thought he knew something. BTW, if you still can't find a job with an MS, Michigan has the PhD program in pollution meteorology.

I am a fan of the OU/severe posting, however. No snark there, either. Seriously, if I ever bought a Powerball ticket and won, I'd seriously consider applying.

I should stop now, lest I get banned from CC, although since this does mainly seem to be a proxy for AP for about half the posters, it'd be more like an extension of the AP ban.

"Already thought I knew something"? What does that even mean? lol @ insulting my education/independent thought and then assuring me that you enjoy the fact I go to OU. Nice.

[skierinvermont]

I am done on this forum. These are the same arguments over and over without conclusive proof. "CO2 does not dominate over H20" that was my point all along. So how does a minor GHG then take over the climate system? Logarithimic response to increasing GHGs is well known and also comes into play for CO2 too which has that one absorption band at 5 microns or about -50C. This forum is futile and dominated by close minded people who are "believers" in a science that is far from settled in my opinion.

It doesn't take over the climate system. Doubling it causes a mere ~3C of warming which is a small fraction of the total greenhouse effect. Instantaneous doubling of water vapor would cause much more warming. Likewise, halving water vapor would cause much more cooling.

The difference is, water vapor is never going to come remotely close to halving or doubling in concentration. CO2 will double by mid century.

[Ed Lizard]

^^ Glad you like that.

Back to the TV set met being the 'science expert', assuming he is a degreed met, she/he is the only on-air personality who has a science degree, not a BA in communications or journalism or radio-television-film. Assuming he/she isn't a BA comm major her/himself with a 60 hour MSU green screen certificate, and even the 'meteorology for non science majors' class or two they take makes them the one eyed person in the land of the blind.

[FloridaJohn]

But the choice of major would seem to indicate he already had a strong leaning, and I'm sure his supervisors shared that leaning.

As I said, I don't pretend to know the actual science of climate change, or whether it is predominantly anthropogenic, but when there are scientists who don't agree, the 'science is settled'/Heidi Cullen take away their livelihoods techniques would seem to indicate either we're all going to die really soon unless we return to a medieval lifestyle or people don't like where the debate is going.

I have to admit that I don't quite understand your point, so you will probably need to clarify it for me. But is sounds to me like you believe that if someone has studied in a particular specialty of science (whatever that might be), that they then have a built-in bias towards that science.

However, on the other hand, if someone does not have any expertise in a specific area, then they are not qualified to speak on the matter.

You can't trust the people who have dedicated their careers to a subject, and you can't trust the people who have never formally studied the subject. So, where does that leave you? There is no one left that can answer your questions.

How do you determine that there are "scientists who don't agree?" By normal news media channels, the internet (and all that entails), or by reading the scientific literature? How do you determine which information is factual and what is not, given your above criteria?

I know you are aware of the scientific method, and the reason for it's invention (to remove scientist bias from experiments). If you don't believe that is working, what do you propose to replace it? Has it worked in other fields besides climatology? Why do scientists in other fields have more credibility than those in the climate sciences? Or do they?

I'm sure I am misunderstanding you, because it seems to me that you have convinced yourself that there is no way anyone in the climate sciences can know what they are talking about, and that seems a little illogical to me. I'm not trying to offend, but I don't really get what you are trying to say.