Forecasting Denial: Why Are TV Weathercasters Ignoring Climate Change?

[Ed Lizard]

I guess choosing engineering because they tend to make good money out of college does suggest I am a capitalist. Nailed me on that. (Technically, excluding investments in mutual funds, meaning I do own a small part of the means of production, I actually work for a capitalist and am just a cog in the machine).

Only Art History majors can really be trusted.

[stormtracker]

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.

lolz

[Ed Lizard]

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.

Blizzard has a met degree but doesn't agree with the majority, so he just is wrong, I assume. I sometimes lurk for the LEK/trixie discussions. And I'm not even sure LEK is a "denier", but it makes for entertaining reading.

[FloridaJohn]

Blizzard has a met degree but doesn't agree with the majority, so he just is wrong, I assume. I sometimes lurk for the LEK/trixie discussions. And I'm not even sure LEK is a "denier", but it makes for entertaining reading.

I wasn't talking about forum members, but actual 'scientists at large' like Jeff Masters, who you mentioned. I really am interested in hearing how you determine the credibility of sources. I am trying to learn here, really.

[skierinvermont]

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.

Excellent questions. I believe the topic of how people acquire and retain information is very important. The vast majority of people have a very un-scientific and anti-expert/authority way of thinking which I believe is unfortunate. When I want to learn something about economics, I read peer-reviewed economics papers (where there is much diversity but also some consensus) or at least media-coverage of economists. When I want to learn about weather, I read peer-reviewed weather papers, talk to meteorologists (preferably with high-level degrees), read books by meteorologists, or read media coverage of meteorologists. When I want to learn math, I talk to a math professor or take a math class. When I want to learn climate physics, I talk to a climate scientists, read peer-reviewed climate science, or read media coverage of climate scientists.

Unfortunately, most people don't act like this.

[WeatherRusty]

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.

If I were you, I wouldn't base my belief or lack thereof on what posters in this forum have to say. I mostly regurgitate what I have learned from what I consider to be reputable scientific sources...not the MSM or blogs with a bias......If this information matches up well with my scientific background of knowledge then my knowledge grows. If I detect a disconnect with mainstream science I ignore the new information for the time being.

My particular emphasis and interest lies in the area of radiative forcing in climate. This is the meat and potatoes of AGW science. If people choose not to trust what information I have brought to this forum along those lines, they are free to do their own research based on my provocation. This is science at it's heart devoid of any political overtones.

If you find the word denier offensive, that is because you bring emotional baggage to your inference. You deny the scientific consensus, I don't know of a better way to put it.

[WeatherRusty]

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.

Wow....excellent point!

Also, the reason methane carries 25 times the global warming potential over a 100 year time horizon is simply because it is starting from such a low concentration. It is the doubling which is important, not the absolute quantity. 50 to 100 is much easier to accomplish than 500 to 1000.

[skierinvermont]

If I were you, I wouldn't base my belief or lack thereof on what posters in this forum have to say. I mostly regurgitate what I have learned from what I consider to be reputable scientific sources...not the MSM or blogs with a bias......If this information matches up well with my scientific background of knowledge then my knowledge grows. If I detect a disconnect with mainstream science I ignore the new information for the time being.

My particular emphasis and interest lies in the area of radiative forcing in climate. This is the meat and potatoes of AGW science. If people choose not to trust what information I have brought to this forum along those lines, they are free to due their own research based on my provocation. This is science at it's heart devoid of any political overtones.

If you find the word denier offensive, that is because you bring emotional baggage to your inference. You deny the scientific consensus, I don't know of a better way to put it.

I agree ultimately trusting the opinion of other posters is a bad way to acquire information. But the truth is that is how all of us form the majority of our opinions. Even the most informed people are usually only informed on a small set of issues and form the rest of their opinions socially. Ideally we would all be directly informed on everything, but there are worse ways of forming opinions than listening to what Don has to say. Honestly, on some political issues on which I am less than fully informed, Don has personally influenced my opinions.

Trusting Metfan on the other hand, would be a very bad way of forming opinions.

[WeatherRusty]

I agree ultimately trusting the opinion of other posters is a bad way to acquire information. But the truth is that is how all of us form the majority of our opinions. Even the most informed people are usually only informed on a small set of issues and form the rest of their opinions socially. Ideally we would all be directly informed on everything, but there are worse ways of forming opinions than listening to what Don has to say. Honestly, on some political issues on which I am less than fully informed, Don has personally influenced my opinions.

Trusting Metfan on the other hand, would be a very bad way of forming opinions.

I agree, but the true denier of contemporary climate science will no more trust what Don has to say than they will James Hansen. It's like trying to convince a fundamentalist Christian of the validity in biological evolution. Good luck!

[vortmax]

It's like trying to convince a fundamentalist Christian of the validity in biological evolution. Good luck!

My Atheist brother has a PhD in Microbiology and severely questions the validity of biological evolution...just saying.

[tacoman25]

I think of y'all more like Flat Earth people. you're still irrelevant in a science-based discussion.

and the science is settled re: the driving force of global warming is human activity. lots of other issues are open for debate, but that is almost 100% agreed on by the experts, who hold higher science degrees than you do, and whose degrees are in the fields directly related to climate science. also, folks with degrees in your field yield the highest percentage of deniers, further discrediting your already incorrect assertions in this thread.

Many of the people that you and others in this forum have labeled deniers don't deny this. Which is why I have tried to make the point that this issue isn't a simple us vs. them, black/white.

[ORH_wxman]

Many of the people that you and others in this forum have labeled deniers don't deny this. Which is why I have tried to make the point that this issue isn't a simple us vs. them, black/white.

Do not even try convincing her anymore. She labeled me a denier the other day. Exactly what I was denying, I'm not sure.

Usually those who try and paint climate science as a "black vs white" type deal, are already going in with some sort of agenda, or at the very least, extremely close minded thinking.

[tacoman25]

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%

Just because they are probably the most scientific person on staff if they actually have a met degree doesn't mean they are qualified to act as an expert on anything science-related, or that they should be expected to be. Of course most are going to answer yes to that question, as probably no one else on staff would have any scientific training.

[TerryM]

Taco, ORH

I see the distinction you're attempting to make, but if you expended half as much effort in arguing against those you perceive as "real deniers" as you do denying being deniers you might make more converts.

Bliz has blathered on for days about water vapor as if it were relevant to the discussion & as always it takes someone from our side of the aisle to correct him. Snow goes on ad - nauseum with whatever his favorite BS of the month is and all we hear is silence from you. How are we supposed to differentiate all these supposed shadings when you act in lock step to condemn what we like to refer to as the realist position & sit on your hands when preposterous claims are made that denigrate climate science and climate scientists.

This thread hasn't been a bad litmus test. Anyone who has actually read the article can see that a preponderance of TV Weatherpeople are not only ill informed about global warming, but also that they don't perceive this weakness in their education. They also feel that they're the science spokesperson for their station. Instead of condemning the situation and proffering suggestions to alleviate it all I hear is "their side does it too", "they probably don't let the public in on their denial" and "the stations I listen to don't have this problem."

The thread really wasn't about whether Sandy was man made, how duplicitous a weatherman can be or whether it's a problem in every station in every market.

If you really want us to believe that there is this vast gap between your position and those quoting Watts and Tisdale you'll have to start reacting to their pronouncements with the same disdain that you presently reserve for those quoting Hansen or Gore.

There really are only two sides in this debate. Either AGW is real, serious and demanding of serious efforts to mitigate or it's not real, is trivial and isn't something we should be spending large amounts of our dwindling resources on. There really isn't much of a fence to straddle.

Terry

[FloridaJohn]

Just because they are probably the most scientific person on staff if they actually have a met degree doesn't mean they are qualified to act as an expert on anything science-related, or that they should be expected to be. Of course most are going to answer yes to that question, as probably no one else on staff would have any scientific training.

That is certainly one of the many conclusions that can be made from the results of this survey.

[FloridaJohn]

Just to get this thread back on track, I did a little snooping around YouTube to see what sort of things TV weatherpersons are saying about climate. Here are a couple of various levels of interest.

Here is part of WBZ's Mish Michaels community talk on climate. She shows part of a recent story she had done (back in 2009) about how the local wildlife has been affected by climate change and what is being done about it. Kind of an interesting story, although it is not the main part of the story. It does show how TV mets are doing community outreach on this subject and the type of reporting they are doing related to climate.

Here is Chad Myers of CNN. First he says he believes the globe is warming and that man has something to do with it. Then he says that TV mets don't believe climate scientists because "even a 15 day forecast can be wrong." Then he says that climate scientists are corrupt because if they didn't predict the globe was warming, they wouldn't have a job. A perfect example of this survey.

Denver TV meteorologist Mike Nelson discussing recent records as they relate to climate change with a definite statement from him on his opinion.

Next up is CNN meteorologist Alexandra Steele bringing up climate change during the "chit-chat" phase of the weather report.

Finally, here is Glenn Beck being Glenn Beck interviewing TV met James Spann about how untrue climate change is. Lots of denier content in this one. Not much impartial science in this segment. Watch at your own risk!

There's a bunch more, but I think this demonstrates how climate change science is getting out to the general public, for better or worse.

[tacoman25]

Just to get this thread back on track, I did a little snooping around YouTube to see what sort of things TV weatherpersons are saying about climate. Here are a couple of various levels of interest.

Here is part of WBZ's Mish Michaels community talk on climate. She shows part of a recent story she had done (back in 2009) about how the local wildlife has been affected by climate change and what is being done about it. Kind of an interesting story, although it is not the main part of the story. It does show how TV mets are doing community outreach on this subject and the type of reporting they are doing related to climate.

Here is Chad Myers of CNN. First he says he believes the globe is warming and that man has something to do with it. Then he says that TV mets don't believe climate scientists because "even a 15 day forecast can be wrong." Then he says that climate scientists are corrupt because if they didn't predict the globe was warming, they wouldn't have a job. A perfect example of this survey.

Denver TV meteorologist Mike Nelson discussing recent records as they relate to climate change with a definite statement from him on his opinion.

Next up is CNN meteorologist Alexandra Steele bringing up climate change during the "chit-chat" phase of the weather report.

Finally, here is Glenn Beck being Glenn Beck interviewing TV met James Spann about how untrue climate change is. Lots of denier content in this one. Not much impartial science in this segment. Watch at your own risk!

There's a bunch more, but I think this demonstrates how climate change science is getting out to the general public, for better or worse.

This perfectly supports my point from earlier in this thread. From what I've seen and the general sense I get from the weather person community, when most TV mets mention climate change to the public, it is usually not in denial of it. It is much more likely to be in making some kind of connection between the current weather and climate change.

From posts early in this thread, you'd assume that most TV mets are telling their audience that AGW is a fraud.

[BlizzardWx]

Whether right or wrong, running around calling people "deniers" is awful arrogant if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those so-called deniers you speak of, as I agree that AGW is something we should concern ourselves with, just maybe not as much as the next guy.

[WeatherRusty]

My Atheist brother has a PhD in Microbiology and severely questions the validity of biological evolution...just saying.

It is quite unfortunate that your brother finds one of the great achievements of modern science untenable in his own estimation. Denial of scientific findings and the scientific consensus is not limited to climate science. People finding scientific revelations threatening their cherished belief system in some way will tend to reject the science out of hand, and fight to ensure the scientific view is held in contempt by as many as possible.

[skierinvermont]

Whether right or wrong, running around calling people "deniers" is awful arrogant if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those so-called deniers you speak of, as I agree that AGW is something we should concern ourselves with, just maybe not as much as the next guy.

The people that deny the significant human impact on climate are really fairly comparable to flat-earthers. I see no problem in calling them deniers. If someone had a remotely tenable argument that wasn't a complete lie, manipulation, or just plain ignorant then I'd refrain from using the term denier. The evidence for human impact on climate is scientifically comparable to the evidence the earth is round.

I see no reason to differentiate the two, other than not offending people.

[blizzard1024]

The people that deny the significant human impact on climate are really fairly comparable to flat-earthers. I see no problem in calling them deniers. If someone had a remotely tenable argument that wasn't a complete lie, manipulation, or just plain ignorant then I'd refrain from using the term denier. The evidence for human impact on climate is scientifically comparable to the evidence the earth is round.

I see no reason to differentiate the two, other than not offending people.

I have been trying to stay off this forum. In fact I was considering leaving it for good (wouldn't that make some of you folks happy!!!) . But I just can't stay off because of statements like this one. Flat earther! You have got to be kidding me! This points to an incredible nativity and arrogance about our atmosphere, weather and especially our climate system. To compare our complex climate system to something as simple as the premise that the earth is round is ludicrous. We have satellites and even before then, they were able to crudely measure that there was some curvature based on the height of the stars/planets at different latitudes and also by sailing around the world!!! These are real world measurements. This is simple stuff.

To compare the complex climate system which includes weather and our atmosphere to something as simple as a round earth shows a tremendous lack of understanding of the complexities of our atmosphere. I take offense to people with views like this. This is MY profession and PASSION for over 20 years and by the way I have a B.S and M.S in Meteorology from Penn State which is no easy task and I also have peer-reviewed publications in AMS journals. Imagine that. I also have extensive coursework in the Earth's climate and climate change like I have stated before. I have been involved in producing training for NOAA on paleoclimatology and actually have given presentations on man-made global warming...yes...I have. And I do it with great passion and concern because even if there is a chance we could ruin our climate it concerns me. I don't believe we should take chances on our Earth's climate system, ecosystems etc that my kids and grandkids(someday) may have to deal with. Can you believe that? And I don't believe the third world nation are going to do anything. So we are in for an atmosphere with much greater CO2 down the road.

But on a PERSONAL basis, I am NOT sold on the idea of CAGW from CO2. I am NOT a "denier" or "flat earther". I do believe there is some influence with increasing GHGs but the degree of influence in my mind is uncertain. I believe the Earth's climate system is much more resilient that many of you think based on the extensive coursework I have taken in paleoclimatology. Don't call me a flat earther! You and select others show how naive you are about the climate system by calling people like me and others with a healthy amount of scientific skepticism, deniers etc, that YOU lose credibility.

I have read the many great resources pinned at the top of this thread among many other PEER REVIEWED literarure...not junk science or WUWT or others.

The effect of cloud cover...water vapor feedbacks and tropical convection at higher altitudes in particular are three main sources of uncertainty and could mean the difference between a paltry 1-2C of warming to 5-6C of warming(this would be bad). To say climate scientists have this all figured out is very naive and shows a profound lack of understanding of these complex systems and I believe arrogance.

This is why I believe TV mets stay away from all this. It gets too much into people's belief systems that the science becomes faith based like a religion. That is another story. Gotta go to work and forecast the weather now. take care.

[bluewave]

I have been trying to stay off this forum. In fact I was considering leaving it for good (wouldn't that make some of you folks happy!!!) . But I just can't stay off because of statements like this one. Flat earther! You have got to be kidding me! This points to an incredible nativity and arrogance about our atmosphere, weather and especially our climate system. To compare our complex climate system to something as simple as the premise that the earth is round is ludicrous. We have satellites and even before then, they were able to crudely measure that there was some curvature based on the height of the stars/planets at different latitudes and also by sailing around the world!!! These are real world measurements. This is simple stuff.

To compare the complex climate system which includes weather and our atmosphere to something as simple as a round earth shows a tremendous lack of understanding of the complexities of our atmosphere. I take offense to people with views like this. This is MY profession and PASSION for over 20 years and by the way I have a B.S and M.S in Meteorology from Penn State which is no easy task and I also have peer-reviewed publications in AMS journals. Imagine that. I also have extensive coursework in the Earth's climate and climate change like I have stated before. I have been involved in producing training for NOAA on paleoclimatology and actually have given presentations on man-made global warming...yes...I have. And I do it with great passion and concern because even if there is a chance we could ruin our climate it concerns me. I don't believe we should take chances on our Earth's climate system, ecosystems etc that my kids and grandkids(someday) may have to deal with. Can you believe that? And I don't believe the third world nation are going to do anything. So we are in for an atmosphere with much greater CO2 down the road.

But on a PERSONAL basis, I am NOT sold on the idea of CAGW from CO2. I am NOT a "denier" or "flat earther". I do believe there is some influence with increasing GHGs but the degree of influence in my mind is uncertain. I believe the Earth's climate system is much more resilient that many of you think based on the extensive coursework I have taken in paleoclimatology. Don't call me a flat earther! You and select others show how naive you are about the climate system by calling people like me and others with a healthy amount of scientific skepticism, deniers etc, that YOU lose credibility.

I have read the many great resources pinned at the top of this thread among many other PEER REVIEWED literarure...not junk science or WUWT or others.

The effect of cloud cover...water vapor feedbacks and tropical convection at higher altitudes in particular are three main sources of uncertainty and could mean the difference between a paltry 1-2C of warming to 5-6C of warming(this would be bad). To say climate scientists have this all figured out is very naive and shows a profound lack of understanding of these complex systems and I believe arrogance.

This is why I believe TV mets stay away from all this. It gets too much into people's belief systems that the science becomes faith based like a religion. That is another story. Gotta go to work and forecast the weather now. take care.

Why do you think that 1-2C of warming will be paltry?

http://www.realclima...07/two-degrees/

… even a “moderate” warming of 2°C stands a strong chance of provoking drought and storm responses that could challenge civilized society, leading potentially to the conflict and suffering that go with failed states and mass migrations. Global warming of 2°C would leave the Earth warmer than it has been in millions of years, a disruption of climate conditions that have been stable for longer than the history of human agriculture. Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8°C of warming so far, a target of 2°C seems almost cavalier.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/erheblicher-anstieg-des-meeresspiegels-in-einer-welt-mit-zwei-grad-erwaermung

06/

2

4/

2

01

2

-

Sea

level

s around the world can be expected to

rise

by several metres in coming centuries, if global

warming

carries on. Even if global

warming

is limited to

2

degrees

Celsius, global-mean

sea

level

could continue to

rise

, reaching between 1.5 and 4 metres above present-day

level

s by the year

2

300, with the best estimate being at

2

.7 metres, according to a study just published in Nature Climate Change. However, emissions reductions that allow

warming

to drop below 1.5

degrees

Celsius could limit the

rise

strongly.

[blizzard1024]

if you've read everything you have claimed to have had read, and you still think that CO2 isn't the driver of AGW then you are the very definition of the Flat Earther you deride: you have plenty of evidence that the Earth isn't flat (that CO2 is the driver) and yet you dismiss it.

it'd be a lot easier to take you seriously if you could offer some kind of scientific proof, whether it's some math or links to peer-reviewed research that support your viewpoint.

I am not denying the CO2 leads to some warming....just not catastrophic warming. That is where I am,...uncertain of CAGW not AGW.

2C of warming is not that big a deal from a doubling of CO2. We already have warmed about .8C... so 1.2C additional over 50-100 years is well within the range of the Earth's climate variability. The paleo records indicate that during glaciations the rate change of climate was on the order of plus or minus 2-5C/per century and it dropped to +/- 1 to 3C/per century during the holocene. I will find the reference for you....this is basic stuff.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I have been trying to stay off this forum. In fact I was considering leaving it for good (wouldn't that make some of you folks happy!!!) . But I just can't stay off because of statements like this one. Flat earther! You have got to be kidding me! This points to an incredible nativity and arrogance about our atmosphere, weather and especially our climate system. To compare our complex climate system to something as simple as the premise that the earth is round is ludicrous. We have satellites and even before then, they were able to crudely measure that there was some curvature based on the height of the stars/planets at different latitudes and also by sailing around the world!!! These are real world measurements. This is simple stuff.

To compare the complex climate system which includes weather and our atmosphere to something as simple as a round earth shows a tremendous lack of understanding of the complexities of our atmosphere. I take offense to people with views like this. This is MY profession and PASSION for over 20 years and by the way I have a B.S and M.S in Meteorology from Penn State which is no easy task and I also have peer-reviewed publications in AMS journals. Imagine that. I also have extensive coursework in the Earth's climate and climate change like I have stated before. I have been involved in producing training for NOAA on paleoclimatology and actually have given presentations on man-made global warming...yes...I have. And I do it with great passion and concern because even if there is a chance we could ruin our climate it concerns me. I don't believe we should take chances on our Earth's climate system, ecosystems etc that my kids and grandkids(someday) may have to deal with. Can you believe that? And I don't believe the third world nation are going to do anything. So we are in for an atmosphere with much greater CO2 down the road.

But on a PERSONAL basis, I am NOT sold on the idea of CAGW from CO2. I am NOT a "denier" or "flat earther". I do believe there is some influence with increasing GHGs but the degree of influence in my mind is uncertain. I believe the Earth's climate system is much more resilient that many of you think based on the extensive coursework I have taken in paleoclimatology. Don't call me a flat earther! You and select others show how naive you are about the climate system by calling people like me and others with a healthy amount of scientific skepticism, deniers etc, that YOU lose credibility.

I have read the many great resources pinned at the top of this thread among many other PEER REVIEWED literarure...not junk science or WUWT or others.

The effect of cloud cover...water vapor feedbacks and tropical convection at higher altitudes in particular are three main sources of uncertainty and could mean the difference between a paltry 1-2C of warming to 5-6C of warming(this would be bad). To say climate scientists have this all figured out is very naive and shows a profound lack of understanding of these complex systems and I believe arrogance.

This is why I believe TV mets stay away from all this. It gets too much into people's belief systems that the science becomes faith based like a religion. That is another story. Gotta go to work and forecast the weather now. take care.

He never said CAGW. He said significant. Like what has already happened is significant.

Anyone denying humans have had a significant role in the warmth so far us pretty comparable to a flat Earther or denier of evolution. These have incredible undeniable supporting evidence based on our perception of existance and reality.

We can't even talk about how the changes so far without it being undermined.

0.8C of warming is a pretty big deal when you consider it's not uniform.

It's obvious that AGW has pushed our climate into a warmer state. If that baseline is 1.55F. Then consider in the NH its a bit higher I think 2F. Then consider land only and it's 2.35F. Then consider regional/latitude and it can go even higher.

The GISS 23.6 to 90N has 1.3C rise from the early 20th century to now.

2.5F or so annual is nothing to sneeze at.

I think this is all fairly obvious. Some places are effected more than others.

NCDC has the conus .13C warmer per decace over nearly 12 decades. So roughly 2.3F or so for the conus.

for my region we are not way above records every year. 2012 is the new record. But more than that since 1997 its the abruptness towarfs the lack of cold years, months however you define it. And now we smoke the annual record.

Like smoke it bad. Its gotta be a 1 in 500 yr event.

As it stands its going down by 1.5F maybe closer to 2.0F.

instead of taking about it as something so far Epically anomolous and trying to put some level on its relevance to AGW.

Its clouded by opposition to AGW talking about marginal cold or even Severe cold, but it's never like the warmth we have seen. Even going back to the late 1880's. Nothing for my area or the CONUS is comparable in cold terms to what this year has been in terms of warmth. It's the same on the global temperature record.No one is saying this is the new level we are at and it's never going back.We are saying within the realm of pattern swings, the average to extreme natural patterns comparable record cold isn't coming.What is wrong with talking to the public to expect a warmer climate more a mix of a blend of the 90s and 2000s.Even the 90s were colder than they should of been thanks to that volcano.We might not be smashing records annually but 2008 and 2009 get considered cold by quite a few people but when you actually check where they were it's quite a tell on where we are and what's happening.

[WeatherRusty]

I am not denying the CO2 leads to some warming....just not catastrophic warming. That is where I am,...uncertain of CAGW not AGW.

2C of warming is not that big a deal from a doubling of CO2. We already have warmed about .8C... so 1.2C additional over 50-100 years is well within the range of the Earth's climate variability. The paleo records indicate that during glaciations the rate change of climate was on the order of plus or minus 2-5C/per century and it dropped to +/- 1 to 3C/per century during the holocene. I will find the reference for you....this is basic stuff.

blizzard....

I just realized something. From reading this and your previous post, it is evident to me that your thinking is actually right in line with what most of us here proclaim and what the science of climate change is telling us. We are not so far apart after all.

Without trying to offend your sensibilities, you seem to think...as does Will ( ORH_wxman) that folks like skier and I favor high climate sensitivity and view the worst possible outcome as the most likely. This is just not the case, however the worst cases scenarios can not be excluded either. If we take the middle ground as most likely (near 3C per doubling of CO2), that is plenty bad enough. As I am sure you are aware, the Earth has not experienced temperature that high for more than 15 million years. What would that do to world wide sea level?

Please do not leave the forum, we would not be happy to see you go. It is evident you have a lot to offer, especially if we can get past the contentiousness. You are not a full denier.....but at the same time you have found reason to dismiss the full range of impact potential given the levels of uncertainty remaining in the science. Let's discuss.

[tacoman25]

It is quite unfortunate that your brother finds one of the great achievements of modern science untenable in his own estimation. Denial of scientific findings and the scientific consensus is not limited to climate science. People finding scientific revelations threatening their cherished belief system in some way will tend to reject the science out of hand, and fight to ensure the scientific view is held in contempt by as many as possible.

And sometimes scientific "achievements" become so cherished that any challenge to them is automatically rejected.

People will be people, whether they are scientists or not.

[tacoman25]

The people that deny the significant human impact on climate are really fairly comparable to flat-earthers. I see no problem in calling them deniers. If someone had a remotely tenable argument that wasn't a complete lie, manipulation, or just plain ignorant then I'd refrain from using the term denier. The evidence for human impact on climate is scientifically comparable to the evidence the earth is round.

I see no reason to differentiate the two, other than not offending people.

But again, a lot of people who DO NOT DENY that humans are impacting the climate are still labeled deniers by people on here. The inability of some posters to differentiate is both frustrating and troubling.

It is possible to acknowledge how AGW has impacted the climate to this point, and still be skeptical of catastrophic projections for AGW in the future. That doesn't make one a denier or flat-earther by any means.

[WeatherRusty]

And sometimes scientific "achievements" become so cherished that any challenge to them is automatically rejected.

People will be people, whether they are scientists or not.

Except that AGW has not received any serious scientific challenge. People take issue with it for many reasons, few of which are grounded in any scientific research which can be taken seriously.

[tacoman25]

Except that AGW has not received any serious scientific challenge. People take issue with it for many reasons, few of which are grounded in any scientific research which can be taken seriously.

You missed my point. People become attached emotionally to ideas, and sometimes those ideas become sacred, whether they be in science or not. It's not like science is immune to this. And I'm not just talking about ideas relating to AGW.

[WeatherRusty]

You missed my point. People become attached emotionally to ideas, and sometimes those ideas become sacred, whether they be in science or not. It's not like science is immune to this. And I'm not just talking about ideas relating to AGW.

I agree, but I though you we implying all of AGW to be etched in stone as a "settled science" from the perspective of it's adherents. Skeptical disagreement over AGW is empty absent concrete research and evidence which falsifies it.

How can you be skeptical of CAGW when that possibility can not be ruled out?