ORH_wxman Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 8 hours ago, WidreMann said: If he's going to work for the Cato Institution, he's a denier, or is otherwise enabling them and that movement. Well that is stretching the definition of a denier. That's going down a speculative road. You can certainly have an opinion what his motives are for working there...It could be money or it could be he actually is a secret denier...but it doesn't make it fact. He doesn't go against the basic science of energy imbalance (3.7 watts per meter squared per doubling) and doesn't dispute any of the other solid consensus positions of climate change. Thus, I think it is entirely incorrect to label him a denier. You have to prove he disputes overwhelming literature in climate science. He's penned multiple articles on how climate change influences tropical systems and cites most of the top mainstream literature on it. It typically doesn't have content that extreme climate alarmists want to hear, so he will get a lot of negative marks amongst that group and achieve the factually unsupported label of denier. His writings definitely aren't supportive of extreme measures against climate change...that's probably a fair description. But there is a distinct difference between that and an actual climate denier. One has plenty of mainstream scientific literature to back their position and the other does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 On 10/7/2017 at 4:44 PM, ORH_wxman said: Maue isn't a climate denier though. He worked with one (Bastardi)...but Maue spends a lot of time debunking some of the hysteria over hurricanes and climate change which does make a lot of climate alarmists angry and sticks him with the denier tag. Yeah this is what I tend to see more of too. People immediately went nuts claiming no storm ever intensified like Harvey did but where were these people the last 11 years of virtually no NATL activity or when Opal underwent RI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 It appears that Maue is inclined to challenge existing business models when it comes to maps, including ECMWF maps. He tweeted: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SN_Lover Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 I thought Ryan was a climate change believer. what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaETC Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 On 10/10/2017 at 3:12 PM, donsutherland1 said: It appears that Maue is inclined to challenge existing business models when it comes to maps, including ECMWF maps. He tweeted: It'll be interesting to see if the ECMWF data remains free through Ryan/Weather.us. Interesting approach though. Oner of the Weather.us guys posted here a few weeks ago and said they had a technical work around to avoid paying for the data, not sure if that has changed though. In any case, it's very refreshing to have high quality ECMWF data available for free now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 11 hours ago, AlaskaETC said: It'll be interesting to see if the ECMWF data remains free through Ryan/Weather.us. Interesting approach though. Oner of the Weather.us guys posted here a few weeks ago and said they had a technical work around to avoid paying for the data, not sure if that has changed though. In any case, it's very refreshing to have high quality ECMWF data available for free now. It's likely that the data is made available via the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The ECMWF participates and various data can be made freely available. For more information: https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/what-we-do/data-exchange-and-technology-transfer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldub23 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 On 9/8/2017 at 2:05 AM, samdman95 said: It's been sad to see Ryan get all concern-trolly about people pointing out the AGW aspect of storms, screaming that "people need to leave politics out of it!", when he is guilty of the very same thing, but worse. How is he quilty of it? I dont recall him or anyone on the right injecting politics into the weather untill the left came along and said the govt needs to control every aspect of our lives to somehow make climate perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the ghost of leroy Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, ldub23 said: How is he quilty of it? I dont recall him or anyone on the right injecting politics into the weather untill the left came along and said the govt needs to control every aspect of our lives to somehow make climate perfect. they should definitely be given control of your spacebar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjay Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 On 10/15/2017 at 1:05 AM, AlaskaETC said: It'll be interesting to see if the ECMWF data remains free through Ryan/Weather.us. Interesting approach though. Oner of the Weather.us guys posted here a few weeks ago and said they had a technical work around to avoid paying for the data, not sure if that has changed though. In any case, it's very refreshing to have high quality ECMWF data available for free now. It will remain free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarheelwx Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 On 10/8/2017 at 10:14 PM, ORH_wxman said: Well that is stretching the definition of a denier. That's going down a speculative road. You can certainly have an opinion what his motives are for working there...It could be money or it could be he actually is a secret denier...but it doesn't make it fact. He doesn't go against the basic science of energy imbalance (3.7 watts per meter squared per doubling) and doesn't dispute any of the other solid consensus positions of climate change. Thus, I think it is entirely incorrect to label him a denier. You have to prove he disputes overwhelming literature in climate science. He's penned multiple articles on how climate change influences tropical systems and cites most of the top mainstream literature on it. It typically doesn't have content that extreme climate alarmists want to hear, so he will get a lot of negative marks amongst that group and achieve the factually unsupported label of denier. His writings definitely aren't supportive of extreme measures against climate change...that's probably a fair description. But there is a distinct difference between that and an actual climate denier. One has plenty of mainstream scientific literature to back their position and the other does not. Keep in mind that many of the so called "deniers" come from the private sector - they are free to think what they want. On the other hand, those receiving grants to do "research" on the matter MUST come up with alarming findings in order to keep the cash flow coming. It is what it is. TW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the ghost of leroy Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, tarheelwx said: Keep in mind that many of the so called "deniers" come from the private sector - they are free to think what they want. On the other hand, those receiving grants to do "research" on the matter MUST come up with alarming findings in order to keep the cash flow coming. It is what it is. TW lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wow Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Well this political quickly... Ryan's comments notwithstanding and his quirky retweets of Trump... I'm extremely interested how it works out. We all know that obtaining this much Euro data is not cheap by anyone's imagination (trust me, we've gotten quotes from ECMWF itself.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WidreMann Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 2 hours ago, tarheelwx said: Keep in mind that many of the so called "deniers" come from the private sector - they are free to think what they want. On the other hand, those receiving grants to do "research" on the matter MUST come up with alarming findings in order to keep the cash flow coming. It is what it is. TW You don't think folks working for oil companies and conservative think tanks don't have an incentive to produce garbage science too? In any case, while the money motive may exist for some folks, and may also result in some alarmist language in the conclusions, the science is pretty alarming just by the actual numbers and details and readily observable weather trends in the past few years. Furthermore, the money motive simply isn't enough to explain the huge amount of research and data and scientists involved. Couldn't they have just as well decided that they'd keep the whole thing under wraps and claim the the earth is cooling or not changing at all? Why warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the ghost of leroy Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 46 minutes ago, WidreMann said: You don't think folks working for oil companies and conservative think tanks don't have an incentive to produce garbage science too? no. he doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarheelwx Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 15 hours ago, WidreMann said: You don't think folks working for oil companies and conservative think tanks don't have an incentive to produce garbage science too? In any case, while the money motive may exist for some folks, and may also result in some alarmist language in the conclusions, the science is pretty alarming just by the actual numbers and details and readily observable weather trends in the past few years. Furthermore, the money motive simply isn't enough to explain the huge amount of research and data and scientists involved. Couldn't they have just as well decided that they'd keep the whole thing under wraps and claim the the earth is cooling or not changing at all? Why warming? Of course it exists on both sides. There, at least we agree on something. If they showed no change, then the cash flow stops....then what do they do? Start screaming fire about something else I guess. As for showing cooling, they’ve already been there. Sure it has gotten warmer over the last couple of decades. But there’s plenty of evidence that we’re not anywhere we’ve never been before. TW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WidreMann Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 6 hours ago, tarheelwx said: Of course it exists on both sides. There, at least we agree on something. If they showed no change, then the cash flow stops....then what do they do? Start screaming fire about something else I guess. As for showing cooling, they’ve already been there. Sure it has gotten warmer over the last couple of decades. But there’s plenty of evidence that we’re not anywhere we’ve never been before. TW There is plenty of research to do in climate and meteorology. As y'all like to say, there's so much we don't understand. While I fully believe we know enough to know there's a problem, I won't deny that there's plenty more we can learn. There is no shortage of things to study in science. And if AGW wasn't real, then there are plethora of other human-related environmental issues to study and raise the alarm about, just generally on a smaller scale. Believe me, the scientists would find plenty of ways to get funding. However, all you've expressed is a potential motive for some people. It hardly explains the data, the science and the absolutely ridiculous amount of work it would take to pull off a hoax of this magnitude. Have you looked at temperature trends or the state of sea ice in the Arctic? Can you point me to any credible alternative theory of the warming we've seen? There is none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarheelwx Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Sattleite based sea ice data started in 1978. That’s a really short time as climate goes and it seems crazy to sound the alarm when the sample group is extremely small. While our seasons change each year, there are also much longer term patterns that impact climate such as sun spots, ocean temps, and currents. Back in 2006 or whenever it was that Florida got multiple direct hits from hurricanes, the AGW crowd went crazy about how it would get worse and worse, and Gore was preaching Armageddon. That was followed by roughly a decade of very docile tropical activity. I’m all for clean water and a better environment, but not under a still unproven narrative. TW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WidreMann Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 On 11/14/2017 at 8:10 AM, tarheelwx said: Sattleite based sea ice data started in 1978. That’s a really short time as climate goes and it seems crazy to sound the alarm when the sample group is extremely small. While our seasons change each year, there are also much longer term patterns that impact climate such as sun spots, ocean temps, and currents. Back in 2006 or whenever it was that Florida got multiple direct hits from hurricanes, the AGW crowd went crazy about how it would get worse and worse, and Gore was preaching Armageddon. That was followed by roughly a decade of very docile tropical activity. I’m all for clean water and a better environment, but not under a still unproven narrative. TW It has gotten worse and worse...sea levels continue to rise. Temperatures continue to warm unabated. Artic sea ice sets record low after record low. What are you looking at that says it's not getting worse? The fact that each day is not literally warmer/stormier than the day before does not mean nothing is happening. They've studied things like sunspots and ocean temps and whatnot. The sun is not changing in the right direction to cause warming. Ocean temperatures are very much affected by AGW, and if anything, are moderating its influence (for now). What is your level of proof needed? Does God need to come down from on high and literally say "AGW is real" for you to believe? You can't just say "we don't have enough data" when we have a ton of data. You can always argue there's more to understand, but that's true of literally every human endeavour. But we will happily go to war over false evidence about WMDs and we will happily shoot black people cuz they like they are up to no good. Where was the data supporting that? The further research? The confounding factors? If deniers, who are almost entirely conservatives, want to talk about needing more data and considering alternatives, maybe I'd take them seriously if their approach to almost literally anything else wasn't shoot first and ask questions later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raindancewx Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 ^^ Ryan isn't a denier. He does seem to agree with the point of view that a realistic political solution to removing the extra heat / CO2 has yet to be presented. Random aside, but - The libertarian view of "solving" climate change is that you'd dramatically raise food prices and starve a couple hundred million people, if you were to take out enough CO2 because of the effect on crop yields, especially if the current level of heat didn't diminish immediately. That's fairly consistent with pieces like this which argue, via studies, that better crop yields are tied to higher CO2 levels. I live in the SW, and that's certainly what the farmers say out here - they have better yields over time now because dry years are rarer than they used to be, and the increased CO2 is extra food for plants. Essentially, higher wetness + high CO2 is good, and more heat is bad, so on net its slightly positive. The dry years of course, hurt a bit more because they are somewhat warmer than before, but precipitation seems to be increasing by 10-20%/century in the SW. Even dry years are a bit more tolerable because the dry, hot, low CO2 years in the past, say 1933-34 are still worse on net than dry, hot, high CO2 years now, like 2012-13. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eskimo Joe Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 He seems incredibly elitist and abrasive on social media and his on camera interviews, even for a scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eskimo Joe Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Willh said: I don't know this guy whatsoever - but that sounds like an apt description of every single person on social media...and in this thread. Omg Will! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WidreMann Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 On 11/16/2017 at 3:01 AM, raindancewx said: ^^ Ryan isn't a denier. He does seem to agree with the point of view that a realistic political solution to removing the extra heat / CO2 has yet to be presented. Random aside, but - The libertarian view of "solving" climate change is that you'd dramatically raise food prices and starve a couple hundred million people, if you were to take out enough CO2 because of the effect on crop yields, especially if the current level of heat didn't diminish immediately. That's fairly consistent with pieces like this which argue, via studies, that better crop yields are tied to higher CO2 levels. I live in the SW, and that's certainly what the farmers say out here - they have better yields over time now because dry years are rarer than they used to be, and the increased CO2 is extra food for plants. Essentially, higher wetness + high CO2 is good, and more heat is bad, so on net its slightly positive. The dry years of course, hurt a bit more because they are somewhat warmer than before, but precipitation seems to be increasing by 10-20%/century in the SW. Even dry years are a bit more tolerable because the dry, hot, low CO2 years in the past, say 1933-34 are still worse on net than dry, hot, high CO2 years now, like 2012-13. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops Some crops may do better, but there are a lot of other downsides to increased CO2, such as ocean acidification and the potential for negative impacts on the human body at levels as low as 600 ppm. Some places that become warmer may not otherwise be suitable for additional crop growth, for various reasons other than temperature. And I don't think higher crop yields would take out enough CO2 to matter much. At this point, we are facing the need to have a huge reduction in emissions and some yet-to-be-discovered technology to sequester large amounts of CO2. A libertarian approach might eventually solve the latter (assume enough of us don't die off), but the former needs a large amount of coordinated effort and there seems to be very little of that right now, much less under a purely market-based solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WidreMann Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 On 11/16/2017 at 0:36 PM, (((Will))) said: What on earth are you talking about...? Deniers are generally conservatives. Conservatives have been quick to jump to conclusions/judgment in a number of areas where further research would have (presumably) led them in a different direction. When it comes to climate change, however, they are always asking for more data and don't want to make any quick assumptions. Why the hypocrisy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaETC Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 Seems like Ryan Maue is now charging for his weather models site. I guess I can understand why, but it's funny considering how he was talking about providing services for free a few months ago. My personal opinion here, but it feels like he is using weather.us for his own personal gain. I hope they know what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Lightning Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 23 hours ago, AlaskaETC said: Seems like Ryan Maue is now charging for his weather models site. I guess I can understand why, but it's funny considering how he was talking about providing services for free a few months ago. My personal opinion here, but it feels like he is using weather.us for his own personal gain. I hope they know what they are doing. He's charging more than half of the price LESS yearly than WeatherBell did....AND he's adding new content every day LISTENING to his clients' needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaETC Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 2 hours ago, SD said: He's charging more than half of the price LESS yearly than WeatherBell did....AND he's adding new content every day LISTENING to his clients' needs. That's all fine and dandy, but why advertise your site as the free destination for your world famous Euro maps, only to start charging a few months later? It's textbook bait and switch marketing to me, and I find it distasteful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Lightning Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 11 hours ago, AlaskaETC said: That's all fine and dandy, but why advertise your site as the free destination for your world famous Euro maps, only to start charging a few months later? It's textbook bait and switch marketing to me, and I find it distasteful. I'm sorry, but if you thought that the Euro maps would stay free forever then you are completely naive. Just look at the price for obtaining a license: https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/accessing-forecasts/licences-available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doncat Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 The original site http://weather.us is still up....I agree that if that site gets taken down, then its the old bait and switch and I personally would never subscribe to the pay site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaETC Posted January 1, 2018 Share Posted January 1, 2018 13 hours ago, SD said: I'm sorry, but if you thought that the Euro maps would stay free forever then you are completely naive. Just look at the price for obtaining a license: https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/accessing-forecasts/licences-available weather.us is doing it still. and Maue is affiliated with them, so if they can do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 On 12/30/2017 at 10:39 PM, AlaskaETC said: That's all fine and dandy, but why advertise your site as the free destination for your world famous Euro maps, only to start charging a few months later? It's textbook bait and switch marketing to me, and I find it distasteful. FYI, I had a look at http://wx.graphics/ The following is still available at no charge: EPS Global (East Coast), EPS weekly, ECMWF City Charts, EPS City Charts, and EPS AO and NAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.