Jeezus. In future, just tell people you went to Weatherman School.
These days, there are courses on “don’t wear a green shirt in front of the green screen” and “hairstyling tips”
Good advice.
Ok I’m offended by that. They actually call the TV weather faces “meteorologists”.
Dude, you’re what, 10 or 15 posts into this thread? You posted a credential and then followed it up with a “whatabout” that was pretty weak.
Looks like trolling to me.
I’m not a troll…
Thing is that until recently a lot of meteorologists demonstrated painfully that they were not climatologists by pondering on climate science and showed that they were really grossly ignorant about it, we got “experts” in meteorology or other seemingly related fields of climate science puffing their credentials with the intention of misleading others. And then when they talk about politics or economics and not the science, chances are that the talking head or the poster are not experts at all.
So the question of who’s an expert in any scientific discipline including climatology is really very simple and long-established, if these so-called experts have to lie or a vague about their resume, if nothing is ever outside “their wide field of expertise”, if they spend more time talking about politics and economics than hard science and if they make assertions completely unsupported by any research; chances are they’re not a real expert.
-Science writer Peter Hadfield, aka Potholer54
You’re just bored and posting, then?
ISTM – based only on anecdotal evidence – that the meteorology community seems to contain a disproportionate number of climate change deniers. Anthony Watts, the imbecile who runs a popular denialist blog, is a former TV weatherman and college dropout who is a prime example of that – although it may be a stretch to call him a meteorologist as opposed to just a former talking head on TV. I think it may be because meteorologists, both real ones and TV weathermen, tend to confuse weather with climate, to confuse what little they may know about weather systems with climate systems, and to confuse their own difficulties with weather prediction with the completely different issue of long-term global climate projection.
I think you are exactly correct. I understand how difficult it is to get enough real-time data to allow the short-term and long-term forecast models to be accurate, and even now with current satellite data, they are often very wrong. Then I think about the parameters necessary to forecast long-term climate, e.g. increased plant intake of CO2, the effects of cloud cover, changing technology, deforestation, etc. and I am skeptical of their accuracy. I’ve been watching the arctic ice cap decrease for years now, and I know humans are changing our planet. And we face threats to our existence that we must address.
The trouble is, your skepticism about global climate science is based on knowledge retained from a 35 year old undergraduate degree that focused on short term weather forecasts.
Interestingly, the science around global climate science has progressed a little bit since then, and includes a great deal of data collection, and powerful computer modelling.
It’s always good to be a little bit skeptical. But as they say, you should not have an open mind to the extent that your brain slips out and falls on the floor.
Would it be inappropriate for me to ask you what degree you have, and your alma mater? I’m guessing you probably have a PhD. I just want to know where you got it so I can make fun of your football team.
You completely missed my point, and are instead regurgitating a classic denialist talking point that says, in essence, gee, climate is so complicated, how can we possibly know what will happen? I don’t know why I bother to engage with you, and I prefer to think I’m responding here for the benefit of those who might be interested in the facts, which I’m convinced you are not.
You think “increased plant intake of CO2” is somehow a complicating factor in making climate projections? Why? Do you know what the current level of CO2 is? Around 415 ppm, and rising every single year. Do you know what the typical interglacial CO2 maximum is? Around 280 ppm, and it’s never been more than 300 ppm in around the last million years of glacial cycles. And it drops to around 180 ppm during the peak of glaciation. This means that the unprecedented increase in CO2 in the post-industrial era is now significantly greater than the difference in CO2 levels between their glacial minima and interglacial maxima. And you somehow think that this enormous and growing additional CO2 is not going to have a correspondingly enormous long-term impact on the climate?
Or the “effects of cloud cover”? This is a complicated area, but the bottom line is that various crackpot theories about changes in cloud cover creating negative feedbacks have been largely discredited. Clouds create both positive and negative feedbacks by both blocking the escape of IR radiation and reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, respectively, and the one that tends to dominate depends on the type of cloud and its altitude. Because the two feedbacks are in opposite directions, they tend to cancel out, and the latest IPCC projections based on observations and extensive modeling are that cloud cover constitutes a negligibly small negative feedback overall. One model, for instance, that was tuned for the strongest negative cloud feedback showed a drop in equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.8°C to 2.2°C, which is hardly overwhelming. In short, the whole cloud thing is a non-issue.
Deforestation? The largest impact is actually due to increased surface albedo and is a negligibly small negative feedback.
The matter of “changing technology” is an entirely different issue. It has nothing to do with climate science, but speaks to the extent to which we are able and willing to mitigate emissions. The IPCC deals with this uncertainty by decoupling it from the science, and framing the discussion in terms of four scenarios they call Representative Concentration Pathways, RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5. Those numbers represent the net climate forcings (in W/m2) that we might be facing in 2100, depending on how aggressively we mitigate GHG emissions. Each one has an associated climate outcome. Needless to say, the track we are on is one of the higher ones, with a correspondingly grim outcome.
All of the above, however, is to some extent detail. The really big point that you’re so sadly missing is that climate is not weather, and despite your “skeptical” talking points it’s driven by much more deterministic fundamentals. Weather systems are inherently chaotic, climate systems much less so. The most important fundamental that underlies climate change is the net increase in the Earth’s total energy balance due to a strong net positive long-term climate forcing from increasing concentrations of GHGs. There’s no getting away from this no matter how much doubt you try to sow.
See my above comment about the uselessness of bragging about credentials on a message board; Anything I type would be meaningless at best.
I can tell you that the institution where I got my degree(s) did not have a football team, nor will they ever.
Well said, and very well researched. I know climate change is an existential threat. There might be others…
Right, once again I did so much Googling “research” in the 10 minutes between when I saw your post and when I responded that I thought my cable modem was going to melt and Google would ban me.
“Science has been wrong before” and “Other things might be worse” should be bumper stickers on jacked-up pickup trucks with confederate flags and tin-can mufflers.
I must admit, though, that you’re one of our more interesting trolls. Most of them are far too stupid to do it effectively.
The first half of your post actually confirms one reason why several meteorologists get climate science wrong.
Weather is chaotic, making prediction difficult. However, climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time. This removes the chaotic element, enabling climate models to successfully predict future climate change.
As for the rest, a loss of cap ice was predicted, but the acceleration of that loss was underestimated, the point is that groups like the IPCC are conservative anyhow, and as the loss of cap ice showed, it is really foolish to expect less harmful scenarios if very little is done to deal with the issue.
Cloud cover is complicated both in short-term models (weather) and climate models. See link. I’m looking up your other questions. Thanks for that post.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258647178_How_well_do_climate_models_simulate_cloud_vertical_structure_A_comparison_between_CALIPSO-GOCCP_satellite_observations_and_CMIP5_models
Looking around that is one study that deniers grabbed to keep the uncertainty up, forgetting that past studies did not show up an overwhelming difference on the number of clouds changing the warming. IOW, the study was helpful to report on what models were missing about clouds, but not about how important they were about global warming. Contrarians used the 2012 report to increase the uncertainty, but as I noted also many times in pass discussions, uncertainty is not your friend. Because, as noted before, it is foolish to expect better outcomes when all along contrarians were and are using science that is worrisome as it is and continue to misled others into their assumptions that something as uncertain as clouds will always come doing good and making the issue go away.
And in 2020, thanks to research about clouds like the one you cited, several climate scientists are reporting that clouds are more likely to decrease in a warming world, and significantly increase the warming. Remember when I mentioned about many scientists being conservative? Many deniers used the uncertainty about clouds to reduce the bad effects in the future, but like the ice cap loss, deniers are likely to be wrong too about clouds helping minimize the bad changes in the future.
Now, the IPCC and most researchers see a worrisome, but still manageable problem.
The point here is that conservatively speaking, and based on what most researches tell us, the picture is grim but we can do something to mitigate the bad scenarios, but some less conservative researchers report a grimmer picture of the future, we can do something but it will be more costly thanks to denier efforts. Wacko deniers still want to have a pony.
I read the YaleEnvironment article. The prognoses is not good.