Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Topics of a general nature regarding snowsports, which don't easily fit into one of our other Liftlines categories. This is also the place to post Letters to the Editor.

Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Tony Crocker » Mon May 23, 2011 5:01 pm

Howard Scheckter, Mammoth weather guru last week (http://mammothweather.com/) wrote:Well its the middle of May and the Dweebs are always thinking about weather and climate. Although, snow in the month of May is not unusual here in Mammoth, and in fact happens in most years, the persistence of cooler then normal temps is. Just look at the snow pack for this time of the year. It is still at least 150% of normal. The roads in the lakes basin and down to Reds meadow is probably with still 7 to 10 feet over the top and it is likely that the road over Tioga will not open until well into June. There are the reports of 75 foot snowpacks covering roads in the mountain areas of the pacific northwest. Must be Global Warming? ;-)

Blame it on the negative PDO and a very slow awaking Sun from a long hibernation.

The negitive phase of the pacific decadial oscillation (PDO) is going strong and if history repeats itself may continue more on then off for the next 20 to 30 years. That means that the SSTs over the eastern pacific are colder then normal and that the west should have more precipitation and colder WX in the years to come. Summer may tend to be cooler and winters earlier and longer. El Ninos will tend to be weaker or shorter lived. If you want to get an idea of the weather for a negative PDO just study the weather of the 1930s, 40s and 50s here in this country. Watch La Nina this year. It is currently weakening and should pretty much be gone by Summer. However, watch and see if it does not return this Fall!


We'll need at least the next decade of data to assign credibility to the competing climate theories, but it's pretty clear who won the first round.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9775
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Patrick » Mon May 23, 2011 6:12 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:We'll need at least the next decade of data to assign credibility to the competing climate theories, but it's pretty clear who won the first round.


Global... :dead horse: ](*,)

Get some data from the Canadian Upper Latitudes and other places. Snow doesn't necessarily mean colder either. I'm not going to start again. 99% of climatologist studying elements of the climate agree and believe that is happening. Period. Not going to waste my time on this again.
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4724
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Harvey44 » Mon May 23, 2011 7:14 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:
Howard Scheckter, Mammoth weather guru last week (http://mammothweather.com/) wrote:Well its the middle of May and the Dweebs are always thinking about weather and climate. ... negitive phase ...


We'll need at least the next decade of data to assign credibility to the competing climate theories, but it's pretty clear who won the first round.


I assume Dweebs is a term of endearment since it applies to people who think about weather and he is a weatherman?

I always give credence to scientific research conducted by real estate agents who can't spell "negative phase."

Picture 2.png
Picture 2.png (66.16 KiB) Viewed 10679 times


[-o<
NYSkiBlog.com
User avatar
Harvey44
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:37 pm
Location: North River, NY
Location: North River, NY

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Admin » Mon May 23, 2011 7:39 pm

Patrick wrote:99% of climatologist studying elements of the climate agree and believe that is happening. Period.


No, not period. In fact, that's :bs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition

You can start here for a sampling of those who disagree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... al_warming

A few choice quotes from that link:

# Richard Lindzen,Pubs Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[5] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[6][7]

# Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[9]

# William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[21] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[22] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[23]

# William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[25]

# Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[27]

# John Christy, Pubs professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[46]

Image
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9969
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby riverc0il » Mon May 23, 2011 7:52 pm

Counting the hits and ignoring the misses. Isolated anomalies are singular instances whereas climate change is about long term change. You can't cite localized high snow pack as data against a global long term trend. I have seen a preponderance of evidence supporting climate change. But I have a scientific enough mind that I see there are valid scientific disputes as well. However, anytime someone trots out a singular instance (either in support or in contradiction of established climate change evidence) it is a 100% crock of [censored]. Climate change (or lack thereof, if you prefer to see it that way) IS NOT ABOUT SINGULAR EVENTS!!!

:dead horse: :dead horse: :dead horse:

I don't care which scientific theories you subscribe to. I do care about any suggestion that a singular event in a specific area supports either conclusion. Admin argues with words from the skeptics and I can appreciate that.
--Steve

TheSnowWay.com
"Skiing is not a sport, it is a way of life." - Otto Schniebs
User avatar
riverc0il
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:22 am
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Patrick » Mon May 23, 2011 9:19 pm

Admin wrote:You can start here for a sampling of those who disagree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... al_warming


What was my quote?

Patrick wrote:99% of climatologist studying elements of the climate agree and believe that is happening.


A list of scientists and research with some meteorologists and maybe a the odd climatologists.

1) Meteorology isn't the same as Climatology.

In contrast to meteorology, which focuses on short term weather systems lasting up to a few weeks, climatology studies the frequency and trends of those systems. It studies the periodicity of weather events over years to millennia, as well as changes in long-term average weather patterns, in relation to atmospheric conditions. Climatologists, those who practice climatology, study both the nature of climates - local, regional or global - and the natural or human-induced factors that cause climates to change. Climatology considers the past and can help predict future climate change.

Phenomena of climatological interest include the atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatolog ... eteorology

2) Maybe not 99%, but somewhere between 95-99%.

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[104]

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[105]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

:dead horse:

It's like arguing with Tony in the Eastern corn artificial snow debate. It's not his level of expertize. He might think he's right, but has little experience in it. :dead horse:

No time to waste on this...it's all been debated and the scientific evidence is there.

Found the easy quotes on Wiki, because it's late and there is no used to actually find (again) the actual stuff that we've discussed many times again.
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4724
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Admin » Mon May 23, 2011 11:33 pm

Patrick wrote:1) Meteorology isn't the same as Climatology.


Nor is it the same as cartography.

Patrick wrote:It's like arguing with Tony in the Eastern corn artificial snow debate. It's not his level of expertize. He might think he's right, but has little experience in it.


Nor do you in climatology. And please don't trot out again that you took some climatology course in college. :roll: I took a course in Eastern Religions while in college but that doesn't make me the Buddha.

Patrick wrote:It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.


The author of that passage you quoted apparently chooses to disregard views held by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences, or the esteemed Dr. William Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, or other noted climatologists. Note, Patrick, that those are climatologists of the highest credentials. According to the author of that quote, however, they apparently don't "understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." Otherwise the author would have been forced to acknowledge that the "debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity" is not "largely nonexistent."

That quote is therefore nothing but a sweeping generalization borne of convenient omission to suit an underlying agenda, i.e. "an inconvenient truth." Kinda like the processes followed by the IPCC. :lol: Quotes like that earn no credibility whatsoever.

Patrick wrote:No time to waste on this...it's all been debated and the scientific evidence is there.


But the thing is that the scientific evidence is absolutely not "there." Now here's where I can't understand how a guy as intelligent as you can't seem to understand the difference between an unequivocal fact and an unproven scientific theory. "Global warming" is nothing more than the latter, and there are competing scientific theories out there that are equally valid. Absolutely nothing here is a foregone conclusion no matter how much you want it to be, so there's no point in acting as if it is.

Remember that in 1492 the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community was that the world was flat, but that didn't make it right. At the time it was nothing but an unproven scientific theory, just like global warming is at this moment. The minority of the scientific community in 1492 had an alternate theory that indeed turned out to be correct.
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9969
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Tony Crocker » Mon May 23, 2011 11:46 pm

Riverc0il wrote:I do care about any suggestion that a singular event in a specific area supports either conclusion.

Agree. That's why I said
Tony Crocker wrote:We'll need at least the next decade of data to assign credibility to the competing climate theories....


Patrick wrote:Global...

PDO, La Nina do tend to lower temperatures on a global scale, as they did most recently in 2008. The AGW advocates a year ago were crowing that 2010 was going to be clear cut warmest year on record because the first 4 months were. El Nino was in force those early months and by the end of the year La Nina had come on strong and brought the overall year down below 1998 and 2005.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9775
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Patrick » Tue May 24, 2011 7:02 am

Admin wrote:
Patrick wrote:1) Meteorology isn't the same as Climatology.


Nor is it the same as cartography.


Not really, geography.

Admin wrote:
Patrick wrote:It's like arguing with Tony in the Eastern corn artificial snow debate. It's not his level of expertize. He might think he's right, but has little experience in it.


Nor do you in climatology. And please don't trot out again that you took some climatology course in college.


No, never said I was a expert on the subject. I mentioned that I had one course in university by someone known for his work on global warming and this was back in 1986. Also mentioned that I had two friends from university, one in the Masters' program, the other working on his PhD a the time both in Climatology. The subject has been discussed in an informal basis back then, we were all after all post-graduate students in the same Geography building after all.

However I tend to give more credence to people that actually study and are specialize in the field than those you don't. :dead horse:
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4724
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby jamesdeluxe » Tue May 24, 2011 9:01 am

How can you guys live in SLC? It's nothing more than a sprawling suburb with fast-food restaurants and big-box stores.
User avatar
jamesdeluxe
 
Posts: 3312
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:19 pm
Location: South Orange, NJ

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby rfarren » Tue May 24, 2011 9:16 am

Patrick wrote:
However I tend to give more credence to people that actually study and are specialize in the field

There are many scientists who study that field who are very skeptical of man's contribution to climate change. Joe Bastardi didn't invent the the PDO, in fact, his argument is supported by many reputable climatologists.

One of the argument against much of climate science is that it is based almost entirely on computer models. None of the models are able to recreate the climate observations made in the last 30 years (satellite data) given their parameters. In fact, many of the models predicted doomsday scenarios all by the year 2010. Anthony Watt's websitehttp://wattsupwiththat.com had a great list of predictions that failed heartily.

Another major problem with climate science is the funding. Scientist who refute the IPCC report are often denied funding from universities because of the bad press they will receive. The press shouldn't have a say in science, as science should be open. Worse yet, climategate showed how many who are in the APGW camp view those outside it, and even worse, showed that these "pillars" in the field refused to show their data (which was later seen to be fudged). I'm sorry but that isn't science.

The climate is always in flux. It is my understanding that since 1998 the earth is cooling and since 1650 the earth is warming and since 0 AD years ago the the climate is cooling and since 15,000 years ago the climate has warmed and since 55 million years ago the earth has experienced drastic cooling etc... Most serious APGW scientists don't attribute the warming up to about 1970 to man (Co2 numbers don't support it by their calculations). They do however, attribute all subsequent warming to manmade causes.

In order to say that Co2 is the driving force of global warming you have to assume that cloud cover stays the same. That is the only way that the earth warms, if could cover increases or water vapor increases, the effect of Co2 is mitigated. Those in the APGW camp understand that. The problem is that scientists don't know what will happen with cloud cover or water vapor.

The science seems sound, Co2 = warmer climate, because elevated Co2 levels in the environment in the past have been seen during warmer periods. But Co2 is a lagging indicator of the climate not a leading (we do know that humans are responsible for a fairly small percentage of the Co2 in the evironment). The only problem is that the climate doesn't conveniently peg itself to Co2. The correlation of past climate observations has been more closely aligned with the PDO and sun activity. Furthermore, more that 90% of the earth's energy is stored in the oceans. Co2 is less that .04% of the atmosphere's makeup. Therefore, it makes sense that the PDO should be a more active participant in the climate's direction.

Eugenics, too, was born out of a seemingly simple scientific principle (the assumption that westerners are superior, based on the observation that western civilization had superior technology). Ultimately eugenics was understood to be culturally driven and not scientifically driven and as we have seen that combined with public policy was very dangerous.

There is a large cultural component behind APGW theory (i.e. an inconvenient truth, a movie which projected a doomsday scenario, that even the most ardent APGW scientists have said is entirely out of scale. Gore won a nobel peace prize for his work with the film, and the film won many awards, even though science behind it wasn't particularly sound.) The APGW movement panders to feelings of guilt, responsibility and altruism. It is therefore no wonder that the science has been politicized to the extant it has. The pragmatist in me really thinks this whole thing is a very strong meme.

Ultimately, there are many theories that propose responsibility for the climate change in the last 30 years. We shouldn't subscribe to the IPCC report wholeheartedly, as anybody who has done any research will realize it was an extremely politicized document and not backed by sound science. It is worth reading theories on the environment that refute the APGW camp, even if you don't agree with them. Finally, one shouldn't believe that the APGW theory is infallible. We needn't forget that TIME magazine 30 years ago was telling everyone that the earth was cooling (this was based on sound science :lol: ).
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Admin » Tue May 24, 2011 9:31 am

rfarren wrote:One of the argument against much of climate science is that it is based almost entirely on computer models.


Here, let me finish that sentence for you: "...that were fed fudged data to make them produce the outcome that the study authors wanted them to show."

rfarren wrote:Another major problem with climate science is the funding.


Bingo. When in doubt, follow the money. I wonder how many of the 76 of 77 climatologists surveyed and referenced by Patrick depend upon this phenomenon's existence to continue their research funding gravy train? Given the source of the study I wonder how many of them feared being blackballed if they dared to disagree? Given that's their field of expertise I'm guessing that the answer to either question is a rather healthy proportion of those surveyed. Just like anything else, phrase the survey questions a certain way and you can almost guarantee the survey's outcome...just like fudging climate data and then disposing of the original data to intentionally prevent proper peer review.

Just to make my own personal position clear in case this debate has obfuscated it: I don't know whether or not AGW exists. As far as I'm concerned, neither does anyone else. Despite Patrick's bleating to the contrary, at this point it's merely an unverified scientific hypothesis, as is the position of skeptical climatologists. In fact, through the leaked scandals at the IPCC we've seen that the data actually didn't fit their prediction models and had to be falsified in order to support the predictions of AGW proponents. We've also seen that those who are AGW's most ardent supporters, people like Gore and Pachauri, have positioned themselves to make enormous financial gains if the "solutions" they propose to counteract AGW are enacted.

As far as I'm concerned there's no point in building public policy based upon this house of cards until such theories can be confirmed or refuted.
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9969
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby rfarren » Tue May 24, 2011 9:52 am

Admin wrote:
As far as I'm concerned there's no point in building public policy based upon this house of cards until such theories can be confirmed or refuted.

I'm in total agreement with you on this point. Building public policy on AGW right now would be like quitting your job and giving your life savings away because you expect to be raptured.

Ultimately good science should be independent and have open sources which can be properly peer reviewed and seen. More importantly it shouldn't have an agenda.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby marcski » Tue May 24, 2011 11:31 am

Also, isn't the reliable scientific data for climate change and earth's temperature are only what, about 100 years old? That is nothing compared to the age of the earth itself. Therefore, for anyone to make bold statements without any degree of doubt, seems a bit skeptical to me on either side of this debate.
User avatar
marcski
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:04 pm
Location: Westchester Co., NY

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Admin » Tue May 24, 2011 11:39 am

marcski wrote:Also, isn't the reliable scientific data for climate change and earth's temperature are only what, about 100 years old? That is nothing compared to the age of the earth itself. Therefore, for anyone to make bold statements without any degree of doubt, seems a bit skeptical to me on either side of this debate.


If you rely solely on observational data that's true. AGW proponents, however, are relying upon data derived by extracting and examining polar ice core samples and other forensic sources.
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9969
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


All content herein copyright © 1999-2017 First Tracks!! Online Media

Forums Terms & Conditions of Use