16 year old Kristen Byrnes got some national media exposure today on National Public Radio. You can read the article and listen to the story via MP3 here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89619306
You might also want to visit her website and offer some words of support or perhaps a little help towards college:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html
Kristen has surveyed many stations in New England for www.surfacestations.org and I appreciate her (and her parents) hard work on the project.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What makes me ill are the posts on the warmer blogs whining about the fact that NPR dared to run a peice about a GW sceptic. Some even claiming that NPR is a mouthpeice of the Bush administration!
I’m also a little surprised NPR put an even-handed story, but note they avoided tackling the issues with Kristen. Wise move.
I suggest anyone differing with Kristen get their facts in order, and check them twice.
Millions of granolaish Volvo drivers with their radio dial stuck on the local NPR station undoubtedly heard Kristen … maybe she made them think instead of regurgitating bumper sticker slogans … bravo!
Whoah! Way to go, kid! We’re all rootin’ fer ya.
Thanks Anthony,
You would be amazed at the number of sceptics in their audience. I also have to say that even the people who disagree were very polite and (tried to be) constructive. : ) I was suprised that they did not mention the surface stations. We talked about them a lot.
Kristen: thank you.
What a great girl and story!…Cheers to you Kristen!
[…] You all know that I like Wattsupwiththat. He’s a clear thinker. And, he has a protege. A youthful, clear […]
Bravo Kristen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bill Derryberry
This sums up the general ailment:
Most of us delegate, decide to believe someone we trust. We don’t actively seek out the other side.
We all suffer from confirmation bias to some extent. The need to confirm our existing beliefs and to dismiss, without sufficient analysis, those things that contradict. I suspect (hypothecise) that that is built into us as human beings from the time when “wasting time” thinking got you killed. We are far more likely to stop thinking when confronted with alarming threats. Fear inhibits rationality.
Recognizing that condition is an important step in overcoming the bias; to be open to scepticism, to think rationally and to imagine things beyond our beliefs. In the 21st century, thanks to technology freeing us from a constant struggle for survival, many of us have plenty of time to “waste” thinking for ourselves.
Bravo Kirsten. Bravo NPR.
The main quibble that I have with the NPR item is that its says:
Much of the evidence comes from detailed computer models.
Only the real world provides evidence. Computer models support confirmation bias. Trust me. I’m an expert. 😉 I’ve fooled myself often enough with my own computer models.
And we know how “detailed” the models are: Superficial.
I have to say, NPR kind of made it look like it was just one teenage girl against a bunch of people who “know what they are talking about”.
Mind you, she’d probably mop the floor with quite a few people who claim to “know what they are talking about”, but most people are going to think she is just being an upstart.
Anthony:
Bernd (18:15:43 above) makes the point about models not being evidence. Sometime last year I attempted to clarify for you the steps in development and testing of models. Since then, there have been a lot clearer discussions on here and the other blogs. Finally, today, Dr. Pielke, Sr. phrased the discussion as it should have been 10 years ago. See Climate Science for his comment on models vs. observations, stated much more clearly than I could ever manage.
Bravo, Kristen! Brilliant work. And the name of your blog is not in the slightest obscure, or obtuse (whatever silly word NPR used) to anyone who knows the first thing about climate. Unfortunately, this leave out the carbon dioxide alarmists.
Bravo Kristen! keep up the good work – love your site!
has anybody seen this?
“AUSTRIA: April 16, 2008 – VIENNA – Melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets and warming water could lift sea levels by as much as 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) by the end of this century, displacing tens of millions of people, new research showed on Tuesday.
Presented at a European Geosciences Union conference, the research forecasts a rise in sea levels three times higher than that predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last year. The UN climate panel shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former US Vice President Al Gore.
Svetlana Jevrejeva of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Britain said the estimate was based on a new model allowing accurate reconstruction of sea levels over the past 2,000 years. … ”
A linear extrapolation of 2,000 years of highly variable data? Does anybody have access to the abstract?
If Al Gore and James Hansen won’t debate any PhD climatologists, maybe they’ll be willing to do a televised debate with a 16-year-old? We can only hope…
Whew, Check out Atmoz, he and many of his posters are really blasting Kirsten, It is actually shameful what they are doing. It is even mentioned that Dr. H is going to sue for libel. Just like a good warmer can’t shut up a 16 year old just sue them into oblivion. many are suggesting that she will never be accepted at university except maybe a Christian flat earth type. The rhetoric is truly alarming.
Bill Derryberry
Kristen, keep up the good work. You are on the right track. The hard part of good science is verifying the data, which is something few so called scientists like to do. Monitor location is highly important as are QA/QC procedures used in the collection and reporting of data. Also keep in mind the heat island effect as it can play a significant factor for some sites that are affected by urban sprawl.
Amid all this applause for Kristen, please allow me to demur.
I’ve had a quick look at the website.
Inferring that all climate change, now and in the future, is natural simply because climate change in the past had natural causes (before humans started pumping CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere) is faulty logic: the conclusion does not follow from the premises (a non sequitur).
Kristen claims, among other things, that “this effect [that some of the outgoing radiation is reflected from the top of the atmosphere and back to Earth] has never been measured, only calculated”. This is incorrect. First, Gore gives us a simple version of the greenhouse idea. A more subtle version of this is that greenhouse gases are predicted to affect the radiation balance of the earth by reducing IR radiation lost to space. As the incoming solar component is (roughly) constant, the amount radiated back to the surface increases.
Now, it is known from observation that carbon dioxide, methane and other GHGs affect the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere. In particular, radiation lost to space from the 15-micron CO2 band is reduced, and from the 8-micron methane band, corresponding to a lower brightness temperature in these regions. This has been determined from spectrometric (IRIS) satellite measurements begun in the early 1970s. This is a predicted outcome of increasing GHGs and is experimentally confirmed. Spectra from IRIS are frequently published in textbooks. I suggest Kristen consult the texts.
The interview with Hansen in Der Spiegel has been distorted to make it appear that Hansen was saying sea-level rise now is 1 m/20 years. This is incorrect. Hansen was referring to the situation during the last deglaciation (more than 10,000 years ago). His warning was of the consequences should the same thing happen today. This is what Gore’s film says: not what WILL happen, but WHAT IF this happens. Some people should learn to be more careful about what folks like Hansen and Gore actually say.
Last, I recommend Kristen avoid the ad hominem. It is bad form at such a young age, and one day the big boys may come out to play.
I am sure there is more I can criticise, but this will do for now.
Have a nice day.
P.
Check out Kristen’s forecasts for 2008 climate.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/id31.html
I think her hurricane forecast will be way off, but so will everyone elses. The reason being the forecasts for the just ended SH cyclone season being very active were about as far off as it’s possible to be. It was the quietest cyclone season in at least 20 years. The ENSO/SST predictor of cyclone/hurricane activity is clearly being over-ridden by some other effect this year.
A pity we don’t have cyclone/hurricane data for the Maunder and Dalton Minimums.
Kristen, you could be the salvation to debunking one of the Earth’s potentially greatest financial treats (AGW Panic).
Go Girl!!!!!
Kirsten There is a lot more data from IPCC sites that shows that the recent cooling is a lot greater than you have mentioned on your site. This is what is going to hammer them
These are all pro AGW or neutral (called lukewarmers now)…(but run by honest)
Cryosphere today
AMSU satellite data
UAH
rankexploits
sea ice index (very AGW pro)
Good luck. In the end you may considered a hero.
In the event that the earth contnues to cool as it is now for say 2-3 years there may be many organizations, individuals who will be wanting their money back from the inititiual investment in “Global warming” expect major lawsuits/goverment changes happening then.
What a great story!
I think she can be Anthony’s successor when he retires.
peterd
I’m wondering who it is that needs to hit the textbooks.
During the last deglaciation period, there was probably 50 times more ice to melt than there is today. Fifty inches of melting snow produces far greater run-off than 1″ of melting snow. So, even if it did get warm, the flowrate from the resulting melt would be far less than it was when the ice age thawed away. You’re comparing a 1/4″ diameter pipe to one that was 6″ diameter.
Further, what you claim Gore intended to communicate and what he actually left as an impression are completely different. Clearly his intent was to shock the audience. Indeed his film was an abject failure because it was poisoned by his sore-loser POLITICS, and blatant attempts to fan hysteria.
Finally, that a person would cite Gore in a scientific discussion points squarely to that person’s lack of undestanding of the topic at hand.
Keep it about climate science. Keep the politics out.
@VG
I read his post (Island of doubt) and found it very amusing.
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/04/16yearold_libels_james_hansen.php
It really hurts when an unruly 16 year old brat has the gall to take a doctrine to the cleaners.
That Ms Byrnes is getting their attention is proof of her success.
A 16 year old is taking em to the cleaners!!
Bill in Vigo:
I rather doubt that Dr Hansen would hazard such an action as a tort for libel. During discovery, the complete body of his work would be subject to review. On the stand, he may have to have the defacto debate with other climatologists that he seeems to be avoiding.
The resulting circus may remind people of Scopes v. State, 152 Tenn. 424, 278 S.W. 57 (Tenn. 1925).
Inherit the Wind indeed!