Guest post by Bill Gray Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University
(AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member)
June 2011
I am very disappointed at the downward path the AMS has been following for the last 10-15 years in its advocacy of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis. The society has officially taken a position many of us AMS members do not agree with. We believe that humans are having little or no significant influence on the global climate and that the many Global Circulation Climate Model (GCMs) results and the four IPCC reports do not realistically give accurate future projections. To take this position which so many of its members do not necessarily agree with shows that the AMS is following more of a political than a scientific agenda.
The AMS Executive Director Keith Seitter and the other AMS higher-ups and the Council have not shown the scientific maturity and wisdom we would expect of our AMS leaders. I question whether they know just how far off-track the AMS has strayed since they foolishly took such a strong pro-AGW stance.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) was founded in 1919 as an organization dedicated to advancing scientific knowledge of weather and climate. It has been a wonderful beacon for fostering new understanding of how the atmosphere and oceans function. But this strong positive image is now becoming tarnished as a result of the AMS leadership’s capitulating to the lobby of the climate modelers and to the outside environmental and political pressure groups who wish to use the current AMS position on AGW to help justify the promotion of their own special interests. The effectiveness of the AMS as an objective scientific organization is being greatly compromised.
We AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and CO2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think. This small organized group of AGW sympathizers has indeed hijacked our society.
The AMS should be acting as a facilitator for the scientific debate on the pro and con aspects of the AGW hypothesis, not to take a side in the issue. The AMS has not held the type of open and honest scientific debates on the AGW hypothesis which they should have. Why have they dodged open discussion on such an important issue? I’ve been told that the American Economic Society does not take sides on controversial economic issues but acts primarily to help in stimulating back and forth discussion. This is what the AMS should have been doing but haven’t.
James Hansen’s predictions of global warming made before the Senate in 1988 are turning out to be very much less than he had projected. He cannot explain why there has been no significant global warming over the last 10-12 years.
Many of us AMS members believe that the modest global warming we have observed is of natural origin and due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation resulting from salinity variations. These changes are not associated with CO2 increases. Most of the GCM modelers have little experience in practical meteorology. They do not realize that the strongly chaotic nature of the atmosphere-ocean climate system does not allow for skillful initial value numerical climate prediction. The GCM simulations are badly flawed in at least two fundamental ways:
- Their upper tropospheric water vapor feedback loop is grossly wrong. They assume that increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause large upper-tropospheric water vapor increases which are very unrealistic. Most of their model warming follows from these invalid water vapor assumptions. Their handlings of rainfall processes are quite inadequate.
- They lack an understanding and treatment of the fundamental role of the deep ocean circulation (i.e. Meridional Overturning Circulation – MOC) and how the changing ocean circulation (driven by salinity variations) can bring about wind, rainfall, and surface temperature changes independent of radiation and greenhouse gas changes. These ocean processes are not properly incorporated in their models. They assume the physics of global warming is entirely a product of radiation changes and radiation feedback processes. They neglect variations in global evaporation which is more related to surface wind speed and ocean minus surface and air temperature differences. These are major deficiencies.
The Modelers’ Free Ride. It is surprising that GCMs have been able to get away with their unrealistic modeling efforts for so long. One explanation is that they have received strong support from Senator/Vice President Al Gore and other politicians who for over three decades have attempted to make political capital out of increasing CO2 measurements. Another reason is the many environmental and political groups (including the mainstream media) have been eager to use the GCM climate results as justification to push their own special interests that are able to fly under the global warming banner. A third explanation is that they have not been challenged by their peer climate modeling groups who apparently have seen possibilities for similar research grant support and publicity by copying Hansen and the earlier GCM modelers.
I anticipate that we are going to experience a modest naturally-driven global cooling over the next 15-20 years. This will be similar to the weak global cooling that occurred between the early-1940s and the mid-1970s. It is to be noted that CO2 amounts were also rising during this earlier cooling period which were opposite to the expected CO2-temperature association.
An expected 15-20 year cooling will occur (in my view) because of the current strong ocean Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) that has now been established in the last decade and a half and ought to continue for another couple of decades. I explain most of the last century and-a-half general global warming since the mid-1800s (start of the industrial revolution) to be a result of a long multi-century slowdown in the ocean’s MOC circulation. Increases of CO2 could have contributed only a small fraction (0.1-0.2oC) of the roughly ~ 0.7oC surface warming that has been observed since 1850. Natural processes have had to have been responsible for most of the observed warming over the last century and a half.
Debate. The AMS is the most relevant of our country’s scientific societies as regards to its members having the most extensive scientific and technical background in meteorology and climate. It should have been a leader in helping to adjudicate the claims of the AGW advocates and their skeptical critics. Our country’s Anglo-Saxon derived legal system is based on the idea that the best way to get to the truth is to have opposite sides of a continuous issue present their differing views in open debate before a non partisan jury. Nothing like this has happened with regards to the AGW issue. Instead of organizing meetings with free and open debates on the basic physics and the likelihood of AGW induced climate changes, the leaders of the society (with the backing of the society’s AGW enthusiasts) have chosen to fully trust the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate on this issue. I know of no AMS sponsored conference where the AGW hypothesis has been given open and free discussion. For a long time I have wanted a forum to express my skepticism of the AGW hypothesis. No such opportunities ever came within the AMS framework. Attempts at publication of my skeptic views have been difficult. One rejection stated that I was too far out of the mainstream thinking. Another that my ideas had already been discredited. A number of AGW skeptics have told me they have had similar experiences.
The climate modelers and their supporters deny the need for open debate of the AGW question on the grounds that the issue has already been settled by their model results. They have taken this view because they know that the physics within their models and the long range of their forecast periods will likely not to be able to withstand knowledgeable and impartial review. They simply will not debate the issue. As a defense against criticism they have resorted to a general denigration of those of us who do not support their AGW hypothesis. AGW skeptics are sometimes tagged (I have been) as no longer being credible scientists. Skeptics are often denounced as tools of the fossil-fuel industry. A type of McCarthyism against AGW skeptics has been in display for a number of years.
Recent AMS Awardees. Since 2000 the AMS has awarded its annual highest award (Rossby Research Medal) to the following AGW advocates or AGW sympathizers; Susan Solomon (00), V. Ramanathan (02), Peter Webster (04), Jagadish Shukla (05), Kerry Emanuel (07), Isaac Held (08) and James Hansen (09). Its second highest award (Charney Award) has gone to AGW warming advocates or sympathizers; Kevin Trenberth (00), Rich Rotunno (04), Graeme Stephens (05) Robert D. Cess (06), Allan Betts (07), Gerald North (08) and Warren Washington and Gerald Meehl (09). And the other Rossby and Charney awardees during this period are not known to be critics of the AGW warming hypothesis.
The AGW biases within the AMS policy makers is so entrenched that it would be impossible for well known and established scientists (but AGW skeptics) such as Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Bill Cotton, Roger Pielke, Sr., Roy Spencer, John Christie, Joe D’Aleo, Bob Balling, Jr., Craig Idso, Willie Soon, etc. to ever be able to receive an AMS award – irrespective of the uniqueness or brilliance of their research.
What Working Meteorologists Say. My interaction (over the years) with a broad segment of AMS members (that I have met as a result of my seasonal hurricane forecasting and other activities) who have spent a sizable portion of their careers down in the meteorological trenches of observations and forecasting, have indicated that a majority of them do not agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming. These working meteorologists are too experienced and too sophisticated to be hoodwinked by the lobby of global climate modelers and their associated propagandists. I suggest that the AMS conduct a survey of its members who are actually working with real time weather-climate data to see how many agree that humans have been the main cause of global warming and that there was justification for the AMS’s 2009 Rossby Research Medal (highest AMS award) going to James Hansen.
Global Environmental Problems. There is no question that global population increases and growing industrialization have caused many environmental problems associated with air and water pollution, industrial contamination, unwise land use, and hundreds of other human-induced environmental irritants. But all these human-induced environmental problems will not go away by a draconian effort to reduce CO2 emissions. CO2 is not a pollutant but a fertilizer. Humankind needs fossil-fuel energy to maintain its industrial lifestyle and to expand this lifestyle in order to be able to better handle these many other non-CO2 environmental problems. There appears to be a misconception among many people that by reducing CO2 we are dealing with our most pressing environmental problem. Not so.
It must be remembered that advanced industrial societies do more for the global environment than do poor societies. By greatly reducing CO2 emissions and paying a great deal more for our then needed renewable energy we will lower our nation’s standard of living and not be able to help relieve as many of our and the globe’s many environmental, political, and social problems.
Obtaining a Balanced View on AGW. To understand what is really occurring with regards to the AGW question one must now bypass the AMS, the mainstream media, and the mainline scientific journals. They have mostly been preconditioned to accept the AGW hypothesis and, in general, frown on anyone not agreeing that AGW is, next to nuclear war, our society’s most serious long range problem.
To obtain any kind of a balanced back-and-forth discussion on AGW one has to consult the many web blogs that are both advocates and skeptics of AGW. These blogs are the only source for real open debate on the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Here is where the real science of the AGW question is taking place. Over the last few years the weight of evidence, as presented in these many blog discussions, is beginning to swing against the AGW hypothesis. As the globe fails to warm as the GCMs have predicted the American public is gradually losing its belief in the prior claims of Gore, Hansen, and the other many AGW advocates.
Prediction. The AMS is going to be judged in future years as having foolishly sacrificed its sterling scientific reputation for political and financial expediency. I am sure that hundreds of our older deceased AMS members are rolling in their graves over what has become of their and our great society.
[duplicate text removed ~ ctm]
When Hanson won the Rossby Award, I dropped out of the AMS; Television Seal and all. You do not let those who are the gatekeepers of climate data have such sharp environmental and political viewpoints that could challenge if the data is true and unbiased. What would happen if the Congressional Budget Office allowed politics to influence cost estimates. We deserve to have non-political, pure scientists and statisticians to track our raw date.
john(UK)– Joe did not like to be yelled at and is now running away in tears
PWalker— Yes, I should keep an open mind, but I must also keep an open mind about people who think they have an open enough mind to overturn decades of scientific literature. I hope people here do this too, rather than just being told Venus has no greenhouse effect, even though not one planetary scientist would agree with this.
Maurice– Well, people appeal to authority all the time. This Joe takes the prescriptions the doctor gives me. It seems only to be climate science where everyone thinks they understand everything by learning it for a week.
Chris Colose,
Find a way to get the numbers of buffalo on the great plains , deer in the northeast, bear, antelop, wolfs, coyotes, skunks, badgers, raccons, beaver, on and on that were here in north and south america together with all the natives at the time before all these new ones came. Find the amount of CO2 they exhaled and prove what that caused to the earths tempature to do. Publish it here.
Does democracy not exist within the AMS and other similar organisations then ?
Here is an experiment that shows that the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!
Part1
I have indicated that there is an experiment that demonstrates that the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist. This experiment plus the mathematics of several hundred Ph. D. physicists and the non existent experiments “proving the ghge” should show that the Hypotheses is a fairy-tale.
The Experiment that Failed and saved the World trillions.
By Berthold Klein P.E November 16, 2010 revision 11-19-2010
The hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” is the process where a combination of IR absorbing gases including Water/vapor/liquid/solid, CO2.CH4. NO2 and others are super insulation and cause the atmosphere to be 33 degrees warmer than would be explained by the “black body “temperature.
How is this done? The hypothesis says that the IRag’s absorb the IR radiation then it is “back radiated to earth causing the earth to be warmer by the resonating of this heat energy.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of the magic caused by the “greenhouse gas effect”
as has been said the truth is in the detail therefore anyone that wants to get into more of the details,please join in. I will be adding more later.
As others have not started to define “The greenhouse gas effect” lets start with what are the “features that should be testable!” Because water/liquid, vapor,solid (H2O /lvs) is different than gases IRag’s as CO2 ,Ch4,NO2 and others -this will deal first with the none H2O ,IRags.
Critical features:
1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.
2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.
3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).(an assumption based on The Bohr model however a time factor is needed)
5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.(were is the experimental data )
6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.
7. Where does this lead?
We all know that the “greenhouse” effect exist. Anyone that has gotten into a hot car on a sunny day.(summer or winter). Has walked into a store with south facing window , its temperature will be much higher than a car ,or window in the shade. This is caused by confined space heating- this was established in 1909 by R.W. Wood a professor of Physics and Optics at John Hopkins University from 1901 to 1955.
What experiment could be performed to “prove” that the ”greenhouse gas effect exists.
All the AGW point out it is impossible to simulate what actually happens in the atmosphere therefore they propose using computer models, the problem with “computer models” is that unless all the factors that effect the atmosphere are included into the program it is “garbage in is garbage out”. When this is tried there are no computers made that have sufficient capacity to handle all of the factors. Many of the factors are not even fully know yet. Then the big guess is what are the factors to include and which are really of minor importance and can be left out and still get usable results. To data no one has come up with the “right model”
continued
Part 2
Using the list of “critical factor” lets see if there are some way of indicating if the concept may exist.
To use the concentration of IRags in the atmosphere for testing does not work otherwise there would not be the controversy that exists today. In the field of engineering and research there is the use of “models” that are either similar in behavior or can be proportioned to a larger or smaller series of events that relate to an actual set of events.
As the amount of heating that is supposed to be is on the order of fractions of a degree per year- we need a more dramatic experiment to show that the concept actually exists. If the experiment at a much higher concentration does not demonstrate the effect then the Concept does not exist. If the concept works at high concentration then it can be tried with lower and lower concentrations until a threshold of effects is reached.
Some numbers are needed now: By definition 10,000 ppm is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1million parts per million( 1×10+6) . The atmosphere is supposed to contain 400 ppm (round Number) therefore a concentration of 100% CO2 is 2500 time that of what is in the atmosphere. If the effect exists it should be much easier to measure and demonstrate.
Now it is claimed that CH4 is from 23 to 70 time the effect of CO2,thus using the lowers figure by using a concentration of 100 % CH4 ,the effect should be 57500 time stronger that using CO2. It is claimed that NO2 is 100 time more powerful that CO2 thus it should cause 250,000 X the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere
As CH4 is found to be about 2ppB ( 2 X 10 -9)in the atmosphere , a concentration of 100 % CH4 should give a results that is 5 X 10 + 10 times what exists in the atmosphere.
. Now if CH4 is 23 times the effect of CO2 another longer chain hydrocarbon molecule will be even more powerful thus the proposed experiment shown below was done with 100 % butane.
The experiment shown below substituted “natural gas” a mixture of 70% CH4 about 29% CO2 and the remainder is H2 and other trace gases. This is readily available for test purposed from any natural gas stove. Now 100 % CO2 is available for several sources, but one that is not too expensive is from any Paint ball supply store, another is from a supplier of Dry ice. Do not use Alka Seltzer as you have to put this in water to get the CO2 thus you have a mixture of CO2 and water and water vapor – you are not testing the effect of CO2 only. Discussion of H2O/lvs in the atmosphere will follow later.
The natural gas mixture should have a combined effect of less that 100% CH4 by a weighted average of 70% CH4+ 29% CO2or 3.500000725X10+9 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this occurs the temperature increase must be measurable.
How does the experiment contain the high concentration of the IRags for this test? Having reviewed several experiments that contained the IRags is glass containers then they measures the increase in temperature of the gas which had increased, they claimed this increase was do to the “ghg”effect, they are absolutely wrong. The cause of the temperature increase was do to the heating of the glass by its absorbing the IR and the glass heating. ( A Master’s thesis (peer reviewed) with this information is available on request). Another failure of these tests were their including a black cardboard inside the containers, thus additional heating of the IRag’s from conduction of heat from the black cardboard. (They created a Greenhouse effect-confined space heating)
The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRags is in a thin walled material that will not absorb the IR and heat. The experiment used crystal clear Mylar balloons. They are available in various sizes, several 20 inch diameter(major diameter) were chosen. If you want you can use larger ones to contain larger numbers of IRag molecules.
continued
What puzzles me is why such “learned societies” feel able (or are even permitted by their members) to state any official position at all, either way, on a matter that is clearly far from settled: it is no more scientific than betting on a horse in a race; and in this particular race the AGW horse is looking increasingly to be running on only three legs.
It took about 40 years for ‘Piltdown Man’ to be exposed: I hope the AGW hypothesis is discredited a lot sooner because I’d like to see this insufferably arrogant “the science is settled” brigade publicly humiliated in their (and my) lifetimes.
Part 3
Now lets discuss the experiment.
1. Fill the balloons with the various IRags ,and one with dry air as a control.
2. Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let it adjust outside in the shade.
3. Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree to check air temperature in the shade. Record data.
4. Take a large black mate board or a large black cloth or sheet and lay it on the ground in the sun. Use the IR thermometer to check the temperature as it raises in the sun. Record the data. When it appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5.
5. Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the temperature of the balloons initially. Record the temperature.
6. Measure the temperature of the black background in the “shadow” of each of the balloons also measure the temperature of the black background outside of the “shadows” of the balloons.
Now lets repeat the Critical factors and note the result of my test to the critical factor.
Critical features:
1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer. The air between the balloons and the black background did not change temperature.
2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface. The black background did not change temperature either in the “shadow” or outside the shadow. The temperature of the black background heated to 20 t0 30 degrees above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was done outside in bright sun light the black background heated to 130 to 140 degrees F. Similar temperature can be measured from black asphalt. When the experiment was done with the 500 watt power shop light (see below)inside the black background went from ambient of 70-72 degrees to 100 -110 degrees. Again when measuring the temperatures of the black background with the IR thermometer there was no measurable temperature difference anywhere along the surface.
3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air. The balloons did not warn any warmer than ambient. The IRags in the balloons will not warm because that would be a violation of the Bohr Model.
4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).(an assumption based on The Bohr model however a time factor is needed) As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons, there was no stronger “back-forcing” because the IRag absorbed more IR radiation.
5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.(were is the experimental data )
6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.
Specifications of the IR thermometer: model: MTPRO laser-Micro Temp; temperature range: -41degree C/F to 1040 degrees F. IR range 5 to 16 nm. Angle of view D:S =11:1
cost about $60.00. many other models available.
continued
Chris Colose,
I have read your posts. You are not qualified to assess the scientific literacy of others.
Mark
Part 4
I have thought about several refinements, but it would not change the bottom line that the “ghg effect” is a fairy-tale.
I’m sure that the AGW’s will not believe this proves that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exists , therefore I challenge them to come up with an experiment that they claim “proves the existence of the “greenhouse gas effect”.
As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light. By using a 500 watt shop power light which because of the temperature of the filament approach the spectral characteristics of the Sun light ( should have more long wave IR because of a lower temperature) It was place one(1) meter away from the balloons to avoid conduction and convection heating of the balloons. As is stated above there was no difference in the final results.
Now lets talk about water( H2O/lvs):
Yes H2O/lvs has a major effect on weather conditions, where I’m at in Northern Ohio it just started to rain, if it gets any colder we will have snow or sleet. Of course tomorrow it may be sunny and clear. As is said in the Great Lakes region if you don’t like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change. Now the “climate” has not changed for the last 300 years just as the Indians.
Any way lets look a H2O/lvs in the atmosphere : If its clear the humidity can be from near 0 % relative humidity to 100%. Now if it ‘s cloudy the “relative Humidity” can vary from 30 to 100% depending on temperatures, Now we know that the air temperature where the clouds are forming is at or below the “dew point”, now as the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy( Heat of condensation), if the general air temperature is low enough ( below freezing) more energy is released as ice or snow is formed. This energy has to be dissipated either as IR radiation or as lightening or probably high winds or tornado.
This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated another is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious but it is also relevant that in spite of significant solar absorption the “clouds “ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor; there is probably a rapid turbulent exchange of energy in both directions from evaporation/ sublimation to condensing, to freezing. This is why “climatologists” can not get the correct “sign” on the “forcing” it is a constantly changing set of conditions, non are wrong and non are correct.
Now lets add the next variable- solar heating at night of the clouds. Having taken IR radiation measurements at night for the last year at many different times by solar time it is apparent that when the sun goes down below the visible horizon , the clouds are still receiving solar energy. This has been confirmed by both measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors ) of the clouds. The clouds and the atmosphere cool until about 2:00 am when there is measurable increases in cloud temperatures and air temperatures. This warming continues until daylight is visible. The degree of warming is related to the time of year and what is happening with the jet stream and arctic storms.
There are other factors that are being monitored by real astrophysics researcher that are showing that Solar flares, and different type of radiation have an effect on cloud formation,this is only a beginning of learning about our atmosphere.
There is no way in the world of Fairy-tales that CO2 can have an effect on weather or “climate”
The nice thing about this experiment is that it can be done by high school physics classes or freshmen college physics lab classes . It would teach a very important lesson in that “not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful.
Mann-made global warming is a hoax,because the “greenhouse gas effect” is a fairy -tale.
Chris, perhaps you could walk down the hall and ask some of your senior colleagues at U Wisc about Bill Gray’s contributions to Tropical Meteorology. If you look back over the past 5-10 years of the so-called “hurricane war” in which aspects of climate change and hurricanes have been linked, then you will see that the eventual consensus that emerged was much closer to Bill Gray’s “loud” expert opinions.
Chris Colose, great photo’s of you out enjoying the natural world on your website. I would suggest you do more of that & spend less time reading the IPCC, GISS, & realclimate websites, as they are written by political hacks whose careers depend on keeping the AGW bandwagon rolling.
Thanks to Prof Gray for a very concise, pointed article. Of course it is mostly Op-Ed as some here have asserted, but that is simply because Gray decided to trade thoroughness for brevity. The assertions he makes are well attested, both here & at other skeptical blogs. Other scientific societies have become similarly restive, re; the dust-up a few years ago at the ACS. If he should decide to publish his article in a “mainstream” publication, say the Wall Street Journal, which has been receptive to non-hysterical viewpoints, he would need to carefully document his assertions, perhaps as an on-line appendix.
The above seems pretty simple; what would be a more difficult but worthy followup would be to canvass the AMU membership and see just how big the gap is between its soi-disant leadership and its in-the-trenches membership; and if it’s as big as Dr. Gray believes, stage a rout and get a governing body that represents the working membership.
Ric, from a meteorological perspective, please pull up the ‘charts’ for today in Texas. In particular east and north central Texas (Dallas area); please note the winds and temperatures we are experiencing. Then take a look at a skew-t diagram from one of today’s soundings …
This marks about the 3rd straight week (exc for a couple of days earlier in the week) of what you will see (horizontal winds, high temps and little to no vertical convection) …
I assert the ‘heat transport’ is from more southern latitudes to northern via advection (where radiation from those ‘newly warmed’ surfaces then takes place).
.
Well done Bill Gray. There can be no more important post this year.
@chris Colose
It is interesting that you mention meteorologists not be trained in the technicalities of ‘climate science’. Perhaps you would like to elaborate just exactly whom is trained in the technicalities of ‘climate science’ – Indeed, it would be nice to see a realistic definition of what exactly is ‘climate science’! Then you might like to consider how ‘deep’ an understanding of each section of those ‘areas’ that form part of ‘climate science’ would be required?
I put it to you that there is no such thing as a trained ‘climate scientist’ – though I accept there are various multi-disciplined and multi-trained guys out there that cover a couple of the arenas where ‘climate science parts’ converge/overlap and that would make them more able to understand larger zones of the ‘subject’.
I’ll not bother to list all the possible subjects which would be required to FULLY understand ‘climate science’ but I am absolutely certain no such curriculum of study, even group of studies, exists sufficient to attain ‘enlightenment’! in the area of climate science: and nor is there any person capable of understanding ALL the necessary areas of science to such a level as to be an absolute expert in ‘climate science’! As for the term ‘climatologist’ – again, it would be interesting to read a proper scientific definition!
We have experienced members of various disciplines involved, but we have very few folk capable of bridging more than a couple of said disciplines!
Thus, it seems highly unlikely that you yourself would be able to categorically ‘assess’ the various scientific studies (ok,ok – including the politically biased bullshit produced by the IPCC!) to any signifcant level. (I myself am a geologist/geo-engineer and struggle like flip with some of the statistics methods, ‘modelling’, etc!)
I further opine that many ‘self’ or ‘media’ proclaimed climate scientists are often just jumped up guys from primary science subjects, many of whom have further ‘jumped up’ onto the AGW bandwagon – seeing an opportunity for ‘making a name for themselves’ in an area which is ill-defined yet full of grants, and PUBLICATION (peer reviewed by equally jumped up folk!) for weak scientific ideas!
And then – you, based on your obvious extensive experience and obviously infinite wisdom, feel that it is OK to accept the ‘concensus’ because you’re just so superior in your knowledge and understanding of all the subject matter?? Purleeeezzzzz…….
Thanks, Dr. Gray!
Ryan Maue,
Although I do not follow Tropical Meteorology literature in any detail, I am aware of the importance of some of his contributions. One of my peers in Madison that was really into hurricanes brought him up on occasion, and I doubt faculty in Madison would argue the point (unfortunately I’m not there now since I am going elsewhere for graduate school and am stationed in NYC @ur momisugly GISS over the summer). Of course, those same colleagues in Madison would disagree with his views on climate change, and important contributions in one area does not guarantee expertise in another. As I’m sure you are well aware, fluid dynamics and meteorology are much different subjects than radiation/climate. I’m also not aware of a single faculty member in Madison that studies climate that is “skeptical” of anthropogenic climate change in the way advertised by Bill, and I’m pretty sure they are not communist conspiracy and politically-driven people, and I can assure you none of their jobs depend on climate change. I don’t doubt his contributions or intelligence, but the conspiracy-type remarks that they make offline really makes me wonder. When you have tenure or have gone Emeritus there are no consequences except for how your peers view you. I’d love to chat with you more though.
When I attended college I kept learning about more and more things I did not know the answers to. Perhaps some folks find it comforting to know all the answers in advance, but a sense of wonder suits too.
As for Bill Gray’s essay – It is clearly written and informative, containing information about the AMS as he understands it to be. It is written well enough to inform us that other members of the AMS do not agree with him. Perhaps someone else wants to explain the other side of the story and if so, fine. But all the huffiness going on is misplaced – apply your energy to a real issue. Providing clean drinking water for millions of people comes to mind.
Ric Werme– You can use images, I have some other ones in another greenhouse post I just did here (which may be of interest to others since it focuses on claims along the lines of why Venus does not have a greenhouse effect, the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, or other flavors along this line of reasoning)
Sean says:
June 16, 2011 at 1:00 pm
It’s not just the AMS. It’s the American Chemical Society, the American Physical society, the NAS and others.
Good observation. It also extends into other avenues of life.
It seems the world is being taken over by 10% of the population that are activists with their own agendas.
Chris Colose said: “Would Bill Gray like to elaborate on all these people “he has talked to”, and have published in the peer-reviewed literature on climate-related topics, that actually disagree with the AMS position? As this stands, it is little more than an opinion piece full of assertions.”
What is the matter with you warmistas? Can you not read and understand an article before you disagree with it? It’s like a knee-jerk reaction. Dr. Gray made quite clear that there is no place for open debate, not within the AMS and absolutely not within “peer-reviewed” literature. Scientific, peer-reviewed literature in the CAGW world does not exist. If you are not a member of the believer’s club and you try to publish anything looking like dissent, you cannot get it published and he named names as well as the foolish reasons his papers were rejected. The entire article was a request for free and open debate. Neither you nor fredb paid any attention to what Dr. Gray said. That makes your response, an opinion piece full of assertions, look foolish.
I much prefer the National Weather Association’s statement on climate change over the AMS’. The NWA simply encourages the membership to become educated on the complex issues involved. I believe this is more in line with what Dr. Gray is discussing here. It’s why I am a member of the NWA and am not a member of the AMS.
This is a very direct and accute call to the leadership of the AMS. Will they respond?
I doubt it, they have too much to lose; time to set up an alternative Real AMS.
John F. Hultquist, energy is not being applied to providing clean water to people because of the AGW hysteria generated by the warmistas. How about Hansen decrying real problems, rather than inventions.