Readers may recall when I took OMSI to task for being debate deniers. That didn’t work out so well for OMSI what with the negative publicity and the packed room last night. Wish I could have been there. If anyone has this on video, please upload to YouTube and send a link – Anthony
Presentation by global warming skeptics draws big crowd in Portland
Written by Scott Learn, The Oregonian | January 26 2012
More than 400 people jammed into a Portland hotel ballroom Wednesday night to hear a panel of global warming skeptics assert that manmade increases in greenhouse gases are not driving climate change.
The event, hosted by the 150-member Oregon chapter of the American Meteorological Society, was open to the general public and drew an attentive and mostly sympathetic audience. Chapter President Steve Pierce asked for a show of hands beforehand, then estimated that 90 percent of the crowd favored the statement that human activities are not the main cause of global warming.
Three Oregon-based panelists — physicist Gordon Fulks, meteorologist Chuck Wiese and former Oregon state climatologist George Taylor — used long- and short-term temperature measurements and other data to bolster their case.
Skepticism about climate models was prominent, particularly given a general flattening of temperatures since 1998, a relatively warm El Nino year. Water vapor, sun cycles and natural weather patterns are more powerful in changing climate than increases in carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, the panelists said.
“The effects of future changes in CO2 are likely to be modest and manageable,” said Taylor, who added that Northwest records do not indicate that temperatures have risen or snowpack has fallen, subjects of substantial debate.
The Oregon AMS moved the presentation to the Portland Airport Shilo Inn after the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry canceled it in November for lack of balance, and the ensuing controversy likely boosted in interest in the event.
“Thank you OMSI,” Wiese said, surveying the crowd. “This turnout is absolutely fantastic.”
Full story at Oregon Live: Presentation by global warming skeptics draws big crowd in Portland
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Above all, we need to thank the Oregon chapter of AMS for pointedly demonstrating that meteorologists are in contact with reality!
This is true in many trade groups and organizations nowadays…. most members are sane, and most local branches are sane, but the national level of the organization is utterly wacko, following all the idiotic fashions of the hard left.
David A. Evans says:
January 26, 2012 at 4:28 pm
288VDC? That’s a lot of PV panels to wire in series.
Are you modeling kelvins with volts 1::1?
Ric Werme says:
January 26, 2012 at 4:56 pm
288 was chosen to make a rather weak point. 🙂
DaveE.
Ken Smith says:
January 26, 2012 at 12:54 pm
“In fact, I’ve been reading this blog for over three years and never have I come across a single suggestion that human activity does not have climate impact…..”
Locally yes, globally though I will disagree. Most people do not recognize how vast this planet is from the human perspective. If we stood all of humanity up each in a square meter of space we would all almost fit in the Everglades National Park in Florida – do the math – I did. A miniscule area of the planet. And that is in a two dimensional scale. The planet is very 3-dimensional as well. In cubic meters we would amount to a bunch of ants on a few trees in a forest somewhere.
Here’s an image I made from the 15th floor of a hotel I stayed in a few years ago:
http://www.josesuroeditorial.com/Landscapes/Scenics-2008/4113375_swWfhD#!i=621183221&k=7uxbd&lb=1&s=A
There’s a guy on the beach (bottom right). Looks like an ant, and this is just a LOCAL image. How many copies of him could you fit in just that picture? The planet is huge. Gives you some perspective…..
So we think we put out a lot of waste, CO2, etc. Locally, yes. In the context of the whole planet, we don’t even come close. We are so self important, so “we are it”, in every which way. It’s kind of a sickness.
This planet is a LOT bigger than most people think it is, try walking it sometime. Our impact on it is miniscule in every way compared to all other natural impacts, as the people in Japan will tell you after their Island got rocked by that “little” earthquake last of year. Supposedly it even changed the speed of rotation of the planet:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110316-japan-earthquake-shortened-days-earth-axis-spin-nasa-science/
WE are ALL so self important, while int e the big scheme of things we’re really just a passing evolutionary fad. Get used to it, make your family safe, and make the most of what you’ve got.
The rest is just hyperbole.
Best,
J.
Actually no.
It’s not really that weak a point. We really don’t know if there are underlying cycles we don’t know about.
The point was and is that if you’re at a point of inflection, you’re bound to get the highest or lowest
DaveE.
I choose (d) All Of The Above.
Omission above: comment cite:
As below, so above. Lorenz later went on to demonstrate that you never get to round your input data, much less truncate. Only infinite accuracy will do in a chaotic system. So even atomic uncertainty propagates, sometimes, unpredictably, to macro events.
Urbangreengirl-Spend somtime out in the real world. Get a job with the USFS, fire crew,for instance, A job at a truck stop.meeting people from all over, seeing people who havet to deal with real fuel costs and transport. Work on a ranch or farm. Things are not what they seem…
Welcome aboard,also…
R. Gates says:
January 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm
“Seems their neutrality would be called into question in this instance, such that they ought not call themselves skeptics as they seem to have the climate all figured out.”
===============
Al Gore told the world it was settled, unless they would buy his carbon (guilt) credits.
The world told Al, to take a f***king flying leap, and here we are.
Watching the sand castles disintegrate.
As a “CAGW denier” I would like to make my perspective more clear;
Yes indeed, humanity does affect the Earth’s environmental condition, in many ways;
water pollution, air pollution, UHI, land use changes, plastic waste in the Oceans, etc. etc. etc.
So, yes indeed I am one of those 99.9% that believes that human activity does change the environment, no doubt about it……
These detrimental effects do tend to be localized since the Earth is still a pretty BIG place and pristine (or very nearly so) places do still exist. Yes, some human effects travel vast distances.
However, we have made GREAT progress (at least in the more developed areas of the world) in the last few decades. Sewage treatment plants, banning phosphates in detergents, air pollution technology on power plants, etc. etc. These technologies have made a huge difference, I see it right here on the shores of the Great Lakes in the USA. All of this progress was well worth the cost and indeed being careful with what we do with our waste products makes a HUGE difference that benefits everybody.
Now, we need to discuss the topic of “climate”, my definition is; “climate is what you expect, weather is what you get”. I consider climate to be just one variable that can be observed in the environment. I have yet to see any, I REPEAT ANY, proof that any of our activities are changing the climate.
The main hypothesis that humans are changing the climate, i.e. the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis is WRONG. I won’t detail that here since folks that believe it is probably wouldn’t take the time to read any other hypotheses anyway. I believe that the “GHE” only changes the response time of the gases in the atmosphere to changes in the energy arriving at the surface, i.e. sunrise, sunset, accumulation of clouds, dissipation of clouds. It does not cause a “higher equilibrium temperature”.
So put me down for 98% of the menu, but I will pass on that LEMON known as the Greenhouse Effect. Oh, I would also like my DDT back, I do hate those mosquito bites. And why is it my parents never warned me about bedbugs back when the Cuyahoga River was burning ?
Cheers, Kevin.
The problem with Heisenberg at the macro scale is I really can’t measure the difference between a momentum and position of an object of say 1000 kg m/sec(p) * 1000km(x) and 1000 kg m/sec(p) * 1000km(x) +hbar. My measuring equipment can either measure really small things precisely or really big things with error bars much larger than the quantum step. So in practice, it is really difficult to observe the uncertainty at the macro scale even if it does still exist, as hbar is so small as to appear continuous on the macro scale.
(All that is to say the previous comments are technically correct, but in practice who cares.)
R. Gates says:
January 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm
“Did they happen to mention that 9 out of the 10 warmest years on instrument temperature record have occurred since that time?”
That’s another way of saying that the “temperature has reached a plateau”…at least when you add that its divergence from the model predictions is rapidly becoming embarrassing.
On the rest of your points: come on! It’s a news article. What do you expect from a journalist?
R. Gates says:
January 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm
This is funny: …But this statement is even more hilarious:
“More than 400 people jammed into a Portland hotel ballroom Wednesday night to hear a panel of global warming skeptics assert that manmade increases in greenhouse gases are not driving climate change.”
Since when do so-called “skeptics” make such a definitive assertion? I thought they were supposed to be “skeptical” about the causes of climate change. Seems their neutrality would be called into question in this instance, such that they ought not call themselves skeptics as they seem to have the climate all figured out.
R Gates, I must ask… Since when does a reporter’s hyped description qualify as the definitive moral characterization of the “skeptic movement ?
u.k.(us) says:
January 26, 2012 at 6:18 pm
R. Gates says:
January 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm
“Seems their neutrality would be called into question in this instance, such that they ought not call themselves skeptics as they seem to have the climate all figured out.”
===============
Al Gore told the world it was settled, unless they would buy his carbon (guilt) credits.
The world told Al, to take a f***king flying leap, and here we are.
Watching the sand castles disintegrate.
______
I would caution you about counting those sand castles before they fully disintegrate.
Some one please explain how mankind can influence either the winter temperatures, or climate of Fargo, ND when the jetstream is visiting Corpus Christi? UHI effect?
Roy says:
January 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm
@ur momisugly George E. Smith
“Well Heisenberg explained to us nearly a hundred years ago that simply looking at the climate, will change it, and in ways that we can’t predict, and with our luck, they are most likely to be bad.”
Heisenberg did nothing of the sort. His uncertainty principle relates to events that happen on an atomic scale.
###
Wrong. Any measurement of any system effects the system being measured.
Check this CBS4 Miami video:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/miamicbs4-15750840/climate-change-a-hot-topic-at-meteorology-conference-in-colorado-27867727.html
The claim by Dr. James White for University of Colorado calling for about 3 ft sea level rise by the end of the century is totally bogus: Envisat trend is at 0.789 mm/year for about 7cm…
U.K says: “Watching the sand castles disintegrate.”
R.Gates reply: “I would caution you about counting those sand castles before they fully disintegrate.”
U.K. said nothing about “counting” sand castles. The word used is “watching.”
DesertYote says:
January 26, 2012 at 8:11 pm
“Wrong. Any measurement of any system effects the system being measured.”
——-
Sorry, I don’t follow. Please explain how a weather station recording temperatures affects the system being measured.
I was there the entire evening. It was quite good. All three speakers gave good presentations using the establishment’s own data, modeling, claims and theories up against broader data sets and observations that do not the fit the AGW tall tales.
It’s quite easy for most people to recognize the many contradictions before their eyes.
Too bad R Gates wasn’t there he could actually comment on something that was said.
Of course R Gates just wanted other stuff said.
There was however a guy like him in the Q&A. Near the end of the 20 or so audience questions an alarmist took the mic and proceeded to provide other stuff. He didn’t address anything specific that had been presented and asked no question.
He just went on and on and on and on with other stuff. When the MC asked for a question he said, “well it’s more of a comment” then proceeded with his lecture.
It was Q & A. No one invited him to give a lecture. He rudely chose to talk endlessly until cut off.
How typical.
And while this is going on in Oregon, plans are underway just west of Portland to start exporting coal on a huge scale to Asia.
http://tdn.com/news/local/coal-in-clatskanie-commissioners-approve-port-westward-export-proposals/article_2e6ac7bc-47f4-11e1-a2da-001871e3ce6c.html
R. Gates says:
January 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm
“Skepticism about climate models was prominent, particularly given a general flattening of temperatures since 1998, a relatively warm El Nino year.”
Did they happen to mention that 9 out of the 10 warmest years on instrument temperature record have occurred since that time? Probably not.
No, probably not. Temperatures of the last few years are generally going to be near the top if the long term trend is up. 62.9% of ALL of GISTemp average years are in the top 10. (100% of the first 10 years are in the top 10 – which is just about as remarkable) 14.4% of ALL years are ranked as #1 !!! (until sometime after that).
See for yourself:
http://naturalclimate.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/268/
Geeze — TWO highjackers working the same thread! RG and ugg. For my money, ugg is an Ugly Gross Guy in a basement with lotsa beer.
R. Gates says:
If we set a new modern instrument record in the next few years, it will be obvious that we have higher “plateaus” ahead…and I suspect we will and we do…
Suspicion is cheap. So is betting with other people’s money. When you suspicious types demonstrate some commitment to your paranoia by staking a substantial fraction of your own standard of living on hard predictions, only then will you deserve to be taken seriously.
And BTW, whether we have “higher plateaus” ahead, or a descent into the pits of a frozen hell, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record will have occurred since 1998… meaningless pablum.