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.
DesertYote says: January 26, 2012 at 8:11 pm
“Wrong. Any measurement of any system effects the system being measured”
Yes, a measurement affects the measured thing.
However many people substitute comparison with measurement, so the confusion is common. When we measure with a ruler we are actually comparing, nothing is taken from the compared thing. When we measure with a thermometer we are measuring, energy is exchanged between the thermometer and the thing. Measurement involves an exchange of energy, comparison does not.
The first step in being able to control a thing is to be able to measure it, since you have figured out how to interact with it and thus affect it.
Too bad we can only compare something to time and not actually measure it. Gravity too
The instrumentation alters albdo, air flow and laminar air flow, humidity, and air temperature. By using the same kinds of instrumentation in within comparable observation sites, it is presumed the influences of theinstrumentation upon the observed values will produce relatively similar observational results.
Akvavit, vodka, and peppermint schnapps at the tailgate party introduces anthropogenic warming and anthropogenic cuddling.
Irrigation projects can introduce enough water into the soils and high water tables to slightly increase nighttime low temperature averages and affect temperature trends.. Depending upon the sources of such water supplies, there may or may not be countervailing changes in the air temperatures in those locations.
R. Gates, I have a problem, the earth has a slow way of responding to change with it’s large thermal inertia, the sun now has been some what despondent for quite a while, in fact some would say lazy.
Of late we seem to be running out of stored heat, please explain to me in the face of the huge increase in temperature from the models, why the earth has cooled 1’C at the two metre level in a month!!!!!!!
Did not have time to read all the posts so someone may have already put this out. I was at the meeting and there were lots of video taping going on. Several people, who were filming, were asked by guests to please put the meeting up on Youtube. I’m sure it will be up in a matter of days.
wayne Job says:
January 27, 2012 at 12:03 am
Of late we seem to be running out of stored heat, please explain to me in the face of the huge increase in temperature from the models, why the earth has cooled 1′C at the two metre level in a month!!!!!!!
You have to understand that in any conflict between one of these models and reality, it’s reality that’s defective. The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy explains it thus:-
“When the Guide was sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Traal literally – it said “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists” instead of “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists” – the editors claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing; summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty, and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred…and in a moving speech held that life itself was in contempt of court and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off for a pleasant evening’s Ultra-golf.”
I think that Mr Gates would rather that real life didn’t intrude to mess up all those lovely theories of which he’s so fond.
Since greenurabngirl has not responded in any way (at least at the time I’m writing this), despite well-meaning and reasonable responses, shall we all assume that ‘she’ is one of the new breed of ‘concern’ trolls and now ignore her? That would seem best.
@Jose Suro:
I concur. My own favourite perspective gaining little calculation says that if you could combine the entire human population into a single organism, the result would be an organism of about half a cubic kilometer in size. As I sit here and look out of the window over the small valley of HoutBay, it would likely not even feel cramped in the space that I see. And the rest of the globe would be totally devoid of human life. Would probably be a hungry little critter, but only really like a single hungry little microbe on an elephant. Certainly helps me to keep perspective.
J Snow @ur momisugly 2.28 on the 26th:
I thought your comment was absolutely spot-on. I hope greenurbangirl stays around and isn’t put off discussion/ learning more by the more intemperate commenters.
The whole article is very interesting and I learn a lot by reading this site. Thank you to Anthony and his crew.
They duck like a quack!
You can bet on the temperature in future years at Intrade, here (Under Climate and Weather):
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/
Richie;
Even if, or perhaps especially if, gug is actually a girl*, it is one hugely overfed troll at the moment.
*See my comment above (corrected below):
Historically, many totalitarian regimes have used mental illness as a pretext for locking up dissidents. Obviously, anybody who disagreed with official policy and publicly stated their disagreement had something wrong with. It’s easy to limit dissent when those who speak out are locked-up and pumped full of Thorazine and similar medications.
~More Soylent Green!
wayne Job says:
January 27, 2012 at 12:03 am
R. Gates, I have a problem, the earth has a slow way of responding to change with it’s large thermal inertia, the sun now has been some what despondent for quite a while, in fact some would say lazy.
Of late we seem to be running out of stored heat, please explain to me in the face of the huge increase in temperature from the models, why the earth has cooled 1′C at the two metre level in a month!!!!!!!
_________
You are mistaking short-term natural fluctuations for longer-term forcing of climate. Either you are not aware of what you are doing, or you are doing so intentionally. The rather listless sun and the current La Nina are part of those short-term natural fluctuations. They will cycle back the other way in due time. The forcing from the additionally 40% CO2, and similar amounts of CH4 and N2O is not going to go away, and represents a long-term forcing that is much more potent signal upon which these shorter-term fluctuations ride. If you fail to grasp this, or refuse to, depsite numerous studies showing such, there’s not much that can be done to cure your ignorance.
R. Gates, you seem equally unwilling to cast a critical eye on your own beliefs. That you continue to say that the Sun is partly to blame for recent cooling means that you must yourself be unclear as to the exact mechanism of this solar-cooling connection. Yet you throw aspersions on a commentor who questions the current modeled scenarios of CO2 AGW.
So do tell us what your facts and studied knowledge are regarding the solar connections. Or are you willing to question that part of the theory? If you are willing to question the solar connection, you demonstrate extreme levels of hypocritical leanings in your comment to Wayne.
In other words, on the scale we’re talking about, our observation has no measurable effect on the system, and can be completely ignored with respect to “observation affecting the system”. If you’re talking about a thermometer in a small enclosed space that’s barely larger than the measuring instrument, then sure, maybe there’s some measurable effect.
Pamela,
Not sure exactly what you mean by “question the solar connection”? Are you asking me if the sun plays a role in the short-term variability of the climate? I would answer yes to that, and through a variety of mechanism related to magnetic, EUV, and TSI effects.
And I hardly am unwilling to cast a critical eye on my “beliefs” as they are always moving targets and adjusted when new data comes in that merits them being adjusted. My point to Wayne was about short-term variability versus long-term forcing. CO2 has been rising for hundreds of years, and (my current belief is) it probably started becoming a stronger signal in the climate than solar sometime in the mid to late 20th century. Numerous very detailed attribution studies show the longer-term forcing from the rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. If you can show me an attribution study that shows this forcing is not present, I’d love to see it.
So many answers, so little time!
First, to GreenUrbanGirl. I suspect that 99.9% of the Gentle Readers of this web site will agree with you that 99.9% of scientists agree that we DO have some effect on the environment. I hope you stick around and learn of the BUT that should have followed.
Guys, be nice to GreenUrbanGirl, especially as I have characterized you as “Gentle Readers”.
Second, a real world simile for our effect on the environment: Should someone pee in the Marriott’s swimming pool, 99.9% of not only the scientists, but also the engineers would agree that the level would change. It may INCREASE because of the pee. Or it may DECREASE as a direct consequence if other swimmers got out in disgust. In a chaotic system of disgusted swimmers, you just can’t tell. (Not that you or I would pee in the pool. Maybe Al Gore.)
The Earth is so large and we are so small that our effect becomes lost in the noise. As George Carlin characterized humanity, we are nothing but a surface nuisance, something like lice.
Finally, another answer to: Please explain how a weather station recording temperatures affects the system being measured.
A slight amount of thermal energy is transferred between the thermometer and the media being measured, in this case air. That transfer affects the thermal energy and consequently the temperature of the air. However, in the real world it is inconsequential. See peeing in the pool, above.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
greenurbangirl,
I believe nearly every scientist and most political/history buffs
agree the Aswan High Dam in Egypt had and has a huge impact on the
climate and land use in that area. See:
http://geography.about.com/od/specificplacesofinterest/a/nile.htm
In this single instance, if you use a forced choice questionnaire that
eliminates the possibility of “don’t know” responses, I can guarantee
you’ll get 99.9% agreement from scientists to the question, “Has the
Aswan High Dam impacted the local climate of the Nile Valley ?”.
It’s possible to lint pick similar situations and instances of man made
activities world wide that would yield the same survey results.
If you’d ask the question “Was building the Aswan High Dam a mistake ?”
you’d get a very different set of responses.
Depending on where the question was asked, “Should the Aswan High Dam
be maintained or torn down ?”, the reactions would range all over the place.
Even if you quote a statisic properly (97.5% instead of 99.9%) it’s only
meaningful if you tell the entire story behind what went into the number.
Paradoxically, only 96.4% of climate scientists actually believe this figure themselves.
greenurbangirl:
Previously, the number was 97% – you guys need to work on keeping your story straight! Unless you’re assuming that the wall-street-journal-16 are the missing 0.1%!
(For those not in the know, the 97% figure comes from a Masters project. It involved about 10K questionnaires, 2-3K were returned. There were 2 questions related to AGW; 90% answered positively to one and 82% to the other – so the maximum answering positively to both was 82%. Undeterred, the authors culled out respondents at least half (as I recall) of whose publications were in the field of climatology. Of the 79 that made this cut (yes, 79!), 77 answered positively to both questions. And that’s where the 97% figure comes from (meaning that the expansion to “all scientists” comes only from the land of memes). An article by the person who conducted the survey and her advisor is available at some tinyurl address.)
[Moderator’s Note: This would have been perfect if you’d supplied that address. Some people are just too lazy to do their own search and will reject the idea out of hand. Me? I’m busy moderating. Just sayin’. -REP]
BTW, I would imagine that 99.9% of scientist would agree that Plankton and Green Algae have impacted the climate. In fact it hard to argue that any of the major categories of plants and animals has not had an effect on the climate — its called an ecosystem for a reason.
Steamboat Jack said:
“The Earth is so large and we are so small that our effect becomes lost in the noise.”
—-
Of course our size, individually or collectively as a species says nothing about our abililty to affect the Earth. Only a few men were responsible for the overall theories that developed atomic weapons, and a relative handful to bring about the first one. Now of course, humans could turn the planet into a nuclear winter in a matter of a few days. Those who would argue that humans are too small and puny to affect the Earth in big ways haven’t really thought through the illogical implications of their position. But of course, perhaps they don’t really care to think it through, but simply want empty rhetoric for “their” side.
@John Barrett
Great comment! I totally agree that skeptics are not organized, lack their own Greenpeace equivalent, and are all following their own pet interests and tunes. Imagine an army like that. Every running around in different directions, nothing concerted. = defeat.
The hope is, though, that we get our own Greenpeace(s), which are oriented toward presenting the truth to the public, and to changing opinion. Public opinion is the key to the political aspect of the AGW war. So I think we all should start thinking about trying to feel or think or act our way toward putting together our own juggernaut skeptic Greenpeace style organization.