WUWT readers may remember the fiasco from the Oregon State Museum of Science and Industry where they invited, then dis-invited the AMS Oregon Chapter to have a panel because they didn’t consider it “balanced” enough. Translation: “we don’t want any deniers in the museum”. The subsequent event was even more popular because of all the negative publicity OMSI generated for themselves.
Well, here’s part two, and it promises to be equally interesting. The main speaker, Phil Mote, is the fellow that replaced George Taylor after the governor forced him out for having skeptical views on climate.
It seems Mote’s no wallflower when it comes to politics and climate, so I expect some fireworks there. – Anthony
===============================================================
Oregon Chapter of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) to co-host Oregon Climatologist Dr. Phil Mote in Counterpoint Meeting on Global Climate Change April 10th at Portland State University
Portland, Oregon (March 28th 2012) – “The Oregon Chapter of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) is proud to announce that it will co-host a two hour meeting at Portland State University with Oregon Climatologist Dr. Phil Mote. This educational meeting will explore humans role in global climate change and is being co-hosted with the Sigma Xi Columbia-Willamette Chapter. This public meeting will take place on Tuesday, April 10th from 7-9pm and is being billed as, “The Scientific Case for Human Influence on Global Climate: What We Learn From Analyzing ALL The Evidence.” Joining Dr. Mote will be Andreas Schmittner, Oregon State University Professor of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences and Dr. Christina Hulbe, Professor of Geology at Portland State University.”
“The panel plans to give a single joint presentation that will educate attendees on the influence humans have on climate, as backed by scientific evidence. The panel may also raise counterpoints to data presented at a similar Oregon AMS meeting last January. In that meeting, the Oregon Chapter of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) hosted a panel of scientists that asked the question, “Is Human Caused Global Warming the Greatest Scientific Myth of Our Generation?” A capacity audience of 500 attended the meeting, which was the single largest in the chapters sixty-five year history. The Oregon AMS chapter is committed to examining all the evidence with regards to climate change. To that end, our mission statement reads, “The purpose of this society shall be to advance professional ideals in the science of meteorology and to promote the development, exchange, and application of meteorological knowledge.” By presenting all sides of this topic we hope the public will become better educated regarding global climate change. There is still a large divide amongst the general public on what is the primary driver behind climate change. We hope our series of meetings this year will dispel some of the long standing climate change myths, while confirming others with solid scientific evidence. No matter what their personal view of climate change was, attendees of our first meeting in January were cordial and an informational meeting ensued. We anticipate the same level of professionalism from our April 10th meeting and encourage all those who are interested to attend. This is the first presentation given by Dr. Mote to the Oregon AMS chapter since the George Taylor / Phil Mote debate at OMSI in January of 2007. We are honored to host Dr. Mote and his colleagues and look forward to a great evening. This meeting is free and open to the general public. Please arrive early for best seating, as a large turnout is expected. Regional media is encouraged to cover this event and link directly to our web site for the latest meeting updates.”
The Oregon Chapter of the American Meteorological Society is the single largest non-collegiate based state AMS chapter in the country, with more than 180 total members. Membership in this society is open to persons who are interested in the active support of the advance professional ideals in the science of meteorology and the development, exchange, and application of meteorological knowledge. Membership dues are just $7 per year. If you would like to find out more information about the Oregon Chapter of the American Meteorological Society please see: http://www.ametsoc.org/chapters/oregon. For more information on the Sigma Xi Columbia-Willamette Chapter please see: http://sx-cw.org.
See meeting announcement attached, as well as pasted below.
###
OREGON AMS MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT
“The Scientific Case for Human Influence on Global Climate:
What We Learn From Analyzing ALL The Evidence.”
GUEST SPEAKERS: Dr. Phil Mote, Oregon State Climatologist, Director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute and Professor of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University. Andreas Schmittner, Associate Professor of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University. Dr. Christina Hulbe, Professor of Geology, Portland State University.
WHEN: Tuesday, April 10th 2012 7-9pm. Note – A large audience is expected. Please arrive early for the best seating.
WHERE: Portland State University “Grand Ballroom” inside the Smith Memorial Student Union Building. The grand ballroom is located on the third floor, room #355. For a PSU campus map, click: http://tinyurl.com/7a54h5q. For driving directions to PSU click: http://tinyurl.com/zeuhw. Parking is available on Parking Structure #1 (see campus map link above). Access to Smith Memorial Student Union Building from Parking Structure #1 can be had via the sky bridge on level 4 of the parking structure (see campus map link above). Street parking is also available.
AGENDA: Exploring the scientific case for human influence on global climate. Guest speakers may also raise counterpoints to the January 2012 Oregon AMS meeting on climate change seen at: http://tinyurl.com/6vk27km. A Q&A session will be held at the end of the meeting.
COST: Free and open to the general public. This educational meeting is being co-hosted with the Sigma Xi Columbia-Willamette Chapter: http://sx-cw.org
OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS: For overnight accommodations in downtown Portland, please see: http://tinyurl.com/7boqrsf
CONTACT: Steve Pierce, Oregon AMS President: (503) 504-2075 or stevejpierce at comcast.net Oregon AMS web site: http://www.ametsoc.org/chapters/oregon
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Alec Rawls says:
March 28, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Another thought for David:
I can imagine that in order to account for the MWP as driven by CO2 one would have to assume the very same high sensitivities to CO2 that are ruled out by the last glacial maximum. The implication then would be that CO2 cannot have been responsible for the MWP.
What’s left? The sun.
—————————————————————
Exactly Alec, my thought is that the CAGW proponents, having trapped themselves into the original flat line T, flat line CO2 H.S. studies, (In order to match the predicted CO2 plus feed backs) had to minimalize all other forcings, mainly solar, which your article, referencing the scientific literature, demonstrates to have a far stronger correlation (50% to 85% of climate history can be statistically explained by solar changes) to climate history then CO2.
I do understand that the team” slowly put back in a little MWP, but what parameters would they be required to adjust in order to produce a past history such as is demonstrated in the Lehole study?
I have challenged any CAGW proponent to show an ANY IPCC model, which, given the known forcing flux of the past 1,000 to 2,000 year history, (flat line CO2) can generate a MWP as warm or warmer then the current temperature. So far every CAGW proponent has run from the challenge.
This is why, in my view, the Hockey Stick reconstructions matter. The CAGW proponents claim, as did Steven Mosher recently, that the H.S. reconstructions do not really matter, but I say that if the MWP is real, this alone destroys the ‘C’ in CAGW. Is my logic sound? Who gets to play with the models to try and produce this? Is Richard Lindzen allowed to play with the models? Could he see what parameters, besides CO2 , would be required to be adjusted in order to demonstrate a true MWP. Would those parameters then match his CO2 senstivity observations? Would positive cloud and W/V feedback have to be tunned down?. Would solar forcing have to be tunned up to meet the statistical observations? Why, after billions of dollars, has this not been done? If my conjecture is correct, then the debate would be focused on the reality of the MWP, and I do not think the proponents really want to go there, but they should be forced to.
Sincerely
David
Alec Rawls says:
March 28, 2012 at 7:41 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Perhaps the greatest importance of the stalled temperature increase these past 15 years (even Phil Jones acknowledges that there has been no statistical warming these past 15 years) is that it is making it very difficult to argue that there is high sensitivity to CO2. If this temperature plateau continues, perhaps within the course of the next 5 years it will be all but impossible to argue high sensitivity.
I envisage that the claims for high sensitivity will have to be dropped within the next 5 or so years. This would be a game changer because once high sensitivity is dropped, one is looking more at AGW rather than CAGW. The response to these is fundamentally different since it is difficult to support the presently favoured mitigation approach if one is dealing only with AGW. If there is only AGW, the case for adaption rather than mitigation becomes overwhelming.
PS. In making that observation I do not necessarily accept even AGW.
Only down the freeway maybe 45 miles in Salem, OR, if I can get a way from work on time will try to attend.
RobW says:
March 28, 2012 at 8:38 pm
RobW, I’m with Louis on this one. Sustainability is a very important topic but is easily addressed within existing geology courses. In Geology 101, for example, you can learn about the composition of the crust, common minerals, the rarity of mineral deposits, the scale of mining, major mineral districts and the total resources of world-class deposits. In Economic Geology you study these issues in greater detail and by the time you graduate you have a pretty good idea of sustainability. But “Science Communication”. What does this mean for a geologist or geophysicist who will typically enter the mining or oil & gas industry? They would be far better served taking courses on coping with the boredom of processing seismic traces or the irritations of getting eaten by mosquitoes.
I recall the days of university geology and geophysics. The geology students hated geophysics and chemistry. The geophysics students hated geology. If you allow these people to take soft courses such as “Science Communication” instead we will graduate smooth-talking know-nothings. I can hear the boss now “he can’t map an outcrop, he can’t use a compass, he doesn’t even know how to use a GPS – but is he ever a good communicator”.
The Mote in God’s eye?
I wonder who would be Phil’s fyunch(click). Or maye he’s the fyunch(click).
The news media is starting to get wise about the climate of Oregon. Hasso Hering of the Albany Democrat-Herald in Oregon mentions recent work from the Univ of Washington about the cooling climate of the Willamette Valley as measured in Corvallis, home of Oregon State University and Phil Mote:
http://democratherald.com/news/opinion/editorial/climate-predictions-versus-what-we-see/article_6ccdd584-70b3-11e1-a0ba-001871e3ce6c.html
The timing was perfect as this came out just three days before an unusually late snowstorm hit Eugene Oregon on 21 March 2012 with seven inches of snow!
We have experienced cooling over the past 20 years (1992-2012) of -1.0 to -1.5 deg F at undeveloped and rural farmland sites in Washington and Oregon. And yet 10 years ago, before I was dimissed as Washington Associate State Climatologist, Phil Mote would tell everyone our climate was now dominated by man-made global warming and the temperature was headed up, up, up.
Rural:
Hanford (khms):
10 yrs (1992-2001) mean temperature: (deg F): 54.4
10 yrs (2002-2011) mean temperature: 53.7 -0.7
5 yrs (2007-2011) mean temperature: 53.0 -1.4
Farmland:
Corvallis agrimet:
10 yrs (1992-2001) mean temperature (deg F): 52.8
10 yrs (2002-2011) mean temperature: 52.3 -0.5
5 yrs (2007-2011) mean temperature: 51.7 -1.1
Farmland:
Forest Grove agrimet:
10 yrs (1992-2001) mean temperature (deg F): 52.9
10 yrs (2002-2011) mean temperature: 52.4 -0.5
5 yrs (2007-2011) mean temperature: 51.8 -1.1
Farmland:
Eugene (keug):
10 yrs (1992-2001) mean temperature (deg F): 52.9
10 yrs (2002-2011) mean temperature: 52.5 -0.4
5 yrs (2007-2011) mean temperature: 51.9 -1.0
Urban:
Portland (kpdx):
10 yrs (1992-2001) mean temperature (deg F): 54.6
10 yrs (2002-2011) mean temperature: 54.4 -0.2
5 yrs (2007-2011) mean temperature: 53.7 -0.9
Urban:
Salem (ksle):
10 yrs (1992-2001) mean temperature (deg F): 53.4
10 yrs (2002-2011) mean temperature: 53.2 -0.2
5 yrs (2007-2011) mean temperature: 52.9 -0.5
Perhaps the most reliable rural climate record for the state of Washington is maintained 25 miles NW of Richland WA on the Hanford Reservation. Annual mean temperatures at the Hanford climate station have come full circle. At the beginning of the record the initial 5-yr mean was 53.0 F from 1945-49. 65 years later the most recent 5-yr mean temperature from 2007-2011 also stood at 53.0 F. The Hanford climate has COOLED by -2.1 F over the past twenty years from a 5-yr mean of 55.1 F in 1990 to 53.0 today. Today’s (2007-2011) climate is cooler by -0.5 F than the 67-year period of record mean of 53.5 F. Annual temperatures over the past 5 years have been comparable to those measured in the 1970s. Here is a plot of the past 67 years of annual mean temperature at Hanford:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/marka/hanford.1945-2011.png
@Mark Albright
…umm, the Hanford stats…could that be caused because of all the Hot radioactive decay lessening?
(that was a joke)
I was walking in deep snow mid August last year at 6,000 ft elevation 60 miles from Hanford…it was unusually cold, lol.
I think there are a lot of people living in western oregon who would love to have some control over their local weather. It does drizzle a lot up there. Climate change control may be the local holy grail.
Would love to have this guy on the panel. The ODA and ODF work together to give us spin-free information on growing conditions 3 months ahead. Scan the second to last page of the pdf to see what I mean.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/docs/pdf/dlongrange.pdf?ga=t
richard verney says:
March 29, 2012 at 4:36 am
(even Phil Jones acknowledges that there has been no statistical warming these past 15 years)
I just wish to clarify the word “statistical”. Over 2 years ago, Phil Jones said in response to a question:
“B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.”
Now, two years later, there has been no warming at all over the last 15 years. Once the February anomaly of about 0.19 is entered, then there will be even an extremely slight negative slope value for 15 years and either 1 month or 2 months. What can be said at the present time is that there has been no statistical warming these past 17 years. (I have been challenged on this statement before so let me just say I am using Phil Jones’ criteria as to what is significant.)
That bit of snow that Hasso saw was recorded at the official station just off 20, a quarter mile
north of Hyslop Station. I live 7 miles due west, and we had 15″ of heavy wet snow, not
the light snow down on the valley floor. There is still snow in my yard.
“The Scientific Case for Human Influence on Global Climate: What We Learn From Analyzing ALL The Evidence.”
I think what they probably mean is “from all OUR evidence”