Slashdot Mirror

You're probably referring to this: Rotstayn & Lohmann, Tropical Rainfall Trends and the Indirect Aerosol Effect , AP article from 2002

Weather is getting more severe

Not according to science.

The bar chart below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the strongest tornadoes over the past 55 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html

Several studies show that the anomalous long-lasting Russian heat wave in summer 2010, linked to a long-persistent blocking high, appears as a result of natural atmospheric variability.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00249.1

The problem is actually one of age of man :) We remember about 50-60 years back, and claim that changes during that time are unnatural (since they're different from what we remember). However, when it comes to rainfall the cycles are simply longer. These graphs from Australia are telling:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/rerain.shtml

Hmmmmmmmm...who to trust?

On one hand I see that cpu6502 suspects that our current warming spike is entirely natural.

On the other hand I see that the U.S. National Academies and the science academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russian, the UK, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, NASA, the American Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Australian Institute of Physics and the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics think cpu6502 is wrong.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/american-physical-society.pdf
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1907&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.pdf
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memorandas/lets_be_honest_-_festplenum_03.03.07_-_final2.pdf
http://www.aip.org.au/scipolicy/Science%20Policy.pdf
http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf
http://planet3.org/2012/03/11/a-brief-guide-to-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/

Water dissolves a great many compounds. Oxygen forms oxides and other compounds (in general, the more readily the higher the concentration).

See what you're doing there? You just quoted me saying, "The chemistry of the Earth's natural cycles and environs are identifiably altered under increased carbon dioxide uptake," and skimmed over the point that started it, "Then there's the COv2 is not a pollutant, even though, as a relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution."

All I am saying is that CO2 is a "pollutant" in the sense that water and oxygen are "poisons".

You didn't say that at all; in fact, your changing the context of the claim. What you said was, "You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water." You didn't say anything about poisons here. That was a claim another person under this article has discussed, but you didn't say that; it hasn't been a part of this thread, and it's not relevant to the what qualifies as a pollutant.

Carbon dioxide is rightfully singled out as a pollutant of significant risk. Other pollutants can hold more heat and/or change the chemistry of an environ more radically, but proportional to the actual output and chemical half-life, COv2 is the most dangerous among these pollutants.

You do not know who I am, nor do I care to tell you.

It doesn't matter who you are. I see you as another string of characters on website, an avatar for the logic you present. As I've said recently regarding ad hominem attack on Richard Stallman sometime in the past couple of months on slashdot, it doesn't matter who the person is. That's point of an idea in its purest: Regardless of the philosophy, intelligence, social awareness or persona, an idea is independent. It can be looked at, reviewed, tested and expounded upon.

You did nothing to actually contribute to the conversation. You haven't shown a weakness of logic on my part that didn't require altering the context, and even becoming more blatant about it in your follow up. Whether feeding trolls for entertainment or getting into a real debate (oddly, this seems to be a strange combination of both), I will include references if someone has implied the need for further information. Adding an unrelated context to weak counter-argument (which, as I pointed out, still ignored the point that started this) doesn't really add to a debate, it detracts. When you failed to put any further logic on your claim, you can't expect me to believe you had ANY intent of supporting point.

It was your latest closing statements that makes it clear which of us was in the mindset of a genuine debate. If you felt my response to your apparent incredulity was bragging, you may as well become a seventeenth concerned scientist, and avoid ongoing dialogues.

Have you ever listened to "Science Fridays" on NPR? Often, when a caller wants to throw some anti-established science talking point at a guest (or often, the host), Ira often asks a question along the lines of, "Is there any amount of research or explanation of physics that would allow you to reconsider your opinion?" The responses range from turning the question around (ignoring that the majority of researchers decide their next project based on testing shifts in data, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 ), changing the context (the I-think-that's-more-of-a-[political, philosophical, religious, moral]-question callers), or they often suggest that the information would have to be so over-whelming, it would be the equivalent of making their preferred reality a mere mist drop settling into an ocean.

As you've backed away from the context of the original debate, I guess you think your argument is more of a troll question?

I'm old enough to remember the 1980s as well, and also well informed enough to know that your characterization of "climatologists were warning that we were heading into another Ice Age" is complete bunk. Some climatologists felt we'd enter another ice-age within 10,000 years or so, if greenhouse gas emissions didn't interfere . There were some non-scientific journals that tried to sensationalize the few papers that you're talking about, but the majority of climate scientists even then predicted that GHG was going to warm the planet.

Here's just one paper which destroys your assertion: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

You didn't answer the question. Do you dispute any of my original facts, and if so, which ones, and based on what evidence? Instead of answering, you brought up yet another tired and debunked denier talking point, which I can also trace to Michael Chrichton, MD.

Your assertion of "the claims" of the rain forests and tropics disappearing is yet another red-herring. I don't know enough to reply to that charge, but I do know it's irrelevant to the discussion, which you continue to studiously avoid.

That's a real issue. Santa Clara County, CA, which used to be a major agricultural area before Silicon Valley took it over, had, for decades, a rain-making operation. Several hundred silver-iodide generators were spread around the county, and, when conditions were right, the call went out to turn them on. This increased rain in the agricultural valley, while reducing it in the barren inland hills. The end result was about 10% more rain.

This is the problem that I have with climate change scientists and proponents. While we cannot be averse to the notion that what we do affects our own climate, the question is how and by how much? Despite all protestations to the contrary that evidence is simply not there, and when you question it the above is a classic example of what the discussion boils down to - surely if we are doing something then it must have an effect.

You appear to be ignorant of (a) all research into atmospheric feedbacks and forcings and (b) all research into climate modelling. There's a substantial body of work out there (hint: Google Scholar is your friend) ... perhaps you should read some of it. As for the question of how and how much, the IPCC report has a good summary of multi-model predictions, which in turn was based on Tebaldi et al., 2004, Greene et al., 2006 and Furrer et al., 2007 ...

Currently, we know that the earth is warming, and warming substantially faster -- and to a greater extent -- than any time previously in the last 800,000 years. We know that CO2 can act as a forcing on global temperatures (and thanks to extensive research in the 50s and 60s we know this very accurately). We know that human activity has substantially increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2. We know that other GHGs can also act as forcings or feedbacks. We know that the temperature rises we are currently seeing fit extremely well with the prediction that current climate change is a result of human activity increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. Furthermore, we do not know of any other cause that could explain the temperature rise we are observing. We know that models based on research into atmospheric forcings accurately model current and past climates, and also predict a rapid and significant temperature increase if we continue to increase the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere.

The most parsimonious explanation by far, based on current research, is that increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere has resulted in significant, rapid warming and will continue to cause significant, rapid warming.

A lot of misleading statements here. Unfortunately, there are some very wealthy interests that stand to lose from efforts to control CO2, and spend a lot of money spreading misinformation. Scientists end up having to play "whack-a-mole," constantly refuting well-known falsehoods

Articles on his blog (which sometimes reads more like a scientific journal) show that rural stations often show no warming at all - at least, until they have been appropriately "adjusted" (using methods that are generally not released).

False. Analysis of stations that (according to Watts) were found to be well sited and not subject to urban heat island effects show the same increasing temperature trend, indicating that correction for urban heat island effects (by methods which have been published) cannot account for the warming trend. Independent analysis has multiply replicated these results. Moreover, satellite measurements, which are not subject to this bias, show the same trend.

Large parts of the arctic and antarctic are presumed to be warming, even though there are no weather stations within hundreds or thousands of miles.

False. Arctic warming is not merely a "presumption;" it is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including measurements of loss of arctic ice and satellite data.. And the antarctic, far from being "presumed" to be warming, is predicted from climate models to be relatively slow to respond to global warming trends, and the best way to estimate precisely how temperatures are changing in various regions of Antarctica, based upon satellite as well as weather station data, is a matter of active ongoing debate in the scientific literature.

Articles on his blog also show that (a) over decades, there is a warming/cooling cycle that very closely follows solar cycle

However the scientific evidence shows clearly that the current warming is not due to the "solar cycle."

that the overall warming trend of the past 200 years predates any significant human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere

There are multiple factors impacting global temperatures over the past 200 years, of which CO2 is only one, so one cannot naively simply ask "which came first?" Correct accounting must take into account all factors, including changes in solar irradiance, human particulate pollution, volcanic eruptions, and human CO2 pollution.When all of these are taken into account, CO2 is found to be the cause of the modern warming trend.

the planet has in the past been warmer than today - in that sense, the recent warming is not "unprecedented", and finally (d) millions of years ago CO2 levels were much, much higher than today, so a higher CO2 level is also not unprecedented.

This is entirely a strawman, as no scientist has ever claimed that modern warming or high CO2 is unprecedented in the history of the planet--what is without precedent is the enormous numbers of people living in areas that will be massively impacted by changes in sea level, or huge numbers of people being dependent upon reliable an

Do you have any reputable citations showing professional climatologists engaging in groupthink or responding badly to reasoned criticism? I ask because, once again, your description of the climatology community sounds like a description of a cult... [Dumb Scientist]

You mean like how they circled the wagons around Phil Jones, even when actual bad behavior on his part was discovered? For example: [ShakaUVM]

“This has some similarity to the CRU email theft, where precious little was discovered from among thousands of emails, but a few sentences were plucked out of context, deliberately misinterpreted (like “hide the decline”) and then hyped into “Climategate”.” [RealClimate]

Presumably you meant to say that scientists in general are circling wagons and responding badly to reasoned criticism.

Or you can just read the editor’s comments left in the response sections of RC.org. Just skimming through that above article, here’s an interplay between Pielke and Stefan. [ShakaUVM]

Coincidentally, Pielke Jr. had similar things to say about that interplay. That's the interplay where he asked a bunch of 'questions' like "Was it appropriate for the IPCC to make stuff up about my views?". Then Stefan replied:

Clearly there are different views on this, which is why we called this graph "debatable". But let's keep things in perspective: we're discussing Supplementary Material and a response to one of those 90,000 review comments now, not even the report itself. You've been working hard to scandalize your personal quibbles with IPCC here - how consistent is this with your self-proclaimed role as "honest broker"? Stefan

That link leads to an in-depth comment, and neither seem to constitute "responding badly to reasoned criticism." In fact, it's not clear that Pielke's rant counts as "reasoned criticism" in the first place. As far as I can tell, he's got

We shun "experts" with their "facts" because they are not experts and their facts are mostly bullshit. Hardly no economist saw the economic crash coming and just look at the fake data they used to support their global warming hypothesis. The same "experts" were predicting "global cooling" in the 70's.

You are regurgitating someone's talking points. A comprehensive review headed by Thomas Peterson was conducted in February of 2008 to examine the scientific literature of the time period. citation.

What they concluded was that there was no such consensus on global cooling - the results were quite contradictory to this idea, actually. From the period of 1965 to 1979, there were 71 peer-reviewed papers published on climate change.

20 of these papers were neutral on whether or not the climate would cool or warm.
44 of these papers posited global warming.
Only 7 posited global cooling.

Both sides are distorting and cherry picking the facts to make their side look more plausible. Linking to the blogs of condescending one-sided pundits doesn't help convince anyone of the other side's position. Links to more neutral articles are preferable, rather than obviously one-sided diatribes that belittle others who don't believe in their way.

Scientists are usually pretty good at writing summaries and showing pretty graphs that the average person (myself included) can digest, so linking to accessible articles at the UN, NOAA, Journal of Climate, or even Nature magazine is preferable. There are many wiki articles that have active links to these articles. Or even just link to the wiki article on the global warming controversy

That was suggested back in 1970--- that cloud seeding experiments need to consider the possibility that the plane's flight itself is doing the seeding.

Remember, back in the 70s, the climate scientists were telling us all that we were going to go into a massive ice age at any minute.

Wrong. The rest of your comment is pretty much as spectacularly wrong as the tidbit I quoted.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

That's pretty much my point. There was one article in Time Magazine 40 years ago. And one in Newsweek. And then you have this:

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.

(Wikipedia's summary: "A survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 found 7 articles predicting cooling and 44 predicting warming, with the warming articles also being cited much more often in subsequent scientific literature.")

In the 60's the hippies told us overpopulation would kill us.

Where is the peer-reviewed paper by those hippies? Please stay on-topic.

Then in the 70's it was global cooling.

Wrong.Always has been, always will be.

Then in the 80's it was the hole in the ozone layer

Yes, just like the Y2k problem was a non-issue and should have been completely ignored. I mean, the amount of money spent fixing either issue is completely irrelevant when talking about what its impact was going to be without that money.

Now it's global warming.

The AGC debate has nothing to do with any of the issues you mentioned so far.

And they wonder why some of us are so skeptical.

I don't wonder. I'm pretty sure it has all to do with confirmation bias and an inability to read original sources.

I would also like to add to that list the statement from the American Meteorological Society: http://ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeclarify.html

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Sorry, poor use of pronouns

Meteorologists' models make huge assumptions, meteorologists must. I won't believe a thing the global warmingists have said............

I actually have been looking for peer reviewed papers, and I'm getting closer to finding them. I recently found the American Meteorological Society, which seems to be the governing body in the united states for such research. I'm disappointed in their statements though, because they have statements about "consensus" instead of links to journals.

Have you found any peer reviewed articles? Have you found any source that states its assumptions? I'm looking for them, I'm sure they're out there.

I love hearing the "CO2 is plant food claim", how retarded can you get. Ironic that such idiots flock to slashdot.

Here's the American Meteorological Society's take: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

where are your legions? Oh that's right, they're working at exxon.

Your point appears to be that there is a consensus that global warming is happening, but there is no consensus that it is a serious problem that we need to do something about.

I think the most respected sicientific organizations in the world, the NAS and AAAS, would disagree on that. I don't know if you consider their view to represent a "consensus," but given their reputation, I think it can fairly be said to represent a thorough reading of the best scientific evidence.

The NAS statement on climate change says, "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated... Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate changes. The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

The AAAS just sent a letter to the senate which says, "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment."

And if you think this CRU hack incident changes any of that, the American Meterological Society disagrees, saying "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."

He at least acknowledges his ignorance. I will concede that I am becoming less knowledgeable about the subject as I hear increasingly passionate arguments from every possible viewpoint.

It seems that as the argument becomes more and more heated, facts seem to matter less and less; people continue to scream out their hearts, louder and louder, until everything is lost in a deafening crescendo.

What if there was a definite answer?

If you cited a paper,

Kettleborough JA, Booth BBB, Stott PA, Allen MR (2007) Estimates of Uncertainty in Predictions of Global Mean Surface Temperature. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 5 pp. 843-855

that drew strong conclusions supported by reviewable observations, would it speak loud enough to rise above the collective voices of humanity, united in dissonance. Or would it simply add to the noise?

If you referenced a group of journals,

American Meteorological Society

that aggregated over 100 years of such papers that collectively supported that same strong conclusion, would they carry enough weight to hold their own against the onslaught of popular opinion?

If you blocked nothing out -- took in all the supposition driven by fear, all the blind obedience longing for respect, the hate against hate, the vague conclusions supported by observation but with basis in assumption, and, above all, the need to offer an answer, any answer, so long as it is final - could you accept it? Could you claim that you did so objectively?

I cannot. Therefore I am ignorant, aware of it, and too lazy to do anything about it, so I will remain ignorant.

Wrong.
Most scientists (as far as I can tell, and leaving out the Al Gores and Michael Crichton's) seem to agree that the globe is warming.
Many of them believe that humans are contributing, mainly to an acceleration of a natural increase.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen's blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society's Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual

Cullen's call for decertification of TV weathermen who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D 7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04- 5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

Or better yet, what are her credentials to call for removal of the AMS seal of approval? If you look at the American Meteorological Society website listing the current list of 155 Certified Broadcast Meteorologists(CBM), she is not listed. http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listofc bm.cfm The page also goes into a what it takes to get the CBM and what requirements for the AMS seal of approval. Also if you look at the committee for the board of Broadcast Meteorology, i.e. the peers that review whether you get the AMS seal of approval or not, she's not there either. http://www.ametsoc.org/stacpges/CommitteeDisplay/C ommitteeDisplay.aspx?CC=SEAL So what is her issue with the AMS seal if they are all peer reviewed? What soapbox gives her the piority to dicatate what the AMS boards do? Currently her only active board membership, after confirming in March of 2006 that she would have to step down from the Board on Enterprise Economic Development http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/beedminutes0 412.pdf , is the Committee on Climate Variability and Change, http://www.ametsoc.org/stacpges/CommitteeDisplay/C ommitteeDisplay.aspx?CC=CLIMVAR . Their charter is to foster interchange of knowldge, not to certify or decertify? And as far as the AMS point paper, http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearc h_2003.html , They acknowledge that human interaction has an affect, but also point out that the full suite of feedback processes used in the models are still not fully known. Which is why they state the confusion caused by the change in mean surface temperature of .6 deg. in the last 100 years, and the difference in the tropospheric temperature changes which are only catalogued over the last 40 years. This point paper also brings out that the rate of tropospheric change was slower in the 80's and 90's than it was in the 60's and 70's. They point out that there are many variables that are largely not understood. So back to the original question, what's the credentials to call for decertification????

Or better yet, what are her credentials to call for removal of the AMS seal of approval? If you look at the American Meteorological Society website listing the current list of 155 Certified Broadcast Meteorologists(CBM), she is not listed. http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listofc bm.cfm The page also goes into a what it takes to get the CBM and what requirements for the AMS seal of approval. Also if you look at the committee for the board of Broadcast Meteorology, i.e. the peers that review whether you get the AMS seal of approval or not, she's not there either. http://www.ametsoc.org/stacpges/CommitteeDisplay/C ommitteeDisplay.aspx?CC=SEAL So what is her issue with the AMS seal if they are all peer reviewed? What soapbox gives her the piority to dicatate what the AMS boards do? Currently her only active board membership, after confirming in March of 2006 that she would have to step down from the Board on Enterprise Economic Development http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/beedminutes0 412.pdf , is the Committee on Climate Variability and Change, http://www.ametsoc.org/stacpges/CommitteeDisplay/C ommitteeDisplay.aspx?CC=CLIMVAR . Their charter is to foster interchange of knowldge, not to certify or decertify? And as far as the AMS point paper, http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearc h_2003.html , They acknowledge that human interaction has an affect, but also point out that the full suite of feedback processes used in the models are still not fully known. Which is why they state the confusion caused by the change in mean surface temperature of .6 deg. in the last 100 years, and the difference in the tropospheric temperature changes which are only catalogued over the last 40 years. This point paper also brings out that the rate of tropospheric change was slower in the 80's and 90's than it was in the 60's and 70's. They point out that there are many variables that are largely not understood. So back to the original question, what's the credentials to call for decertification????

Or better yet, what are her credentials to call for removal of the AMS seal of approval? If you look at the American Meteorological Society website listing the current list of 155 Certified Broadcast Meteorologists(CBM), she is not listed. http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listofc bm.cfm The page also goes into a what it takes to get the CBM and what requirements for the AMS seal of approval. Also if you look at the committee for the board of Broadcast Meteorology, i.e. the peers that review whether you get the AMS seal of approval or not, she's not there either. http://www.ametsoc.org/stacpges/CommitteeDisplay/C ommitteeDisplay.aspx?CC=SEAL So what is her issue with the AMS seal if they are all peer reviewed? What soapbox gives her the piority to dicatate what the AMS boards do? Currently her only active board membership, after confirming in March of 2006 that she would have to step down from the Board on Enterprise Economic Development http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/beedminutes0 412.pdf , is the Committee on Climate Variability and Change, http://www.ametsoc.org/stacpges/CommitteeDisplay/C ommitteeDisplay.aspx?CC=CLIMVAR . Their charter is to foster interchange of knowldge, not to certify or decertify? And as far as the AMS point paper, http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearc h_2003.html , They acknowledge that human interaction has an affect, but also point out that the full suite of feedback processes used in the models are still not fully known. Which is why they state the confusion caused by the change in mean surface temperature of .6 deg. in the last 100 years, and the difference in the tropospheric temperature changes which are only catalogued over the last 40 years. This point paper also brings out that the rate of tropospheric change was slower in the 80's and 90's than it was in the 60's and 70's. They point out that there are many variables that are largely not understood. So back to the original question, what's the credentials to call for decertification????

Or better yet, what are her credentials to call for removal of the AMS seal of approval? If you look at the American Meteorological Society website listing the current list of 155 Certified Broadcast Meteorologists(CBM), she is not listed. http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listofc bm.cfm The page also goes into a what it takes to get the CBM and what requirements for the AMS seal of approval. Also if you look at the committee for the board of Broadcast Meteorology, i.e. the peers that review whether you get the AMS seal of approval or not, she's not there either. http://www.ametsoc.org/stacpges/CommitteeDisplay/C ommitteeDisplay.aspx?CC=SEAL So what is her issue with the AMS seal if they are all peer reviewed? What soapbox gives her the piority to dicatate what the AMS boards do? Currently her only active board membership, after confirming in March of 2006 that she would have to step down from the Board on Enterprise Economic Development http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/beedminutes0 412.pdf , is the Committee on Climate Variability and Change, http://www.ametsoc.org/stacpges/CommitteeDisplay/C ommitteeDisplay.aspx?CC=CLIMVAR . Their charter is to foster interchange of knowldge, not to certify or decertify? And as far as the AMS point paper, http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearc h_2003.html , They acknowledge that human interaction has an affect, but also point out that the full suite of feedback processes used in the models are still not fully known. Which is why they state the confusion caused by the change in mean surface temperature of .6 deg. in the last 100 years, and the difference in the tropospheric temperature changes which are only catalogued over the last 40 years. This point paper also brings out that the rate of tropospheric change was slower in the 80's and 90's than it was in the 60's and 70's. They point out that there are many variables that are largely not understood. So back to the original question, what's the credentials to call for decertification????

Or better yet, what are her credentials to call for removal of the AMS seal of approval? If you look at the American Meteorological Society website listing the current list of 155 Certified Broadcast Meteorologists(CBM), she is not listed. http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listofc bm.cfm The page also goes into a what it takes to get the CBM and what requirements for the AMS seal of approval. Also if you look at the committee for the board of Broadcast Meteorology, i.e. the peers that review whether you get the AMS seal of approval or not, she's not there either. http://www.ametsoc.org/stacpges/CommitteeDisplay/C ommitteeDisplay.aspx?CC=SEAL So what is her issue with the AMS seal if they are all peer reviewed? What soapbox gives her the piority to dicatate what the AMS boards do? Currently her only active board membership, after confirming in March of 2006 that she would have to step down from the Board on Enterprise Economic Development http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/beedminutes0 412.pdf , is the Committee on Climate Variability and Change, http://www.ametsoc.org/stacpges/CommitteeDisplay/C ommitteeDisplay.aspx?CC=CLIMVAR . Their charter is to foster interchange of knowldge, not to certify or decertify? And as far as the AMS point paper, http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearc h_2003.html , They acknowledge that human interaction has an affect, but also point out that the full suite of feedback processes used in the models are still not fully known. Which is why they state the confusion caused by the change in mean surface temperature of .6 deg. in the last 100 years, and the difference in the tropospheric temperature changes which are only catalogued over the last 40 years. This point paper also brings out that the rate of tropospheric change was slower in the 80's and 90's than it was in the 60's and 70's. They point out that there are many variables that are largely not understood. So back to the original question, what's the credentials to call for decertification????

All isn't always as it seems. And if something seems too preposterous to be true, then it probably is. Before believing chicken little that the sky is falling, we should first look up and see for ourselves. So, to my mind, the weakest link in this chain of "the sky is falling, we are being censored" is the posting.

I would suggest that before any of us pile on to the discussion with knee-jerk agreement or disagreement, that we first do a little bit of cross-validation to see if the poster (and/or respondents) have given us enough information to respond intelligently. Most of us are saying perfectly reasonable things under one scenario or other. But here, there is only one scenario, the one that elicited the post. So let's restrict our comments only to what actually has happened and forget the rest. Let's break it down:

Here are the main claims:

1. Headline: Expert wants to decertify global warming skeptics
2. "Skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming" was specifically targeted for censorship.
3. A scientist in the senate is taking action to silence skeptics

Now let's dissect each claim:

1. Let's actually look at the post and read a bit:

   The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

   That sounds dire indeed, and if true IS inflamatory! So, what certification would they lose? If we click through to one more line to the original comments by Dr. Cullen that elicited the accusation of censorship, we will find a link to the AMS certifcation page.

   After reading from these two links, we learn from by Dr. Cullen on her blog that this is her opinion about certain meteorologists:

   If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.

   Furthermore by looking reading the AMS link we learn that their certification is only a positive affirmation of their qualifications. There is no indication at all that lacking a "Seal of Approval" will legally interfere with the abilities of anyone (you or me, for example) from broadcasting the weather on any station who will have them (or us!). So, right out of the gate, the headline is disingenuous.

2. Does this amount to censorship?
   I see no evidence that lacking a seal of approval will effectively silence anyone. But that's beside the point. This was merely an opinion by Dr. Cullen as to what standards the AMA should have. Notably, Dr. Cullen is not the AMA. Again, this implication (noted prominently with the censored icon) is dubious at the very least. Who is being censored and how will they be censored? Reading the source links provides no evidence whatsoever to answer either question.
3. But this is serious! Isn't the senate taking action to censor debate?

   This implication is more than merely disingenuous. It is at best hastily posted and poorly considered and at worst an outright lie. But by now, we already know that. Since we read the original post, we know that this is merely the comments made on a blog on a senate.gov server

All isn't always as it seems. And if something seems too preposterous to be true, then it probably is. Before believing chicken little that the sky is falling, we should first look up and see for ourselves. So, to my mind, the weakest link in this chain of "the sky is falling, we are being censored" is the posting.

I would suggest that before any of us pile on to the discussion with knee-jerk agreement or disagreement, that we first do a little bit of cross-validation to see if the poster (and/or respondents) have given us enough information to respond intelligently. Most of us are saying perfectly reasonable things under one scenario or other. But here, there is only one scenario, the one that elicited the post. So let's restrict our comments only to what actually has happened and forget the rest. Let's break it down:

Here are the main claims:

1. Headline: Expert wants to decertify global warming skeptics
2. "Skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming" was specifically targeted for censorship.
3. A scientist in the senate is taking action to silence skeptics

Now let's dissect each claim:

1. Let's actually look at the post and read a bit:

   The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

   That sounds dire indeed, and if true IS inflamatory! So, what certification would they lose? If we click through to one more line to the original comments by Dr. Cullen that elicited the accusation of censorship, we will find a link to the AMS certifcation page.

   After reading from these two links, we learn from by Dr. Cullen on her blog that this is her opinion about certain meteorologists:

   If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.

   Furthermore by looking reading the AMS link we learn that their certification is only a positive affirmation of their qualifications. There is no indication at all that lacking a "Seal of Approval" will legally interfere with the abilities of anyone (you or me, for example) from broadcasting the weather on any station who will have them (or us!). So, right out of the gate, the headline is disingenuous.

2. Does this amount to censorship?
   I see no evidence that lacking a seal of approval will effectively silence anyone. But that's beside the point. This was merely an opinion by Dr. Cullen as to what standards the AMA should have. Notably, Dr. Cullen is not the AMA. Again, this implication (noted prominently with the censored icon) is dubious at the very least. Who is being censored and how will they be censored? Reading the source links provides no evidence whatsoever to answer either question.
3. But this is serious! Isn't the senate taking action to censor debate?

   This implication is more than merely disingenuous. It is at best hastily posted and poorly considered and at worst an outright lie. But by now, we already know that. Since we read the original post, we know that this is merely the comments made on a blog on a senate.gov server

She is talking about local TV meteorologists who have an American Meteorological Society (AMS) "Seal of Approval" ("a way to recognize on-air meteorologists for their sound delivery of weather information to the general public"). She suggests that those who have it "have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming".

I'd like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. ... Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy

The AMS Seal of Approval was launched in 1957 as a way to recognize on-air meteorologists for their sound delivery of weather information to the general public.

In January 2005, the AMS introduced a new program called the Certified Broadcast Meteorologist (CBM) program, intended to raise the professional standard in broadcast meteorology and encourage a broader range of scientific understanding, especially with respect to environmental issues. The goal of the CBM program is to certify that the holder meets specific educational and experience criteria and has passed rigorous testing in their knowledge and communication of meteorology and related sciences needed to be an effective broadcast meteorologist.

There is NO consensus on whether or not man-made global warming is happening- anyone who claims to have "climatologist" friends who say it most definitely is or isn't real and that all the real scientists agree are just pulling stuff out of their ass (and it's pretty obvious, too, so don't even try to do it).

Well, here I go pulling stuff out of my ass (and by "my ass" I mean "the positions of the most influential bodies in the field") [my bold].

From the Position Statement of the American Geophysical Union:

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

From the Position Statement of the American Meteorological Society:

...Because human activities are contributing to climate change, we have a collective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully considered response actions...

...Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents resulting primarily from energy use, agriculture, and land clearing. These radiatively active gases and trace constituents interact strongly with the Earth's energy balance, resulting in the prospect of significant global warming...

...An overwhelming majority of scientists agree on the following facts relating to the global warming issue.

* The theory of how greenhouse gases directly interact with atmospheric radiation is not controversial. If no other factors counter their influence, increases in their concentration will lead to global warming.

* A steady rise in the concentration of greenhouse gases began over 200 years ago and is continuing. Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, has increased from pre-industrial concentrations of 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) to over 367 ppmv in 2000, an increase of more than 30%; methane has increased from 0.7 to about 1.8 ppmv, an increase of more than 150%; nitrous oxide has increased from 0.27 to over 0.31 ppmv, an increase of 16%. Tropospheric ozone is estimated to have increased by 35% since the industrial revolution...

The first line of the National Academy of Sciences 2001 report titled "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions", performed at the request of President Bush:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

In short... there is no controversy. Yes, there are a handful of very loud people who are attempting to create one, who are assisted by the media's dedication to "balance," which consists of giving equal weight to totally unequal positions. Really, though, in the scientific community, anthropogenic warming is considered to be a fact.

Now, to be clear, this doesn't mean that we should necessarily do anything about it. The existence of a phenomenon is not de facto support for any particular policy position. But let's not screw around-- the "controversy" over whether global warming is at least partially anthropogenic is manufactured and does not reflect the views of the scientific community.

"It should be pointed out that when an article is declared a "work of the U.S. Government" it is not simply that the copyright cannot be transferred to the AMS, but rather, that the work is declared public domain and no copyright protection exists for it at all. Despite numerous articles published each year in AMS journals that have been declared U.S. Government works by the authors, the AMS attempts to carry on its role of steward of the authors' intellectual property for these articles by trying to ensure that the scientific integrety of the work is preserved in any reuse and that proper attribution is given the original authors."

Related:

http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Earth_Sciences/Meteor ology/Weather_Modification/

http://www.weathermod.com/projects/hail/argentina. php

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/wxmod.html

If you have a degree in Meteorology or Atmospheric Science (basically you took all the hard classes with Calculus) then you're a Meteorologist.

These days, you can get a broadcast Meteorolgy degree from Mississippi State or SUNY Albany, and become an weatherman without all the tough classes.

The logo you're talking about is the
AMS Seal of Approval.

meteoroglogists are also members of a professional organization (the name escapes me)

American Meteorological Society I believe is the group you're referring to.

Not to belabor this discussion but you are wrong about how weather and meteorology works. Historical records are pretty much useless for day to day weather prediction and provide ambiguous data at best about the future. Look at the American meterological society web page (under "What tools do meteorologists use?") and you'll see that models play a big part in short-term weather forecasting. As to long term climate prediction, they play an even bigger part. Why do you think there is controversy over global warming? It all comes down to models. Look at the NASA page for example.

Your assertion that if we had a model we would have a certainty rather than a probability is inaccurate too. That is why future global warming is a probability rather than a certainty - even though we have some fairly detailed models. Why is that? Because once you have enough particles interacting, the system becomes too complex to have a perfect simulation. So you make a bunch of simplifying assumptions and try to calculate the error of those assumptions.

So what you're advocating with your one in a thousand probability is basically a reliance on ignorance. In other words, since we don't know any better, let's just use history as our guide. You can certainly do that but if you want to have any credibility you have to calculate some margin of error. And even in the best case, this margin of error is going to be much greater than 100% if we only use recorded history.

Also, insurance companies do use models. They aren't very open about what they are though. But anyway these kinds of predictions are a little different. They are all based on assumptions like people are pretty reasonable on average so the world economy won't entirely implode and throw us into total chaos. These insurance probabilities don't take that into account but it doesn't matter cause, in that case, we're all broke. In contrast, you can't make this "reasonableness" assumption for asteroids or particles in the atmosphere.

I'm sure NASA has calculated the probability of dangers from certain meteors. I'm just saying that if they told me their assumptions and margins of error, I probably wouldn't put much stock in them.

Will these two phenomenon affect sea water salinity?

It's energy esource?
http://www.ametsoc.org/AMS/newsltr/nl_03_00.html
I've been trying to dig up an article I read about how something like this was caused to form naturally. No luck so far, but I suspect it may have been this researcher's project.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~meyers/fig/vortex.html