Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused

[Desertdog]

Most sensible thing I have read on Gloal Warming, especially the last paragraph.

Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused
Views out of step with others are good for science, academic says

By Kate Martin
The Daily Reporter-Herald

Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nations top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning.
Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years, spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global warming and whether humans are to blame. About 50 people were at the talk.

Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.

I think were coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations, Gray said. Im sure thats it.


Grays view has been challenged, however.

Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said in an interview later Monday that climate scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most of the warming is due to human activity.

Bill Gray is a widely respected senior scientist who has a view that is out of step with a lot of his colleagues, Pielke said. But challenging widely held views is good for science because it forces people to make their case and advances understanding.

We should always listen to the minority, said Pielke, who spoke from his office in Boulder. But its prudent to take actions that both minimize human effect on the climate and also make ourselves much more resilient.

At the breakfast, Gray said Earth was warmer in some medieval periods than it is today. Current weather models are good at predicting weather as far as 10 days in advance, but predicting up to 100 years into the future is a great act of faith, and I dont believe any of it, he said.

But even if humans cause global warming, theres not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive.

Why do it if its not going to make a difference anyway? he said. Whether Im right or wrong, we cant do anything about it anyway.

But Pielke said it makes sense to reduce humans impact on the climate.

There are uncertainties. Its not like you change your light bulbs today, youre going to have better weather tomorrow, he said. Its even better if those actions youre taking make sense for other reasons, like getting off Middle Eastern oil or saving money.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Nah, there's no reason for a rational person to be skeptical of global warming.  It's not liek there are any scientific experts who dispute the prevailing, politically correct views on global warming.  

Obviously we're killing the planet, and the only sensible thing to do about it is to cripple western society and the developing thrid world with crackbrained energy rationing schemes.


(Here we go again...)

[richyoung]

Paging Iain,...paging Iain....

[charby]

Paging Iain,...paging Iain....

BAWWWAAAAHHHH!

[griz]

There was an article in our local newspaper about Virginia's official climitologist.  Not sure if I spelled it right, but it is a state government position and our guy has held the post for many years.  The problem is he is saying that while the globe is warming, it's not the fault of people.  The state makes him be very clear that his opinion is not that of the state.  Apparently it doesn't strike them as odd that we hire a climitologist, yet disreguard his opinion because it isn't the answer we want to hear.

Hmmmmm.  Is that science or politics?

[richyoung]

There's a heap more "politics" in global warming "science" than science - when the Iron Curtain collapsed, and everyone could see what an environmentally pristine, elevated standard of living, worker's paradise resulted from full implimentation of the lefty collectivist agenda, the libs had to find SOMETHING to justify putting all power into the hands of the government, -  their "paradise on earth" fantasies were contradicted by too many examples (Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, etc) for their standard "Well, that isn't TRUE communism/socialism) line to work anymore.  "Chicken Little" to the rescue - "give us all the power or you are going to DIE!".

Same way Stalin and Mao got and kept power - except the manner of threatened death is the "harrowing heat up" as opposed  to a bullet in the back of the head...

[Art Eatman]

From the political standpoint, it doesn't matter at all if Homo Sap is or is not causative or contributory.  Anytime there is some opportunity for an effort at political power increases while trying to "solve" some problem, people will jump on that bandwagon.  The Greens have done so.   Those politicians who also have jumped on that bandwagon are Statist, seeking more power for the State.

There is no political gain if the Professor is correct.  There is only gain if he is wrong, therefore he will be attacked.

The real problem facing Homo Sap is that he could be wrong.

Art

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

From the political standpoint, it doesn't matter at all if Homo Sap is or is not causative or contributory.  Anytime there is some opportunity for an effort at political power increases while trying to "solve" some problem, people will jump on that bandwagon.  The Greens have done so.   Those politicians who also have jumped on that bandwagon are Statist, seeking more power for the State.

There is no political gain if the Professor is correct.  There is only gain if he is wrong, therefore he will be attacked.

The real problem facing Homo Sap is that he could be wrong.

Art

The first half of your post is dead on.  Yet the second part seems at odds with the first.

If this Professor is correct and global warming is bogus, then it is a huge problem that the political establishment uses global warming as a justification to grab control of industry and/or institute various energy rationing plans.  

Unless and until the science of global warming is proven (and we're a long way from that point), it's a very dangerous thing to grant sweeping additional powers to the state to combat this non-problem.  

Thus there is a considerable benefit to be gained by demosntrating that the Professor is correct (assuming that global warming is in fact bogus, and humanity doesn't know that one way or the other yet).

[Standing Wolf]

There is no problem so great that it can't be worsened by government.

[Perd Hapley]

There is no problem so great that it can't be worsened by government.

I like that.  Is it yours?

Look guys, I'm going to own up to something, but you can't tell anybody.  I am causing global warming.  Yep, that's right, lil ole fistful.  I do it with a big laser I keep in my garage.  It's the Pope that makes me do it!  Because he's the Anti-Christ and he controls my mind!  Won't somebody help me?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Sure, I'll help.

That mean I get to fry things with the big laser, right?

[Perd Hapley]

Ok.  I've also got bin Laden and Jon Benet Ramsey's real killer in my basement.  You wanna fry them?

[Nightfall]

I've also got bin Laden and Jon Benet Ramsey's real killer in my basement.  You wanna fry them?

I bet your laser is powered by Elvis, isn't it? I knew global warming wasn't the problem. The real problem is rock 'n' roll! Damn kids with their music...

[280plus]

Yea it's all because of the "boogie woogie" (pronounced boojie woojie)...

[griz]

I've also got bin Laden and Jon Benet Ramsey's real killer in my basement.

You mean the same person killed bin Laden and J.B. Ramsey?!?!?!  Where was he when OJ was on trial?

[Art Eatman]

HTG, "There is no political gain if the Professor is correct." means that the Greens and their sycophants would not gain political power if the idea of Homo Sap causing Global Warming turns out to be bogus.  They gain political power so long as the belief can be made to hold that "We dunnit!"  Therefore, the professor's ideas--and the professor himself--will be attacked.

If the professor is wrong, and we are indeed contributory or causative, I think it's obvious that we have serious problems.  Anything we do in any SIGNIFICANT remediation efforts will clobber our economies and lifestyles.  IMO, some--not all, but some--people who deny either Globular Worming or Homo Sap's contribution are more concerned about the possible effects on their own lifestyles than about the problem itself.

I myself have seen natural events for which AN explanation is a warming trend.  As example, in 1986 I noticed a northward movement, an expansion, of the nesting habitat of the whitewing dove.  A species movement of hundreds of miles is unusual, to say the least, but it was happening.  In the following ten or so years, they expanded from the lower Rio Grande northward to Wichita Falls, Texas.  And that's just one example.

Analyses of data concerning the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, the increase during recent time, appear to have some merit as to our contribution to the warming.  I'm not jumping on a bandwagon of agreement, but I will not arbitrarily reject an argument which seems to have merit.

One thing I've learned as an engineer, a car racer and a private pilot:  There are many things that are not subject to public opinion or to a vote.  "Wish in one hand, poop in the other, and see which fills up first."  Something else I never forget is that in the hard sciences there is no equivalent to TV's "Instant Gratification", the primary drug of our society.  Sooner or later we'll have answers; I just hope that it doesn't turn out to be  too late...

Art

[richyoung]

ONCE again:

1.  Claimed "global warming" is at the very lower margin of our ability to detect - and this AFTER various disagreeing data sets are variously "massaged".  The BEST data - satellite infrared data and balloon data agree well, and show LITTLE to NO warming - only the problematic surface temperature data shows different.
2.  If increasing CO2 levels from mankind's activities do, in fact, cause global warming, how andwhy did the temperature go DOWN between 1940 and 1975?  I seem to recall World War II and the Baby Boom to be times of prodigous INCREASE in industrial activity and fossil fuel use.
3.  Water vapor, in its direct and indirect effects, is responsible for 94% of the "greenhouse effect" - and NO ONE has computers sufficiently robust to model its effects, and even if any one did, NO ONE has accurate data to put in the model.  This is part of fthe reason weather forecasts are so inaccurate: and we are talking about DAYS, not DECADES.
4.  "Law of Diminishing Returns"  Once enough CO2 is in the air to reflect the MAJORITY of the infrared wavelength it effects, more, even much more, has little additional effect.  Its like whitewashing a fence - once its "white", additional coats don't make it much "whiter", no matterhow many you apply.

This leads to MY Three Big Global Warming Assertions:

1.  The globe is not proven to be warming, by anywhere NEAR the preponderence of evidence.  NASA's studies of the polar ice mass MAY be able to supply such proof, we'll see.  But as of right now, it is very much an open question.
2. IF the globe is warming, the claim that man's activities are causing it is an extraordinary claim, that demands extraordinary evidence.  Given the fact that major carbon sinks exist in Earth's chemistry, and that CO2 is a TRAILING indicator of warming, so-called "evidence" of man causing it doesn't rise to the level required for such a claim.  The Earth's orbit, rotation, and inclination all have variations in them, as does the Sun's output.  Evidence of this is the previous Ice Ages, and their end - all without puny Man using fossil fuels.
3.  IF the globe is warming, whether caused by Man or not, it is not necessarily a Bad Thing:  CO2 is PLANT FOOD - with that, and the global warming, who's effect is felt predominantly at NIGHT, during the GROWING SEASON, and the increased precipitation from more evaporation, crop yields will rise dramatically, possibly forestalling famines.  Areas now unusable due to cold or desertification, like the Sahara desert, will become arable land suitable for crops.  Plant life in the oceans will bloom as well, with beneficial effects all the way up the food chain.  Some coastal areas may have local adjustments to make, but nothing that the Dutch or New Orleans haven't had to deal with.  It may be worth the price IF global warming delays or prevents the next Ice Age, for which we are about due...