UNM Climatologist Tackles Climate Change, Skeptics

[cchanderson]

@acavideo Listen peanut brain. My core curriculum for my science degree was meteorology and climatology.  I don't need some wacked out lib trying to "save the planet" telling me what is good science and what is junk science. One out of five of my professors condoned global warming the rest either flatly dismissed it or stated it was impossible to tell with the limited amount of available data. I have read countless hours of reports and studied this extensively. Go Fuck Yourself...narrow mind.

[cchanderson]

I can't believe people still believe in Human created Global Warming! This was debunked years ago. Fifty top German scientists (the smart kind) prevented it's legislature from passing a Global Warming bill and the legislature listened (thank God). Western political arenas are strengthening in positions against these wild ideas for a reason...ITS JUNK SCIENCE!

[JVbin]

Video of a PhD meteorologist discussing climate change, yet any retard who can type in less than 500 characters feel they know more than he does about what he's devoted his entire academic career to? How come we don't get this with any other scientific issue? In no other field do scientists have to put up with this shit. A dentist never has to get his e-mails hacked into by people who remove their own teeth using string and a door.

[gufpott]

@JVbin - Why is this different?

This is a catastrophe theory which has elevated itself out of the quaint world of debate in obscure journals, into the full glare of the public arena.

The public has no patience for quaint debate when demands are being made for painful changes. Extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary evidence. If the extraordinary claims cannot be supported without question, it's gonna get squashed.

If you cannot stand the sight, better to look away.

[CultOfTheMellowDay]

@JVbin

Does dentistry have an effect on global taxation, trade and development? Do policies based on dentistry restrict peoples mobility based on income, or effect their ability to use and develop industry while allowing a few people to get rich off cap and trade?

Let's get over the idea that science or scientists are infallible or even incorruptible.

It may be the best explanation we have but best explanations have often proven to be outrageously untrue and there's a lot riding on this one.

[uboat21]

Let me guess, " the hottest year on record " (NOT). Google GREENLAND HOCKEY STICKS , to see what makes "Skeptics" go.

[gufpott]

The AGW hypothesis predicts greatest warming in the troposphere above the tropics. About twice as much temperature rise than at the surface.

It is set out in some detail, so we can follow the logic. It is coded into models and when the IPCC published the predictions in graphical form, it became known as "the big red spot".

IT IS NOT CONFIRMED BY OBSERVATION.

That's about as close as possible we can get to calling it "disproved" in science.

So move along folks ... nothing to see here.

[kshackleton]

@gufpott

Uh...the troposphere is the air at the surface....

Perhaps you meant upper troposphere?

Models predict that the upper regions *cool* as the surface regions warm. This is the prediction of AGW, and this prediction is *confirmed* by observation.

[gufpott]

kshackelton

Why nitpick - we both know what the troposphere is, and we're both familiar with the "big red spot" prediction. If in any doubt, it has been well publicised by the IPCC, so we have a good visual image of what the theory predicts.

Don't hold back now. If you think they exist, please provide links and/or references to formal articles which confirm unequivocal observations of the big red spot.

I'd be interested to see them.

[kshackleton]

Actually....I am unfamiliar with the "Big Red Spot" predictions that you refer to.

I have read about predictions of the high latitudes warming faster than the tropics and upper troposphere cooling as the surface warms.

These have been verified.

[gufpott]

Sorry kshackelton, I credited you with knowing what you were talking about.

The prediction is in IPCC AR4, Go to Section 9 ("Understanding And Attributing Climate Change") and page down to Figure 9.1. The prediction is in the bottom right - a pattern of atmospheric temperature change according to latitude and altitude.

From our earlier posts, I understand you'll provide links to formal studies reporting observations which confirm the prediction.

In anticipation...

[kshackleton]

It's going to take some time to read the report to determine the precise significance of the graph. The graph itself says nothing about what it represents.

However, your argument seems to be fallacious anyway. You seem to be arguing that since some of the predictions are false, that all of them are false.

This is nonsense. Even if your claims about this piece are valid, the general conclusions that you seem to draw are not.

[gufpott]

kshackelton, I can only thank you for showing how you are unable to provide the observations you had promised.

Look on the bright side - you had no idea what the "big red spot" was about yesterday. Today you are starting to form an opinion - and you are already into the game of making up excuses for the lack of observations. Nothing new in that.

Quite hilarious to see you diving into the long grass, yelling "falacy" as you go.

[kshackleton]

I can only point out that your original assertion is wrong. The data that you cited predicts the greatest warming at the poles, not over the tropics.

It also clearly predicts stratospheric cooling.

These have been observed.

You have simply misread the data.

Go back and take another look.

[gufpott]

kshackleton

Thank you for, once again, failing to produce observations to support the expected pattern of warming.

That's about as close as you can get to disproof in observational science.

It is claimed that human CO2 induced radiative forcing explains much of the temperature rise over the last 100 years. If the prediction is correct, we should be able to observe upper troposphere warming by more than the surface where it is predicted to do so.

Where are the observations?

[kshackleton]

@gufpott

I hav pointed out that your original claim was incorrect. You stated that AGW predicts that the greatest warming will be high in the troposphere at tropical latitudes.

It makes no such prediction.....look at the chart again.

The greatest heating is at the poles, in particular, the north. It also predicts stratospheric cooling.

These predictions are observed to be true.

[gufpott]

Again, kshackelton confirms there are NO OBSERVATIONS of the "big red spot". He'd prefer to dive into the long grass by quibbling around "warmest".

BAS reports long term cooling at Antarctica. There are particular issues with the measurements around the North Pole.

The proposed physics of AGW DENMAND greater warming above the surface than at the surface. Concentrated at mid latutude regions where solar input is greatest.

These concepts are NOT CONFIRMED by observation.

[kshackleton]

The BAS does not report long term cooling. You are incorrect.

[kshackleton]

It is interesting how when reading these reports by BAS and the IPCC, they are very consistent in their conclusions that human activity is the driver for the climate change that we see.....they back it up with mountains of data, and the models, while imperfect, do an excellent job of representing these complex systems.

I pointed out that your initial claim was incorrect, and you call that "quibbling".

Have a great day.

[gufpott]

kshackelton

Quibbling because you point to a region in the Actic and ignore the big red blob in the sky.

BAS reports Antarctic ice growing at 100ksqkm per decade since the 1970's. They also report cooling across East Antarctica.

Steig suggested overall Antarctic warming, from sparse data but embarassed himself by messing it up.

You run and hide in the long grass with "mountains of data", but not addressing a specific question.

"Have a great day."

So no observations then.

[kshackleton]

So....you make a statement that is false, I point that out....and that's "quibbling"?

You misrepresent completely the nature of these studies.

[gufpott]

Yes kshackelton, you are still quibbling.

The forecast is expressed in colours to represent temperature change. There is a big red spot representing warming above the surface at mid lattitudes. The warmer region is an ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT of radiative forcing for those who wish to argue CO2 radiative forcing as warming agent at the surface.

You seek to completely ignore that part of the chart by quibbling over a warming region in the Arctic. That's called obfuscation.

[kshackleton]

@gufpott

Observations?

Read the IPCC report that you cited:

Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.

9.4.4.1 Observed Changes

"All data sets show that the global mean and tropical troposphere has warmed from 1958 to the present, with the warming trend in the troposphere slightly

greater than at the surface."

[gufpott]

IPCC: "Since 1979, it is likely that there is slightly greater warming in the troposphere than at the surface uncertainties remain in observed tropospheric warming trends and whether these are greater or less than the surface"

Erm .. "likely" and "slightly". Troposphere trend could even be LESS than surface.

IPCC continues to the following:

troposphere: 0.12°C to 0.19°C per decade

surface: 0.16°C to 0.18°C per decade

Clearly no evidence for the big red spot.

[kshackleton]

With data from 1958, why would you focus on that since 1979...especially when the graph is for the past century?

Your reply is not relevant to the question.

[gufpott]

My quotes are from the IPCC follow immediately from your own quotation from the same document.

They are not my figures, and you'd need to take your question of 1958 vs. 1979 to the IPCC.

The graph is a forecast for temp change over 100 years. Outative CO2 radiative forcing should be strongest at the end of the period, and the red spot should be most detectable from data towards the end of the series.

The red spot is nowhere to be seen. The hypotheisis is falsified. Get used to it.

[kshackleton]

So, you are arguing that an imperfect model invalidates the AGW hypothesis.

Nonsense.

The model also predicts [contrary to your claim] the greatest warming at higher latitudes, and it predicts stratospheric cooling.

Observations confirm these predictions.

Even in Antarctica, while the model did not account for the effect of ozone on interior continental temps, the south polar ocean is warming dramatically.

The bulk of the evidence supports the hypothesis.

Get used to it.

[gufpott]

Uh - so it's the FAULT of an imperfect model now kshackelton!

To paraphrase: "The hypothesis is imperfect to the extent that it cannot be falsified by data."

You're plumbing the depths of religious faith with that one. And at that point, I lose interest.

To conclude:

1. The "red spot" is a direct consequence of the AGW radiative forcing hypothesis.

Observations FAIL to confirm this predicted pattern.

The hypothesis is falsified by the data.

Bye bye.

[kshackleton]

*All* models are imperfect. No scientific models in any discipline provide a perfect replication of the data.

The observational data from 1958 confirms the model....but you can cherry-pick the timeframes that suit you if you like.

Your initial claim [that the "spot" is the greatest warming] is false.

Here is the crux....the only explanation for stratospheric cooling combined with surface heating is greenhouse gas effect.

Models predict it, and observations confirm it.

[gufpott]

Predictions need to be testable otherwise it's not science. Excusing a hypothesis on its own imperfection is not science.

Warm the surface by radiative physics requires a warmer column of air above. If all you have is stratospheric cooling, radiative physics cannot lead to surface cooling. Violation of 1st Law.

It was the IPCC who referred to 1979 vs1958. Not me.

Quibble all you like about "warmest" as you evade the real point.

That's really it - you're wasting my time.

Bye bye.

[gufpott]

Correction: "If all you have is stratospheric cooling, radiative physics cannot lead to surface WARMING.

Bye bye

[kshackleton]

Well...what we have is surface warming combined with stratospheric cooling, so your point is moot.

"Warm the surface by radiative physics requires a warmer column of air above."

This is not precisely true. What is required is an increase in greenhouse gases which then increase the radiative effect.

Radiation which would otherwise be lost to space [or the stratosphere] is radiated back to the surface, warming it; while cooling the stratosphere.

[kshackleton]

So....not only did you incorrectly characterize the predictions of the report, your specific objection has been refuted by observational data.

[kshackleton]

So...to summarize:

The report predicted the highest warming at the poles, dramatic stratospheric cooling, and milder warming in upper tropical troposphere as compared to the surface warming in the tropics.

All supported by observational data.

You are welcome.

[kshackleton]

Actually....the model that you referred me to predicts that the greatest warming will be at the surface of the high latitudes.

The "Big Red Spot" graph shows warming to be greatest at latitudes higher than 60, not in the "spot". It also shows dramatic high altitude [stratospheric] cooling, consistent with AGW.

[ecordy75]

ONLY when the AGW-deniers put all the variables that NASA has - as well as any variables that NASA has NOT thought of - and any data that NASA might not include in its models, into a computer, and adds up ALL the variables, and comes to a DIFFERENT conclusion from Anthropogence GW - ONLY then should the deniers complain about somehow being "censored" for their bullshit.

[gufpott]

Perhaps the AGW-alarmists could show us the evidence the predicted "hot spot" above the tropical troposphere.

As for Hockey Sticks, why not google "The Yamal Implosion" to see what you can learn.

Positive feedback in a passive system is an unphysical proposition - it works in the cyberworld of computer models. But it doesn't exist in the real world.

Denial and bullshit? You'd better have a long hard look in the mirror. Right now, you haven't earned the right to be listened to.

[ecordy75]

Why not do what I told you to: put all your SHIT data into a computer and crank out numbers? Answer: because you can't.

I got a PhD in Math, MS in Math, BChE (Bachelor of Chemical Eng). I am the greatest fucking thing in your worthless life.

There is more proof of AGW than there is that OJ Simpson ever hurt anyone.

You do not have the mental capacity to have the right to vote or be out of prison.

[gufpott]

More personal attacks. You still haven't said anything worth listening to.

Plenty of people like out there shouting and ranting.

Now, if you've got qualification in "Math" (LOL) why don't you tell us about the validity of positive feedback in a passive system. Or the role of observation and evidence in science (like the "red spot" non event).

So use those skills of yours to good use. And if you can't, why not just shut up.

[ecordy75]

Asking you to put all your variables into a compute to add up all the consequences - like NASA and AGW proponents have done - is not a "personal" attack.

What about the fact that sun energy activity has continued to fall while temps on earth continue to rise in past 30 years?

What about the fact that temps on earth rise inspite of increased global dimming?

[gufpott]

ecordy

Your said: "ONLY then should the deniers complain about .. being "censored" for their bullshit."

Is that not an attack?

But hold on .. what do you have to add? "What about this .. what about that."

Precisely zip! Your just guessing and surmising. Go look at the data. Go compare observations to the predictions.

To start with, why not see if you can observe the predicted "signature" tropospheric warming?

But you can't - that's why you are here having a rant.

[ecordy75]

You go look at the data. Not only that - write a computer program that incorporates all the data that NASA does and all the known physical laws verified over and over - and see if you come up with a different conclusion from hundreds of real scientists and engineers.

You have nothing to offer except your brainless ad hominem rants, because you are so desperate, knowing that you and your kind have long ago lost this pathetic battle on this issue.

[gufpott]

"Go write a computer programme". Nope ecordy75 - you have still not said anything worth listening to.

You refuse to acknowledge how data fails to confirm the predicted "big red spot". That data is about as close as you can get to proof against your theory, within the realms of observational science.

It tells you something you don't want to hear. And you cannot stand this good news, because you are emotionally committed to your alarmist doctrine.

It is YOU who is in denial !

[ecordy75]

And you have said even less.

You merely wasted YouTubers' time and energies.

Where is the scientific proof that humans are not causing significant global warming? None! Nowhere! You have provided absolutely nothing!

[gufpott]

ecordy" Where is the *scientific proof* that we're *not* causing ...."

Perhaps one of the most unscientific statements I have ever heard. You are scientifically illiterate and in denial of the evidence. Discussion with you is boring because it achieves no end.

There are interesting things happening right now. Why not join me over at RealClimate - watch Gavin trying to plug holes in the sinking ship. Witness the crumbling edifice of AGW.

And good luck with your scientific ignorance.

[ecordy75]

Bullshit. The braindead muslim fanatics who don't even know that Evolution is fact know more about science and engineering than you do.

You are right: there are interesting things happening right now: it's called human warming up the globe because of their energy use and consumption habits.

Face facts: you are nothing but a fanatics who worships me because you will come back again and again and again and again and again and again and again and

[gufpott]

To all the spoilers on this thread, please see and pay careful attention to this video:

"Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 18)"

As the author (thunderf00t) correctly says "free speech is worthless unless you are prepared to let the other side say things you do not like".

If you want to score comment, why not limit your scores to the more positive thumbs-up?

Would Dr Gutzler and UNM be impressed by attempts to censor opinion? Somehow I doubt it.

[ecordy75]

As long you apply that principle to people in prison and do not deny free speech rights to someone just because some other person (judge, cop, big politician) labels them a "criminal" or "terrorist" or "felon" or "sex offender" or "child molestor" - yes, I DO support free speech for them as well. They have opinions, too, on GW, Bigfoot, trade with China, etc

Some POVs do not NEED support - most notably, the GW-denialists - funded by oil companies for years.

[gufpott]

"Will go read some more. Thanks."

Respect to you and happy reading. We should all look at life as an opportunity to learn as much as we can.

BTW, why not see what you can find on the assertion of temperature amplification by positive feedback (a change of temperature which causes a self-reinforcing further change of temperature).

I think it is an unphysical proposition: failing to observe the law of conservation of energy. I have found nothing in literature to suggest I'm wrong.

[TempestStormwind]

Apparently, seeing a practicing scientist who agrees with the consensus and isn't dismissable as a 'raving lefty loony' is simply too much for Gufpott, who is reduced to throwing smokebombs.

Thank you for posting this interview, and a thank you to Dr. Gutzler for his time.

[gufpott]

Tempest - you appear on the thread and all of my previous comments are marked with a single thumbs down.

I suggest you watch and pay careful attention to this video:

"Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 18)"

The author's series sufferred a coordinated campaign of negative comment scoring to bias the appearance of the debate on his threads. Exactly the same game warmers play on AGW threads.

So listen to the author's views on censorship. Oh yes, and do try to grow up.

[gufpott]

Dear Dr Gutzler

The skeptics never said the climate is not changing. The people who ran that argument were Mike Mann et al in the shaft of the Hockey Stick, backed up by the IPCC and Al Gore.

The irony is the attacks and questioning integrity of people who dated to question the HS.

So let's act on the strength of the evidence alone - the Precautionary Principle is fundamentally unscientific,

And leadership does not mean doing something for the sake of being seen to do something.

[gufpott]

typo "dared to question the HS"

[gufpott]

wspol

"Time lag is due to inertia is inherent in any dynamic system"

Nope - there is no inertia in thermal systems. No forcing proportional to the second time derivative. When you switch off the heat source, there is no further energy to derive ongoing temperature rise.

You appear to be arguing that there is an ongoing radiative imbalance and warming trend due to CO2 (BTW not the same as interia). From the last 10 years, your view is not supported in observation.

[gufpott]

"The climate always changes .. we see climate change in the data"

Ummm, yeah. And the point is?

"No plausible explanation of recent warming".

What is the plausible explanation for the unambiguous very recent 10 years of stasis/cooling. No arguments that it is statistically insiginficant - it is there in the data. Fully explain it if you want to be taken seriously on trends more generally.