US Navy Chief Oceanographer: I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic

Support Climate Denial Crock of the Week, go to
http://www.climatecrocks.com

Admiral David Titley is the Chief Oceanographer and Navigator of the US Navy.
A Phd, he describes himself as a former climate skeptic who has been convinced by the evidence that this is the greatest challenge of the 21st century.

Education includes a B.S. in Meteorology from the Pennsylvania State University, a M.S. in Meteorology and Physical Oceanography and Ph.D. in Meteorology, both from the Naval Postgraduate School. He attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seminar XXI on Foreign Politics, International Relations and National Interest, and is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

In 2009, Titley assumed duties as oceanographer and navigator of the Navy and director, Task Force Climate Change.


Role of Navy Oceanography
http://www.bupers.navy.mil/Officer/Intelligence_Information/OCEANO/CommunityO...

Bio
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=438

Explaining Climate Change to the Military
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=46427

Navy Climate Change Strategy
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=54197

complete Tedx Pentagon video
http://science.dodlive.mil/2011/01/31/video-climate-change-and-national-secur...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7udNMqRmqV8

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Admiral David Titley
• Climate change
• climate
• global warming
• CO2
• carbon dioxide
• climate science
• Peter Sinclair
• greenland
• ice cores
• lonnie thompson
• ohio state
• bird polar center
• richard alley
• Crock
• Denial
• Denier
• Climate Denier
• Climate Denial
• green
• earth
• environment
• atmosphere
• smoking
• tobacco
• 32000
• scientists
• petition
• climate petition
• IPCC
• ozone
• ozone layer
• ice
• arctic ice
• polar
• arctic ocean
• ocean acidification
• NASA

[smartalek65]

@greenman3610 No, the climate hasn't been warming for the last decade.

[greenman3610]

@smartalek65

I guess I'll just take the experts at their word. Even the few remaining skeptics who actually are scientists.

watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM

at 5:00

[smartalek65]

@greenman3610 And you dig yourself a deeper hole with false ad hominems. In this case, you mistake a withdrawn 2008 paper for the report to the congressional subcommittee in 2006 that North found no fault with. The 2008 paper was withdrawn, contrary to what you wish, for failure to reference background materials, not the questionable methods employed by MBH.

[greenman3610]

@smartalek65

North's statement stands, as does the NAS affirmation of Mann, and the dozens of confirming studies since.

google

nasa key indicators

google

skepticalscience hockey stick

[greenman3610]

@greenman3610

and, oh yeah, the globe continues to warm.

[smartalek65]

@greenman3610 Essentially, the bottom line from the NRC panel was that they couldn't refute the answer MBH came up with, but due to glaring lack of verifiable proxies and severely questionable statistical methods, they could only confirm MBH back to 1600. Wegman's panel was more blunt, as were other PEER-REVIEWED critiques.

[greenman3610]

@smartalek65

wegman's paper of course, has now been withdrawn in shame by the journal that published it.

plagiarism the least of its problems.

google

wegman paper withdrawn

[smartalek65]

@Sourdoughmusk Actually, the warmest year on record is 1998. We've only kept anything close to accurate records for a hundred years, hardly validates your point.

[SourdoughMusk]

@smartalek65 You really can't take a trend from 2001 to now. Climate trends are viewed over decades. Also, if there has been no warming then why have many of the hottest years in the temp record occurred since 2001?

[smartalek65]

@rolopolo66 No, it hasn't. All 4 data sets used, satellites from UAH and RSS; and the surface stations by HadCRUt3 and GISS; all show a flat line trend (i.e. no discernible trend) since 2001. Note, no "model" is used. Only empirical data. Models have been GROSSLY inaccurate, as Stephen Schwartz pointed out in his 2010 paper concerning temp observations.

[rolopolo66]

@smartalek65 Yes it has. The model the sceptics use doesn't take into account polar warming. When polar warming is factored in, the climate has been warming for the last decade.

[Galv140577]

Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...

The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]

watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o

[smartalek65]

CONT'D appear uniquely warm. Use all proxy data, and the Roman and Medieval warm periods BOTH have episodes of warmer climate than current. Herr grunmann also fails to tell us of numerous studies found in the scientific literature that dispute the methods and findings of the "hockey team." CONT'D

[smartalek65]

CONT'D Herr grunmann then says in his propaganda vid (on medieval warming), that there's now a whole hockey team of subsequent papers that allegedly found the same thing MBH did. The truth is that Mann's last paper, in 2008, showed a warm medieval period and a deeper little ice age than did MBH99. But Mann repeated his "trick" of splicing proxy reconstruction data with the instrument data. As Ljungqvist points out in his paper I referenced earlier, this is the ONLY way current temps CONT'D

[smartalek65]

Perhaps we should examine Herr grunmann's errors. He says that the "hockey stick" has been upheld by the NAS. False. The NAS report was critical of MBH's methods, and found that the base premise of the graph's use was NOT strongly supported by it's data; and it had a skill validation not significantly different from zero-meaning it's worthless. CON'T