Are humans wrecking the climate? Meteorolgist Paul Douglas says humans are wrecking the climate. Douglas is self-styled “moderate Republican” and Christian. Therefore, humans are wrecking the climate. QED.
Paul Douglas writes at Huffington Post:
I’m going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real. I’m a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I’m a Penn State meteorologist, and the weather maps I’m staring at are making me very uncomfortable. No, you’re not imagining it: we’ve clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern. To complicate matters I’m in a small, frustrated and endangered minority: a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy powered-up. It’s ironic. The root of the word conservative is “conserve”. A staunch Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, set aside vast swaths of America for our National Parks System, the envy of the world. Another Republican, Richard Nixon, launched the EPA. Now some in my party believe the EPA and all those silly “global warming alarmists” are going to get in the way of drilling and mining our way to prosperity. Well, we have good reason to be alarmed…
James Hansen left a reputation at MIT. The reputation is that he is very good at getting computer programs to back up his suppositions. When the earth was cooling he programmed cooling. When the earth changed his mind, his computer programs started saying it is fire instead of ice that we should fear. We always have something to fear.
It’s hard to calm someone in a panick that ‘we are ruining the world’. Why do we have a natural proclivity to believe that whatever trend we are in, will never end?
Like the the dotcom and housing bubbles, we can not see that the expansion is just a cycle ~ when we are caught up in the cycle.
Climate cycles have durations longer than a single human life span.
Once in a life time weather, should not come as that much of a shock.
They need Republican, Christian conservatives to peddle their nonsense in order to give it creds. Sort of like getting a nun to promote prostitution. Only the retarded are influenced by this sort of drivel.
Lots of Republicans contribute to the Huffington
Post.
Wait . . . what?
I must give praise where it is due, for he claims to be a meteorologist, but eschews the label of ‘climate scientist.’
Simultaneously I feel obliged to point out that a political ‘moderate’ is simply someone who has not yet decided where he stands on a number of significant issues.
The current terminology for a ‘moderate Republican’ is “RINO.”
I feel more comfortable with people who admit to their principles and allow their principles to guide their decisions, even if I do not agree with those principles or the priorities placed upon them.
I have to put up with wishy washy Paul Douglas in my state and the dude has been a Global Warming zombie since the beginning. He would do article after article in the Hammer and Sickle ( oops still called the Star Tribune) telling us all his doomsday predictions. And those who think he just came to this conclusion….heck read this from 2010
http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2010/10/paul-douglas-i%E2%80%99m-recovering-republican-and-i-don%E2%80%99t-recognize-my-party-any-more
We must never lose sight of the fact that this whole AGW thing is the work of one man.
Yo, Joe. Awesome post Thanks.
Welcome to Teh Peoples Republic of Minnesota, land of 10,000 concern trolls. Douglas is working for a middle left TV station and inserted into a white guilt network of Twin Cities Brahmans. Their Scandi origins coupled with their self flaggelating religious background makes them suckers for any guilt trip. Being one of the ‘elites’ (legends in their own minds) also demands obedience to whatever crusade the Kewl Kidds come up with.
Indiana Jones said it best…. “Penn State, why is it always Penn State”
Bastardi again
Paul Douglass, as he is known on TV, when I knew him was one of the best young forecasters I had ever seen. This is not a knock on his skill, not even a knock on him. Its to alert him to things he may not have looked at and ask for an explanation. Since I will be attacked by the leftist blogs ( they love my name, Bastardi, which I did not change cause it sounded cooler than Smith) I do want to show you where I got the figures on how much co2 is human caused.. its from DOE the increase in the 1990s
you can see human caused is much less than nature , nature being 770,000, humans 23,100. Naturally the left wants you to think that the 11,000 annual all comes out of the 23,100…absurd given the over 20 to 1 ratio nature over man made
http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/greenhouse.png
Now since that time here is what co2 has done against the temps..
http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/co2-AM1.png
Now there is a great natural explanation for this. The Pacific went into a warm PDO in 1978, the atlantic in the early 90s. The combination of the two added heat.. no doubt (explanation above) but once they had reached their warmest points, no more heat can be added. It like a flood, if the water is high,for it to get higher it has to rain even harder, once to a certain point.
Now dear reader, what happens when the pacific turns colder and then the atlantic. Well we are going to get our answer soon enough, as its starting now. Again the temps since the PDO turned colder
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
BUT IN THE MEANTIME CO2 IS RISING THE TEMPERATURE IS NOW In fact we can no test the hypothesis since you can not run from the objective data unless you fear its results! In the meantime, the conclusion as of now was that co2 rising is coincidental, not the cause of the temperature rise and the coming 2 decades will prove the natural cyclical theory to be correct. Global conclusions based on warmth in your back yard, especially when the data shows the globe cooler, are simply wrong.
Bastardi again
Paul Douglass, as he is known on TV, when I knew him was one of the best young forecasters I had ever seen. This is now a knock on his skill, not even a knock on him. Its to alert him to things he may not have looked at and ask for an explanation. Since I will be attacked by the leftist blogs ( they love my name, Bastardi, which I did not change cause it sounded cooler than Smith) I do want to show you where I got the figures on how much co2 is human caused.. its from DOE the increase in the 1990s
you can see human caused is much less than nature , nature being 770,000, humans 23,100. Naturally the left wants you to think that the 11,000 annual all comes out of the 23,100…absurd given the over 20 to 1 ratio nature over man made
http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/greenhouse.png
Now since that time here is what co2 has done against the temps..
http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/co2-AM1.png
Now there is a great natural explanation for this. The Pacific went into a warm PDO in 1978, the atlantic in the early 90s. The combination of the two added heat.. no doubt (explanation above) but once they had reached their warmest points, no more heat can be added. It like a flood, if the water is high,for it to get higher it has to rain even harder, once to a certain point.
Now dear reader, what happens when the pacific turns colder and then the atlantic. Well we are going to get our answer soon enough, as its starting now. Again the temps since the PDO turned colder
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
BUT IN THE MEANTIME CO2 IS RISING THE TEMPERATURE IS NOW In fact we can no test the hypothesis since you can not run from the objective data unless you fear its results! In the meantime, the conclusion as of now was that co2 rising is coincidental, not the cause of the temperature rise and the coming 2 decades will prove the natural cyclical theory to be correct. Global conclusions based on warmth in your back yard, especially when the data shows the globe cooler, are simply wrong.
He is a meteorologist at one of the local TV stations here, but he’s not very highly thought of as far as I can tell. I certainly don’t hold him in high regard. In contrast, another local TV meteorologist, Dave Dahl is more of a skeptic. Long before global warming came along I had decided that Dahl is much more reliable and professional than Douglas, and I haven’t changed my mind on that assessment since.
Doug, since that is the name I knew you by in college:
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
temps since pdo flip
btw Doug, it will spike LOWER still this winter
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/amopdoustemp.jpg
link pdo/amo to temp
http://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-‘-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/
Nahle defense of me
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Joe_Bastardi_is_Correct.pdf
year to date, globe
http://policlimate.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_ytd_anom.png
march, even with US heat wave
http://policlimate.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom.png
So Doug, how long do you think this argument would last in Korea, or Alaska
finally since we are worried about the entire globe, global sea ice
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Now Doug, I want you to think back to thermodynamics. What is the relationship between cold dry air and warm moist energy as far as the energy budget? Do you understand that a 1 degree drop in temperature at a wet bulb of 80 has for more implication for the energy of the earth than a rise of 20 degrees where its 20 below. The warm pdo/amo combo warms the atmosphere.. the tropics warm.. This distorts the energy budget so the continents warm. and the northern ice cap shrinks. All logical.. raise the temp of the tropical pacific a degree and that air moving north, drying out will result in bigger temp rises since the energy is so much greater .
But what will happen when the PDO flips as it did 3 years ago? What happens when it goes from cold to warm, as it did in 1978 at the end of the cold pdo, when you were at PSU with me and the Ice age was the rage. So we are about to get our answer.. are the big drivers in control or the trace gas, less than .04% of the atmosphere, that humans contribute 5% to the 1.5 ppm, America 10% of that, which if the DOE figures are correct would be 7.5 ppbillion? I think if you do the math, or read the above papers, you would see it from another angle.
So here is a simple forecast wager..you and me okay. The old guy against the whipper snapper in the PSUweather tower. The global temp, as measured objectively by Satellite since 1978 when we started with objective measurements , will return to where it was in 1978 by 2030 ( if not sooner). Keep in mind, I was forced take meteo 461, instrumentation. I dont know if you took that course, or have the scars from all nighters trying to build and calibrate instruments, but the one thing about thermometers was that 90% or errors were them reading TOO WARM. Because anything makes them too warm, and THE COLDER IT IS, THE MORE THEY ARE SENSITIVE TO BEING WARMER! WHY because the energy to change the temp 5 degrees is nothing when its near 0 compared to where its 80. Since in your current life, as Paul Douglass you are in a place that is cold, I am sure you have noticed the wild swings in temps on a clear cold morning. The same amount of energy that changes the temp from 80 to 81 will change it from -15 to 0.. ( I may even be underestimating, our friend Jay Schlegal said it was a doubling of the buoyancy for every 20 degrees).
Now I am trusting the objective satellites over a) proxy tree rings ( btw did you know there is no hockey stick in China.. I wonder why
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/china/liu-2011-tibet-tree-rings-2485-year.gif
and of course Anthony Watts report on US instruments is an eye opener
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
I hope if Paul Douglass choses not read, his viewers will, along with Doug Kruehoffer, who I think was one of the greatest forecasters I have ever met
But there are some things for you to read, not to change your mind, but to get you to understand that the heat wave we had was a) nothing nationwide compared to 1910 and b) covered 15% of the earth, while the rest of the land masses of the globe are cold.
cheers
JB
Paul Douglas says:
“…a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy powered-up.”
I’ve got one question: Which planet are you from comrade?
He’s confusing waether with climate. Why not? He’s a weatherman,after all. When I was in high school-50 years ago, meteorology was what I thought I’d like to study and become a weatherman; I’m just as glad I didn’t but it would have been interesting to be a skeptic in a settled Science World.
I always wonder what these goofs would have thought 3000 years ago- make that 9000. They’d be jumping off glaciers to end it all!
He’s from Penn State. “nuff said.
Puffery. The guy pays no attention to the fact that the globe cooled while he was busy looking at his own little section of the globe. And pays no attention to the absence of any qualitative difference of any kind of disaster. And, most recently, the new IPCC (in need of an area of credibility) drafts are saying events are indstinguishable as to cause (per Pielke, Jr.) His opinion lies in stark contrast to every one else’s facts. And he’s no fan of small government or sound science.
The atmosphere is either heating up to a threatening level because of human activity OR it isn’t. The climate is sublimely oblivious to the qualifications of those advocating one opinion or another. Therefore: we would all be better off to discuss the science as science and leave the rest aside.
I wish to be shown all the evidence, pro and con, that the atmosphere is heating beyond natural cycles and that such heating is caused by human activities.
Evidence.
Everything else is superfluous.