Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Global Warming: Spitting in the Wind

When I posted last week on the global cooling movement of the 70's I knew the paper I cited and quoted at length had a degree of legitimacy and stature because I had researched and written a post on global cooling previously. I had learned that the global coolers were real and mainstream. So I published without taking the time to go too deep last week. I've had time to dig since. I am glad I did.

The cited findings of a steady cooling of the northern hemisphere, shortened growing seasons and more variable climate in the 1970's were presented by Profs. H. Flohn of Germany, H.H. Lamb of the United Kingdom and Reid Bryson of the United States. 

It turns out Professor Reid Bryson was founder of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's meteorology department and Center for Climatic Research, and the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies. Reid Bryson was one of the pioneers of modern climatology and among the first to explore the influence of climate on humans and human culture.
Bryson was made a Global Laureate by the United Nations Global Environment Program (where global warming, now, a short time later is an article of faith) in 1990. Professor Bryson was also a pioneer in tropical meteorology and hurricane forecasting. Bryson is known as "the father of climatology."

To his dying day, Professor Bryson was a global warming skeptic who is famously known for saying, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

Bryson was eulogized as a towering figure in climatology,
Bryson was prescient in grasping the depth and breadth of the many connections between climate, the environment and human society, according to John Kutzbach, UW-Madison professor emeritus of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and one of Bryson's students. "His interdisciplinary interests and knowledge of these topics allowed him to see connections that others missed and to initiate studies that are still at the cutting edge of climate research." 
"Reid was a different kind of scientist. He excelled in the field as well as in the lab with computers," says Jonathan Foley, a UW-Madison climate scientist himself trained by one of Bryson's students. "He had a real world grasp of the influence of climate on people. No one came close to his breadth of understanding."
I attended the University of Wisconsin during Professor Bryson's teaching career. UW is a large University -- but the meteorology department not so much, which means anyone I knew who studied meteorology during my stay in Madison almost certainly studied under Professor Bryson.

Aha! Bill Steffen I thought. Bill grew up in the northern Chicago suburbs, as did I. He attended New Trier High School which was in the same athletic conference as my Niles West. He caddied. I caddied. We were hockey fans and Evans Scholars together at the University of Wisconsin. According to Bill's LinkedIn profile,
Golf CaddyWestmoreland Country ClubI caddied with actor Bill Murray at Westmoreland C.C. (though he caddied more at Indian Hill C.C. in Wilmette, Illinois
Caddyshack is real. Bill was house president. He graduated a year ahead of me and went to work as a weatherman for a TV station in Ann Arbor Michigan. 

I remember Bill as a red head who sported a bushy, full horizontal mustache. In his current bio photo he looks very much the same, except that a wintry mix has set in in place of sporty red. Currently, he is Chief Meteorologist for WOOD TV, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo and Holland, Michigan. And he writes a weather blog -- boy, does he write a weather blog.  

Bill riled the global warming crowd in a post this last September. "Despite the occasional media hype (and attempts to tie every weather “event” to “global warming”… er I mean,'climate change' …gotta make a name change here since the Earth’s temperature has been flat since 2002), this has been a quiet year for weather “events” he said. He cited the following temperature graph from NASA displaying the decade-long flat temperature trend.

Steffen accurately predicted "winter weather will come earlier this year than in the past several years."

He quotes a Nobel Prize winner as follows:
Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis: “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren’t worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It’s that simple.”
Boom, thwack, slam! Steffen continued,
According to this website, Bill Nye gets 25K per speaking event: Bill usually goes to college campuses where tax dollars (directly or indirectly) may be used to pay him. 
There’s a lot of $$$ to be made in climate alarmism.
This man is a clipper system all unto himself. As for arguments about changing ice extents, Bill Steffen cites ice data,
Waaay above average ice in the Antarctic:
Seasonal ice?
It’s been growing for 25 years! That would be 100 seasons!
Arctic ice has seen an incredible increase in the past year: It was the coldest summer north of 80 deg. latitude since records began in 1958.
Going further back in Bill's blog we can find reference to Professor Bryson when commentators took him on concerning his stance on global warming. He relies on reason and evidence -- not black boxes and phony consensus. You do not want to challenge this dude. 

Steffen starts out on the defense.
Bill received the Silver Circle award
from Michigan's chapter of the
National Academy of Television Arts and Science,
recognizing his 38 years in the broadcast business
I am not a climate change denier (and I resent your using that word denier – trying to link anyone who disagrees with your politics to Holocaust deniers. Here’s what Dr. Gordon Brown, physics professor at Duke Univ. says about this unfounded and despicable connection: “Most of the skeptics do not “deny” AGW, certainly not the scientists or professional weather people (I myself am a physicist) and honestly, most of the non-scientist skeptics have learned better than that. What they challenge is the catastrophic label and the alleged magnitude of the projected warming on a doubling of CO_2. They challenge this on rather solid empirical grounds and with physical arguments and data analysis that is every bit as scientifically valid as that used to support larger estimates, often obtaining numbers that are in better agreement with observation. For this honest doubt and skepticism that the highly complex global climate models are correct you have the temerity to socially stigmatize them in a scientific journal with a catch-all term that implies that they are as morally reprehensible as those that “deny” that the Nazi Holocaust of genocide against the Jews? For shame.”)
Then he starts laying out an affirmative case, bringing Bryson into the discussion.
You may be referring to the comment below from Snowy Wit. He presents no science background, just political rhetoric and insults. My climate professor, Dr. Reid Bryson, one of – if not the most famous climatologists in the world during his long tenure at the Univ. of Wisconsin, said on CNBC in 2007 “You could spit and cause more damage to the environment than doubling CO2 in the atmosphere”. You can also google these names and learn from some top-notch climatologists: Dr. Bill Gray (the most famous hurricane forecaster in the world), Dr. Roger Pelkie, Dr. John Christy (Professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC papers, said in a 2009 Energy and Environment paper with David Douglass: “…the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. … The global warming hypothesis states that there are positive feedback processes leading to gains g that are larger than 1, perhaps as large as 3 or 4. However, recent studies suggest that the values of g is much smaller.”[51] Also in a 2009 opinion piece: “…I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.)…former President of the National Academy of Science, Dr. Frederick Seitz,…former President of the American Assn. of State Climatologists, Dr. Pat Michaels…state climatologists Prof. George Taylor, Texas A&M professor John Nielsen-Gammon, the state climatologist of Texas who said: “I still disagree with Dr. Hansen, both on his interpretation and some of his analysis.” He also said this about the Texas drought last year: “There is no evidence that climate change contributed to the lack of rainfall, because rainfall has risen over the past century in the state.”, Professor David LeGates….and I could name dozens more. Now, start here:
And then Bill took on and zapped his critics and their political arguments.

    1. big Daddy BC says:
      So your suggestion is to start with a ‘scientist’ that works for Exxon? LOL Spencer has worked for Exxon for years and he’s the support you provide for your denier position?
    2. Bill Steffen says:
      Dr. Spencer doesn’t work for Exxon – why do you keep lying (like when you said that Romney was a polygamist – he’s not and you lied). Here’s where you can learn about Dr. Spencer: Note: “Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.” How about you bigD? What special interest is paying for that server?
  1. Snowy Wit says:
    Are you aware that ninety five percent of all working climatologist in the world, would disagree with your assertions.
    Are you aware that every scientific academy in the world, unanimously, accepts the conclusions on climate change.
    I suggest you write down your theory on climate change. Have it peer reviewed, and go collect your Nobel prize.
    1. Bill Steffen says:
      Is that how Al Gore got his Nobel Prize? LOL! Remember, he said that “the temperature 2 kilometers down…is several million degrees”. He also said in 2008 that “the Polar Icecap will be GONE in five years”. He’s still got a few months to go, but it’s July 21 and the ice still hasn’t completely melted off of Hudson Bay!
    2. Al Goreacle
      Bill Steffen says:
      And…here’s the story on your “95%” of working climatologists:
      “close examination of the source of the claimed 95% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists (that’s right ONLY 79 in the self-selected poll!!) chose to participate. Of the 79 SELF-SELECTED “climate scientists”, 75 agreed with the loose notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 95% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren’t buying it:
  2. Snowy Wit says:
    The REASON Bill and others similar DENY, the realities of climate change, and climate science, is very simple to explain. They deny the facts and evidence because they are addicted, to their habits and consumptive lifestyles.
    They are true BELIEVERS in our current social and economic models. Which they feel are safe and sustainable to our planets ecosystem. (If it ain’t broke don’t fix it) Is the logic they assert when arguing from their delusional soapboxes.
    They completely IGNORE almost every scientific expert in the field of climatology, in the world. They IGNORE every scientific academy in the worlds consensuses on climate change.
    They do not want to take any responsibility for the catastrophes, they are leaving for the next generations societies. The REASON is they simply do not care, because they will not be alive. They have no EMPATHY for others who are coming into this world completely innocent to their conditions and environment, that was left over for them.
    They are gutless cowards who can not face the music, and the future generations will suffer horribly due to their inactivity.
    1. Bill Steffen says:
      This is what should concern anyone who cares about the next generation:
    2. Snowy Wit says:
      Bill you are just showing your lack of intelligence and displaying your ignorance. By suggesting people view some lunatic, redneck, uneducated video you are suggesting. There are very good REASONS most universities and most scientist do not come from the southern states. Most people who live their do not even believe in science. They believe in ancient superstition and magical sky gods. Most do not give rip about the earth because they believe Jesus is coming back to earth any day now. He just went to go buy some cigarettes about two thousand years ago, and should be home shortly. MAKES PERFECT SENSE RIGHT!
    3. Bill Steffen says:
      You’re full of insults and short on substance, Wit. It’s a slick video with a lot of facts that you’re free to check on your own. At the rate we’re going, we’re headed over a cliff. It’s unsustainable. Each year we are adding $8,000 per family to the National Debt. What if you did that with your family budget? The deficit just this year is higher than the entire cost of government minus Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. You can’t come close to balancing the budget by taxing the rich. You could take all their money and it wouldn’t cover but a fraction of the debt. When it crashes, it’s not going to be pretty. Either the checks will stop coming or bounce…or we’ll print money until we’re Zimbabwe and you’ll need a wheelbarrow full of it to buy your groceries. Instead of name-calling, do the math…find out the numbers…check where our debt is…check the number of rich people. We need get to a sustainable budget.
      A July 2011 Energy Department study found that oil, natural gas and coal received an average of 64 cents of subsidy per megawatt hour in 2010. Wind power received nearly 100 times more, or $56.29 per megawatt hour. Here’s more: article)

He has his math right, he has his macro fiscal analysis right and he has his science right. You show them bud -- way to go Bill!

Bill in his red days.


No comments:

Post a Comment