Weathercasters will soon need a permit in order to legally broadcast the weather. Fortunately Jason Samenow already has his Digital Seal of Approval from the National Weather Association so we can believe everything he says? In his recent article “Top science groups tell climate change doubters in Congress to knock it off” he said, “Of prominent U.S. scientific organizations, only the American Physical Society (APS) abstained from participating in both the 2009 and 2016 letter efforts”. No big deal right? Who needs physics when we have “scientific truth” via expensive and complicated climate models? Who needs physics when we have the climate nod coming from the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists?
Wait a second. All the societies listed by the letter don’t study the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. They think it doesn’t need studying since its all figured out so instead they only study the effects of the warming without understanding or measuring the mechanism. For example convection and clouds are impossible to model currently. So was the ice increase in Antarctica, the warming that supposedly went into the ocean instead of the atmosphere as predicted, and the 7 day weather forecast. Here are some reasons why.
The assumed CO2 caused positive feedback of water vapor having a huge warming forcing is questionable and not easily measured. So are the perfect black body radiation calculations which say there would be a 33 K temperature difference between Earth with and without GHG. Remember water vapor is the most powerful GHG accounting for about 60% of the warming. Remember also that when it rains and gets cloudy it cools so you can see now how complicated and confused the greenhouse effect theory is. What else can you expect from a theory that is wrong on the face of it and introduced by a eugenics hero? For example a black steel box generates a “greenhouse effect” since blocking convection winds is the reason for the temperature increase. Changing the glass doesn’t have much of an effect on temperature inside but adding CO2 does increase growth and lessen the need for water. Also we are coming out of an ice age which caused CO2 levels to plunge to the point where plants almost died from lack of air. Thank God we live on a tiny interglacial period of warmth surrounded by valleys of prolonged icy death which is due to come back anytime now.
There is another problem since agreeing with climate change is a conflict of interest for those who receive $2 billion a year since 1993 (source GAO). Although these elite societies might understand fish and crawling things (due to their vacation trips) they admittedly do not know much about the underlying physics concerning the greenhouse effect. Furthermore many do not practice science according to traditional scientific method instead they have a new science based on computer modeling.
Back to Samenow’s article he then misleads the audience by saying, “Though the APS statement about climate change is more nuanced than the AAAS letter, stating — for example — ‘scientific challenges remain in our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate change,’ it in no way disputes the scientific consensus on climate change or the risks it poses.” This is absolute bullshit to anyone who has read the APS statement. First of all the AAAS letter was written for 5 year-olds and is found in its entirety below. On the other hand the APS statement is 14 pages long, contains graphs, and big words. Furthermore it does dispute the findings of the IPCC. Here is one of the many scathing but totally ignored questions from the APS:
“The earth’s climate stems from a multi-component, driven, noisy, non-linear system that show temporal variability from minutes to millennia. Instrumental observations of key physical climate variables have sufficient coverage and precision only over the past 150 years at best and usually much less than that). Many different processes and phenomena will be relevant and each needs to be “gotten right” with high precision if the response to anthropogenic perturbations is to be attributed correctly and quantified accurately. For example, a change in the earth’s average shortwave albedo from 0.30 to 0.29 due changing clouds, snow/ice, aerosols, or land character would induce a 3.4 W/m2 direct perturbation in the downward flux, 50% larger than the present anthropogenic perturbation.
Moreover, there are expected feedbacks (water vapor-temperature, ice-albedo, …) that would amplify the perturbative response by factors of several. How can one understand the IPCC’s expressed confidence in identifying and projecting the effects of such small anthropogenic perturbations in view of such difficult circumstances?”
Looks like Samenow left that part out? Do you think our politicians will listen to the simple letter from their superiors or the complicated one from experts?
Remember science and physics is not a democracy. Consensus has no power in this realm.
June 28, 2016
Dear Members of Congress,
We, as leaders of major scientific organizations, write to remind you of the consensus scientific view of climate change.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorousscientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the
primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vastbody of peer-reviewed science.
There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on
society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health. For the United States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.1
To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions mustbe substantially reduced. In addition, adaptation is necessary to address unavoidable consequences for human health and safety, food security, water availability, and national security, among others.We, in the scientific community, are prepared to work with you on the scientific issues important to your deliberations as you seek to address the challenges of our changing climate. American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Public Health Association
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
American Society of Naturalists
The conclusions in this and the preceding paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for
example, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the U.S. National Academies, and Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements,
including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society,
American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Statistical Association,
Ecological Society of America, and Geological Society of America.
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography
Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium
Botanical Society of America
Consortium for Ocean Leadership
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Entomological Society of America
Geological Society of America
National Association of Marine Laboratories
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society for Mathematical Biology
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
Society of Nematologists
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research