Residents in Houston are a bit concerned when Harris County police decided to call off a manhunt of an escaped prisoner because of the heat. The man was arrested for possession and suspected of robbery. However, he was able to get out of his handcuffs during transport and escaped. The police started the manhunt but then called it off because it was just to darn hot.
The escape occurred around noon and police decided the heat was taking its toll on the officers and their dogs. It does not appear that the man waited out of a sense of fair play for the temperature to drop.
Source: Khou
Former Vice President Al Gore is doing what few environmentalists and fellow Democrats have done before, criticizing President Barack Obama’s record on global warming.
In a 7,000-word essay for Rolling Stone magazine that was posted online Wednesday, Gore says Obama has failed to stand up for “bold action.” Gore contends that Obama has made little progress on the problem since Republican President George W. Bush. Bush infuriated environmentalists by resisting mandatory controls on the pollution blamed for climate change, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible.
Gore does credit Obama’s political appointees with making hundreds of changes that have helped move the country “forward slightly” on the climate issue, but says the president “has simply not made the case for action.”
“Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis,” Gore says. “He has not defended the science against the ongoing withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community … to bring the reality of the science before the public.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=13900390
Ah yes. Those great scientific journals, the NYT and CBS. Next time I have to analyze a case, I will be sure to refer to them for a definitive answer to my questions. Makes much more sense than wading through a few hundred pages of dense text with footnotes.
And of course, the SCOTUS is another great font of wisdom on every subject. However, the Court did appear to try and put some distance between itself and the, “…complicated issues related to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.”
Footnote to SCOTUS ruling yesterday.
“For views opposing EPA’s, see, e.g., Dawidoff, The Civil Heretic, N. Y. Times Magazine 32 (March 29, 2009). The Court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
Which was before this
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5117890-503544.html
Climategate
Hide the Decline
All of the retractions from the IPCC ect. ect. ect.
Dr. Slarti, there is an additional layer to your observations, which are by the way, absolutely spot on. It is the matter of the “expert” who pontificates, using an earned Ph.D. as some sort of leverage to gain credibility. Jerome Corsi is a perfect example of somebody with a Harvard Ph.D. who consistently talks out his ass.
I have to shake my head at the failure to understand complex systems by people who should know better. Perhaps it is because of the specialty from which they come. If you are used to looking at chemical reactions in test tubes, perhaps there is a tendency to see most problems as a simple cause and effect.
I have a friend who is a board certified forensic pathologist, but went back and did a Residency in psychiatry. We were talking one evening about the two completely unrelated fields of medicine, because I was fascinated by the fact that a pathologist at the top of his game would want to become a psychiatrist. He had this observation: “In pathology the books are this thick,” he said, holding his fingers five inches apart.
“When you read and pretty much memorize the material, it becomes very simple. On the other hand, in psychiatry, the books are this thick.” He held his thumb and forefinger an inch apart. “But the difference is that in psychiatry, the concepts that appear simple at first are enormously complex and it takes a lifetime to understand some of them.”
My friend could do a wonderful job as a highly respected forensic pathologist, but found his greatest challenge as a psychiatrist. All too many experts look at the world of science like the pathologist who fails to see the fantastically complex brain systems that made up who the person was before death.
Otteray Scribe,
As someone who believes he knows something about complexity (you can decide if that is an indication that I’m talking out of my ass or the other thing…) I certainly understand the dangers of making decisions based on a naive or superficial understanding of a complex system. In just about any technical field you should never take the argument of a layman over that of an expert without some sort of extraordinary reason to do so. Bdaman’s sole filter for reliability in information is whether or not it agrees with his biases and prejudices – which seems far from extraordinary to me (in fact it seems pretty pathetic).
Gyges,
That’s what I was talking about – thanks!
uh oh! well, somebody better get out of their chair or there won’t be anything left to cry over….!
(it’s not my turn to do the dishes……)
W=c,
“Cosmic Mother and the Cosmic Father and this is what I was told to say….”CLEAN YOUR FUCKING ROOM AND STOP HURTING EACH OTHER!!!!!!!!!”
Which I believe was followed with a “Don’t make me get out of this chair or I’ll give you something to really cry about.”
there is no real secret to what is happening….it is more than obvious ;
http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/index2.html
😮
Slart,
Here you go. There’s several of their articles linked in the sources section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Slarti–yes, I think my friend falls into the category you name. He is very humble about his work and tends to minimize his great contributions. But I think he overestimates his skills in areas outside his own area. Like many deniers, his level of knowledge is not much deeper than you can find on popular web sites or magazine articles. As far as I know, he does not subscribe to a single professional journal on the subject of weather. He has a wonderful understanding of fluid dynamics and can fill a blackboard with dense mathematical formulas, but that does not translate into actual practice of the complex interaction of all the contributing factors.
Even some scientists do not really understand the vast complexity of what is happening. Or how hard it is to do the numbers–they want to seize on a few anecdotal events and try to extrapolate from that. It does not work that way. When I was working on my dissertation, I used a multiple regression equation. Computers were a bit more primitive then, and did not have the number crunching capacity we do now. I had so many variables to calculate that it locked up the mainframe computer in the University engineering department. I had a whole bunch of engineers and mathematicians mad at me. Big numbers and big events on a global scale do not make for simple solutions.
Call me irresponsible,
Call me unreliable,
but it’s undeniably true:
That we humans and our toys are screwing up this world to the extent that we will create ecological disasters that can put us on the brink of extinction. I don’t need no stinkin science to tell me that:
Auto exhaust fumes are bad for us in so many ways.
Non-biodegradeable plastics are killing the land and seas.
Coal power is a blight on the countryside and to the air.
Our Rain forests are dying.
Our fish are dying.
Humanity is growing at such a rate as to make Malthus a profit
etc., etc., etc.,
Yet we are beset by maniacs who believe in Revelations, so who cares?
We are beset by corporations, their paid help and gullible believers, who worship profit uber alles.
We are beset by bible thumpers who believe human’s have God Given permission to trash the world through our dominance.
Billions are hungry, billions lack health care, billions lack water,
but billionaires hog up the coastline and every other beautiful place on earth building their glittering mansions of glam, which they only occupy on a part time basis. Will this madness ever end in something that can leave us hopeful for the future?
Otteray Scribe,
I read an article a couple months ago (sorry, I don’t have the link) about how people with a lot of expertise in a field tend to underestimate their knowledge and those lacking expertise tend to overestimate their ability. Does your friend exhibit the other side of this behavior as well? I remember being shocked when my advisor told me that I had done enough research and should just finish writing up my dissertation – it seemed to me like I hadn’t done much of anything. One tends to be so familiar with one’s own research that it just seems readily obvious so you assume that others understand it just as easily (this probably breaks down a little when you get to the level of people who objectively are among the foremost experts in their field, though…).
Bdaman,
You can stop providing us evidence of climate change any time now – you’ve already completely destroyed your argument that it isn’t occurring with all of your reports of extreme weather. Frankly, it’s embarrassing that you don’t realize that your own arguments prove that you are wrong.
If there ever was a group I would NOT turn to as a definitive source of scientific data, it would be television weather announcers. Most have only a bachelor’s degree, if that, and their specialty is explaining the colorful WX maps they download from somewhere. The vast majority of them have a role that is more entertainer than scientist.
I have a lifelong friend who is a climate change skeptic and actually signed one of those letters stating the whole thing was hyperbole. He is a world famous scientist, but unfortunately, his Ph.D. is in a field so far unrelated to climatology or meteorology that he cannot see it from here. Despite his credentials (and I fully expect him to win a Nobel Prize one day), he knows far less than I do about climatology. That, in a nutshell, is part of the problem. Red herrings by well-meaning but under-informed people who think they know more than they do.
Bdaman
1, June 21, 2011 at 11:04 am
your right Wootsy time to get busy. Time to air out the dirty laundry
———————————
🙂
it’s Woosty
have an apple
BDAman,
So, what’s your excuse for not answering my questions? Inquiring minds want to know.
”CLEAN YOUR FUCKING ROOM AND STOP HURTING EACH OTHER!!!!!!!!!”
🙂
your right Wootsy time to get busy. Time to air out the dirty laundry 🙂
AMS Survey of Weathercasters on Climate Change
11:36 pm November 15, 2009
A survey of weathercasters’ feelings on global warming was published in this month’s edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. It had some interesting findings. There were 121 respondents. 94% of the respondents had at least one of the three major seals.
Television meteorologists are the official scientists for most television stations. The overwhelming majority felt comfortable in that role for their stations. The majority agreed that the role of discussing climate change did fall to them.
The eyebrow raising responses:
“Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Only 35% agreed or strongly agreed. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
“Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced.” A full 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral on this question. Only 8% strongly agreed.
“Global climate models are reliable in their predictions for a warming of the planet.” Only 3% strongly agreed and another 16% agreed. A full 62% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
“Respond to one TV weathercaster’s Quote saying “Global warming is a scam.” Responses were mixed. The largest percentage was neutral, at 26%. A total of 45% disagreed (23%) or strongly disagreed (22%). 19% of the respondents agreed with this statement and 10% strongly agreed.
The amount of uncertainty found in this survey tells that even the most educated and motivated communicators are still uncertain about the truth on this issue. Interesting article.
The entire text can be found at: http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/90/10/pdf/i1520-0477-90-10-1457.pdf
If greenhouse gases are a hoax, may I be the first to say…GOOD TRY! DON”T GIVE UP!
I”m so tired of hearing in 1 ear that there is not enuff food to go around for allthe existing people and “nothing we do can or will alter anything”. Well, I communed w/the Cosmic Muffin this morning…who put me in touch with the Cosmic Mother and the Cosmic Father and this is what I was told to say….”CLEAN YOUR FUCKING ROOM AND STOP HURTING EACH OTHER!!!!!!!!!”
O.S. couple of the things, the wikipedia links were not meant for you to illustrate the difference between weather and climate. And on the AMS.
Climate Change, An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.pdf
Dr. William Grey (AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member)
University Colorado and Hurricane Expert.
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Buildup Unlikely to Spark Abrupt Climate Change, Scientists Find
ScienceDaily (June 19, 2011) — There have been instances in Earth history when average temperatures have changed rapidly, as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) over a few decades, and some have speculated the same could happen again as the atmosphere becomes overloaded with carbon dioxide.
New research lends support to evidence from numerous recent studies that suggest abrupt climate change appears to be the result of alterations in ocean circulation uniquely associated with ice ages.
“There might be other mechanisms by which greenhouse gases may cause an abrupt climate change, but we know of no such mechanism from the geological record,” said David Battisti, a University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor.
Battisti was part of a team that used a numerical climate model coupled with an oxygen-isotope model to determine what caused climate shifts in a computer-generated episode that mimicked Heinrich events during the last ice age, from 110,000 to 10,000 years ago. Heinrich events produced huge numbers of North Atlantic Ocean icebergs that had broken off from glaciers.
The simulations showed the sudden increase in North Atlantic sea ice cooled the Northern Hemisphere, including the surface of the Indian Ocean, which reduced rainfall over India and weakened the Indian monsoon.
Battisti noted that while carbon dioxide-induced climate change is unlikely to be abrupt, the impacts of changing climate could be.
“When you lose a keystone species, ecosystems can change very rapidly,” he said. “Smoothly retreating sea ice will cause fast warming if you live within a thousand kilometers of the ice. If warming slowly dries already semi-arid places, fires are going to be more likely.”
Previous studies of carbonate deposits from caves in China and India are believed to show the intensity of monsoon precipitation through the ratio of specific oxygen isotopes. The modeling the scientists’ used in the current study reproduced those isotope ratios, and they determined that the Heinrich events were associated with changes in the intensity of monsoon rainfall in India rather than East Asia.
The research is published online June 19 by Nature Geoscience. The lead author is Franceso Pausata of the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Norway. Besides Battisti, other co-authors are Kerim Nisancioglu of UNI Research in Norway and Cecilia Bitz of the UW.
The work was funded by the Norwegian Research Council and the U.S. National Science Foundation.