Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused

Here's a story that's not making many headlines:

Quote:

---

Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nation’s top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning.

Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years, spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global warming and whether humans are to blame. About 50 people were at the talk.

Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.

“I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”

---

link

I really liked this part...

Quote:

---

But even if humans cause global warming, there’s not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive.

“Why do it if it’s not going to make a difference anyway?” he said. “Whether I’m right or wrong, we can’t do anything about it anyway.”

---

:2thumbsup:

Um, I'm not going to dispute that the guy is qualified, nor the essential points he's making, but how is inevitable climate change that is beyond human control a good thing? I mean, where does the happy thumbs-up figure into this?

There's plenty of real climate change information out there, if one cares to look for it. The most interesting data, to this lemur, is the stuff coming from ice core samples, which show that the earth's climate is far more dynamic than we used to think. But think about it, Xiahou -- people have been building and pouring money into coastal cities and developments for hundreds of years. Their heirs are going to be in for a nasty shock if the seaboards change even slightly.

It's a serious issue, and I'm uninterested in the fear-mongering from the enviro-extremists. I'm even less interested in the bland complacency coming from the G.O.P.

Lemur's prediction: Sea levels will change, and when they do, the taxpayer will be expected to buy off every idiot who built their house on low ground.

Where's the chipper thumbs-up in that? Please explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Where's the chipper thumbs-up in that? Please explain.

---

maybe it was sarcastic.

Well, the "inevitable" quote was preceded by "I really liked this part," and followed by the little yllow guy giving the thumbs-up, so it sounded like Xiahou was borderline gleeful. Of course, the Lemur has been known to miss the joke on more than one occasion ...

I won't put words in Xiahou's mouth, but I think he was taking a jab at the partisianship surrounding this issue, rather than taking glee in masses of luxurious vacation homes being wiped off the map.

I wish I could find AdrianII's threads on global warming. He was able to devastate both sides so thoroughly that I'll never be able to take new developments in this argument without heavy skepticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Where's the chipper thumbs-up in that? Please explain.

---

The :2thumbsup: is kudos to someone who's actually talking sense on the issue instead of following the pack. It's rare when you see someone come out so publicly with his viewpoint- there are certainly many, many other scientists out there who feel things like Kyoto are unwarranted or unecessary, but you seldom hear from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Lemur's prediction: Sea levels will change, and when they do, the taxpayer will be expected to buy off every idiot who built their house on low ground.

---

I really dont think we're going to wake up one morning to discover Manhattan is underwater- this sort of thing (if it happens*) is going to take decades or more likely, hundreds of years. That's what really burns me up about scaremongers like Al Gore with crappy powerpoint presentations showing NYC filling with 20ft of water- totally ridiculous.

*Some recent studies suggest that grounded ice -which makes up the overwhelming majority of total world ice- is actually increasing. Melting sea ice isnt worth worrying about anyhow in terms of flooding, since it's mass equals its water displacement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

*Some recent studies suggest that grounded ice -which makes up the overwhelming majority of total world ice- is actually increasing. Melting sea ice isnt worth worrying about anyhow in terms of flooding, since it's mass equals its water displacement.

---

really? :inquisitive:

someome should tell the glaciers in switzerland to get with the program then...
because they sure as hell aren´t increasing...

link


....I´ll look over what this guy is saying latter...don´t have time right now at work....but a scientist that uses phrases like "I’m sure that’s it" is kinda asking to have his ass handed to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I really dont think we're going to wake up one morning to discover Manhattan is underwater- this sort of thing (if it happens*) is going to take decades or more likely, hundreds of years.

---

Not neccessarily, climate is determined by more than average global temperature, for northern Europe (at least), its relatively mild climate is due to the gulf stream. Research in Greenland has shown that sometimes the Gulf stream just 'shuts down' in which case temperatures can go down 20°C in a decade (from memory, it was a lot anyway). Global warming isn't just dangerous because it can increase average temperature, but also because it can disturb the balance that keeps our climate the way it is.

Now, previous ice ages and warm periods were always caused by natural phenomena, and it is indeed valid to wonder whether or not we are to blame this time.

However: When discussing something like pedophilia, a lot of people claim these people should be killed and/or locked up for life because maybe, if released, they can rape another child and we just can't take that risk. Now, often these same, people say that since we don't know if we are causing global warming we shouldn't worry about it ? This time it needs to be proved there will be damage while in the other case there has to be absolute proof there won't be ? And while a pedophile might rape a few children, global warming might destroy entire countries.
I think we should look at this rational, we need to limit out impact on the environment simply because we don't know what the effects will be, we need to minimize the risks, as we always do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

really? :inquisitive:

someome should tell the glaciers in switzerland to get with the program then...
because they sure as hell aren´t increasing...

link


....I´ll look over what this guy is saying latter...don´t have time right now at work....but a scientist that uses phrases like "I’m sure that’s it" is kinda asking to have his ass handed to him.

---

It's silly to think glaciers should remain constant- they're affected substantially by various local conditions including precipitation. Many are shrinking, some are growing. Besides, glaciers outside of Greenland and Antarctica make up a completely insignificant portion of total grounded ice... less than 1%*.

*see"What if All the Ice Melts?" Myths and Realities

On increased ground ice:

Quote:

---

Recent changes to ice shelves around the northern Antarctic Peninsula have inspired various environmentally-minded groups to warn that Antarctic ice is about to become a victim of "global climate warming." There is clearly a connection between warming around the Antarctic Peninsula and the collapse of peninsular ice shelves. Profound ecological changes are also occurring in response to local climate change. However, temperatures in the interior of the continent have remained fairly constant (Mosely-Thompson 1992) and it is not yet known whether the observed warming is part of a global trend or is simply a normal fluctuation in local climate. Moreover, warming may actually increase the volume of ice stored in the large Antarctic ice sheets. Dramatic as the retreat of peninsular ice has been, that ice is less than 1% of the total Antarctic ice volume (Swithinbank 1988) and its maximum possible contribution to global sea level is less than 50 cm. It seems that, in the rush to demonstrate the perils of human-induced environmental degradation, much of what scientists have learned about ice in Antarctica is being ignored.

---

Note that they're referring to increased local temps around the Antarctic Peninsula and not necessarily a global trend- as indicated by italics.

Recent changes to Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves: What lessons have been learned?

There are other studies that talk about it(google around), I grabbed this article because it was, imo, an interesting read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The :2thumbsup: is kudos to someone who's actually talking sense on the issue instead of following the pack. It's rare when you see someone come out so publicly with his viewpoint- there are certainly many, many other scientists out there who feel things like Kyoto are unwarranted or unecessary, but you seldom hear from them.

---

Um, I've never noticed that it's particularly difficult to find a scientist who dissents with anything. That's sort of the nature of the beast. As I was saying in another thread, we're getting low on flat earthers, but that's about it.

For the last ten years there were scientists and reports being brought forward claiming that climate change was entirely fictional. Now we have a gentleman who believes that it's inevitable, and uncontrollable. Really, I still think it's quite odd to be jazzed about that position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I really dont think we're going to wake up one morning to discover Manhattan is underwater- this sort of thing (if it happens*) is going to take decades or more likely, hundreds of years.

---

Hm, I'm having trouble finding the place where I said that.

If I'm understanding your positions, as staked out in this thread:

• Climate change will come
• It will be really, really slow
• There's nothing we can do about it
• Sea levels won't change in any significant way, because of ground ice
• Inevitable disasters are good if they contradict Al Gore

Does that capture the essence, or am I missing some crucial bits?

Lol! "meteorologist disputes global warming". The field is climatology :laugh4:

I can't imagine why this story isn't making many headlines.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Lol! "meteorologist disputes global warming". The field is climatology :laugh4:

I can't imagine why this story isn't making many headlines.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

---

And Gore is a Climatologist? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

And Gore is a Climatologist? :inquisitive:

---

Why on earth would you think Shakespeare was????

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's a serious issue, and I'm uninterested in the fear-mongering from the enviro-extremists. I'm even less interested in the bland complacency coming from the G.O.P.

Lemur's prediction: Sea levels will change, and when they do, the taxpayer will be expected to buy off every idiot who built their house on low ground.

Where's the chipper thumbs-up in that? Please explain.

---

Ouch. You have hit upon the one nearly inevitable problem. Regardless of what brings about change -- and its inevitable even if simple cyclic shift is the only reason -- I will be expected to bail out the waterfront developers with my tax dollars.

I don't think anyone has really planned with multiple centuries of life on a coastline as their rubric for what designs and parameters are sensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Why on earth would you think Shakespeare was????

:dizzy2:

---

I dont get it.

Quote:

---

But even if humans cause global warming, there’s not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive.

---

why china and india? the whole world is pumping out greenhouse gasses

it is nice to see a non-enviromentalist article though, the argument is far too one sided :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I dont get it.

---

I'm sorry. I assumed from your post that you thought shakespeare was the source of all climate related knowledge. Looking back, I'm not sure what made me think that, oops! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I'm sorry. I assumed from your post that you thought shakespeare was the source of all climate related knowledge. Looking back, I'm not sure what made me think that, oops! :2thumbsup:

---

What light through yonder window breaks? Tis the sun off Juliet’s greenhouse gas.

He probably knew as much about it as some experts today. ~D

Here's a story that's not making many headlines:

Thats funny since Gray makes lots of headlines for a retired proffesor .
Normally about a subject that isn't his speciality .:juggle2:

He shot himself in the foot so many times in that argument. If some of those statements weren't there maybe it would be credible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tribesy

Thats funny since Gray makes lots of headlines for a retired proffesor .

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Gray

I’m still working every day, but I don’t teach and I don’t have as many graduate students and as much financial need.

---

Your trolling is getting weaker as of late. Funnily enough, most of his funding got cut off after Clinton and Gore came to office.

Anyways, in relation to the second part of his quote, I recall reading that such was the case with scientists studying agent orange - saying it's not a great problem doesn't get you more grant money to study, does it?

Quote:

---

Lemur's prediction: Sea levels will change, and when they do, the taxpayer will be expected to buy off every idiot who built their house on low ground.

---

Another evil of socialism! :knight:

Crazed Rabbit

Your trolling is getting weaker as of late.
What trolling Rabbit ?
Do you not understand simple sentances in plain english ?

Here have some help .
Here's a story that's not making many headlines:

Thats funny since Gray makes lots of headlines for a retired proffesor .
errr....... thats a hard one isn't it , the story linked is just one of many stories in the wider media and specialist publications that feature Gray and his theories , so to say that the story doesn't make many headlines is a statement of the bollox variety .
The mentioning that he is a retired proffesor is due to the fact that he has retired from the position , but is allowed to retain the title though he no longer holds the position .
Which means the article ....

Quote:

---

Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University

---

.......
is incorrect . It should read "was" .

See if you can grasp this bit .....I’m still working every day, but I don’t teach ........what do you call a teacher who doesn't teach ?
Well apart from "a useless teacher" the normal word in the english language is retired :idea2: amazing isn't it . So simple but obviousy of such complexity that you cannot understand it .


So that leads to the question Rabbit , what draws you to this story ? is it because it bears a resemblance to a story that isn't reported that actually is reported ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If I'm understanding your positions, as staked out in this thread:

• Climate change will come
• It will be really, really slow
• There's nothing we can do about it
• Sea levels won't change in any significant way, because of ground ice
• Inevitable disasters are good if they contradict Al Gore

Does that capture the essence, or am I missing some crucial bits?

---

I really have to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse... I dont seriously think you could be so obviously missing my point. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

[*]Inevitable disasters are good if they contradict Al Gore

---

Honestly, Lemur, Al Gore is the one predicting disaster, so if I went around claiming impending doom Id be singing the same song as he.

Let me spell it out, your prediction of having to bail out millions of residents due to rising sea levels is complete and total crap. Is that clear enough for you? I thought I produced enough sources and statements to say that, but apparently I have to spell it out for you...You seem to be under the false impression that climate change = impending doom and disaster, it doesnt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Lol! "meteorologist disputes global warming". The field is climatology

---

Good point, he pioneered modern hurricane prediction- so he's clearly a feckless twit. I mean, hurricane prediction requires no understand of global temperatures or weather patterns..... Of course, the American Meteorological Society is cited as one of the groups concerned about global warming. Maybe meteorologists only count when they agree with you? :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

However: When discussing something like pedophilia, a lot of people claim these people should be killed and/or locked up for life because maybe, if released, they can rape another child and we just can't take that risk. Now, often these same, people say that since we don't know if we are causing global warming we shouldn't worry about it ? This time it needs to be proved there will be damage while in the other case there has to be absolute proof there won't be ? And while a pedophile might rape a few children, global warming might destroy entire countries.
I think we should look at this rational, we need to limit out impact on the environment simply because we don't know what the effects will be, we need to minimize the risks, as we always do.

---

That's a totally absurd comparison. Locking up a known criminal will prevent them from acting again. Taking steps to "stop" the Greenhouse as proposed, would cause tremendous damage with no clear benefit and would be in response to a problem that is not yet even clear.

So he disputes it scientifically, then blames greed/competition, then gives in and says there's nothing that can be done anyway.

Well thought out speech with wonderfully clear arguments there.

:shame:

I Believe the Glaciers in Glacier National Park (Montana/Canada) have been ebbing and flowing for quite some time now, twenty years ago they were on the brink of Completely melting away, but now it looks like they are starting to advance at an alarming rate (about 100 meters a year). But its also predicted that they will start to retreat within about 50 years...

https://img119.imageshack.us/img119/286/bulltc5.jpghttps://img65.imageshack.us/img65/6499/poopar4.jpg

~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Good point, he pioneered modern hurricane prediction- so he's clearly a feckless twit. I mean, hurricane prediction requires no understand of global temperatures or weather patterns..... Of course, the American Meteorological Society is cited as one of the groups concerned about global warming. Maybe meteorologists only count when they agree with you? :idea2:

---

Um, no. He's an expert in hurricanes--a specialist in fact. The Earths climate is an entirely different system. It's only a bit better than asking a biologist about dark matter. I don't see why you hooked some random professor in as if it gave credence to your argument, I'm sure there are far better.

I find the criticisms of global warming to obvious to have been overlooked by very many very bright people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Um, no. He's an expert in hurricanes--a specialist in fact. The Earths climate is an entirely different system. It's only a bit better than asking a biologist about dark matter. I don't see why you hooked some random professor in as if it gave credence to your argument, I'm sure there are far better.

---

Again let me point out that one of the main advocacy groups for global warming in the US is the American Meteorological Society. You seem to be saying that meteorlogical science has no relevance to global warming study- this is not that case. Climatologists, evironmental scientists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and geophysists are just some of the fields that scientists come from on both sides of the issue.

But cuz I like you so, here's a paper(pdf form) by the Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University.

A specialist in hurricanes doesn't have the knowledge to put it all together and say something definitive about global warming, especially Gray, if you check my link. If I was going to read about it, I'd go for someone who has been studying global climate for 25 years

Your article is good, but it is only focusing on one thing that has been used to support global warming. I was surprised to see this thread actually, since I recalled the "humans aren't the cause of global warming" argument being put to rest a while ago. Also, is it just me or do people who say humans aren't the cause always follow it up with "and even if we are, there's nothing we can do about it"?

Well, a Belgian friend of mine is a PhD in climatology at Uni of Reading (UK), but she is also a meteorologist by training and undertaking research in the Meteorology dept. Is she then competent in climatology or meteorology? Who knows? Certainly not me. It's much too complicated for a classicist. :book: