An Open Letter to Bill Nye (aka, The Science Guy)

The following email was sent to Bill Nye (The Science Guy) in August 2015. Unfortunately to this day I have still not received a reply.

To: bnsg@billnye.com Cc: bill.nye@planetary.org Subject: climate change deniers

Dear Mr. Nye,

I appreciate your efforts to promote science and make it popular. However, as someone who has studied atmospheric science for the past 30+ years I feel your use of the phrase "climate change denier" is entirely inappropriate. Please read my reasoning below.

1) The 97% consensus of climate scientists is very specific and only pertains to the earth getting warmer the past 50 years partly as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Climate change is a huge field, and there are a host of hot-button issues that are definitely not settled and are up for debate. These include the following:

• Whether there will be stronger and more frequent hurricanes & tornadoes. Contrary to popular belief there is no observational evidence that warmer temperatures will lead to an increase in extreme storms. It's even stated as such in the IPCC reports that there is no link.
• Whether there will be greater incidences of severe drought. So far observational evidence shows no change over time despite a huge increase of CO2.
• Whether there will be more extreme precipitation events. So far, observations show no significant trend in precipitation extremes.
• Whether there will be food shortages & global hunger. So far, crop yields have increased substantially despite the increase of CO2 & temperature.
• How much warming will occur in the future. So far, climate models have over-predicted the actual amount of warming by a factor of three on independent data.
• Whether there will be mass extinctions.
• Whether we are currently at the optimal temperature of the Earth.
• Exactly how to reduce CO2 emissions without causing other environmental issues or economic strain.

To state that the science is settled regarding climate change is as ridiculous as saying that astronomy is settled. There are not 97% of climate scientists who agree that there will be more tornadoes, for example. Those who refuse to recognize the fact that there is no consensus on numerous aspects of climate change and desire to kill any further debate on them (while at the same time ridiculing the opposition as "deniers") are actually the ones squashing the scientific process.

2) While I admit there are those who erroneously reject the observation that the earth has gotten warmer, on the other side of the spectrum there are extreme activists in the climate change community who continue to issue their own apocalyptic predictions that are outside mainstream opinion. For example, James Hansen (former NASA climate scientist) once predicted in 1989 that New York City will be under water by 2020. He also said in 2009 that we only have 4 years to act on climate change or we'll have passed a tipping point. Now he is predicting that some coastal cities will only have a few more decades of habitability. One peer-reviewed publication predicted that 25% of all species will be extinct by 2050 because of global warming. In 2000, climatologist David Viner said in a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare event, and of course Al Gore predicted 20-foot sea level increases in the "near future".

The media loves the hype too as these extreme views seem to get plenty of press coverage, especially after a significant weather event. However, to think that such outlandish & irresponsible predictions represent some scientific consensus view and can not be challenged without the risk of being labelled as a "denier of science" is absurd. Should those extreme views be given a free pass without contest or equal press coverage? Of course not, and in these cases the challengers are not science deniers, but rather junk science deniers which is a good thing as it preserves scientific integrity.

3) Lastly, the phrase "climate change denier" is completely void of meaning, unless "climate" and "change" are pre-defined. For example, which aspect of climate is being denied? Temperature? Precipitation? Drought? Hurricane frequency? Also, what change is being denied? Past observed changes? Predicted future change from climate models? Predicted future change from extreme activists? What magnitude of change is being denied? Only the portion from human causes or the combination of human + natural variation? The need for specifics is important, and blanket statements like "climate change denier" are hollow.

I hope you will consider these points and refrain from further use of the "D" word in the future.

Regards,
Bob Vislocky

On Baseball and Climate Change

So last week Bill Nye (the "Science Guy") tweeted an insinuation that climate change may be responsible for the Houston floods that cost the lives of seven people and five billion in damages. Here's the exact tweet:
https://twitter.com/BillNye/status/722202143881588736

This isn't the first time Mr. Nye has issued similar tweets after various weather events. For example, here's a tweet when Tropical Storm Bill was approaching Texas while Alaska was receiving above normal temperatures:
https://twitter.com/billnye/status/610864461918937088

Last year, Nye lashed out at meteorologists for failing to link the 2015 Texas floods and Oklahoma tornadoes to climate change:
http://www.infowars.com/bill-nye-the-everything-is-climate-change-guy-blames-texas-floods-on-climate-change/

Combining these events with other notable recent weather events ... Hurricane Sandy (largest Atlantic storm measured by diameter), Hurricane Patricia (strongest 1-minute sustained winds on record) and the significant flooding in Myrtle Beach partly caused by Hurricane Joaquin ... and it certainly gives pause to consider the possibility of whether Bill Nye is correct, that these events are linked to climate change.

However, with all due respect to the Science Guy, his tweets are way off base and here's why. Even in an unchanging climate, new weather records and unusual weather events are guaranteed to occur on a regular basis. It's a mathematical inevitability. To see that in a simple way an analogy is presented from major league baseball, where baseball records are broken all the time without any changes to the sport. For example, below is a list of some of the new records that were made or broken in the 2015 playoffs:

• First time a lead off batter hits inside-the-park home run to start a world series.

• Longest game 1 in history of world series. 

• NY Mets Daniel Murphy became the first player to hit a home run in six consecutive playoff games.

• Chicago Cubs set a record for most home runs hit by a team in a single playoff game (6).

• Wrigley Field in Chicago got its first playoff series win since opening 100 years ago.

• Most post-season home runs on a single day (21).

• Most post-season total runs on a single day (61).

• Kyle Schwarber set a record for the most post-season home runs before turning 23 years of age.

• Alcides Escobar sets the longest hitting streak in a single post-season (15 games).

• Royals set single postseason record for the  most comeback wins after trailing by multiple runs (7).

• Royals were the first team to score 5 runs in an extra inning of a world series game.

• Royals only team in history to win 3 world series games after trailing the 8th inning or later.

• Royals most runs scored in the 7th inning or later in a single postseason (51).

Now, did major league baseball change during 2015? Of course not, same rules and same baseball fields. Yet despite the lack of significant changes to the sport new records are made in baseball every year, and it doesn't require a change in the nature of baseball to do so. As mentioned above it's a statistical inevitability. As the sample size increases chances are something extreme will happen.

Here's another way to look at it, this time using analogies from other areas. For example, the more days you spend driving in a car the more likely over time it becomes that at some point you'll get in a car accident. The more rounds of golf you play the more likely it is that some day you'll make a hole-in-one. The more times you spend outside in a thunderstorm the more likely it becomes that one day you'll eventually get struck by lightning. The more days you invest in the stock market the more likely it will become that your money will be subject to a market crash.

Similarly, with thousands of cities around the world, chances are weather records are going to be broken somewhere on the planet in a given day/week/month and it doesn't mean that the climate is changing. That is the point I hope to drive home with this post, and the point that is lost by many who talk about climate change. New records and strong storms do not by themselves equate to climate change. To assess whether the climate is changing the long term frequency trends must be plotted.

For example, here is a plot of violent tornadoes vs. year. Note that there is no increase in the number of tornadoes over time.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5-t.png

Here's one for global tropical storms and hurricanes. Again note that there is no trend in these storms over time.
http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/frequency_12months.png

Here's one for extreme precipitation:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fd3875a6970b-pi

So, as much as Bill Nye wants to preach climate change is responsible for all the recent storms, unfortunately there is no signal in the data to support his tweets.

On Settled Science and Denial

Of course we're talking about climate change! Is the science really settled? Is there really a scientific consensus? Well, the answer is an unequivocal it DEPENDS! Let me explain further.

In reality, climate change is a huge field. To say that it's settled or that climate change is a fact is almost like saying Astronomy is settled. It's a completely meaningless statement. In Astronomy there are some things that are known (e.g., the universe is very old, some 13.7 billion years); but there are many things that are unknown or up for debate (e.g., the nature of dark energy or whether Pluto is really a planet, LOL). To make a blanket statement that the science of Astronomy is settled fact would, of course, be entirely meaningless.

In a similar vein, suggesting that the debate is over and the science is settled regarding climate change is likewise misguided. If the entire field of climate change is settled science then there would be no need to provide further funding for climate research and there would only be one climate model instead of over 100 different models. To the contrary, while there are specific aspects of climate change that are conclusive, there are also many areas which are clearly not settled and don't have a scientific consensus. So below is a short list of what is and isn't settled regarding climate change. NOTE: this is just a very tiny sampling just to make my point and is not meant to be comprehensive by any means.

Settled:
1) The average temperature of the earth has increased in the last century. Yes, global warming is real.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/2014/ann/timeseries/land-ocean-combined.png
2) Carbon dioxide concentration has increased over the past century.
http://www.behindenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png
3) It is likely that a portion of the warming in the last 50 years can be attributed to human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. This is because of the known relationship between CO2 and the absorption of long-wave radiation that would normally escape the earth's atmosphere.
https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nmat/journal/v10/n11/images/nmat3123-f1.jpg
4) Sea ice extent measured on a global scale has been slowly decreasing as a result of warming.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
5) Sea levels the last 30 years have been rising at a rate that is slightly greater than the background rate because of such warming.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/sea-level-rise.gif

Not Settled:
1) Whether there will be stronger and/or more frequent hurricanes & tornadoes. Contrary to popular belief, right now there is no observational evidence that warmer temperatures will lead to an increase in extreme storms. Here are the relevant graphs:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png
http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
 2) Whether there will be greater incidences of severe drought. So far the observational evidence shows no change over time despite a huge increase in CO2:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b7c73ad9d6970b-pi
http://www.loudounhistory.org/graphics/history-photos/palmer-drought-index-md.gif
3) Whether there will be more extreme precipitation events. So far, the observational data shows no such trend in precipitation extremes (though in fairness it does look like average yearly precipitation has increased by a very tiny amount):
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fd3875a6970b-pi
4) Whether there will be food shortages & global hunger. So far, crop yields have increased substantially despite the increase of CO2 & temperature:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a511933417970c-pi
5) How much future warming to expect. Based on real-time forecasts on independent data (not hindcasts), climate models have over-predicted the actual amount of warming by a factor of three:
http://postimg.org/image/lo20ytvg9/
6) Whether there will be mass extinctions.
7) Whether we are currently at the optimal temperature for the Earth.
8) Exactly how to reduce CO2 emissions without causing other environmental issues.

Hopefully, the point is clear. There are numerous aspects of climate change that are not settled and require further research. Some of these issues are highly debatable & controversial. Those who refuse to recognize that fact and are eager to kill any further discussion regarding climate change are actually the ones squashing the scientific process.

Furthermore, while there are those on the fringe who erroneously reject the observation that the earth has gotten warmer, on the other side of the spectrum there are some who wish to extinguish any discussion of the unsettled topics listed above, issue their own apocalyptic projections, and quickly label those who object as "deniers". Please keep in mind that the 97% consensus of climate scientists is very specific and only pertains to the earth getting warmer and humans being at a minimum partly responsible. It is not applicable to the unsettled topics within climate science. There are not 97% of climate scientists who agree that there will be more tornadoes, or that the warming will be catastrophic. Unfortunately, some politicians run with that 97% figure and erroneously apply it to other facets of climate change implying those aspects are settled. This is known as a misrepresentation logical fallacy.

In a similar vein, the phrase "climate change denier" is a completely meaningless phrase as well, unless "climate" and "change" are predefined. For example, which aspect of climate is being denied? Temperature, precipitation, drought, hurricane frequency? What change is being denied? Past observed change, model predicted future change, forecast changes issued by extreme activists? What magnitude of change is being denied? Is it the change in the average or the standard deviation? What cause of the change is being denied? Human, natural? The need for specifics is important, and blanket statements like "climate change denier" are hollow.

Lastly, while there are some radio talk show hosts who mistakenly treat global warming as a hoax invented by the Chinese, there are also fringe climate change activists whose views and/or predictions are also equally extreme. For example, one famous NASA scientist back in 1989 predicted New York would be partly under water by 2020 and today is predicting only a few more decades of habitability for some coastal cities. One Nobel Prize winner who made a popular movie predicted a 20-foot sea level rises in the "near future". Another publication warned that 25% of all species could be extinct before 2050 because of global warming. The media loves the hype too as these extreme views seem to get plenty of press coverage, especially when there's a significant weather event. However, to think that such outlandish & irresponsible predictions represent some scientific consensus view and can not be challenged without the risk of being labelled as a "denier of science" is absurd. Should those extreme views be given a free pass without contest or equal press coverage? Of course not, and in these cases the challengers are not science deniers, but rather junk science deniers which is a good thing as it preserves the scientific process.

How Often are Weather Forecasters Right?

Too often I hear the question, "how often are weather forecasters right"? I also hear responses like "weathermen are always wrong", LOL. However, the original question deserves a response, but fair warning ... be careful of what you ask for!

Believe it or not, the question regarding the accuracy of weather forecasts is actually not a pertinent question to ask. The reason is because it's not the accuracy that matters!!

Let me explain further with an example. Suppose two weather forecasters are trying to predict the occurrence of tornadoes in the city of Norman, OK. Forecaster #1 always predicts there will be no tornadoes. Forecaster #2 predicts no tornadoes on 86 of the 90 days in summer but does predict tornadoes on 4 of the days. Suppose tornadoes happen on 1 of the days that Forecaster #2 predicts but there are no more tornadoes the rest of summer.

In this scenario, Forecaster #1 had an error rate of 1.11% (1 wrong forecast out of 90) and Forecaster #2 had an error rate of 3.33% (3 wrong out of 90). So the error rate for Forecaster #2 was three times higher than that of #1. But was Forecaster #1 really better despite a lower error rate?

Let's examine more closely. Forecaster #2 was correct on all 86 of his no-tornado predictions. On 3 of his 4 tornado forecasts he was wrong, causing people to take cover when none was necessary. However 1 of his tornado forecasts was correct, saving countless lives.

In contrast, Forecaster #1 was correct on 89 of 90 no-tornado forecasts, but missed the one day when tornadoes did occur, causing the deaths of hundreds of people.

So wouldn't you rather have Forecaster #2 as your meteorologist over #1? I think the answer is obvious since you might be dead with #1 but still alive with 2 despite the higher error rate. That is the reason why percent correct scores are misleading. They assume the value of a correct positive forecast is the same as the value of a correct negative forecast. That is the reason why the question "how accurate are weather forecasters" is not pertinent.

The real question is do weather forecasters add economic value and save lives? I believe the answer is an unequivocal yes. Rather than show endless charts and graphs to support that, I'll just leave you with the following forecast from the National Weather Service issued prior to the arrival of Hurricane Katrina. I wonder how many lives were saved.

URGENT — WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA

...DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED...

HURRICANE KATRINA...A MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED
STRENGTH... RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969.

MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT
LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL
FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL...LEAVING THOSE HOMES SEVERELY
DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.

THE MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WILL BECOME NON FUNCTIONAL.
PARTIAL TO COMPLETE WALL AND ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED. ALL WOOD
FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED. CONCRETE
BLOCK LOW RISE APARTMENTS WILL SUSTAIN MAJOR DAMAGE...INCLUDING SOME
WALL AND ROOF FAILURE.

HIGH RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY...A
FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT.

AIRBORNE DEBRIS WILL BE WIDESPREAD...AND MAY INCLUDE HEAVY ITEMS SUCH
AS HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND EVEN LIGHT VEHICLES. SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES
AND LIGHT TRUCKS WILL BE MOVED. THE BLOWN DEBRIS WILL CREATE
ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTION. PERSONS...PETS...AND LIVESTOCK EXPOSED TO THE
WINDS WILL FACE CERTAIN DEATH IF STRUCK.

POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS...AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN
AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING
INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY
THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED. FEW
CROPS WILL REMAIN. LIVESTOCK LEFT EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL BE
KILLED.

The Condensed Skeptics Argument Against CAGW

Below is the condensed version of the arguments that skeptics make in regard to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

Most climate change skeptics actually agree that the earth has warmed the last 50 years and that humans are probably responsible for at least a portion of that warming. Those are not the issues that divides "alarmists" and "deniers".

The main issues that divide the two camps are as follows:

1. Many of the negative effects of a warmer planet are unproven. For instance, there is ZERO observational evidence that there have been more hurricanes, stronger storms, more frequent tornadoes, decreased crop yields or increased droughts as a result of the warming the last 50 years. Contrary to popular belief our climate isn't getting "weirder", just warmer. Whether or not there will be stronger or more frequent storms in the future as a result of a warmer planet is also unproven since this will depend on where the warming occurs and because climate models have been inaccurate so far in this regard. Attempts to show otherwise are based on cherry picked data from specific regions of the globe or short time periods.

2. Even sea level increases are controversial. For instance, the amount of sea level rise per decade since 1960 is not much higher than the rate that was observed in the 1800s and early 1900s before we began emitting so much CO2. In fact, sea levels have been rising steadily for the last 20,000 years. So there's clearly other factors present, possibly involving tectonics or changes in the sea floor. The human contribution to rising sea levels so far has been minimal.

3. Other extreme predictions such as 40% extinction of species by 2050 or New York City to be partly under water by 2020 and coastal cities to be uninhabitable in the next few decades are also unproven and typically made by scientists who have never had their prior predictions verified before.

4. Climate forecast models made without the benefit of hindcasting have consistently over-predicted the amount of observed warming (by roughly three times) when applied to independent data. Climate models have also incorrectly predicted where the most warming will occur. Even on historical simulations that accurately reproduce past global average temperatures, climate models do not replicate the observed temperature & precipitation at individual stations. Additionally, EVERY decent operational forecast meteorologist knows that raw 2-meter temperature forecasts from a short-term (1-7 day) numerical weather prediction model are garbage. That's why the NWS statistically post-processes the model forecasts and turns them into something useful. However NO such statistical post-processing is applied to climate models. Climate models are also coupled with ocean models, since oceans play an important role in modifying our climate. However, our knowledge of oceanic processes pales in comparison to our knowledge of the atmosphere and is also likely a source of error. As a result of all this, it is highly likely that climate scientists give too much confidence in their model simulations and as a result the genuine uncertainty going forward is actually much greater.

5. Despite the increase in CO2 the last 18 years or so, there has been no corresponding increase in global temperatures. Nobody knows why but there have been over 3 dozen possible reasons provided. Bottom line is there are clearly other natural forcing mechanisms at work which are largely unknown. However, this is a double-edged sword for the pro AGW camp because if there are unknown mechanisms which can prevent warming on a short time scale then it demonstrates that natural mechanisms and variability play a more important role than previously thought and could have also contributed a bigger portion of the warming the last half-century. [Note:  in all fairness this could be the result of cherry picking. Move the start time to 1995 and there is slight warming trend but move the start point to 1999 and it looks like temps level off. Time will tell. If the temps in the next five years begin to uptick then this argument used by skeptics will be invalidated. However if they remain level by 2020 then this argument is still in play and will require an explanation of the pause, since by then the temp will be outside the forecasted envelope of possibilities].

6. Nobody has defined the optimal climate. Why should today's climate be automatically defined as the best one possible? A climate that's several degrees warmer offers possible benefits largely dismissed by the AGW community:  longer growing seasons, more usable farm land, increased vegetation growth, fewer deaths in winter, and people in general prefer warmer climates.

7. There is no way of knowing how the future climate will change as a result of both human and natural influences. All efforts made to curb global warming today could ultimately be a waste of time and money.

On Global Warming ... Interview with a Meteorologist, Part 4

Here's the final instalment of my interview.
 
So where do we go from here? What action items do we take?

I'm not into politics. I do think it's clear we don't want to be dumping this much CO2 into the atmosphere for the next 500 years. However I do think we have more than enough time to research this more closely, pay close attention to the observations, and improve the climate models to where they can make better predictions on independent data. In the mean time we are inching our way where we need to go with more efficient cars, stricter EPA regulations, and trending toward cleaner fuels. The next 10-20 years will be important and should make the issues more clear. If global temperatures start up-ticking again toward the climate model projections then that would be a big red flag saying we need to take more serious immediate action. However before it gets to that point I am hopeful that we'll come up with technological solutions to the problem.

Any other recommendations?

Well just one. When a new study appears on the news regarding a recent climate change study, it's best to treat it like you would a new study from one of the medical journals. You know the kind "people who eat oatmeal for breakfast lower their heart attack rate by 65%, etc." Treat new climate change results the same way. That is, don't discard them in the trash, because they might actually be right, but don't take them so seriously that you rush to the store to clear oatmeal off the shelves. It's not that I want to intentionally downplay everything, but rather it's just my experience dealing with these studies (that are solely derived from output of numerical models) which often fly in the face of what's really predictable and what's not given the current state of the art.

What good has come out of the debate over climate change?

The first thing is awareness of a potential problem. Even though some climate change skeptics (or "deniers") are overly critical of climate change activists (or "alarmists"), if it wasn't for the loud voices on the side of the activists then we run the risk of business as usual for too long before taking remedial actions, and that could be a problem.

The second one is advancement of science. Even though some climate change activists are overly critical of climate change skeptics, the net result is better science because it forces the scientists to go back, re-look at the data and make sure there are no holes in their work. 

What things do you dislike about the climate change debate?

I guess the thing I hate the most is when there's a bad storm and the news media (or even some scientists who should know better) attribute the storm to global warming. There is no evidence despite all the warming the last 100 years that there have been more stronger storms. Even the IPCC admits as such in their reports. Here is the latest study on the subject which looks at global frequency of hurricanes and the total accumulated storm energy:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png

In actuality, whether or not we get stronger storms really will depend on where the warming occurs (if in fact the earth's atmosphere does get warmer). If most of the heat increase is at ground level or in the oceans then that could lead to more intense hurricanes as long as other factors don't change. If most of the heat increase is higher up in the atmosphere than that would stabilize the atmosphere leading to fewer strong storms. Right now I don't think the models are reliable enough to trust what they say in that regard.

I also detest the overt scare tactics, like when someone who should know better says that we only have 4 years (this was back in 2009) before we reach the point of no return and that New York City will be partly under water by 2020. That really gives me heartburn. I also detest the use of labels (e.g., "denier", "warmist").

Is there any aspect of a warming planet that does concern you?

To be honest, I'm more concerned about global terrorism than global warming. That said, I won't be buying any property in Miami Beach because of rising sea levels, LOL. But even in that case the worst that will happen is people would have to re-locate, and it would happen so slowly over time that it's not like people will die all of a sudden. The other effects ... stronger storms, increased droughts, more wild fires, more floods, food shortages, mass extinctions by 2050, 20-foot sea level rises I don't take seriously at this time due to lack of evidence or lack of track record at making such predictions.

Any parting words?

Yeah, don't use the phrases like "greenhouse effect" or "greenhouse gases", they're wrong! Greenhouses stay warm in the daytime for a totally different physical reason (lack of convective mixing) than how the earth would stay warm through increased CO2 (absorption & re-emission of long wave radiation). I'm surprised so many scientists still use these terms.

This concludes the "interview". Thanks for reading!

On Global Warming ... Interview with a Meteorologist, Part 3

Continuing with my interview of myself ...

Sounds like you have an agenda to drive a stake in the hearts of climate activists.

Not at all, I'm just conveying the reality and what the data shows. I have no personal agenda or any skin in the game. Of course I also don't want to imply that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater either. The science of weather & climate modelling has advanced tremendously in the last 30 years since I was in school and we need to keep up the research effort. Moreover, just because there are obvious problems also doesn't mean that humans aren't causing any global warming. In all likelihood, we probably have at least to some extent.

However, the reality is the climate forecast models are just not that good yet, and we really don't know, or at least can't precisely specify, all the feedback mechanisms and interactions involved in the atmosphere/ocean system. There are literally dozens of different climate models in use today, each has their own set of physics, and they are all continually being modified and improved. If there was scientific consensus on the physics of the atmosphere and oceans then there would only be one climate model and it would be fixed forever.

Climate prediction is still very young and it's nowhere near an exact science. So all I'm trying to convey is that there is still significant uncertainty exactly how much humans have contributed toward global warming the past 100 years and how much they will contribute the next 100 years, regardless of what the news media and sketchy surveys suggest.

On top of that it has to be realized that our climate can change either advantageously or destructively all by itself even if humans cease burning fossil fuels tomorrow. There are so many things that can influence our climate that have nothing to do with CO2:  changes in solar activity, earth's tilt, earth's orbit, volcanoes, ocean currents, plate tectonics, albedo, land use, etc. Thus any effort of humans to temper our climate could ultimately be a waste of time and capital.

Lastly, has anyone even defined what is the optimal climate? Why should today's climate happen to be the best and any change from that is bad? I would think that any debate over climate change should begin with a healthy discussion on what our optimal climate should look like.

I don't know, it still sounds like you're a climate change denier in sheep's clothing who's in bed with all the big oil companies.

No I'm definitely not a denier and I'm not receiving any tithes from big oil, but perhaps I can make this all a bit more clear with what I call the "97% Challenge".

The 97% challenge? Are you making fun of the climate change surveys?

Not making fun of the surveys, but after I'm done with the challenge hopefully it'll be easier to see that the science is not settled with a 97% confidence level implied by those surveys.

OK, so what's the challenge?

Quite simple, if climate scientists and activists are so confident regarding global warming then they should have no problem making the following wager. Specifically the climate scientists and proponents would wager 97% of their total net worth (house, car, bank accounts, IRA, social security payments, furniture, everything) and if the earth is warmer in say 10-20 years compared to the last decade then they would win the wager and essentially double their net worth. BUT ... if the earth doesn't get appreciably warmer in that time period then they lose 97% of all their possessions!

Mathematically if the survey results are correct about the 97% confidence, then the bet should be a no-brainer because of the positive financial expectation to make money. Yet, I don't think any person in their right mind would take such a wager and risk their life's savings which is an implicit admission that deep down inside we know there is a significant amount of uncertainty in the field of climate science & prediction, regardless of what the surveys suggest.

To be continued ...