2016 Climate Change Webcast with Paul Gross

[Cebu_4_2]

2016 Climate Change Webcast with Paul Gross


http://www.clickondetroit.com/weather/climate-change

Posted: 5:31 PM, December 07, 2016 Updated: 1:21 PM, December 14, 2016

DETROIT - Paul Gross held his third annual climate change webcast on Wednesday.
You can re-watch it here soon.
More Weather Headlines



Arctic heating up twice as fast as rest of globe (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/arctic-heating-up-twice-as-fast-as-rest-of-globe)


Gross runs through the science around climate change, using a mix of graphics and maps to present an impartial view on what's happening to the planet.

"I have some new graphics to show you this year that really help to explain the science and bring it down to a level that most people can understand," Gross said.

He added that he makes his usual promise when discussing this controversial issue: "I am not an advocate, and do not accept ANY information from advocacy groups. I am not trying to promote a point of view. Rather, I am a fiercely independent scientist who has earned your trust over many years to ONLY bring you science directly from the scientific community."

Along with his presentation, Gross is taking questions from our audience. You can submit them through the Local 4 Facebook page on Thursday morning. He'll answer as many possible.

"I give a lot of lectures about global warming, and there is no question in my mind that there is considerable interest in the subject, and a great desire for unbiased, straight information," Gross said.

Spread the word to your friends and family: anybody can watch live on ClickOnDetroit.com Wednesday at 12:30 PM.
About Paul Gross

Paul Gross is considered by the American Meteorological Society as one of the nation's leaders in explaining the science of climate change. Earlier this year, Paul worked with a climate change communications company, Climate Central, to create a PowerPoint that was distributed free to any broadcast meteorologist in the country who wanted one, to enable his colleagues to give presentations about the subject. Paul will share many slides from this presentations, which was personally vetted by the executive director of the American Meteorological Society. He lectures often in Metro Detroit about Earth's warming climate.

Gross has been a meteorologist at Local 4 since 1983, and has been awarded seven Emmys from the Michigan chapter of the National Association of Television Arts and Sciences. He is designated both a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist by the American Meteorological Society.

[Cebu_4_2]

Now why would that be?

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/arctic-heating-up-twice-as-fast-as-rest-of-globe

[monty]

There are too many conflicting reports on ice melting or not in Antarctica. Don't believe anything you read and only about half of what you see, or less since photoshop.

[Cebu_4_2]

There are too many conflicting reports on ice melting or not in Antarctica. Don't believe anything you read and only about half of what you see, or less since photoshop.


I believe they are defrosting the Arctic to get boats in to haul oil.

[JohnQPublic]

It is not a "greenhouse" effect, or more precisely, greenhouses do not operate on this effect. Green houses operate on convective protection of the walls, but by letting sunlight in during the day. The idea that CO2 plays any significant role in greenhouses is nonsense. So right off the bat the guy is not talking about science. I will give him a chance (just started watching it).

[Neuro]

It is not a "greenhouse" effect, or more precisely, greenhouses do not operate on this effect. Green houses operate on convective protection of the walls, but by letting sunlight in during the day. The idea that CO2 plays any significant role in greenhouses is nonsense. So right off the bat the guy is not talking about science. I will give him a chance (just started watching it).

Just to play the devils advocate on this, the CO2 is supposed to be similar or an analogy to the walls of a greenhouse, in that it supposedly introduces a convective effect.

I think it probably has some of this effect, but most likely the effect has been overestimated by a magnitude or so in the last decades global warming alarmist models, so instead of creating a warming of 2-5°C for each doubling of carbon dioxide in atmosphere it creates a warming of 0.2-0.5°C.

Otherwise it is a good idea to increase CO2 levels in greenhouses as it is like nutrition to plants and they grow faster...

[JohnQPublic]

Just to play the devils advocate on this, the CO2 is supposed to be similar or an analogy to the walls of a greenhouse, in that it supposedly introduces a convective effect.

I think it probably has some of this effect, but most likely the effect has been overestimated by a magnitude or so in the last decades global warming alarmist models, so instead of creating a warming of 2-5°C for each doubling of carbon dioxide in atmosphere it creates a warming of 0.2-0.5°C.

Otherwise it is a good idea to increase CO2 levels in greenhouses as it is like nutrition to plants and they grow faster...

Sure, that is a revision. Initially people hypothesized it was the CO2 that caused the effect in greenhouses, and then translated it out to the atmosphere. The whole global warming scenario was built on a false premise to start with.

[Bigjon]

I believe the original premise that co2 causes global warming arose because scientists looked at Venus and postulated that Venus is very hot and has a high amount of co2 in it's atmosphere.

All the while ignoring that Venus has about 3 volcano's per square mile, belching fire and co2 into the atmosphere.

Wouldn't want to confuse them with too much correct info.

[Neuro]

Sure, that is a revision. Initially people hypothesized it was the CO2 that caused the effect in greenhouses, and then translated it out to the atmosphere. The whole global warming scenario was built on a false premise to start with.

Really doesn't make sense at all as there is probably less CO2 in greenhouses vs general atmosphere, since plants transforms CO2 into C+O2, where carbon is stored inside the plant and the oxygen get into the air of the greenhouse. It should be obvious to anyone apart from a complete moron that a greenhouse gets warm because of the glass walls not the composition of gases in it.

[monty]

If they think there is an over abundance of CO2 on the planet they can stop clearcutting forests.

[Neuro]

I believe the original premise that co2 causes global warming arose because scientists looked at Venus and postulated that Venus is very hot and has a high amount of co2 in it's atmosphere.

All the while ignoring that Venus has about 3 volcano's per square mile, belching fire and co2 into the atmosphere.

Wouldn't want to confuse them with too much correct info.

As well as Venus atmosphere has an atmospheric pressure at surface which is hundred times that of earth. A denser atmosphere can hold more heat. If you measure the temperature at earth sea level atmospheric pressure (1 atm)on Venus, and compensate for Venus relative closeness to the sun, then Venus doesn't have any extra temperature compared to earth despite atmosphere consisting of 99% CO2, vs Earths 0.03-4%.

Neither is there any extra heating effect observed on Mars despite its atmosphere is 99% CO2.

Simply it is the mass of the atmosphere that determines how much heat it can store...

[JohnQPublic]

As well as Venus atmosphere has an atmospheric pressure at surface which is hundred times that of earth. A denser atmosphere can hold more heat. If you measure the temperature at earth sea level atmospheric pressure (1 atm)on Venus, and compensate for Venus relative closeness to the sun, then Venus doesn't have any extra temperature compared to earth despite atmosphere consisting of 99% CO2, vs Earths 0.03-4%.

Neither is there any extra heating effect observed on Mars despite its atmosphere is 99% CO2.

Simply it is the mass of the atmosphere that determines how much heat it can store...

Venus is also a bit closer to the sun!

[Neuro]

Venus is also a bit closer to the sun!

Hence, I wrote this above

and compensate for Venus relative closeness to the sun

If I recall it correctly... if earth was at Venus distance from the sun, then average temperature at sea level would be around 50°C instead of the 15° which we have today. And 50°C was the temperature measured at the altitude of 1 atm in Venus atmosphere

[Cebu_4_2]

Hence, I wrote this above


If I recall it correctly... if earth was at Venus distance from the sun, then average temperature at sea level would be around 50°C instead of the 15° which we have today. And 50°C was the temperature measured at the altitude of 1 atm in Venus atmosphere

But wouldn't that be even closer to the sun?

[JohnQPublic]

The guy basically laid out consensus science. He really did not dig deep. A few comments:

He really ignores the fact that water is BY FAR the predominant "greenhouse" gas in the atmosphere. He shows a graph indicating that CO2 is 82%. WOW That's a lot. Unfortunately it is 82% of the greenhouse gases that they want to talk about. To the uninformed they may even think CO2 is 82% of the atmosphere, let alone of greenhouse gases they wish to talk about. Let's review: CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, or 4 parts in 10,000.

He pushes the "scientific consensus" line. Big deal 97% if scientists surveyed buy it. I bet 99% of scientists in 1450 bought geocentrism, and 99% today buy heliocentrism. So what does "consensus" prove? NOTHING. Even worse he goes on to shock us that 99.9% of peer reviewed science papers support the global warming consensus. NO SHIT! The peer review process screens out anything that does NOT support it! Holy cow. That's an argument? Sheesh.

Finally he implies that models actually prove global warming because the show correlation to measurement. Remember, correlation is not causation. The models are forced to yield their results. When he talks about "forcing functions" that means they graph temperature change on the y-axis, CO2 concentration on the x-axis, then run a linear regression. They then have a correlation between temperature change and and CO2 concentration. Next they ASSUME that CO2 concentration increase LEADS to temperature rise (discounting the possibility that the temperature rise leads to the CO2 concentration rise, or that some other parameter[s] leads to both- like population growth for instance! See graph). When they run there models, effectively, they input the expected CO2 concentration rise in the future (which they can estimate reasonably well), then use this "forcing function" to add energy to the atmosphere. They lack a theory that could PREDICT this effect so they just assume it and force it. Parts of the models are pretty sophisticated (how and where energy is placed; radiation and convective exchanges; etc.), but the underlying driving force is an assumption, and they have no PREDICTIVE theory as to HOW CO2, thermal energy, radiation, the atmosphere, etc. interact to cause any measured warming. Using forcing functions is less science and more statistics. Basically I am saying that the underlying part of the model relies on statistics (correlation and assumed causation), but then other parts of the model may be more scientific (i.e., once the presumed energy is forced into the atmosphere, how does the atmosphere/oceans/earth react).

There are other issues, but basically he is spouting predigested talking points. This is sort of like articles in science magazines that start out "The universe is 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, and balance baryonic matter...". WRONG. Corrected: "Data fitting of certain observations, compared to the theoretical constraints in the standard model imply that the universe is 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, and balance baryonic matter...".

Here is some data I plotted up (NASA data):


8763

(This does not prove or disprove global warming. It actually can actually be considered consistent with it.).