Tell Me, What Type "Denier" Is Dr William Gray?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Tell me WHY Dr. Gray is wrong.

As Gray is arguing against the currently accepted hypothesis and arguing against the vetted models explaining the data, it is his responsibility to show why his arguments have the correct explanation, like Copernicus initially, like the guys who clung to flat earth theory post-Magellan, & like Pons & Fleishman w/cold fusion …

…And ironically, like the folks who posited the initial observations asserting correlation in increase in hurricane activity and “global warming” (Webster, et al http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1844 & Emanual http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/abs/nature03906.html, independent papers published in Sept & Aug 2005, respectively.) Pre-2005, scientists didn’t think that an impact would be seen this soon, so they weren’t looking for it … their analysis was initially challenged as well.

If you look at Gray’s pre-2002 published work (e.g., http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5529/474), he agrees that (1) there are more hurricanes and (2) ocean temps in the North Atlantic are increasing.

“Here we address the question of whether or not the increase in activity reflects a long-term climate shift, as suggested by previous studies, and provide evidence that confirms this suggestion based on changes in oceanic and atmospheric conditions.”

Further on, Gray et al assert “The historical multidecadal-scale variability in Atlantic hurricane activity is much greater than what would be "expected" from a gradual temperature increase attributed to global warming. There have been various studies investigating the potential effect of long-term global warming on the number and strength of Atlantic-basin hurricanes. The results are inconclusive. The extreme activity in 1995 has been attributed in part to the record-warm temperatures in the North Atlantic. The possibility exists that the unprecedented activity since 1995 is the result of a combination of the multidecadal-scale changes in Atlantic SSTs (and vertical shear) along with the additional increase in SSTs resulting from the long-term warming trend. It is, however, equally possible that the current active period (1995-2000) only appears more active than the previous active period (1926-1970) due to the better observational network now in place. During the previous active period, only 1966-1970 had continual satellite coverage. Further study is essential to separate any actual increase from an apparent one due to more complete observations.

“Although increased activity during a particular year does not automatically mean increased storm-related damages, years with high activity have a greater overall potential for disaster than years with low activity. Increased occurrence combined with dramatic coastal population increases during the recent lull, add up to a potential for massive economic loss. In addition, there remains a potential for catastrophic loss of life in an incomplete evacuation ahead of a rapidly intensifying system. Government officials, emergency managers, and residents of the Atlantic hurricane basin should be aware of the apparent shift in climate and evaluate preparedness and mitigation efforts in order to respond appropriately in a regime where the hurricane threat is much greater than it was in the 1970s through early 1990s.”

Gray, et al present an alternative hypothesis with data for hurricanes in North Atlantic. That’s science.
In 2005, Webster, et al. used Gray’s data in a re-evaluation to show correlation with CO2-based climate change models (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1844). Of course, correlation is not causation.

It gets more provocative with Gray’s more recent work, which does not appear to have made it to print: (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/107533.pdf). He doesn't seem to have published anything other than his yearly hurricane predictions, which he reportedly does quite well, over the last few years.

Some folks (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10) – more versed in climate and ocean physics than I – who have elaborated specifically where Gray is wrong: (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/ & http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/decrease-in-atlantic-circulation/). Apparently Gray has done some proverbial 'flip-flopping.'

Nota bene: Those folks do also highlight technical errors in An Inconvenient Truth as well, although they do seem more forgiving of Gore than Gray:

“There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores — not with the naked eye — and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act.

“Several of my colleagues complained that a more significant error is Gore's use of the long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two. The complaint is that the correlation is somewhat misleading, because a number of other climate forcings besides CO2 contribute to the change in Antarctic temperature between glacial and interglacial climate.”

Gray’s ‘protogee’/successor to his hurricane monitoring project, funded by the NSF, has published: (http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/klotzbach2006.pdf), which also includes data showing an increase in hurricanes in the North Atlantic over the last 10 years. He’s publishing in response to the Webster and Emanuel papers. It’s climate epidemiology. Kinda cool.
Gray's technical work appears to be challenging one small part of the overall body of work contributing to the climate change literature, i.e., that relating to the origin of increased # of hurricanes in the North Atlantic. He has gotten a lot of attention.

I'm currently reviewing a paper asserting a quantitative evaluation method for a possible attack by an insider a nuclear facility - that makes climate change data seem easy & reliable!

VR/Marg

p.s. PM me if you are unable to access full-text copies of the publications referenced and want them.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,120]

>So, when you say "Oddly, the same group/same people deny all
>of the above!" you're basically talking about two people, regarding
>some of the issues.

Nope! Nice try, though. Have a good Monday!

[billvon 3,120]

>So, please explain how that does not attribute Global Warming causes of death.

Wow, you are serious!

OK. Two scenarios:

Man A observes a war and reports that 10,000 civilians have been killed.

Man B starts a war and orders attacks that result in the deaths of 10,000 civilians.

The analogous situations:

Man A observes the effects of global warming and reports that a million people have been killed by its side effects.

Man B kills a million people to try to stop global warming.

The two men are different in my book. They may not be in yours. If so, then we shall simply agree to disagree.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The purpose of the research is (a) to enhance prestige, (b) as an incentive to hire the smartest people, (c) to do this while losing as little money as possible.

Did the professors do it for free? (We know the students actually paid to help with it)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Man B kills a million people to try to stop global warming.

Is that why Al Gore pollutes so much?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>So, please explain how that does not attribute Global Warming causes of death.

Wow, you are serious!

OK. Two scenarios:

Man A observes a war and reports that 10,000 civilians have been killed.

Man B starts a war and orders attacks that result in the deaths of 10,000 civilians.

The analogous situations:

Man A observes the effects of global warming and reports that a million people have been killed by its side effects.

Man B kills a million people to try to stop global warming.

The two men are different in my book. They may not be in yours. If so, then we shall simply agree to disagree.

Okay, then by that argument, if Man A wields a gun, and shoots Man B, then was it the bullet or Man A that killed him?

It's the same comparison you're making.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>Okay, then by that argument . . .

I can just reply to one of the pedants here if I want to argue over semantics all afternoon. Have a good day!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

The purpose of the research is (a) to enhance prestige, (b) as an incentive to hire the smartest people, (c) to do this while losing as little money as possible.

Did the professors do it for free? (We know the students actually paid to help with it)

You run your own business. You are aware of the difference between revenues and profits, right? Perhaps you should rethink your comment.

Who said the students pay? Graduate students research assistants are paid by the university.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Okay, then by that argument, if Man A wields a gun, and shoots Man B, then was it the bullet or Man A that killed him?

It's the same comparison you're making.

Gawain, seriously, just stop talking.

You seem like an intelligent guy but right now you're just talking bollocks!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Okay, then by that argument, if Man A wields a gun, and shoots Man B, then was it the bullet or Man A that killed him?

It's the same comparison you're making.

Gawain, seriously, just stop talking.

You seem like an intelligent guy but right now you're just talking bollocks!

In reality, it was global warming that killed him. I see now, God is a spaghetti monster...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Okay, then by that argument . . .

I can just reply to one of the pedants here if I want to argue over semantics all afternoon. Have a good day!

...there is no way that you're now at a loss for words! Come back! Come back!

Honestly, clearly we disagree on what that sentence means, but I think it's funny at the same time.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Okay, then by that argument, if Man A wields a gun, and shoots Man B, then was it the bullet or Man A that killed him?

It's the same comparison you're making.

Gawain, seriously, just stop talking.

You seem like an intelligent guy but right now you're just talking bollocks!

In reality, it was global warming that killed him. I see now, God is a spaghetti monster...

They always make these types of posts and then are pissed when they are not just taken at thier word..Same shit when they say a coal power electrical plant will kill x amount of people because of (then they put a long rediculas story together) Y. The media loves it and never questions them. Cause we all know after all they all (think) they are smarter than the deniers

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What group are you talking about?

Specifically the Marshall Institute, led by Seitz and Singer

So, when you say "Oddly, the same group/same people deny all of the above!" you're basically talking about two people, regarding some of the issues.

Nope! Nice try, though. Have a good Monday!

[billvon 3,120]

>Looks like you've found a new shtick . . .

Perhaps I will just say Brilliant! Amazing! WOW! Pure genius. You must be so proud. It's insulting, means absolutely nothing and doesn't require any effort at all! The perfect NcClimber post.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Looks like you've found a new shtick . . .

Perhaps I will just say Brilliant! Amazing! WOW! Pure genius. You must be so proud. It's insulting, means absolutely nothing and doesn't require any effort at all!

Just following your lead.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

>Looks like you've found a new shtick . . .

Perhaps I will just say Brilliant! Amazing! WOW! Pure genius. You must be so proud. It's insulting, means absolutely nothing and doesn't require any effort at all!

Just following your lead.

Just yesterday you didn't approve of "he did it first".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Looks like you've found a new shtick . . .

Perhaps I will just say Brilliant! Amazing! WOW! Pure genius. You must be so proud. It's insulting, means absolutely nothing and doesn't require any effort at all!

Just following your lead.

Just yesterday you didn't approve of "he did it first".

I know.

[AdamLanes 1]

Everyone knows meteorologists don't know shit about the weather!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Everyone knows meteorologists don't know shit about the weather!

I know, they have not hit a forecast here for a couple of months

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Looks like you've found a new shtick . . .

Perhaps I will just say Brilliant! Amazing! WOW! Pure genius. You must be so proud. It's insulting, means absolutely nothing and doesn't require any effort at all!

Just following your lead.

Just yesterday you didn't approve of "he did it first".

I know.

I thought you might have forgotten.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.