Claim that jet stream crossing equator is ‘climate emergency’ is utter nonsense
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
He also favors intelligent design to evolution.
I hope all of the author's other sources were equally distinguished.
He gave a talk to the Huntsville L5 Society (http://chapters.nss.org/al/HAL5/), started out with that, and managed to set off my kook-detector hard. I haven't been back to any of the HAL5 events since.
"To be clear, the hypothesis that global warming is destabilizing the polar jet stream is a legitimate idea that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, though it remains controversial. But even the scientist who developed the hypothesis, Jennifer Francis, a professor of meteorology at Rutgers University, suggested it had been misapplied by Scribbler and Beckwith. “I’d say cross-equator flow cannot be unprecedented, maybe not even all that unusual,” she said."
Francis hardly sounds like someone who doesn't believe in climate change (since her research is about how global warming destabilizes the jet stream).
Also, neither of the two people who made the claims are established climate scientists - they're a writer and a PhD student:
"The two bloggers who have perpetuated this misinformation are Robert Scribbler, who describes himself as ” a progressive novelist, non-fiction writer and emerging threats expert,” and Paul Beckwith, who is working on a PhD with “a focus on abrupt climate system change” at the University of Ottawa."
If this was really an unprecedented event that signified a threat, why didn't any of the thousands of climate scientists notice it? If it was really a significant result, wouldn't the PhD student (and his advisor) have tried to get it published in the peer reviewed literature before going public with it on a blog (a publication medium which has no value to an academic researcher's career)?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-agains...
You're putting a spin on what he believes, and how the nazis thing got started.
Newton believed in alchemy and according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies "Newton considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture". What does this mean for calculus and the Newtonian laws? Precisely nothing.
Spencer doesn't have that excuse.
> One such creditor is Roy Spencer, who teaches at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Spencer, a vocal denier of climate change science who writes a popular blog, has a Ph.D. in meteorology from University of Wisconsin-Madison and was once employed by NASA, according to his website. The Senate often asks him to testify about climate science.
> Spencer’s website claims he “has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.”
> Yet, Peabody Energy’s bankruptcy documents show that Spencer is a creditor.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-spencer-peabody-ener...
One says its an emergency.
The other side says it has happened before.
Something that fits both sides statements is a hurricane, or a drought both long term and short term. There's a lot of really bad stuff that happens only rarely.
Its like both sides are trying to act out a scripted dramatic play. "Here's your weird lines to talk past each other, now get on stage and make it look good"
Another thing that's weird is the reported statements exclusively come from cranks outside the field, and people inside the field where its well known that any doubting of official belief means permanent removal of funding, so anyone trusting either side is a fool. Wheres the quotes from a reasonable disinterested 3rd party, perhaps a TV meteorologist or a fluid dynamics physics professor (although retribution if the admit lack of faith in belief could still impact them, they're probably less personally financially motivated). We're dealing with religious-style beliefs on both sides, rational thinking didn't get them there nor is it going to get them outta there, belief isn't controlled by reason. So where's a non-belief based observation and discussion? I suppose that's not good clickbait so it may exist but we won't be permitted to read it.
What damages? You just thoroughly criticized their claim, on a major newspaper no less. The reddit thread is already tagged as "Editorialized & Misleading blogspam." Meanwhile, the earth spins as usual, scientists keep working, and life goes on. In a week or two, nobody will even remember this debate. At worst, some people who are already prone to believe anything they read on the web may have acquired another incorrect belief. At best, people like me have learned a few more things about our wonderful planet thanks to this incident.
> Such information viewed through the lens of a non-specialist may come across as both credible and alarming but damages the reputation of the science when ultimately shown to be flawed.
The reputation and credibility of science comes precisely from the fact that it consists of an exchange of bold conjectures and ruthless refutations, all carried out in front of many watchful eyes, both scientists and laypeople. Thanks to you, we just witnessed such a public refutation. More cycles of this exchange, with more time and more data, will ultimately determine who is right.
Why would this display of science-working-as-intended (regardless of who turns out to be right) damage the credibility of science, except in the eyes of those who already hold nothing but contempt for science, or those who want to use science as a blunt-force weapon in their petty political games?
You don't get closer to the truth by trying to shut up people whom you disagree with. We, collectively, get closer to the truth by finding and presenting better evidence than one another.
Now who's the alarmist?
If you haven't noticed, there isn't just a desire to use science as a political weapon. It actually is a political weapon, and it is used regularly to win political wars. That's why extremely loud pissing matches with politicized goals masquerading as science are problematic for the science community...it is too easy, for too many people, to end up confusing the quest for truth and knowledge with a pursuit for power and control.
There are plenty of climate scientists that resent the peon role they've been placed into by politicians that nominally agree with them. By mixing up cause and proposed solutions which happen to be perfectly politically aligned with one side's dogmas, it makes it far too easy to vilify the cause and nullify any chance at a solution.
You may see this as science working as expected, but the wide publication of bullshit and subsequent politicization of it is absolutely a problem for science.
The main danger is that there is a problem with man-made climate change, but idiots like this who make wild claims are doing more harm than good.
I saw this nonsense posted on Facebook by the same people who post anti-vaccine rants and cry about chemtrails. That's exactly where it belongs.
Speaking of, anyone been to China or India lately? These folks need to be held accountable.
Edit: I see parent is downvoted and upvoted time and time again. I did not downvote, as my issues are not with the fact that some people have weird ideas about big X, but rather with almost how parent is almost jokingly throwing this issue around.
And don't worry about me, my downvotes on this are expected, earned and worn with pride although I don't usually make comments luke this.
1. This particular jet stream phenomena is "unprecedented".
2. This phenomena represents some kind of "climate emergency".
The response was basically a survey of several experts pointing out that:
1. It is not, in fact, unprecedented and likely something similar happens several times a year whether the multiple airflows line up exactly or not.
2. There are multiple jetstreams, the ones around the tropics lining up to push air from one part of the subtropics to another is perfectly normal, and this is neither an emergency, or climate related, or anything besides the changing of the seasons.
I would also add, in my non-expert opinion, that the original article making these claims did a very poor job of trying to explain why this is an "emergency". Or even why it was related to climate change at all. Nebulous claims presented in an attention grabbing manner are not something to take very seriously, especially on the Internet.
Maybe I missed it, but if it's so obvious that it's not unusual, then why're the "experts" unable to use science/data to prove it in the article.
Realize this isn't a popular opinion, but "peer review" is not science.
> Ok, seems like this isn't really unprecedented:
> 2015: https://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/06/24/1700Z/wind/isobaric... .
> 2014: https://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/10/14/1500Z/wind/isobaric... .