Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

1st, good post as usual Jeff!

2nd, good post Dr. Masters!

Morning all. Which disorganized area of clouds and showers will we be obsessing about today?

The timing of this blog entry is interesting interesting. this WSJ online editorial claims that, of all things, that some scientists have been engaging in the systematic intimidation of other scientists in regard to global warming and hurricane intensity. The claim is that the "left wing scientists" have a political motive. So, Dr. Masters, before any of our resident neocon wingnuts charges you with hysterical fearmongering and self-interested grandstanding, I'd thought I'd go ahead and break the ice with a little of what passes for logic and evidence in those quarters.

What, me worry?

Yet more helpful information...thanks for keeping us informed :)

And here is another editorial making a similar claim that it is not human activity that is causing global warming, but just a solar cycle. This "solar cycle" is apprartnyly the new meme of the corportist neocon. I wonder if it has any real scientific credibility or has it jsut replaced their old meme of "what global warming".

Yes, it's clear that Dr Masters has been intimidated...that's why we've only seen 2 detailed blogs on the subject! And Dr Gray has clearly been silenced as well.

Umm, to me this editorial seems relatively reasonable. Especially this part: "There are many reasons to begin a methodical transition to power sources that pollute less, beginning with the fact oil, coal and natural gas eventually will run out, and it would be irrational to switch to even dirtier fuels, such as wood. But the hysteria surrounding the anti-global-warming movement ill serves that cause."

Wannabe, when you immediately dismiss something as the "new meme [sic] of the coprotist neocon", while admitting that you don't know about the science, you don't help your side win any arguments.

It's obvious, the majority of scientist's sole objective is to increase funding through fear mongering and to engage in poilitcal activism. Afterall, the scientists funded through energy firm's grants are just trying to get the truth out. Not to mention all those great scientific government jobs where you can work for politically appointed flunkies with falsified resumes.

Link


her is a update of the shear the red mean low shear and the bule mean high shaer

and look how low it is in the gulf!

David, I no longer think that these disturbances will develop. There are just too many hostile factors.

Again, wannabe, you are not making a great case for your beliefs. The unfortunate truth is that there is a lot of non-science that is used by both sides to this argument...and that is sadly true for many arguments related to science.

Low shear does not automatically lead to tropical development...which is good, or we'd have a heckuva lot more storms to deal with.

rwdobson I totally agree.

oh dran it lol when will we see it

Rather, I agree with both of your comments. You are too fast lol.

If global warming is happening, and at the accelerating pace that appears, just about everyone will recognize it soon.

The thing is, it is not getting warmer everywhere, it is getting a lot colder in other places.

Thanks, Levi. I am feeling verbose this morning.

The official NHC forecast for the gulf says that there will be high pressure at the surface and the upper levels, leading to fair weather. The upper high is favorable for development, but a surface high is not.

In my blog I explain that the favorable conditions are south of the tropical high, but the subtropical jet stream is pushing it south. The jet is causing all the shear and until it moves north, the ridge can't move north.

rwdobson, please choose one:
a. global warming caused by human acitivity is a myth
b. global warming is caused by increased solar activity
c. scientists agreeing with 1 and 2 are being gagged by pinko liberal commie fear mongering greedy self interested Al Gore supporting scientists
d. 'meme' is not a word
e. Oil Companies have your best interest at heart
f. all of the above

Wannabe, I choose F, but I think there should be a G:

Scientists are not using all the facts and data. That is not true science.

Again, wannabe, you are not making a great case for your beliefs. The unfortunate truth is that there is a lot of non-science that is used by both sides to this argument...and that is sadly true for many arguments related to science.

You mean the side that is interested in truth through scientific research versus the side that is funded by energy companies and corpratist PACs and think tanks. Yes, evidence is used by sides. But for very different purposes and of differing quality. Please link to the nutty leftist equivalent of that WSJ editorial. Otherwise you are making a false equivalnet out of valid scientific research (i.e., Dr. Masters posts on the topic
) and propoganda. Which makes one question, where do your allegiances lie, rdobson, with science or with politics?

Dude, please dont act like tne two sides of the argumnt dont do the same excact things. Each side is just trying to further there ideas so they can get more funds. Don't act like one side is all holy and has the best interets of the world at heart and the other side is corrupt, because it just inst like that.

There are serious, well-researched topics on both sides of the debate, and to go Ad Hominem and begin attacking the person rather then idea is wrong, no matter how corrupt you may feel one side is.

Here is a link to Dictionary.com's definition of "meme".

While I agree that global warming is taking place, I don't believe that humans are the biggest reason for global warming.

I don't believe that the Bush administration is surpressing scientists from expressing views that are skeptical of global warming, as I really can't think of a reason why they would want to.

Oil Companies have your best interest at heart.

That is the joke of the century.

Like I said, I would have put a "G" option and picked that.

TO weatherwannabe
The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

See my post "Global Warming - Man or Sun?"

"You mean the side that is interested in truth through scientific research versus the side that is funded by energy companies and corpratist PACs and think tanks"

perhaps you should go and see if you can find a definition of "false dichotomy". Because what you have written is a classic example of one.

so far, you have not presented one bit of science in any of your postings today. it has all been inflammatory rhetoric. so it appears to me that YOUR allegiances clearly lie with politics, and not science.

"rwdobson, please choose one:
a. global warming caused by human acitivity is a myth
b. global warming is caused by increased solar activity
c. scientists agreeing with 1 and 2 are being gagged by pinko liberal commie fear mongering greedy self interested Al Gore supporting scientists
d. 'meme' is not a word
e. Oil Companies have your best interest at heart
f. all of the above"

g. weatherwannabe does not understand science well enough to contribute to an informed debate
h. human activites have almost certainly affected the earth's climate
i. we do not know enough to accurately predict these changes or the long-term impacts of them
j. g., h., and i. are all true

i choose j.

I sense that this entire blog is about to be filled with personal attacks, which are completely childish, and uncalled for.

This site is very informative, interesting, and sometimes amusing. Please don't ruin it.

Wow this is my favorit post in a long time. The article was very informative. I understand that the article above is only a theory but it makes sence if you think about it.

I like how it brought up the point of how a lot of the hurricanes use esitmated data since a lot of them are not flown through.

Professor rwdobson, is it? Should we call you Doctor?

You are all wrong global warming is caused by a combo of cow/sheep farts and the increased huff and puffing all us fat arsed people from trying to chase that girl next door that is jogging by us while carrying a steak (while are brains are fiquring out which meat to go after first).

And soon we enter a new ice age due to all that fat will tilt the earth and we will fall out of orbit..

And yes Aliens gave us the internet

(ROLFMAO)

Seriously the issue has been around long before most of us where born and will be around long after we are dead. Senseless attacks and name calling is really a waste of effort and blog space.

wannabe don't start anything.

perhaps you should go and see if you can find a definition of "false dichotomy". Because what you have written is a classic example of one.

Wrong, again, Doctor. Science is objective and neutral by its very definition. We are comparing REAL science with phony psuedo science. Please keep up.

Levi32, dobson can take it if he can dish it out.

Wannabe, if you wish to discuss science, please do so and I will respond. I will ignore future personal attacks.

ps I only have an MS, not a PhD, so don't call me doctor.

Take it somewhere else please. You both have the capability of creating your own blogs, and by taking your attacks on one another elsewhere, you will save us all the grief brought on by your childish comments.

The false dichotomy was the assumption that one side is motivated by pure science, and nothing else, and that the other side is motivated by greed, and nothing else.

rwdobson, you follow your own advice and we'll be just fine.

Back to science again...the solar variation theory. According to the graph posted by St Simons, the variation in solar irradiation is only about 2 watts/m2 from the high point of the cycle to the low point.

from what i recall, the forcing caused by greenhouse gases is about 5 watts/m2. therefore, i would expect the GHG effect to be much larger than the solar effect.

The false dichotomy was the assumption that one side is motivated by pure science, and nothing else, and that the other side is motivated by greed, and nothing else.

I wasn't talking about "sides", dobson. I was talking about real science versus phony pseudo science. The kind that at first tried to claim that there was no global warming, but when the evidence became overwhleming switched to "it's not human induced".

you weren't talking about 'sides'? then why did you say this: "You mean the side that is interested in truth through scientific research versus the side that is funded by energy companies and corpratist PACs and think tanks."

Not "sides" in the sense that you are using the term. Youa re using "sides" in relation to some extra-scientific motive. For example, there is a intelligent design side, so there4 has to be an anti-ID side even though most scientisits are reluctant to be forced into that role. But their motive is not to be anti ID, it is to be pro science. Do you understand the difference, Dobson?

whatever, wannabe.

Final storm report of the 2005 hurricane season has been posted.

Subtropical Storm #19