By Greg Campbell
Is global warming real? Despite what Al Gore has repeatedly claimed, the debate is far from “over.” As much of the country deals with plunging temperatures, with some states experiencing temperatures in the -20’s and -30’s, the politically-charged issue of global warming, or “climate change” to those who favor a catch-all phrase to explain any kind of weather fluctuation, has emerged once again.
Scientists on both sides of the issue are battling it out and scientists and political pundits on the left are scrambling to try and explain the cold weather as a sign of, you guessed it, global warming.
TIME Magazine recently denounced skeptics in an article entitled, “Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather.” Bryan Walsh wrote,
“But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles.”
That would be, perhaps, an understandable explanation if TIME Magazine and other assorted leftist, agenda-driven journals had not already made claims to the contrary. In 1974, TIME Magazine, the same magazine that blamed the cold on global warming, blamed the cold on “global cooling.” In a June 24th, 1974, article entitled, “Another Ice Age?” the magazine claimed,
“Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds -the so-called circumpolar vortex - that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.”
It’s not just TIME that cherry-picks their explanations for the cold streak; with the emergences of ‘’green” technologies and the billions of dollars being made in the field of advancing environmentally-friendly products and services, it is undeniable that there remains a strong motive for many to ensure that “global warming” or “climate change” not only exists, but that it is a man-made problem.
The industries behind “green” technology do serious business. Gaining money from government grants and guilty liberals, companies that claim to produce products that are less harmful to the environment have a vested interest in the preservation of the idea that global warming exists.
In fact, Al Gore, the guru of the environmental hysterics, allows liberals to assuage their guilt by selling “carbon credits,” modern day indulgences that the hummer-driving liberal can buy to try and offset their carbon footprint. Of course, the biggest beneficiaries of the carbon credits are those selling these environmental pardons, including Al Gore himself.
As scientists work to try and discover the truth behind the divisive issue, the left maintains a policy of intimidation by routinely discrediting skeptics as modern-day heretics. “Consensus science” now dominates the discussion surrounding global warming just as “consensus science” once dominated the discussion surrounding whether the sun rotated the Earth.
When the Earth experiences higher-than-normal temperatures, without fail, the left proclaims it as a result of global warming. When the Earth experiences the exact opposite, a plunging of temperatures, the left warns us that such cold weather is the result of global warming. More tornadoes in a given year, less tornadoes in a given year, more hurricanes, less hurricanes, all thanks to global warming.
However, having noticed this pattern of contradictory language, the left now seems to favor “climate change” as a means to encompass any slight variation in Earth’s conditions.
Global warming may be real and it may not be. If it does exist, we should try and discover if it is man-made or if it is a natural, cyclical pattern the Earth has seen long before man. However, we will never get to the bottom of the issue so long as the left attempts to maintain a stranglehold on the prevailing narrative. With the left hell-bent on tampering with the science behind Earth’s temperatures, the scientific method has been thoroughly contaminated.
So long as companies turn tremendous profits from selling products and services predicated on the notion that global warming is real, the “science” behind it will never be real science.
So long as researchers are dependent upon grants offered by those with a vested interest in proving the existence of man-made global warming, we will never be offered real, legitimately-obtained data extracted through the use of the scientific method.
So long as academia bullies and discredits the scientific heretics who dare to question the validity of the agenda-driven science, we will remain in the dark.
And until the left admits that the debate is far from “over,” we cannot have an honest discussion about global warming, global cooling, climate change or whatever preferred term used to justify the increasingly-absurd, politically-charged narrative.
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
It was quite a storm. I have never seen Logan Airport report heavy snow with an air temperature of 1F (not wind chill) before. The ended up with 15.1 inches. Boxford had 23.8 inches.
Even as more cold and snow invades the central, near the east coast, the post storm blues have set in with the inevitability of an inside runner following rapidly on its heels. But snow loving friends, we have lived through quite a decade and the millennium so far has been a boon to snow lovers despite the continuing claims that snows are becoming rare and hurting winter sports as erroneously reported last week in Boston Magazine.
We here are using NOAA’s own NESIS scale - which we used to call the Kocin/Uccellini storms.
The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS)
While the Fujita and Saffir-Simpson Scales characterize tornadoes and hurricanes respectively, there is no widely used scale to classify snowstorms. The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS) developed by Paul Kocin and Louis Uccellini of the National Weather Service (Kocin and Uccellini, 2004) characterizes and ranks high-impact Northeast snowstorms. These storms have large areas of 10 inch snowfall accumulations and greater. NESIS has five categories: Extreme, Crippling, Major, Significant, and Notable. The index differs from other meteorological indices in that it uses population information in addition to meteorological measurements. Thus NESIS gives an indication of a storm’s societal impacts. This scale was developed because of the impact Northeast snowstorms can have on the rest of the country in terms of transportation and economic impact.
NESIS scores are a function of the area affected by the snowstorm, the amount of snow, and the number of people living in the path of the storm. The diagram below illustrates how NESIS values are calculated within a geographical information system (GIS). The aerial distribution of snowfall and population information are combined in an equation that calculates a NESIS score which varies from around one for smaller storms to over ten for extreme storms. The raw score is then converted into one of the five NESIS categories. The largest NESIS values result from storms producing heavy snowfall over large areas that include major metropolitan centers. For details on how NESIS scores are calculated at the National Climatic Data Center, see Squires and Lawrimore (2006).
Kocin, P. J. and L. W. Uccellini, 2004: A Snowfall Impact Scale Derived From Northeast Storm Snowfall Distributions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85, 177-194
Squires, M. F. and J. H. Lawrimore, 2006: Development of an Operational Snowfall Impact Scale. 22nd IIPS, Atlanta, GA.
They had added the mid December storm to the Northeast NESIS list as a category 2 (Significant) event.
The table below is enlarged with hyperlink snow amount VIEW maps here.
This week’s storm was at least as impactful and covered a wide stretch back to the Midwest.
If it joins the NESIS list, it will be storm 49 and make the 2010s the snowiest decade for the east coast in the record, surpassing the 1960s.
Of course we are just beginning the 4th year of the decade. Also note that 21 of the 49 have been this millennium.
As we have shown before, 4 of the top 5 snowiest years have occurred in the last 6 years for the Northern Hemisphere and the snow extent for November to April was the greatest on record.
See PROGRESSIVE DISORDERS FOR ALL THE LINKS TO THE FOLLOWING STORIES THAT CLAIM VICTORY NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS
Global Warming Means Less Snow.
“The probability of any precipitation falling as snow rather than rain is going to decrease, and any snow lying on the ground is going to melt more quickly,”
A Rare and Exciting Event
“Looking at the United States of America, the IPCC clearly warned that unchecked global warming will lead to reduced snow pack in the western mountains, critically reducing access to water, which is our lifeblood.” Senator Barbara Boxer (D)
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Gore’s claim of snow being “consistent: with global warming is also at odds with is Oscar Winning 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore never once warned of record cold and increasing snowfalls as a consequence of man-made global warming in that film. But Gore has hyped the lack of snow as “evidence” for man-made global warming.
“He also remarked that the most optimistic climate models for the second half of this century suggest that 30 to 70% of the snow pack will disappear. Now, no wonder we have people visiting our offices who are just already hurting from the recreation industry in this nation. They see what’s happening.” -Barbara Boxer, October 29th, 2007, on the Senate floor
1 foot less snow in winter? Minnesota Climate Change Forum highlights dramatic changes
Average winter snowfall may drop by as much as 1 foot by 2100 as more winter precip falls as rain in a warmer winter environment.
CTB: less snow, smaller glaciers, thinner ice
Greenpeace: less snow, smaller glaciers, thinner ice.
(Sure I’m mocking them, but they don’t know where I live. -RB)
Reduced Snow Pack
Barbara Boxer 2009: “Looking at the United States of America, the IPCC clearly warned that unchecked global warming will lead to reduced snow pack in the western mountains, critically reducing access to water, which is our lifeblood.”
Decadal to century scale trends in North American snow extent in coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models
Our conclusion that these models predict a significant decrease in snow extent over North America during the 21st century is robust, in the sense that all available models agree for two different yet realistic SRES future emissions scenarios, while no model predicts such a decrease for the unrealistic COMMIT scenario.
IPCC: As temperatures rise, likelihood of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow increases
“As temperatures rise, the likelihood of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow increases, especially in autumn and spring at the beginning and end of the snow season, and in areas where temperatures are near freezing. Such changes are observed in many places, especially over land in middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, leading to increased rains but reduced snowpacks.” (IPCC)
Global Warming Reducing Snowfall at Ski Resorts
BOULDER, Colo. The hard-pressed American ski resort industry could be facing a serious problem in coming years if European researchers are correct: less snow because of global climate change.
IPCC IV: Decreased Snow season length and snow depth
Snow season length and snow depth are very likely to decrease in most of North America, except in the northernmost part of Canada where maximum snow depth is likely to increase.
...Children just aren’t going to know what snow is…
Warmer world means less snow
Among the warming’s effects: Arid regions will dry out further. And some of the water that they do receive will come in the wrong form (rain instead of snow) or at the wrong time.
Global warming to shorten ski season
CSIRO climate change expert Dr Penny Whetton says Australia’s mountain snow cover could be reduced by up to 54 per cent by 2020. “The probability of any precipitation falling as snow rather than rain is going to decrease, and any snow lying on the ground is going to melt more quickly,” she said.
Warming: Ski Resorts Threatened by Lack of Snow
Like those who rely on the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian ski industry sees itself as a frontline victim of global warming. A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that the resorts could lose a quarter of their snow in 15 years, and half by 2050. The worst case was a 96 per cent loss of snow by mid-century.
Global Warming Means Less Snow
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts, October 4, 2006 (ENS) - Global warming will cause major changes to the climate of the U.S. Northeast if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced, scientists said today. Warmer annual temperatures, less snow, more frequent droughts and more extreme rainstorms are expected if current warming trends continue, the scientists said in a new study, and time is running out for action to avoid such changes to the climate.
Global Warming: Less Snow
The idea that global warming will bring more rain and less snow goes back to at least 1999, when a University of California, Santa Barbara researcher said “There will be too much water at the wrong time and too little when we need it.”
Democrats: Less Snow = Global Warming
Less snow is what the models predict due to warming.
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent
Sleds, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
Senate Science Caucus: Warming = Less Snow
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Global Warming Means More Snow.
“If the climate continues to warm, we should expect an increase in heavy snow events for a few decades.”
They’re snorting more snow.
That snow outside is what global warming looks like
“As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming.” -Al GoreGlobal warming means more snowstorms: scientists - “Heavy snowstorms are not inconsistent with a warming planet,” said ‘scientist’ Jeff Masters, as part of a conference call with reporters and colleagues convened by the Union of Concerned ‘Scientists’.
John Christy, the Alabama state climatologist who authored the study, said the amount of snow in the mountains has not decreased in the past 50 years, a period when greenhouse gases were supposed to have increased the effects of global warming.
Snowstorms: One More Sign of Climate Change - TIME
One theory is that a warmer Arctic may actually lead to colder and snowier winters in the northern mid-latitudes.
East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change - TIME
Brace yourselves now - this may be a case of politicians twisting the facts. There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.
Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow : NPR
Climate scientists say they can’t prove any single weather event is due to climate change. Thus, they say, Hurricane Katrina or the heat wave in Vancouver that’s dogging the Winter Olympics isn’t proof that climate change is happening. Nor can southern and eastern snowstorms prove that it’s not.
Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming - New York Times
Blizzard: Sign of Global Warming
But while piles of snow blocking your driveway hardly conjure images of a dangerously warming world, it doesn’t mean that climate change is a myth (just a damned lie)
Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists
Britain may be in the grip of the coldest winter for 30 years and grappling with up to a foot of snow in some places but the extreme weather is entirely consistent with global warming, claim scientists.
Global warming means more snowstorms: scientists
“If the climate continues to warm, we should expect an increase in heavy snow events for a few decades, until the climate grows so warm that we pass the point where it’s too warm for it to snow heavily.”
Al’s Journal: Increased heavy snowfalls
As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming
Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists.
Dr. Kaku: Global Warming = More Snow
Dr. Kaku agreed with the suggestion: “‘Yes. It seems to violate common sense, but as the Earth begins to heat up, that means more moist air in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico on average. Which creates more precipitation, and eventually more snow.”
Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming - NYTimes.com
Over the past few weeks, subzero temperatures in Poland claimed 66 lives; snow arrived in Seattle well before the winter solstice, and fell heavily enough in Minneapolis to make the roof of the Metrodome collapse; and last week blizzards closed Europe’s busiest airports in London and Frankfurt for days, stranding holiday travelers. The snow and record cold have invaded the Eastern United States, with more bad weather predicted.
Gore global warming = heavy snow fall
“As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming,” Gore wrote. Unfortunately for Gore and others who have claimed that the snow this winter is a global warming byproduct, their own authorities have said climate change will result in less snow.
Yes, global warming could mean more snow
In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.
That snow is what global warming looks like
That snow outside is what global warming looks like: Unusually cold winters may make you think scientists have got it all wrong. But the data reveal a chilling truth…
...no evidence that anything has changed as a result of climate change…
Sierra snowfall consistent over 130 years
Snowfall in the Sierra Nevada has remained consistent for 130 years, with no evidence that anything has changed as a result of climate change, according to a study released Tuesday.
4 of the top 5 snowiest years for the Northern hemisphere have occurred in the last 6 years.
By Steve Goreham PDF
Originally published in The Washington Times
Earlier this month, Representatives Jared Polis (D Colorado), Ben Ray Lujan (D New Mexico), and Ann Kuster (D New Hampshire) introduced the National Renewable Electricity Act of 2013 (RES Act), into the US House of Representatives. The act mandates that all US retail electrical suppliers buy an increasing amount of electricity from renewable energy sources, or pay fines for the shortfall. But if the law is passed, it will raise electricity prices for Americans for questionable environmental gains.
The act calls for solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and other renewables to provide 6 percent of US electricity in 2014, rising to 25 percent by the year 2025. Representative Kuster says, “This common-sense bill will help create good middle class jobs, cut pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil-all while saving consumers money on their utilities.” Unfortunately, Ms. Kuster’s statement is not supported by actual industry experience and economic data.
Forcing consumers to buy a product that is more expensive, like renewable energy, never saves them money. A prime example is the recently completed California Valley Solar Ranch in San Luis Obispo County that was constructed under the 33 percent renewables mandate of California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) law. The solar ranch covers a huge area of 1,500 acres, more than 100 times the area of a typical natural gas-fired power plant, but produces an average output of only about 55 megawatts, less than one-tenth the output of a typical gas-fired plant, at the exorbitant price of $1.6 billion.
Consumers will pay twice for the California Valley Solar Ranch. Electricity from the ranch will be priced at 15 to 18 cents per kilowatt-hour, four times the price of current California wholesale electricity and over 50 percent more than projected prices during the next 25-years. Consumers also paid for a tax subsidy package totaling $1.4 billion, including a 30 percent federal investment tax credit worth $462 million, a $1.2 billion US Department of Energy loan guarantee worth $205 million, and other tax benefits.
Representative Kuster’s comments about reducing “our dependence on foreign oil” are nonsense. Today only 0.7 percent of US electricity comes from petroleum. Claiming that a national renewable electricity standard will reduce foreign oil imports is about accurate as claiming that it will promote world peace.
Politicians repeatedly state that subsidies and mandates for renewable energy will produce “green jobs.” But the Beacon Hill Institute developed more than ten studies on the impacts of state RPS laws, including Colorado and New Mexico, the home states of Representatives Polis and Lujan. In all cases, the implementation of RPS laws was found to increase electricity prices, reduce real disposable income, reduce investment, and cause a net reduction in jobs.
Today, 29 states follow renewable portfolio standards laws and another 8 states pursue renewables goals for electricity. The sponsors of the RES Act want to force mandates on the remaining 13 states, the only states with a sensible energy policy. Note that in 2012, citizens in states without RPS mandates paid 10.7 cents per kw-hr for residential electricity, about 19 percent less than the 12.7 cents per kw-hr paid by citizens in states with RPS laws or goals. Higher electricity prices disproportionately impact the poor, as a larger part of their family budget.
Neither is a reduction in pollution a good reason for a national renewable electricity standard. According to Environmental Protection Agency data, all real air pollutants, including lead, ozone, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, and carbon particulates have been falling for more than 40 years and continue to decline. US air pollution levels have fallen an aggregate 72 percent since 1970. At the same time, US electricity production from coal is up 115 percent and from natural gas is up 230 percent.
The unmentioned reason for the RES Act is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas blamed for man-made global warming. But carbon dioxide, a harmless, invisible gas that trees use for photosynthesis, has been wrongly labeled a pollutant. By forcing the construction of expensive wind and solar plants, proponents of the theory of dangerous climate change believe that they can save polar bears, reduce the strength of storms, curb droughts and floods, and probably promote world peace.
But RPS laws don’t even reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Installation of wind systems creates stop-and-go electrical utilities. Output from wind turbines is erratic, forcing back-up coal and natural gas plants to inefficiently ramp power up and down to maintain continuity of energy supply. Studies of utilities in Netherlands and Colorado show that combined wind and hydrocarbon systems use more fuel and emit more CO2 than stand-alone hydrocarbon-fired plants.
Rather than enacting a national renewable electricity law, we should instead roll back our costly state RPS laws. Suppose we return to energy policy based on economics and common-sense, rather than global warming ideology?
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
By Charles Battig, MD, Virginia Free Citizen
The school lunch program is a resounding success here in Albemarle County, Virginia. School kids are awash in food; no child is left behind in the new standards-of-lunch excesses.
As reported in Charlottesville on December 5, 2013:
“Albemarle County Public Schools is conserving energy and teaching students green lessons while doing so. At its annual conference in Williamsburg, the Virginia School Boards Association honored Albemarle with the top environmental prize in the “Green Schools Challenge,” which encourages divisions to implement practices and policies to reduce their carbon footprints.”
“Nowhere are the efficiencies more apparent than at Henley Middle School’s Renewable Energy Resource Center, which features solar photovoltaic panels, a solar thermal system that heats water, and a wind turbine. The Center, which was funded in large part by a grant from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, has produced 120,000 kilowatt hours of electricity and prevented 88 tons of carbon dioxide emissions since 2012.”
The article concludes with:
“In addition to harnessing the wind and sun, Crozet and Meriwether Lewis elementary schools, and Jack Jouett and Sutherland middle schools have developed composting programs. These schools kept more than 126 tons of food from landfills and reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 900 metric tons.”
The standards of environmentalism see success through a different set of creeds than do ordinary folks. What was the taxpayer cost for the Henley Middle School Renewable Energy Resource Center? A savings of 120,000 kilowatt hours of electricity over two years represents an approximate saving of $6,000 per year. The human body produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1.0 kg) of carbon dioxide per day per person just in its basic biological metabolic processes. Over 365 days, the averaged production of carbon dioxide by these bodily processes adds up to about 840 pounds, or 0.4 ton per person. The 88 tons of carbon dioxide prevented over two years by this project is therefore the approximate amount of carbon dioxide generated by 110 adults breathing over the two years.
Wow, that is a science lesson; was that what the students were taught? What were the students told would be the impact on the climate, or of any other environmental system, of their saving these 88 tons of carbon dioxide? The impact on global temperature would be unmeasurable..a grain of sand on the world of beaches.
Were they told that carbon dioxide is absolutely necessary to plant physiology and our survival? Their carbon dioxide saving deprived some plants of this atmospheric plant food.
The children are being indoctrinated in a scientifically meaningless ritual of minding their tiny carbon footprints. It does establish the State as the source of authority at a young age. Rather than the sensible question as to why schools were generating 126 tons of food waste and at what taxpayer cost, school kids are being taught “green lessons.” Waste-not, want-not is replaced with composting programs and environmentally meaningless carbon footprint reductions. (See Virginia Tech Report)
Carbon dioxide reduction bragging rights become the reward. They are now praised for seeing their food waste become high-priced compost, rather than seeking solutions to reduce the initial food becoming waste.
This all brings to mind the recent movie hit The Hunger Games and its sequels. The recent Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a box-office hit with audiences young and old. The story’s theme dramatizes an inspirational saga of individual courage in the face of centralized authoritarianism, and cult-media exploitation of a subjugated populous. Why do the movies and the original books of the trilogy find such an enthusiastic audience with the youth? The central theme of the story must resonate with the youthful quest for adventure, and an idealistic yearning for a super-hero to follow.
The youth of today are awash in multi-media driven news and news masquerading as entertainment. They can recognize the hypocrisy in the real world around them which abounds in movie-personality worship, sport-event analogues of the ancient Roman Coliseum arena, and central-government propaganda masquerading as fact. At their youthful age they can already sense the underlying shallowness in a life dominated by these substitutes for inner virtue, self-sacrifice, and un-politicized learning. A victorious warrior comes forth and challenges the system, and survives...that image is part of our cultural heritage spanning Homer’s Odyssey, David and Goliath, Washington at Valley Forge, our “Greatest Generation” of WWll, and many others.
It is somewhat ironic that District 12 in the “Hunger Games” book is set in the coal-rich region that “was formerly known as Appalachia” where today hunger is no game, and a place not so far away from present-day Albemarle County. Rather than our schools so boastfully wasting food and redeeming themselves by making compost out of it, why not garner some real honor and send it, or its dollar equivalent, to current-day Appalachia?
The fictional country “Panem” of Hunger Games is mirrored by a governmental educational system in which our school children are indoctrinated with “green environmentalism” and a morbid preoccupation with meaningless carbon dioxide emissions. They are taught that in order for them and the environment to survive, they must monitor the carbon footprints of themselves and family, and perhaps that of their neighbors as well. Neither harmful climate change nor global temperature extremes have been factually linked to man-made carbon dioxide, even after Federal Government expenditures of over $100 billion. During their lifetimes, none of these children have experienced increased global temperature, which has remained flat for seventeen years, yet they are being taught mandated ritualistic behavior to solve a non-problem.
It is not surprising to see these innocent participants in the “climate games” cheer on a mythical hero in The Hunger Games. Let a new hero step forward.
Dr. Charles Battig, (online here) is a retired physician and electrical engineer. In the 1960s he served as “principal scientist in bio-medical monitoring systems” at North American Aviation Los Angeles in support of the Apollo Moon Mission. Later he served in the U.S. Public Health Service at NIH, Bethesda MD, in the biomedical engineering branch. Following teaching appointments in anesthesiology at UCLA and Mt. Sinai, NYC, he entered the private practice of anesthesiology until retirement.
“The journals want the papers that make the sexiest claims. And scientists believe that the way you succeed is having splashy papers in Science or Nature - it’s not bad for them if a paper turns out to be wrong, if it’s gotten a lot of attention.” Michael Eisen
Last October, LaTimes had an interesting article in the business section titled Science has lost its way, at a big cost to humanity, subtitle Researchers are rewarded for splashy findings, not for double-checking accuracy. So many scientists looking for cures to diseases have been building on ideas that aren’t even true. Excerpts:
A few years ago, scientists at the Thousand Oaks biotech firm Amgen set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology. But what they found was startling: Of the 53 landmark papers, only six could be proved valid.
The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they’re investigated further,” says Michael Eisen, a biologist at UC Berkeley and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Eisen says the more important flaw in the publication model is that the drive to land a paper in a top journal - Nature and Science lead the list -encourages researchers to hype their results, especially in the life sciences. Peer review, in which a paper is checked out by eminent scientists before publication, isn’t a safeguard. Eisen says the unpaid reviewers seldom have the time or inclination to examine a study enough to unearth errors or flaws.
Eisen is a pioneer in open-access scientific publishing, which aims to overturn the traditional model in which leading journals pay nothing for papers often based on publicly funded research, then charge enormous subscription fees to universities and researchers to read them.
But concern about what is emerging as a crisis in science extends beyond the open-access movement. It’s reached the National Institutes of Health, which last week launched a project to remake its researchers’ approach to publication. Its new PubMed Commons system allows qualified scientists to post ongoing comments about published papers. The goal is to wean scientists from the idea that a cursory, one-time peer review is enough to validate a research study, and substitute a process of continuing scrutiny, so that poor research can be identified quickly and good research can be picked out of the crowd and find a wider audience.
PubMed Commons is an effort to counteract the “perverse incentives” in scientific research and publishing, says David J. Lipman, director of NIH’s National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is sponsoring the venture.
Earlier this month, Science published a piece by journalist John Bohannon about what happened when he sent a spoof paper with flaws that could have been noticed by a high school chemistry student to 304 open-access chemistry journals (those that charge researchers to publish their papers, but make them available for free). It was accepted by more than half of them.
One that didn’t bite was PloS One, an online open-access journal sponsored by the Public Library of Science, which Eisen co-founded. In fact, PloS One was among the few journals that identified the fake paper’s methodological and ethical flaws.
It was the traditionalist Science that published the most dubious recent academic paper of all.
This was a 2010 paper by then-NASA biochemist Felisa Wolfe-Simon and colleagues claiming that they had found bacteria growing in Mono Lake that were uniquely able to subsist on arsenic and even used arsenic to build the backbone of their DNA.
The publication in Science was accompanied by a breathless press release and press conference sponsored by NASA, which had an institutional interest in promoting the idea of alternative life forms. But almost immediately it was debunked by other scientists for spectacularly poor methodology and an invalid conclusion.
To Eisen, the Wolfe-Simon affair represents the “perfect storm of scientists obsessed with making a big splash and issuing press releases” - the natural outcome of a system in which there’s no career gain in trying to replicate and validate previous work, as important as that process is for the advancement of science.
The demand for sexy results, combined with indifferent follow-up, means that billions of dollars in worldwide resources devoted to finding and developing remedies for the diseases that afflict us all is being thrown down a rathole. NIH and the rest of the scientific community are just now waking up to the realization that science has lost its way, and it may take years to get back on the right path.
JC comments: This article raises some important issues, convolutes several of them and then concludes that science has lost its way. Has it?
In thinking about this issue, I find it useful to return to the previous CE post on Pasteur’s quadrant, and the distinction between pure discovery research, use-inspired research, and applied/regulatory research. The arsenic study is arguably pure discovery research, whereas most of the rest of the research (including the deliberately fake paper discussed in this Science article) is use inspired research. It doesn’t really matter outside the scientific community if pure discovery research is incorrect, i.e. it is not immediately obvious what kind of adverse societal impacts might be associated with arsenic and the bacteria in Mono Lake. On the other hand, with cancer research, there are substantial societal and financial impacts involved. The other distinction is between mechanistic research, whereby physical/chemical/biological processes are postulated, in contrast to epidemiological research which is fundamentally statistical. Mechanistic flaws are more easily identified, whereas flaws in epidemiological research is much more difficult to identify and to replicate.
There should be different reward structures for scientists working in the different quadrants, novelty and pushing knowledge frontiers is key for Bohr’s quadrant. However, in use-inspired research there is tremendous potential to provide a misleading foundation for applied/regulatory research, and this is where I see the biggest problem. Replication/auditing and robustness should be key goals for use-inspired research (and part of the reward system for scientists working on these problems). Unfortunately, scientists are rewarded in a way that makes sense for Bohr’s quadrant, and not so much for Pasteur’s quadrant.
Where does climate research lie in all this? Elements of climate research and mechanistic focused on processes, whereas other elements are statistical in nature. In terms of money being thrown down a rathole for climate research, I argued in the Pasteur’s Quadrant post that taxonomical studies of model-based regional impacts rests on the premise that climate models provide useful information for regional impact studies, and they do not.
And finally, I am a big fan Eisen’s models for open access publishing and extended peer review, and I am not a fan of the Nature/Science model with its press releases and press embargoes. Eisen’s model provides the right incentive structure for scientists, whereas the Nature/Science model IMO does not.
So, has science lost it’s way? I don’t think so, but the Science/Nature publishing model and the way that universities reward scientists are providing perverse incentives that do not serve well the societally-relevant applications of science.
By Anthony Watts
A couple of days ago, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. updated his famous graph of hurricane drought, and despite some ribbing from me on what could happen in May 2014, has confidently extended the drought out to the start of the hurricane season in June 2014:
NOAA issues this press release today:
Slow Atlantic hurricane season coming to a close.
No major hurricanes formed in the Atlantic basin, first time since 1994
The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season, which officially ends on Saturday, Nov. 30, had the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982, thanks in large part to persistent, unfavorable atmospheric conditions over the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and tropical Atlantic Ocean. This year is expected to rank as the sixth-least-active Atlantic hurricane season since 1950, in terms of the collective strength and duration of named storms and hurricanes.
“A combination of conditions acted to offset several climate patterns that historically have produced active hurricane seasons,” said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, a division of the National Weather Service. “As a result, we did not see the large numbers of hurricanes that typically accompany these climate patterns.”
Thirteen named storms formed in the Atlantic basin this year. Two, Ingrid and Humberto, became hurricanes, but neither became major hurricanes. Although the number of named storms was above the average of 12, the numbers of hurricanes and major hurricanes were well below their averages of six and three, respectively. Major hurricanes are categories 3 and above.
Suomi NPP satellite peers into Tropical Storm Andrea, the first storm of the season. (Credit: NOAA/NASA)
Tropical storm Andrea, the first of the season, was the only named storm to make landfall in the United States this year. Andrea brought tornadoes, heavy rain, and minor flooding to portions of Florida, eastern Georgia and eastern South Carolina, causing one fatality.
The 2013 hurricane season was only the third below-normal season in the last 19 years, since 1995, when the current high-activity era for Atlantic hurricanes began.
“This unexpectedly low activity is linked to an unpredictable atmospheric pattern that prevented the growth of storms by producing exceptionally dry, sinking air and strong vertical wind shear in much of the main hurricane formation region, which spans the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea,” said Bell. “Also detrimental to some tropical cyclones this year were several strong outbreaks of dry and stable air that originated over Africa.”
GOES East satellite tracks Subtropical Storm Melissa, the last storm of the season. (Credit: NOAA)
Unlike the U.S., which was largely spared this year, Mexico was battered by eight storms, including three from the Atlantic basin and five from the eastern North Pacific. Of these eight landfalling systems, five struck as tropical storms and three as hurricanes.
NOAA and the U.S. Air Force Reserve flew 45 hurricane hunter aircraft reconnaissance missions over the Atlantic basin this season, totaling 435 hours, the fewest number of flight hours since at least 1966.
NOAA will issue its 2014 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook in late May, prior to the start of the season on June 1.
No mention of the failure of the predictions in 2013, nor the fact that this year goes against wild claims made by alarmists of increasing hurricanes due to global warming, something Pielke Jr. also illustrates with a new graph:
The graph below shows total US hurricane landfalls 1900 through 2013.
The five-year period ending 2013 has seen 2 hurricane landfalls. That is a record low since 1900. Two other five-year periods have seen 3 landfalls (years ending in 1984 and 1994). Prior to 1970 the fewest landfalls over a five-year period was 6. From 1940 to 1957, every 5-year period had more than 10 hurricane landfalls (1904-1920 was almost as active).
The red line in the graph above shows a decrease in the number of US landfalls of more than 25% since (which given variability, may just be an artifact and not reflecting a secular change). There is no evidence to support more or more intense US hurricanes. The data actually suggests much the opposite.
Dr Ryan Maue adds:
Here’s a sorted list of North Atlantic hurricane ACE numbers from 1950-2013 - this year tied for 5th lowest on record
By the way the tornado season was the quietest on record and the wildfire season the quietest since 1985 when the current monitoring method began.
Meteorologists and other atmospheric science experts are playing important roles in helping society respond to climate change. Members of this professional community are not unanimous in their views of climate change, and there has been tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic.
In January 2012, the AMS surveyed its members via email and found 52 percent believe global warming is happening and is mostly human-caused, while 48 percent do not. The survey also found that scientists with professed liberal political views were far more likely to believe global warming is human-caused than others.
Authors of the survey recommended that the AMS should “acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold non-majority views just need to be “educated” about climate change; [and] continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community.”
The “early online release” of the survey, to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is available for free viewing
I did an informal survey of 30 professional AMS member known to be skeptics. I was not surveyed. Only 2 received and one responded to the survey. There were weasal worded questions as is typical of surveys in which Ed Maibach is involved. One of those who have advocated a more open approach among the 30, Mike Smith says it like it is. “I am a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. To the best of my memory I never had a chance to respond to this poll of the AMS membership.
That said, the fact that 70% of scientists say that humans affect the climate is utterly unsurprising. That has been known scientifically since Changnon’s METROMEX study in the early 70’s. The fact that 9 out of ten that publish on the subject of climate believe humans affect the climate is also utterly unsurprising.
For me, the money question was #6, “How worried are you about global warming?” Only 30% answered “very worried.” This would make 70% of the respondents “deniers” since that pejorative term seems to be applied to anyone who does not accept the “IPCC consensus” of catastrophic global warming. A statistically similar number (28%) is not worried or “not very worried” about global warming.
So, you can spin the results any way you want but this survey of a small number of AMS members doesn’t reveal any great concern about global warming.”
I could add a long list of former active professional members including fellows who have left the society because of their stance on climate change. I have kept my powder dry and stayed in the society hoping to be around to pick up the pieces when the lies are openly exposed and the scam collapses.
by Neil Frank and E. Calvin Beisner, November 20, 2013
Super Typhoon Haiyan and the anniversary of Superstorm Sandy should remind all of us of the tragic suffering that is part of living in the post-fall world, affected by both human sin and the divine curse (Genesis 3).
But is Rev. Darren A. Ferguson, of Mount Carmel Baptist Church in Far Rockaway, NY, whose home and church Sandy destroyed, right to insist that “climate change” made Sandy stronger than it otherwise would have been?
Assume for a moment (though there is good reason to doubt it) that the world’s been warming rapidly and beyond the bounds of natural variability and that, as he put it, “we are the primary cause.” Does that entail that Sandy was more powerful because of it?
Contrary to Rev. Ferguson’s claims, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) denies that there is good evidence that global warming, manmade or not, causes greater frequency or intensity of hurricanes. In its 2012 special report on extreme weather events it said, “There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.” In its just-released Fifth Assessment Report, it said, “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century...No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.... In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”
Nonetheless, it’s widely thought that even if global warming didn’t cause Sandy, it did make it worse a stronger or bigger storm, or with storm surge exacerbated by global warming-driven sea level rise. What of those ideas?
Did higher sea level caused by global warming make Sandy’s storm surge more devastating? No. Land subsidence and natural sea level rise, both happening ever since the Ice Age, account for all of the apparent sea level rise at Battery Park in New York City.
In fact, as geoscientist David Middleton reports, Sandy’s “storm surge was likely surpassed in the New England hurricanes of 1635 and 1638” and “at least seven hurricanes of intensity sufficient to produce storm surge” greater than 3 meters “made landfall in southern New England in the past 700” years. All seven occurred prior to 1960 before manmade global warming. In 1821, at low tide and with sea level a foot lower than today, a Category 3 hurricane brought a 13.9 foot storm surge to New York City. The same storm today, hitting at high tide, as Sandy did, would have caused much greater flooding than Sandy did.
Was Sandy bigger or stronger because of global warming? In strength, Sandy never exceeded Category 3 (out of 5) and was actually no longer a hurricane but only a post-tropical storm when it made landfall at Atlantic City. The diameter of Sandy’s gale-force wind field was greater than any Atlantic hurricane in recorded history but only by about 3% and for this measure “recorded history” reaches back only to 1988.
Rev. Ferguson says those who disagree that manmade global warming was to blame for Sandy “would have trouble explaining the fact that in this New York City peninsula where I live and pastor a church, the Atlantic Ocean and Jamaica Bay had not met in over 50 years” before Sandy. But if they met 50 years ago, before any significant manmade global warming, why invoke it to explain their meeting last year?
While at the time those who blamed Sandy on global warming included a handful of climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth, whom Rev. Ferguson cites, plus Katharine Hayhoe and James Hansen, none of whom is a hurricane specialist), they also included nonscientists (Al Gore, Joe Romm, Bill McKibben, Chris Mooney, Roseann Barr, Michael Oppenheimer, Jennifer Granholm, Van Jones, Chris Matthews, Bill Clinton, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Michael Moore).
Although those who disagreed include a handful of what Rev. Ferguson calls (when they disagree with him) “know-it-all pundits, who lack any scientific credentials” (Limbaugh; UK Telegraph science writer Tom Chivers; New York Times environment blogger Andrew Revkin), most are scientists. Two, though not climate scientists, specialize in climate change (Norman Page, a consulting geologist; Eric Berger, science writer for the Houston Chronicle). Most are climate scientists (Martin Hoerling, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Roger Pielke Jr., University of Colorado; Karsten Brandt, Donnerwetter.de; Patrick Michaels, formerly University of Virginia, now Cato Institute; Judith Curry, Georgia Tech; Gerald North, Texas A&M; Roy Spencer, formerly NASA, now University of Alabama), and four are hurricane specialists (Chris Landsea and Stanley Goldenberg, National Hurricane Center; Ryan Maue, Florida State University; and William Gray, Colorado State University).
As NHC’s Goldenberg put it in an email to Dr. Beisner, “If someone says Sandy was stronger due to AGW, that goes against even the current hurricane climate studies which suggest that in the future, there could be a very slight increase in intensity for the stronger storms… although Sandy was strong for that region, it was by no means among the strongest Atlantic hurricanes. As for increased flooding due to sea-level rise firstly the total sea-level rise since the great 1938 Hurricane is only about 7 inches, and about 1/2 of that is due to land subsidence. Of the other several inches, some would certainly be due to natural climate fluctuations (especially the natural warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800’s) and if there is any contribution from AGW, it would be at the most on the order of a few inches. Compared to the contribution from the lunar high tide and the actual storm surge (together totaling 10 to 17.5 feet in the hardest hit regions), these few inches… are hardly significant.”
Rev. Ferguson claims “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real and we are the primary cause.” He says “Rush Limbaugh and other climate change deniers” “recklessly deny climate change because [doing so] confirms their ideology and advances their agenda.”
Although Dr. Beisner has read about forty-five books on the science of climate change, large parts of all five IPCC assessment reports, and thousands of articles on it over the past twenty-five years, and consults regularly with climate scientists, he’s not a climate scientist, so Rev. Ferguson can, as he does with others who disagree, write him off as one of the “know it all pundits, who lack any scientific credentials” - on condition that he write himself off as well. But he can’t write off Dr. Frank, for he is a Ph.D.’d meteorologist and former director of the National Hurricane Center.
What about Ferguson’s claim that “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real and we are the primary cause”?
Science isn’t about consensus, it’s about evidence and reasonable explanations.
Consensus among scientists has changed radically, and repeatedly, in the past as, for instance, from nearly universal rejection to nearly universal acceptance of continental drift.
As Georgia Tech climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has shown, such “consensus” as there is among IPCC and other global warming true-believer scientists is worthless because it was intentionally constructed, not spontaneous.
The publication survey on which the 97% claim rests had such broad criteria (e.g., not specifying that people are the primary cause or that the warming was dangerous, let alone catastrophic) that it would have counted most critics of CAGW (catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming) as in agreement. As Dr. Roy W. Spencer, an award-winning NASA climate scientist and Cornwall Alliance Senior Fellow, put it recently on CNN, “I’m one of the 97%!” Both of us would be, too. In reality, while repeated attempts have been made to prove a consensus on dangerous, manmade global warming, none has succeeded as if it would matter if they did (see 1 above).
In short, Rev. Ferguson is wrong to blame “climate change deniers” (the pejorative term meant to equate them, viciously, with Holocaust deniers) for global warming and to blame global warming for Sandy’s size, strength, and devastation.
If Rev. Ferguson is going to call natural disasters divine judgments, he should, as the Bible often does (e.g., Genesis 19; Exodus 7-14; Psalm 107:33-34; Isaiah 35:6-7; Jeremiah 14; Zephaniah 1:2-3), attribute them to sins clearly revealed in God’s law - worshiping false gods, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath breaking, dishonoring parents, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, and coveting (Exodus 20:1 -17) - not burning fossil fuels to provide energy to lift billions out of poverty, disease, and premature death.
Rather than assigning blame, though, we would do better to reduce the risk of future catastrophes by eliminating policies, like government-funded flood insurance, that encourage construction in high-risk shoreline locations. What made Sandy and Haiyan so devastating was not their size and strength (many surpassed them) but where they struck: densely populated regions with vast amounts of property on vulnerable shorelines.
And when people are harmed, we should act compassionately: We should pray for and donate to their rapid recovery. We should pray that the Christians among them will come to understand, as they seek God in the midst of their suffering, how God works it for their good (Romans 8:28); that it is not worthy to be compared with the glory that will be revealed to them (Romans 8:18); indeed, that “this slight momentary affliction is preparing for [them] an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as [they] look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:17-18). And we should pray that the unbelievers will become Christians, lest after this life they enter upon suffering that will make Sandy and Haiyan seem like paradise.
[A slightly modified version of this article was published in The Christian Post Tuesday, November 19, 2013.]
Neil Frank, Ph.D., a meteorologist, is former Director (1974-1987) of the National Hurricane Center, former Chief Meteorologist of Houston CBS affiliate KHOU-TV (1987-2008), and an evangelical Christian. E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., author of Where Garden Meets Wilderness: Evangelical Entry into the Environmental Debate, is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a coalition of evangelical theologians, pastors, ministry leaders, scientists, economists, policy experts, and committed laymen promoting environmental stewardship and economic development built on Biblical principles.
Unlike the alarmists blogs and media sites, realist sites aren’t funded by Soros or Fenton Communications, or foundations like Rockefeller, Pew and Heinz or the enviro groups. Instead all we get we get harassment. and ironically the alarmists like to claim WE are motivated/well funded by big dollars from big oil and the Koch brothers. I assure you we get no such funding. We hobble by, paying the rather steep maintenance fees (needed for security and to stop the Denial of Service Attacks we experienced before). Some months we end up paying the fees from our own pockets. I am fortunate to work at Weatherbell Analytics but my salary goes to pay my bills and college loans and we live a simple lifestyle. I don’t post as much as I used to as my duties at Weatherbell are 7 days per week. But I try and keep this and redneckusa.wordpress.com going after my other duties are finished. I have been asked to keep ICECAP going because of the 6700 stories that can be used (our search can provide you a wealth of info on most topics). We tend to focus on data not as much on papers which suffer from a failing peer review process.
I am also working with lawyers and scientists to battle the EPA and this month to do another in a series of cable TV shows exposing the fallacy of AGW and lunacy of the energy policy in Washington and NH. My partner Art Horn will again be part of the cable show. He has to travel almost 4 hours to get here. Your DONATIONS (left button) would be greatly appreciated to help us go the extra mile. We will post the cable show YOUTUBE video and can help you do the same in your local area to educate you neighbors and if you wish provide you the graphics. As always, we greatly appreciate your help. Of course, we all will be giving aid to our friends in the Philippines who suffered from Haiyan as well as out returning soldiers who have given so much for our country and those hit hard by the rash of November tornados in Illinois and Indiana this weekend. We hope you will think of them too and find a way to help these people in need.
Joe D’Aleo and Art Horn
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
A strong outbreak of severe weather hit the central states Sunday as Joe Bastardi on Weathrbell warned Saturday. Tornadoes were concentrated in the Midwest with Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and southeast Missouri hardest hit.
High risk areas and outbreaks in November do happen - most recently in 2002 and 2005 as SPC noted.
The ORD NWS showed animations of some supercells.
Left loop is from the NWS Lincoln and Chicago Radars, 0.5 degree Reflectivity. The right loop is centered on the long-lived supercell that likely produced multiple tornadoes from the Pekin and Washington areas northeast in the Dana area and across Grundy and Will Counties.
And here are rotation tracks of the long track storms in the Chicago area.
Other November Chicago outbreaks occurred in earlier years.
But we are tracking beneath all years in the record for number of tornadoes year-to-date.
So as of November 16, we appeared to be running 187 tornadoes BELOW THE ALL TIME QUIETEST SEASON on record since 1954. With the 81 tornadoes (there are likely many duplicates as the long track storms are observed multiple times by observers. NWS will eliminate duplicates. They average a reduction of 15-20% and in some cases more (like thi with longer tracks) but even if it was 70, we will still be running 117 below the all time record lowest.
This time of year you can get tornadoes even without extreme surface heating because the jet stream is stronger. You need that contrast so it will occur not in warm November but cold ones which provide the contrast. Warm Novembers have the jet stream up in Canada and people enjoy Indian Summer not severe weather. WIth the warm temperatures in between cold air masses this weekend, some areas popped temporarily above normal but that will be short lived. We had temperatures 10 to as much as 20 to 30F below normal in the air mass prior to the storms and will se 20F below again with snow. With that kind of cold, strong jet streams can develop even with temperatures in the 60s and 70s and the winds can with shear spin up tornadoes.
Here are days 1-5 and 6-10 anomalies (weatherbell.com). Going to be a cold and in many areas not expecting it a white pre Thanksgiving.
Snow cover shrunk back west and globally the early positive anomalies have gone but that is temporary as snow is coming to the US, Asia and Europe this week.
See how it has been more snow since October 1 in the Rockies and northwest.
See how a few systems promise more the next 10 days.
Note how the snow extends into the central AND southern Plains, northern Delta and Midwest.
See it explode in Asia above and Europe below.
Last year November to April snow extent in the hemisphere was the highest on record. We started faster this year than last. 4 of the top 5 snowiest winters on record have occurred in the last 6 years. UKMO, NOAA, UCS all had predicted snow would be decreasing a decade ago due to warmer conditions. Temperatures have not warmed for 16 years and cooled since 2002 globally.
by Suzanne Hamner
On Friday, Obama signed an executive order that instructs federal agencies to work with state and local governments to boost preparations for the impact of global warming. Obama’s war on coal has threatened one sixth of America’s electrical output by placing 150 coal-burning power plants on the chopping block all due to global warming. Citing global warming has already having an effect on communities and public health across the nation, Obama directed infrastructure projects to take into consideration future climate conditions which naturally could result in a higher price tag for new projects or repairs to already existing structures. However, new scientific evidence has surfaced that “the solar activity is decreasing at the fastest rate as anytime in the last 10,000 years”.
Environmentalist Lawrence Solomon wrote in the Financial Post, “Now an increasing number of scientists are swinging back to the thinking of the 1960s and 1970s. The global cooling hypothesis may have been right after all, they say Earth may be entering a new Little Ice Age.”
The Daily Caller reported:
Solomon adds that Columbia University’s George Kukla. who warned the US government about the dangers of global cooling in 1972, postulated that “global warming always precedes an ice ago… The warming we saw in the 1980s and 1990s, in other words, was expected all along, much as the calm before the storm.”
Recently, scientists have been looking to solar activity as a predictor of world climate. Low solar activity has been connected with cold periods in human history, while high levels of solar activity have been connected with warming periods, like the one from the 1950s to 1998.
The United Nation’s climate authority has tried to downplay the influence of solar activity on the Earth’s climate, but climate scientists have been more assertive that the sun plays a role in affecting global temperatures.
According to Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, the public debate is moving away from the 15 to 17 year pause and toward the cooling since 2002.
Professor Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth and Environmental Studies at the University of Western Australia indicates a correlation between sunspots and climate change. Prof. Ollier postulated earlier this year that the sun was the major controller of the climate.
According to Ollier, “Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling. Many think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific predictions, but what politicians get are projections based on computer models.”
Scientists from Russia and the UK are also positing global cooling based on Solar Cycle 24. Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science expects global cooling to begin as early as 2014 with another “Little Ice Age” in 2055. Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University predicts a “Little Ice Age” for Northern Europe because of the decline in solar activity.
Prof. Lockwood bases his postulation on the examination of certain isotopes contained in ice core samples, indicating how active the sun has been over the last thousands of years. Lockwood believes the sun is declining in activity “more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.”
The last Little Ice Age occurred in the 1600s and coincided with an inactive sun, called the Maunder solar minimum. According to Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology as Western Washington University, the earth has been thawing out for the last 400 years.
Easterbrook states, “So the warming we saw, which lasted only from 1978 to 1998, is something that is predictable and expectable. When the ocean changed temperatures, global cooling is almost a slam dunk. You can expect to find about 25 to 30 years yet ahead of us before it starts to warm up again. It might be even more than that.”
So, scientists studying solar activity and the sun along with isotopes from ice core samples have identified a cycle correlating warming and cooling periods of the earth with the solar cycle. These correlations are based on actual observation and study, not a computer model whose predictions are based on information supplied by scientists who cannot identify all variables to enter into the equation. The computer model information then becomes faulty, inaccurate and cannot satisfy the requirements for the scientific method. Model prediction versus observational, data gathering analysis is a no win scenario for model prediction.
Since Obama has declared “global warming/climate change” a dire threat to the US, a threat that must be acted on immediately, all other scientific data opposing the big myth of global warming is ignored. It is ignored because it does not meet the political agenda.
The identification of solar cycles leading to periods of warming and cooling flies in the face of Obama’s agenda to cripple the United States. If these postulations are correct, instead of destroying one sixth of America’s electrical output, measures should be taken to secure electrical output. America should sustain dependable energy sources instead of chasing the pipe dream of “renewable energy.” America should be working to increase its security from invasion, shore up its economy and stimulate job growth and independence of its people. This is not done by expanding federal government, but holding it to its constitutional limits with the possibility of dismantling unconstitutional agencies and declaring null and void strangling regulations based on controlling businesses and the citizenry.
This administration and Congress would rather cripple this nation’s resources, by stalling a pipeline project and destroying the coal industry, to make Americans more dependent on the government, the more people that are dependent on the government, the easier they are to control. If the government controls resources, such as water and electricity, an entire community could be deprived of resources to bring it in line with the government agenda. The theoretical myth of global warming accomplishes this whereas the cyclical climate trend of the earth caused by solar activity does not.
By ignoring these scientific facts on solar activity and ice core samples, Obama is demonstrating hard headed, stubborn, narcissistic and dictatorial behavior. He supports a lie instead of the truth. It isn’t a far stretch to see that last statement as fact. Every time he opens his mouth to speak, an entire repertoire of lies is forthcoming; Obama lives a lie. To him, a lie is truth as long as you can hide the facts, berate others who bring forth the facts, and hypnotize a population of low intellect individuals. A lie benefits an agenda to where the end justifies the means.
As I learned as a child, if you tell one lie, you have to tell another to prop it up; then, you have to keep telling lies to prop up all the previous ones. At that point, you have built a house of cards that comes tumbling down at the slightest of disturbances. Lies end up catching up to the liar as it is harder to remember what lies you have told than it is to tell the truth; truth does not change. The point eventually comes when there are no more lies to tell and the house of cards cannot stand; the lies then become the card that topples the house.
US Has Its Least Extreme Weather Year On Record
Steve Goddard, Real Science
The number of 90F readings in the US has been steadily declining, with 2013 recording the fewest in the modern record.
Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/
The US was hit by no hurricanes in 2013, and suffered the fewest tornadoes on record.
Storm Prediction Center WCM Page Enlarged
Forest fire burn acreage was the second lowest in a decade, and the number of fires was lowest since 1984.
Enlarged. National Interagency Fire Center
Enlarged. National Interagency Fire Center
Obama believes global warming is getting worse because apparently he’s sweating a lot more during his second term
- Jay Leno
by Senator Sessions
It has been eight years since the last major hurricane struck the United States - a lull that experts call an “extended and intense hurricane drought,” the longest such drought since reliable records began in the 19th century.
This is welcome news for Alabamians. The nation still remembers Hurricane Camille (a Category 5 storm) that hit our region in 1969. Hurricane Frederic (a Category 3 storm) made landfall at Dauphin Island in September 1979, leaving widespread devastation and a tree on the roof of my home in Mobile. Hurricane Opal (a Category 4 storm) struck Alabama in October 1995. And it doesn’t take a major hurricane to cause tremendous damage, as “Superstorm Sandy” demonstrated.
We face other forms of extreme weather too, like droughts, floods, and tornado outbreaks that can leave a wide path of destruction. Extreme weather happens, and we should all take common-sense, cost-effective steps to plan, prepare, and respond. The federal government has a key role to play there.
But the Obama Administration, congressional Democrats, and other climate alarmists are now pointing to extreme weather in a desperate attempt to promote their political agendas at the expense of hardworking Americans.
There is a reason for this dubious strategy: We are in the midst of a 16-year period without a measurable increase in global temperatures. It’s hard to sell voters on a trillion-dollar plan to fight global warming - already rejected by Congress - when the globe isn’t actually warming as much as they predicted. So the alarmists are increasingly citing extreme weather to convince Americans that we need a carbon tax, more job-killing regulations, and more wasteful federal green energy subsidies.
Al Gore recently asserted that “all weather events are now affected by global warming pollution.” Senator Barbara Boxer (D CA) called last year’s Superstorm Sandy “evidence of climate change mounting around us.” In his “Climate Action Plan,” President Obama contends that we are having more weather disasters than before. The facts disprove this argument.
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which I am a member, recently held hearings about climate change and extreme weather. A clear finding of those hearings frustrated the alarmists: The frequency of extreme weather events is not increasing.
The testimony of Dr. Roger Pielke - a noted climate-impacts expert who even endorses the idea that global warming is partly caused by humans - was particularly compelling. Dr. Pielke testified: “It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.”
He also said that it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”
And Dr. Pielke provided data to back up his position:
Globally, “weather-related losses” have not increased since 1990.
In the U.S., hurricanes have not increased in frequency or intensity since at least 1900.
Since at least 1950, the intensity and frequency of floods in the U.S. have not increased.
The frequency and intensity of tornadoes have not increased since 1950.
Drought has not increased globally in half a century.
Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama-Huntsville also testified that “there is little or no observational evidence that severe weather of any type has worsened over the last 30, 50, or 100 years.”
And when climate alarmists made the unsubstantiated claim at a Senate hearing last year that we are experiencing more extreme temperatures, State Climatologist Dr. John Christy showed that there were, in fact, many more high temperature records set in previous decades, particularly the 1920s and 1930s, than we see today.
This is a serious matter. President Obama has asked the American people to accept higher energy prices, fewer jobs, and a lower standard of living to prevent storms, droughts, and other changes in climate. Senate Democrats are pushing for a tax on carbon emissions that will increase the cost of gasoline and electricity for every American.
When it comes to understanding and predicting the Earth’s climate, I believe we need to be more honest and humble. No one person knows everything about the future of the planet’s climate. Earth’s history has seen ice ages and warming periods long before modern technology came around. Meanwhile, many technological advances - like electricity and automobiles - have resulted in improved quality of life and lifespan for billions.
We certainly can’t say that any particular weather event is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. Just five months ago, government experts were forecasting an “active or extremely active” hurricane season.
Good policy should be formed on the basis of rational, humble and fact-based judgments. It should improve, not degrade, the conditions for working Americans.
(Jeff Sessions of Mobile was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996.)
By Joseph D’Aleo
ENSO has an effect on annual temperatures in the US and globally. Major volcanism plays a role with multi year cooling with a lack of volcanism leading to warming.
El Ninos produce a global pop in temperatures and La Ninas a dip. The frequency, strength and duration of El Nino and La Nina varies with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
The positive PDO which favors more El Ninos bring global warming, the negative PDO more La Ninas cooling.
The Atlantic also has an effect (besides increasing Atlantic tropical activity and summer ice melt and winter high latitude blocking which brings more cold and snow to Eurasia and North America). The positive (warm) AMO leads to global warming and the negative state cooling.
See the step change with the AMO flip in 1995.
Both the AMO and PDO produce warming in their warm mode and cooling in their cold mode. Obviously when both are warm, the global temperatures should be warmest and when most negative, coldest.
You see a connection (all data with 11 point smoothing)?
For our friend John Neilson Gammon, Andrew Dessler and the other idealogues in the once great Texas A&M program, I present the Texas annual temperature (NCDC) versus the sum of the AMO and PDO (both standardized, which offsets the fact that the indices are determined in different ways). Both the AMO and PDO have the same tripole ocean anomaly pattern.
The AMO drives the drought frequency in the southern plains and Corn Belt with location determined by the PDO (McCabe etal 2004).
BTW, CO2 rose according to ESRL the whole time the temperatures in Texas, the US and globe rode the AMO/PDO roller coaster. Oh and about the sun, well the TSI suggests the sun may drive the AMO and that the AMO may start an early decline soon.
Carbon Dioxide is not Pollution
The Carbon Sense Coalition has accused those waging a war on carbon dioxide of being “anti-green”.
The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that carbon dioxide is the gas of life, feeding every green plant, producing food for every animal and in the process releasing oxygen, another gas of life, into the atmosphere.
A recent report on measuring global vegetation growth notes that data from remote sensing devices show significant increase in annual vegetation growth during the last three decades. They also report that CO2 fertilization is more important than climate variation in determining the magnitude of the vegetation growth. “The CO2 fertilization effect of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by mankind’s burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, gas and oil, is beginning to assume its vaulted position of being a tremendous boon to the biosphere...”
Current levels of carbon dioxide are well below optimal levels for plants, so all true environmentalists should welcome any increase - all life would benefit if the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere was triple current levels. The biosphere always flourishes during the recurring but short warm eras on Earth. Ice ages are the times of extinctions. As oceans warm, carbon dioxide is expelled and water evaporates. Warmth, and more moisture and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provide ideal growing conditions for the green world.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is replenished mainly from warming oceans but also from termites, volcanoes and exhaling animals, assisted by about a 3% contribution from burning carbon fuels. No rational person could define carbon dioxide as “pollution”. It is a harmless, non-toxic, colourless natural gas that is the essential food for all plants which then produce food and oxygen for all animals. Almost everything in coal was derived from plant material so burning it is no more dangerous than burning wood. Both will suffocate you if burnt in a confined space, but when dispersed in the vast atmosphere their emissions are beneficial plant fertilisers.
Naturally we should minimize real pollution of land, atmosphere and oceans. Everything that man does could be seen to create some “pollution”. But very little pollution comes from modern coal-burning power stations. Modern power stations have extensive filtration equipment which ensures that the exhaust gases are harmless natural gases already present in the atmosphere nitrogen, water vapour and carbon dioxide all essential to sustaining life on Earth.
The smogs of Asia are not caused by burning washed coal in modern power stations. They are caused by burning everything else, usually in dirty open fires. They burn cow dung, wood, cardboard, plastic, paper, recycled oil, tyres, dirty coal, kerosene, anything available that will cook food, provide warmth/light or deter mosquitoes. Forest fires in Indonesia, cremations in India and dust from the massive Gobi desert all add to Asian air pollution. As do old worn-out boilers, furnaces, engines and obsolete power stations which can spew unfiltered exhaust gases, ash, soot and unburnt fuel into the air.
These are what cause real air pollution. carbon dioxide does not.
Fifty years ago, the suffocating smogs of London and Pittsburgh were solved by:
* bans on open fires and dirty furnaces, plus
* clean coal-fired electricity, and
* clean-burning piped coal gas.
The same solution will banish most Asian smogs today.
Correlation, Causation or a Carbon Tax Con-Job?
If two things vary in parallel, that is a positive correlation. But it does not prove that one causes the other. For example, wet roads always occur when it rains. But wet roads do not cause rain. Three things are required to prove that rain always causes wet roads.
Firstly, no exceptions, roads must get wet every time it rains. They do.
Secondly, the cause must always come before the effect. Rain always comes before wet roads (apart from snow, floods, burst water-mains etc).
Thirdly, we need a credible explanation of the mechanism. We have it - rain is composed of falling drops of water, and the water wets the road.
The three conditions are satisfied - therefore rain does cause wet roads. The theory becomes a law.
Now, let’s look at the theory that carbon dioxide (CO2) controls global temperature.
Firstly, there is no consistent correlation - CO2 has risen consistently for the last century but global temperatures rise and fall, and the trend has been flat for over a decade. This absence of consistent correlation proves that CO2 is not the prime controller of global temperature.
Secondly, ice core data shows that temperature turning points occur long before reversals in atmospheric CO2 content. This evidence suggests that global temperature may control the CO2 carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, rather than the reverse. And there is a proven mechanism to explain that - warming oceans expel CO2 and cooling oceans absorb it.
Thirdly, although the mechanism of carbon dioxide warming exists, it is progressively less effective as CO2 levels rise.
It is clear that CO2 fails all tests as the controller of global temperatures. Other factors such as solar cycles, clouds and oceans have much bigger impact. Thus the carbon dioxide theory of global warming is a carbon tax con-job.
The Last Word
The Big Dollars are against us. In the last issue of Carbon Sense, we advised that our cartoonist had not been paid, and we appealed for funds. Admittedly it was in small print, but two weeks passed without a dollar. Then we received one subscription for $500. We paid a miserly $250 to our cartoonist and $374 to our internet mail server, leaving a deficit of at least $124 for the month. In the same period the sacked Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery, set up a new Climate Council to carry on his climate scare campaign and raised $1,000,000. Then we hear that green councils are finding ways to soak ratepayers to support the discredited Climate Commissioner. Soon we will find that all sorts of State and Local government bodies, Universities and other Qangos will be paying subscriptions to fund Flannery’s never-ending climate alarmism, thus frustrating the desire of the government and the voters that this waste of tax funds must stop.
Naturally national climate conferences will also be organised so that the Government Climate Industry can continue to have annual parties at our expense. We have a big job ahead. And the big dollars are against us.
See the full PDF newsletter with many hyperlinks to support the arguments here.
October 22 04:57 PM
In Memory of Peter R. Leavitt
June 29, 1931 - October 21, 2013
Peter “Pete” Leavitt of Newton Centre on Monday, October 21 at 82 years old following a long battle with cancer. Meteorologist, founder of WSI Corp., Patriots fan and pianist; possessed with endless intellectual curiosity. Pete was a close friend and a great man. A true intellect, Pete was a joy to speak to about almost any topic. But clearly Pete was one of the top meteorologists in the country.
Peter received one of the first degrees in Meteorology from M.I.T. in 1956. He served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Weather Services Corporation and was also founder of the WSI Corporation in 1978. He was a recognized authority on worldwide weather and its impact on crops. Peter ensured that The Weather Channel got the data it needed by putting resources at our disposal and working with the NWS on formatting. His knowledge of history of instrumentation, of the workings of NWS and politics made him an invaluable consultant to Icecap and served on the board over the few years where we were a C3 corporation.
As John Coleman, TWC founder commented last night:
“OMG I am deeply saddened to read here of the death of Peter Leavitt. As Joe D’Aleo has noted he was a key player in the development of the computer data function, a key element, in building The Weather Channel. He was also a close consultant for me on my relationship with the AMS. I last saw him at the Climate Skeptics conference in New York 10 years. He was very warm and cordial, witty and very well informed on the issues. What a delight. He was the founder of WSI, the ultimate weather data computer company and a great private meteorology firm on every level. My deepest condolences to his family.”
Alan Galumbeck, IT Director at TWC at start-up remembers on a facebook post last night.:
“I remember our early meetings with Pete Leavitt. He put his best people on our start-up project and virtually dedicated them to us for at least nine months. This was at a time when WSI, the weather data company, was the little brother to WSC, the private forecast company. Pete saw to it that we got the WSI resources we needed, even, I suspect, ahead of WSC’s needs.”
Pete was a Certified Consultant Meteorologist. Pete was a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and charter member of the National Council of Industrial Meteorologists. Peter Leavitt was a professional consultant to private companies world-wide and contemporary peer professionals. He served on several academic and government advisory committees of the National Weather Service, National Academy of Sciences, AMS, NCIM, etc.
Peter lived near Central Park in NYC for many years and was intimately familiar with the siting and changes over time. He and I did the analysis referred to here that we presented to the EPA and NOAA on their temperature assumptions. But Peter’s knowledge of music and politics and history and sport always made for made enlightening and lively conversations. He was a true intellect not an elitist who just thinks they are, of which there are, Peter would agree, too many.
I will miss talking with Peter. Rest in peace my friend.
In lieu of flowers, remembrances may be made to the Peter R. Leavitt Family Fund for GI Oncology Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
Perspective from a weather forecaster
by Judith Curry
The answer is the fruit of my labor, not the object of it. Because of that, you’ll look for anything to come up with the correct answer, not just a predetermined one where your self-esteem depends on it. Joe Bastardi
The last two weekends, I have featured perspectives on the climate debate from:
an engineer (Mike Haseler)
a physicist (Pierre Darriulat)
This week I feature a perspective from a weather forecaster, Joe Bastardi, which was published in the Patriot Post. I’ve received permission from Joe Bastardi to reproduce this in full:
I would love to debate Dr. Michael Mann. He’s a professor at Pennsylvania State University, and I’m a Penn. State Grad (Meteo. 1978). Enough people know me, as well as him, so we could charge a modest admission, fill Eisenhower Auditorium at PSU, and give all the money back to the PSU meteorology department whom I still love dearly in spite of my outcast status on the anthropogenic global warming issue.
But Dr. Mann would probably want no part of debating me on the main drivers of weather and climate given I have no higher degrees. C’mon, a BS in meteorology from PSU against this:
Education: A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989)
MS physics (1991)
MPhil physics (1991)
MPhil geology (1993)
PhD geology & geophysics (1998)
Alma mater: University of California, Berkeley, Yale University
This would be a blow out. What chance would I have?
Let me be clear: Dr. Mann’s resume, along with anyone who receives a PhD in the physical sciences, impresses me. I have read almost everything Dr. Mann has written and, because of that, I understand where he’s coming from. But there are things that are lacking if one is pursuing the right answer, and that’s the methodology one learns in putting together a forecast, as to how to weigh factors in determining what’s going to happen. One has to examine all of what his opponent has, not close his eyes to anything that might challenge his ideas.
For instance, while I’ve read almost everything Dr. Mann has written, how many times has he had hands on experience in making a forecast that has to verify? It’s laughable to think, as a private sector meteorologist whose livelihood depends on being right, that one can separate climate from weather. I realized a long time ago that being able to recognize current patterns from understanding the past (it was drilled into me by my father, a degreed meteorologist) was essential to making a good forecast. The fact many climatologists downplay the relationship, or say they’re different, shows me they don’t know what they’re talking about. In other words, I do what they do, but they don’t do what I do. I read what they write, but they won’t stop to look at the other side.
Perhaps it’s like something we sometimes see in sports, the curse of talent. Most of these people are very smart. I went to school with future PhDs and could see that in the classroom, they were like my wrestling coaches at PSU, guys that were great doing what came natural to them. However, my wrestling coach used to stress that when you’re used to having everything come to you, it’s very hard to change and step up your level. Consequently, you’ll get beat on your weakest point and what you don’t know, and that’s where the methodology in forecasting comes in to the climate debate.
You see, in what I do, one must weigh factors and decide which ones are most important. Additionally, one gets used to challenges that can never really be seen in research. How so? Suppose someone gives you a grant to study global warming. Can you come back and say, “My research says there’s no global warming”? You have been given a grant to produce a result; how can you possibly justify that result if it;s the result that would cost nothing to come up with in the first place?
In my line of work, getting paid (having clients) depends on the correct result. The client doesn’t say, “I want a cold winter, here’s the money, forecast it.” The client asks for a forecast that gives him an edge. If you are right, the client renews; if not, it’s bye bye. But there’s no up front money that looks for a set result. This means the forecaster does not care whether it’s warm or cold, just that he gets the right answer, whatever that may be. This is not the case in the AGW branch of academia. Research grants come with the cause du jour just try getting a grant to disprove global warming (actually, you don’t need one; it’s easy to refute it just by understanding what’s happened before).
That said, regarding the climate debate, what factors am I looking at to come up with my conclusion? To me, this is a big forecast, and the simple answer is: It’s hard to fathom that CO2 can cause anything beyond its assigned “boxed in” value to temperatures because of all that’s around it. It comes down to the sun, the oceans and stochastic events over a long period of time with action and reaction, versus a compound comprising .04% of the atmosphere and 1/100th of greenhouse gasses.
But unless you work every day in a situation where you are reminded you can be wrong, you don’t have appreciation for the methodology of challenge and response you need to be right!
Then there’s another big problem: What if you have all this knowledge, you’ve taken a stand on this, and it’s your whole life, how can you possibly be objective? The climate debate and past weather events are needed building blocks for my product. That product involves a challenge each day. In the case of a PhD on the AGW side, they believe the idea is the product. Destroy the idea, you destroy the product; destroy the product, you destroy the person. Therefore, it’s personal. Your whole life all the fawning students, the rock star status is all gone. I would hate to be in that position. Each day I get up, and there it is the weather challenging me. The answer is the fruit of my labor, not the object of it. Because of that, you’ll look for anything to come up with the correct answer, not just a predetermined one where your self-esteem depends on it.
So these giants of science have a fundamental problem, and it runs contrary to their nature. In the end, the very talent and brilliance of a lot of these people may be what blinds them to what it takes to truly pursue the truth.
JC comment: Bastardi raises a critical point, regarding the issue of forecasting as it relates to climate science. Until recently, the public and policy makers were content to consider projections of future climate that depended only on scenarios of future greenhouse emissions. Since the climate models and observations agreed during the last quarter of the 20th century as portrayed in highly confident attribution analyses, these scenario projections were treated by many as forecasts, including the IPCC, who expected a temperature increase of 0.2C/decade in the first few decades of the 21st century.
The growing divergence of climate model simulations and observations in the 21st century is leading to the growing realization among scientists, policy makers and the public that other factors are important in determining climate on decadal and multidecadal timescales. The IPCC dismisses this as unpredictable internal climate variability, unpredictable solar variability, unpredictable volcanic activity. Well, this is good enough only for scientists that are only interested in the CO2 impact on climate, but not for the public and policy makers (paying the bills for all this climate research) that want to know how the climate will actually evolve over the the 21st century.
Here is an analogy from my personal experience. My company CFAN started making hurricane forecasts in 2007 for a major oil company, who wanted advance knowledge (better than market and NOAA) of Gulf hurricane activity. We had devised a scheme that predicted the formation of hurricanes from African Easterly Waves, up to a week in advance. We had some major successes in our first season, notably our forecasts for Hurricane Dean and TS Erin (which I understand made them a lot of money in natural gas trading), but we completely failed (along with everybody else) to predict the formation Hurricane Humberto. Humberto formed near the Texas coast and rapidly intensified. This was not picked up by our prediction scheme, since Humberto did not form from an African Easterly Wave. Well, telling our clients that this kind of hurricane just isn’t predictable wasn’t going to be good enough for our clients. So we embarked on a research project to figure out what kind of predictability there was for this type of storm, and developed a probabilistic warning scheme with different scenarios for this type of storm.
The point is this: climate modelling needs to move towards actually predicting future climate variability change. The initialized decadal forecasts are a step in the right direction, but we need scenarios of future volcanic and solar activity as well (not to mention more research needed to figure out the sun-climate connections). Having climate modelers work on the seasonal climate forecast problem, and watching their forecasts fail to verify, would be invaluable experience for climate modelers making the productions runs for CMIP/IPCC.
And finally, a remark about Bastardi’s invitation to Mann to debate, which is captured in these tweets:
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann16 Oct
#JoeBastardi (http://www.desmogblog.com/joe-bastardi ) and #AnthonyWatts (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts...): The best that #ClimateChange #Denial has to offer!
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi16 Oct
@MichaelEMann Anytime you would like to debate me and have proceeds go to PSU met, set it up. Eisenhower Auditorium will see who knows what
Rich Fraser @richmanwisco16 Oct
@BigJoeBastardi @MichaelEMann To debate Bastardi would be granting him the false balance that he craves but does not deserve.Retweeted by Michael E. Mann
Based upon Mann’s retweet, I don’t expect him to debate Bastardi. I note that if a Georgia Tech alumnus wanted to debate me or otherwise meet me, i would offer to go to lunch with them to discuss. In fact, in response to this article in the Georgia Tech Alumni magazine, I was invited to lunch by an alum to discuss climate change. There were 4 of us at lunch. Towards the end of the lunch, the alum admitted that the invite was intended as sort of an ambush, intended to trip me up as they presented all sorts of skeptical arguments. He said that they were delighted to have such an open and honest discussion about the issue, and that the learned a lot from talking with me. The following week, the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences received a check from the alum for $10K.
So I encourage Mann to at least meet with Bastardi to discuss. But imagine a public debate or discussion or Q&A between Mann and Bastardi. That would be an event I would pay to see (well I wouldn’t travel to Penn State, but I would pay to watch it on the internet). Since Mann has only joined the Penn State faculty within the last decade, there are generations of Meteorology alums who have not been exposed to his wisdom. He could hold a book signing etc. Sounds like this event could be a real winner for Penn State in terms of alumni relations and fund raising.