Gore links Iowa floods and tornadoes to climate change, but makes a basic error on global temperature to evaporation linkage, plus he misses the real reason behind imagined tornado increases.
[Excerpt: In a recent article in the Des Moines Register, Al ] Gore attributed the historic floods that devastated Iowa in June to man-made emissions causing more water to evaporate from oceans, increasing average humidity worldwide. “In 66 of your 99 counties, the flood damage was truly historic.” Gore told the crowd of 1,000 Democratic donors. “No one has ever seen a flood like this.” Gore also blamed climate change for increased tornadoes, including the one that leveled much of Parkersburg earlier this year. “Yes, we’ve always had tornadoes in Iowa and in Tennessee,” he said. “But they’re coming more frequently and they’re stronger.”
UAH satellite derived global temperature data. Click for a larger image
Current value for August 2008 is -0.010°C
According to our current scientific understanding of the water cycle and water vapor on Earth, the average residence time of water molecules in the troposphere (where evaporation and most weather occurs) is about 10 days.
Since the global temperature trend has been a negative slope since 2007, and is currently near the zero anomaly line, and with the short residence time of water vapor in the water cycle, Gore’s claimed “warming” could not be responsible for increased water vapor. If anything, water vapor in the water cycle would be less now.
Gore clearly doesn’t understand basic meteorology, much less climate.
Then there is Gore’s claim of “Yes, we’ve always had tornadoes in Iowa and in Tennessee,” he said. “But they’re coming more frequently and they’re stronger.” Well, the graph below says otherwise.
Graph from NWS/NOAA. Smaller (F1) tornadoes seem to be on the increase, but not larger ones (F2-F5). This is likely due to increased reporting from Doppler Radar, storm chasers, and news gathering. Small tornadoes that once went unnoticed are now often reported, and make the news.
Gore is flat wrong.
References:
1) Climatologist dismisses extreme weather predictions due to man-made warming as ‘complete nonsense’ – By Hydro-climatologist Stewart Franks, an Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Newcastle in Australia. (LINK)
2) Another scientist dismisses fearmongers: Midwest Floods and ‘Completely Unjustified’ Climate Change Fear Mongering – June 22, 2008 – By Mike Smith is a certified consulting meteorologist and a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society He is CEO of WeatherData Services, Inc., an AccuWeather Company, based in Wichita.) (LINK)
3) U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report shows Hurricanes declining, NO increases in drought, tornadoes, thunderstorms, heat-waves – June 20, 2008 – (LINK)
4) Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events (LINK)
5) Analysis in peer-reviewed journal finds COLD PERIODS – not warm periods – see INCREASE in floods, droughts, storms, famine – April 24, 2008 – (LINK)
6) Increasing tornadoes or better information gathering? – February 8th, 2008 – (LINK)
For keeping abreast of the catastrophic European climate change, I refer people to ccnet and register for the periodic newsletters: http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html
Stephen Wilde’s post makes me ask this Q:
Is there any study which explores the relative effect of solar radiation changes at the poles, as opposed to the equator? i.e. Does an increase or decrease of solar energy input to the poles have a greater or lesser effect than at the equator Q.mark.
Bobby Lane,
Global warming is not a fact; so you win.
Paddy (11:52:28) :
Yes I have, this whole election cycle is the first time I have really taken a close look at American politics. I think Americans are going to have to have a real hard look at
them and hopefully vote most of them out.
Being a Canadian I have learned much about the American politics in the last few years. Unlike many Canadians I am Fan and supporter of the American people. I think the U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest things to ever have been written.
Don’t let any one ever take it any from you.
The Great Flood of 1993 is just a dim memory for the dim-wit Algore.
Bobby, the price of field corn is up approx. $0.03/lb over the early aughts. Do you really think this will lead to worldwide starvation?
Context: composed from NASA data.
The whole theory on which the GW zealots place their misplaced faith, the so-called “hockey stick” theory, has been well and truly debunked. Even the zealots have admitted that.
iceFree (14:35:05) :
The Constitution has fallen into disuse in the USofA. Would you like to have it.
Robert Wood,
Uhh…okay…thanks! What do I win? *prays silently for a hot blonde model and/or a Ferrari*
Actually, I keep up just fine with the climate changes, and more, in Europe via http://www.eureferendum.com
Also, that site gives you a good perspective as to how climate policies currently in effect, or being implemented soon, are affecting European economies. It’s a great way to look forwards to what we may have here in the United States. It’s actually the policies anyway that make more of a difference than the climate, though if the climate change were severe enough chaos would break out and policies would be irrelevant. I am much more worried anyway about us causing our own disaster through foolish policies based on bad science than I am from comets and meteors.
The odd thing is that none of this is anything new. Not even really bad stuff like ‘500-year floods’ are really new either. There’s been much worse weather historically, like the drop-off from the Eocene to the present period. So if we have a little warming or a little cooling here and there, that’s really nothing comparatively. Anyway, I am close to rambling now.
Considering 500 years ago there was no one keeping records in the American midwest, all we can go on are SWAGs. Also, the measure of flooding seems to be how much dollar damage it does. So according to that. Inflation causes more dangerous floods.
Our dopey Prime Minister Helen Clark wants New Zealand to be a “world leader” on “Climate Change”.
She LOVES Al Gorey.
For a light-hearted look at what our future under the carbon cloak might be:
http://shareinvestornz.blogspot.com/2007/09/of-tulip-bulbs-and-tooth-fairies.html
Those of us who are sensible and are on the right side of the argument need to retain a sense of humour because this push from the socialists to grab more of our money by way of carbon taxes is a joke.
How does that help the environment?
It simply doesn’t.
Moderators,
A longish piece I just posted, as a response to Kum Dollison, got stuck in the filter. Can you fish it out pweeeeze?
Ice Free,
“I think the U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest things to ever have been written.
Don’t let any one ever take it any from you.”
Thanks for the thought. We’re not using it anymore, perhaps we should sell it. Oh yeah, we just did.
Ed Scott (15:15:32)
Hey Ed we will do a trade you can have our wonderful, Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.
It’s and long read and can be twisted to suit just anything you can think of it’s so vague.
But Look on the bright side Ed, maybe your new president will write you a new one!!!
Discrediting someone based solely on a press report of a speech seems an odd use of time. The most one can say is that the version of what Al Gore said as reported by the Des Moines Recorder got the science wrong. If you listen to the audio you discover that the press description does not match what Gore actually said (no surprise there). Elsewhere he has taken pains to be clear that individual extreme events cannot be explicitly linked to GW. And I don’t quite get the relevance of the global temperature record to disproving that higher humidity was a factor in the floods – surely one would need to know the temperature and humidity record for the Ohio region, which are unlikely exactly to match the global trend.
In fact Gore’s point is that specific humidity tracks temperature quite closely and that humidity drives precipitation, causing more floods. This seems uncontroversial.
The data cited in that paper from Phil Jones et al is only to 1999-2000 in the graphs and tables. Thus your assertion that it is relevant to the present flooding issue is wrong. The fact is that we are globally cooler now
The Jones et al paper found a long term rising trend in the humidity since 1975 and this matches the trend in average global temperatures which have risen about 0.5C in the same period. To repeat – this was Gore’s point – we have increased, over a period of decades, the likelihood of severe flooding events. In this context the temperature change since the end of the study and the date of the floods (UAH average for 2000 : 0.04C, July 2008 : 0.06C) is not significant.
hope that’s clear,
JP.
REPLY: Yes your position is clear, thank you. However Gore was speaking to the present, speaking about the present “historical flooding” in Iowa and the present global temperature is cooler. thus following your lead from the paper, global water vapor is less that in the period leading up to 1999-2000 for which they have data.
BTW It’s Iowa not Ohio.
There’s no link to water vapor and the Iowa flooding, and there’s no link to increased tornadoes. Gore is clearly wrong on both counts and no amount of propping up or nitpicking on a press report’s accuracy is going to change that. Gore refuses to debate ANYBODY, so all we have are occasional press reports. In fact this press report was quite the exception, he usually doesn’t allow press. In this case he couldn’t control the venue since he was an invited guest. The man doesn’t play by any sort of rules except his own. He says what he wants, then keeps the press out of many events, (see here: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/al-gore-says-no.html ) and refuses debate and the tough questions.
He’s also selling carbon credits to himself to offset his footprint. Combine that with his lack of debate or even to take questions, and the man has no integrity. Zero, nada, zilch. He’s a charlatan.
We’ll see if he demands a retraction for the presumed error in reporting. If one is done, then I’ll change my story to match.
“The Jones et al paper found a long term rising trend in the humidity since 1975 and this matches the trend in average global temperatures which have risen about 0.5C in the same period.” Ok fine, no dispute there, rising temps means rising humidity, basic meteorology.
“And I don’t quite get the relevance of the global temperature record to disproving that higher humidity was a factor in the floods -” Ok careful now…are you going to argue that LOWER tempertures, which is what we’ve had since 2007 don’t translate into lower humidity? Again basic meteorology.
No link, period, between supposed water vapor trend increases since 1975, and the present when the flooding occurred because of two simple facts:
1) Cooler global temperature since 2007, near zero anomaly i.e. “normal”
2) Average residence time of water vapor is 10 days
You talk about “an odd use of time.” I’d say that trying to defend a propagandist such as Gore is an odd use of yours. But in deference to your wishes, I certainly won’t waste any more time on the issue debating it. – Anthony
Darren Rickard (15:44:07)
New Zealand is the world leader in CH4 catchment bags for bovines.
My wife and I vacationed in New Zealand for 5 weeks in 1974-75. The Franz Joseph and Fox glaciers had receded by 1,000 feet at that time.
We were impressed with the rainfall. The day before we arrived at Milford Sound, there was 8 inches of rainfall in one hour. The trees literally slid into the Sound due to the water saturation of the soil.
iceFree (16:12:49) :
Considering Mark Steyn’s recent experience with the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, we have to give your offer some thought. Our Constitution is “alive” and flexible and if this is insufficient to validate the personal beliefs of the SCOTUS judges, they have the option of relying on other constitutions, such as Zimbabwe’s.
Ridge Resident (12:33:23) :
Wrote:
“Ostriches put their heads in the sand when confronted with a crisis.”
No they don’t. Can’t you people get any scientific observation right?
Still, you are very likely right about ‘partisan’ politics, assuming you mean that all politicians and their supporting bureaucrats (broadest use of the term) are partisan supporters of their own importance and income sources. And that most of them have no interest at all in the other 99% of humankind except as sources of their own wealth.
Just in case you think this is some sort of attach on US politics – it isn’t. The ‘standard’ of politician around the world seems to be slipping ever lower (from a very low starting point) wherever you look. In my opinion putting any trust in any of them will likely be a very big mistake – even to the point of guaranteeing the early arrival of the very problems you would not wish for as “The legacy we leave to our descendants ….” as you phrase it.
My guess is that our present kids, not some possible generation of future grandchildren or great grandchildren, will experience the results of the current rush to tax and control well before the vague target dates set for the proposed catastrophe.
In which case, if they have any sense, our kids won’t have many kids. I guess that means the problem will be solved.
Global records should be taken with a grain of salt. Each record doesn’t amount to increased 6’s when you roll the dice. Each record should be compared to itself since each area lives in its own local or regional weather and climate system. How often a 6 appears in Kentucky cannot be compared to how often a 6 appears in Oregon. Hearing about or recording more records has nothing to do with whether or not there is an increase of records. That’s a media and active recording effect, not necessarily a global climate change effect.
An analogy can be made with autism. Is the rate increasing or are we better at detecting it? Or is it because we changed the definition (which we did)? Each 10 years a record is being set for the percentage of children being diagnosed with autism. But that does not mean it is actually increasing.
John Philip,
I just thought I’d point out that since the trend you cite is from 1975 to now, that pretty much tracks the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) in its ‘Warm’ phase. It has now, just this year, flipped back to ‘Cool’ so we’ll see if specific surface humidity tracks along with it, as well as temperatures. If so, then we’ll know that “global warming” is not to blame for it, nor we.
Anyway, your point and Gore’s on specific surface humidity is irrelevant. For humidity to have any GW effect it needs to be much higher in the atmosphere, and whatever effect the Sun had on evaporation as it reached its zenith in cycle 23 during 2001 is now pretty much kaput in comparison.
So, really, the only two specific points you have to make are that you don’t trust the DMR (or people on here) and that Gore did not, in that article, explicitly link global warming and catastrophic flooding. Well, since you’re into “research,” let me be of some assistance to you: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23668
There is Gore’s Congressional testimony of 2007 on global warming, where, amongst other things, he says as to the dangers of it:
“First of all, there is no longer any serious debate over the basic points that make up the consensus on global warming. The ten warmest years on record have all been since 1990. Globally, 2005 was the hottest of all. In the United States, 2006 was the warmest year ever. The winter months of December 2006 through February 2007 make up the warmest winter on record. These rising temperatures have been accompanied by many changes. Hurricanes are getting stronger. Sea levels are rising. Droughts are becoming longer and more intense. Mountain glaciers are receding around the world.
New evidence shows that it may be even worse than we thought. For example, a recent study published by the University of Alaska-Fairbanks indicates that methane is leaking from the Siberian permafrost at five times the predicted levels. Methane is 23 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide and there are billions of tons underneath the permafrost.”
So, yes, Al Gore does explicitly link man-made global warming and natural catastrophes, the former causing the latter. Which leaves the only valid point you have ever made in your entire series of arguments as that you don’t trust the DMR, though you don’t exactly say why. Are they known for false reports on many subjects? Like Anthony, I am waiting for Gore to demand a retraction. But I won’t hold my breath. His Congressional testimony already proves the point.
Mr Tom said (12:16:43) :
“As a boy he worked on the Gore’s family tobacco farm. After high school he earned an undergraduate degree in journalism and then served in Vietnam. He later went to law school and then became a career politician. How does someone with that biography become qualified to comment on the climate?”
There are two answers to that question:
(i) Everyone is qualified to comment on any subject they want. If they talk rubbish they run the risk of it being exposed as rubbish, but they have every right to express their opinion.
(ii) The lack of formal qualifications in a subject is not a bar to knowledge. There is no difference between someone who studies and understands a subject then passes an exam and someone else who studies and understands the same subject to the same extent but does not sit an exam.
It is the substance of what someone says which determines whether his opinions deserve to be followed by others. If St Al spoke good sense his lack of formal qualifications would not stop it being good sense. As it is he spouts nonsense and it is the fact that it is nonsense that makes it nonsense, his lack of formal qualifications does not make it either more or less nonsensical.
John Philip(s):
Rather than show relative humidity anomalies, how about simply showing actual relative humidity: click
nice link to a graph http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/25/hansen_forecast_1988.jpg contributed by Bobby Lane on another link.
Not sure if John Philips checks things related to the sun.