Lest readers think I’m the only TV meteorologist to speak my mind on climate issues, there are others, such as Jym Ganahl in Columbus Ohio.
The Daily Kos posted an article here calling for this:
Columbus Weatherman is a Kooky Global Warming Denier
Contact NBC4 and urge them to send weatherman Jym Ganahl to some climate change conferences with peer-reviewed climatologists. Let NBC4 know that they have a responsibility to have expert climatologists on-air to debunk Ganahl’s misinformation and the climate change deniers don’t deserve an opportunity to spread their propaganda:
NBC 4 phone # 614-263-4444
NBC 4 VP/GM Rick Rogala email: rrogala(ATSIGN)wcmh.com
And it was all over this story in a minor weekly newspaper in Columbus, OH., reprinted below. Jym could probably use a little support right now. His email: jganahl [at] wcmh dot com
From “The Other Paper” MEDIA MORSELS: Ganahl debunks the global warming
 |
| Be afraid of the sun, not carbon: Ganahl, seen here with what appears to be some sort of glacier, doesn’t buy the hype |
Just when you thought it was safe to assume that everyone had pretty much accepted climate change and moved on, here comes rogue NBC 4 chief meteorologist Jym Ganahl to blow your freaking mind.
“Just wait 5 or 10 years, and it will be very obvious. They’ll have egg on their faces,” Ganahl said this week of global warming advocates.
The “global warming hoax” is an obvious fallacy, Ganahl said in a YouTube video posted Jan. 23.
In the video, taped at a meet-up of the Ohio Freedom Alliance, Ganahl chats with Dave, the self-proclaimed No. 1 biker talk show host on radio, and—still odder—Robert Wagner, a former candidate for the 15th congressional district.
Although global warming is clearly “a fallacy,” Ganahl told the dudes, “It is remarkable how many people are being led like sheep in the wrong direction.”
Evoking Orwellian mind-control power of the media, Ganahl said it’s remarkable how easy it is to panic the unwashed masses.
Ganahl continued to evangelize offline this week.
Sunspots—and not carbon emissions—are to blame for the slow warming of the globe, Ganahl said. “It has nothing to do with us.”
“When there are sunspots, like freckles on the sun—dark spots—these are like turning on a furnace and the earth warms. When there are no sunspots, it is like the furnace is in standby and the earth cools.
“I have always thought we should celebrate and be thankful we live in a time when it is warmer, not curse it,” Ganahl said. “It allows us to grow food and feed the population—and the warming is slow and we can adapt to it.”
Cold, on the other hand, is to blame for a whole host of worldly disasters, including death of the Aztecs, the Vikings, and who knew?— the bubonic plague.
“Instead of screaming global warming, we should be preaching global cooling,” he said.
But with a new president who apparently buys into the whole carbon emission demonizing scam, Ganahl said, “It’s very scary,” and admittedly “very difficult,” to fight the mob mentality.
“Carbon dioxide is what we, as people, exhale. Enough said. Unless you eliminate people, you have it. It’s food for the plants and trees,” he said.
Our local Al Gore antithesis risked his career on his wild weather heresy—sort of.
Back in 2007, the take-no-prisoners field of meteorology was split over the issue of climate change. Prominent Weather Channel meteorologist Heidi Cullen called for those who deny the so-called truth about global warming to be stripped of their American Meteorological Society credentials.
Ganahl, who just celebrated 30 years at NBC, became the youngest person to be granted the AMS Seal of Approval, by the way, back in 1970.
Cullen’s call has thus far gone unheeded, but it stirred up a mini-schism among TV weather types.
“Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms,” Cullen said in a column written for the Weather Channel.
“And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy.”
Ganahl says he has kept his anti-global warming propaganda out of your living room, but he is prepared to sell on sunspots, and their relation to warming cycles, if you ever ask.
Asked if he’s worried that he’ll take a hit among the sheep for his climate thinking, he said he’s not concerned.
“Just tell them to wait five or 10 years, and I’ll have history to back me up.”
Greg Goodknight (11:20:27) :
the sun’s high energy started before the 50’s, bringing it to a level that was unequalled for the past 8000 years, and not exceeded since about 11,000 years ago.
Nature 436, E3-E4 (28 July 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04045;
Climate: How unusual is today’s solar activity?
Raimund Muescheler, Fortunat Joos, Simon A. Mueller & Ian Snowball.
or
Muescheler et all [Quaternary Science Reviews vol 26, p.82, 2007]:
“The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr”
The middle panel of http://www.leif.org/research/Radionuclides.png is from their paper.
Funny how Kos was a hero to many for praising the murders of Americans in Iraq, but a weatherman gets called for censorship and loss of job for merely disagreeing strongly with AGW.
Leif Svalgaard (08:12:55) :
“…it is clear that the Sun is not a major climate driver.”
In the absense of the Sun, what is the major climate driver?
Greg Goodknight (08:01:51) :
Excellent point. The CRF factor and correlation to ice age oscillation is impressive. Perhaps this should be pointed out to Jym and if his employer has the wisdom to send him to the climate conference in New York next month – he could be brought fully up to speed on the theory.
The response in support of this rather hapless weatherman has been great. Not because he speaks with science authority – but against nonsense authority. Orwell be damned!
Leif Svalgaard
Again apologies for troubling you with basic questions that you have no doubt answered before but could yoy answer the following please:
Do you accept that, prima facie, there could be a correlation between geomagnetic activity and earth climate over the last ~150years as per the attached graph below?
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aastar07.jpg
Leif Svalgaard
Please forgive me for peppering you with questions but could I please be forgiven for asking one more –
Nagovitsyn (2006) reconstructed the aa index back over the last ~900 years:
Do you agree that solar grand minima – Wolf, Spoerer, Maunder and Dalton are correlated with historic lows in the aa index?
Al Gore is scheduled to speak this coming weekend at the meeting of the AAAS and AAPT. Why exactly he would be there except as a bad example I don’t know. I do know I decided to cancel my plans to go as a result.
The popularizing of pseudo science is not what AAAS should be doing. Am I the only one who decided to vote with my feet on this issue? If not let your organizations know.
Glaciers, Old Masters, and Galileo: The Puzzle of the Chilly 17th Century
By Drew Shindell — December 2002
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/
Shindell cites research he conducted along with Schmidt, Mann, Waple and published in Science, in 2002.
It’s reassuring to know that even these gentlemen agree that diminishied solar effects include sometimes profound changes on local climates. I’m assuming their models will also show the opposite.
Nick Yates (02:52:05) :
We’ve had one or two AGW advocates pounce on the horrendous bush fires that have hit Victoria in Australia, as evidence of ‘more extreme weather events’ due to global warming. We can still see smoke coming from the hills to the north of where we live. Only two weeks ago we visited a couple of the small towns that are no longer there. Poor people. At least some of the media here is being more objective and remiding us that extreme events are part of nature, and not to forget the human suffering involved.
Right, Nick – and we’ve had one or two articles on this blog talking about how cold it is in Maine or wherever.
PaulHClark (12:19:22) :
Do you accept that there is a correlation between the length of the short term (Schwabe) cycle and temperatures on earth?
Here is the basic data:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png
as solar cycle length is a slippery subject [the cycles overlap and there are multiple peaks and valleys even for one cycle] I plot both the length from max to max [blue] and from min to min [pink]. The temperature is in green. I don’t see any correlation.
PaulHClark (12:59:12) :
Do you accept that, prima facie, there could be a correlation between geomagnetic activity and earth climate over the last ~150years as per the attached graph below?
the graph is construction from the flawed aa-index. A better graph of the number of geomagnetic activity [using the Dst-index which is designed specifically to measure storms] is here http://www.leif.org/research/Storms150.png
here you can see what is wrong with the aa-index:
http://www.leif.org/research/Analysis%20of%20K=0%20and%201%20for%20aa%20and%20NGK.pdf
on page 7 I show the best estimate of geomagnetic activity that is available today. Note that activity from 1845 to 1875 is comparable to 1975-2005, while global temperature certainly is not as per http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png
PaulHClark (13:07:00) :
Nagovitsyn (2006) reconstructed the aa index back over the last ~900 years:
Do you agree that solar grand minima – Wolf, Spoerer, Maunder and Dalton are correlated with historic lows in the aa index?
He reconstructed the aa-index from solar activity [or proxies therefore] so solar minima correspond to aa-minima by definition, but since neither sunspots nor aa have anything to do with the climate, your interest in these exotic issues seems a bit misplaced…
Jon H (06:31:49) :
I’m not so sure sunspots are the only factor, with so many other items known and unquantifiable that play a roll. Still, I disagree with the idea of muzzling someone because you do not agree with how he preserves climate change.
This is typical of religion and not science.
I agree with you. People should not be muzzled or punished because they give an honest statement of what they believe to be true. Even if we don’t agree with them we should accept their right to their views and the rights they have as any citizen. Any call to destroy their career because of their conviction is deeply reprehensible.
Tell me, Jon, did you also object to the following post which called for Hansen’s resignation, because he gave his opinion at a trial where the defendants were found not guilty by a British jury? –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/
Ed Scott (12:47:27) :
In the absense of the Sun, what is the major climate driver?
The Earth and all that is upon it and in it and tugging at it.
Alan the Brit (08:48:44) :
Remove the heat & the bubbles die away, although whilst cooling the occasional small bubble still appears! This was explained to me by scientist I worked with at Rutherford Laboratory many years ago.
I like your analogy. Sometime ago, elsewhere I remarked ‘even pot of boiling water has a conveyor belt’ referring to NASA’s ‘Sunspots are magnetic knots that bubble up from the base of the conveyor belt’.
What I would add to the boiling pot analogy, it is more like a pressure cooker. Open pressure valve it will boil, close it boiling will stop. In the Sun’s case the pressure valve (the solar polar magnetic field) is opened and closed by a feedback from the planet’s magnetospheres interaction.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
Simon, I’m sure you can see the difference between a private citizen advocating a position on his own time vs a federal salaried employee using his position for advocacy.
Do you really think Hansen used vacation time to travel to the UK and testify?
If Hansen was a private citizen, he can say or do whatever he wants on his own time and deal with his own relationship to his employer. However, he is a federal salaried employee and his advocating vandalism while on the taxpayers’ clock would, in a sane world, be punishable by firing.
bill p (13:16:20) :
Shindell cites research he conducted along with Schmidt, Mann, Waple and published in Science, in 2002.
It’s reassuring to know that even these gentlemen agree that diminished solar effects include sometimes profound changes on local climates. I’m assuming their models will also show the opposite.
Shindell’s old paper used the obsolete Hoyt and Schatten TSI that had an order of magnitude too large variation back to the Maunder Minimum. His conclusions are therefore not valid [because of the GIGO effect].
Correction
should be : feedback from planets’ magnetospheres interaction.
(I blame MS Word’s auto spell checker)
Leif Svalgaard (13:49:58) :
Ed Scott (12:30:25) :
Leif Svalgaard
Leif, what part of the Earth’s climate works independent of the radiant energy from the Sun beside the Earth’s rotational energy and the internal heat energy?
———————-
Ed Scott (12:47:27) :
In the absense of the Sun, what is the major climate driver?
The Earth and all that is upon it and in it and tugging at it.
———————————
Leif, the Sun is somewhat responsible for everything upon the Earth, not necessarily responsible for what is in it, but is responsible for the major tug on the Earth. Does the Moon tug on the Earth or does the Earth tug on the Moon with the advantage to the larger tugger? (:-)
jeez (13:56:30) :
The post I linked to was put up after a jury had found the defendants not guilty. Therefore, your statement that Hansen was “advocating vandalism” is in conflict with the findings of the jury. Besides which, Hansen made no statement one way or the other at the trial as to whether he advocated the defendants actions or not – he testified as a witness to the effects of climate change as he understood them.
Regarding testifying as to ones views ‘on the taxpayers’ clock’, you are surely aware that there are many others paid by the public who have testified to the opposite intent? And are you really arguing that a defendant may not call upon an expert witness because that witness happens to be employed by the state rather than prtivately? I would guess that it’s highly likely that a high proportion or even the majority of expert witnesses who testify at trials are employed by the state. Would you have such testimony prohibited?
I don’t like witch-hunting on either side. I don’t like the Kos’s reaction to this, but I also don’t like what appears to me to be easy double standards. Hansen testified, and if in any way he behaved improperly then that is a matter for his employers and not a matter for those who didn’t like the jury’s verdict to call for his job. By the same token, if Ganahl ever acts improperly (which I don’t for an instant suggest he has) then that is also a matter for his employers. I trust that both sets of employers will respect a person’s right to express their honest views when called upon to do so.
Climate sensitivity of Earth to solar irradiance: update
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0411/0411002.pdf
We find the climate sensitivity to the 11-year variation in solar irradiance to be about twice that expected from a no-feedback Stefan-Boltzmann radiation balance model. This gain of a factor of two implies positive feedback. The analysis of the sensitivity includes a consistent determination of the dynamic factor and a newly recognized non-radiative flux factor. The volcano forcing sensitivity is also determined and negative feedback is indicated. Response times of the order of 3 months are found for both solar and volcano forcing. A linear trend in the data having a slope of 76±10 mK/decade is found.
vukcevic (13:52:57) :
In the Sun’s case the pressure valve (the solar polar magnetic field) is opened and closed by a feedback from the planet’s magnetospheres interaction.
Typo or not, such magnetic or electric feedback cannot travel upstream in a medium that is 11 times MHD supersonic. If the planets generate very energetic particles [which they do] these CAN travel upstream [like cosmic rays can]. but only [as for cosmic rays] with difficulty. The energy and amount of such planetary energetic particles are much, much smaller than those of GCRs and we have the usual mismatch between the energy needed for external control of the solar cycle and the energy available. Of course, in your and all the other cases, that never seems to deter such speculation. but the public is really not well served with this, unless marked with ‘for entertainment only’.
jeez,
I want to follow up my previous post with an illustration. Imagine, if you will, a state employed hospital doctor who testifies for the defence at a trial of a woman accused of murdering her husband. She has killed her husband, but her defence is one of diminished responsibilty owing to a history of physical abuse.
Whatever the outcome of the trial, there will be those who disagree with the verdict. Should the doctor’s job be on the line because he was ‘on the taxpayers’ clock’ when he testified?
Ed Scott (14:17:13) :
Climate sensitivity of Earth to solar irradiance: update
They find the 0.1 degree solar cycle signal that most other people also find and which I do not object to as it is compatible with reasonable physics.
Ed Scott (14:15:39) :
Ed Scott (12:30:25) :
what part of the Earth’s climate works independent of the radiant energy from the Sun beside the Earth’s rotational energy and the internal heat energy? —
the Sun is somewhat responsible for everything upon the Earth, not necessarily responsible for what is in it, but is responsible for the major tug on the Earth.
You are somewhat silly here as you know well [or should after visiting this blog] that there are many factors involved [e.g. ocean circulation]. As for the major climate tugger, it is not the Sun, but the planets that tug on the Earth’s orbit creating glaciations. Additionally, how about a good size impact for effect? Even if all these other effects only shuffle around energy originally coming from the Sun, we would still call that shuffle [i.e. the variations on top of the baseline] ‘climate’ if slow enough.
Gripegut (10:04:46) :
I read recently that the percentage of carbon 14 in the earth’s atmosphere changes with solar activity levels. Is there any way to use this information to get a history of solar activity, or am I mistaken?
Usoskin et al has recently developed the 14C graph going back 11000 years. There are many sources of data along with many corrections to allow for the carbon cycle, changes in earths geomagnetic field etc. Usoskin relies on solid work performed by Yang et al , Korte & Constable and others to perform his reconstruction. My research coming from a completely different area is also backing up Usoskin’s work. I find his graph more compelling than a few TSI records taken over the last 40 years and some re jigged proxy records.
My adaption of Usoskin’s graph here:
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/c14nujs1.jpg
Usoskin’s paper here:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/7704.pdf
The 10Be graph also lines up very nicely with Usoskin’s graph (needs mirroring):
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/holocenec1410be.jpg
Leif Svalgaard,
While I only have license to B.S. in Physics, I find the letter to Nature by Solanki to be fairly definitive:
http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25538
I don’t know if the difference in solar activity is “exceptional” compared to the period formerly known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, but it does seem to be higher.
While your unpublished research is interesting, the reasons Solanki has to be given more credence include the elimination of such things as definitions of sunspot numbers, especially since many of the sunspots of the past year probably would not even have been observable in some past centuries.
BTW, I found and read your paper on sorting algorithms and also found your very impressive work resume. The industry has changed greatly in the past 40 years, and it is virtually impossible for kids starting out to learn software on the job without any academic credentials, a shame to have that path now blocked. When I started out in the 70’s it was not unusual to run into folks without applicable degrees, and even with a degree in Physics it wasn’t a slam dunk to get past HR folks who could pattern match degree titles but little else.