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.”
More SC23 spots in January than SC24 spots and according to solarcycle24.com perhaps a new SC23 spot forming now….I am not so sure we can say SC24 has taken over yet.
Simon,
We are still free to criticisize Hansen and the other lords of AGW- so far.
Implying that it is OK for a scientist to not only call for the jailing of those who disagree with him, but who defends the criminal acts of others, is bad enough.
Asserting that we should not be free to comment on Hansen’s all too public behavior as he pursues and other aspects of his agenda is even worse.
Unless you agree with Hansen that disagreement on AGW is in fact a criminal offense.
U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D6C6D346-802A-23AD-436F-40EB31233026
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations “may now be near historic highs.” The alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. And the methodology of these computer models is being challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts.
hunter (15:03:15) :
Simon,
We are still free to criticisize Hansen and the other lords of AGW- so far.
Indeed so. I am interested in criticisms of his science and, frankly, disgusted by unproven defamations of his character.
Implying that it is OK for a scientist to not only call for the jailing of those who disagree with him
That is a misrepresentation. Roy Spencer disagrees with him, Richard Lindzen disagrees with him, and so on. He has called for no such thing. He has accused some of cynical misrepresentation in pursuit of self-interest, which does not translate as a matter of disagreeing with his views. Either he is right or he is wrong – if wrong, then he should face the consequences of defamation, just as all those here who engage in defamation should face such consequences if they are wrong. Do we agree?
but who defends the criminal acts of others, is bad enough.
The jury found the defendants not guilty. Therefore their acts were not criminal. You may have no respect for my country’s legal process, but I do. Your assertion that their acts were criminal in the face of the findings of a trial which, I presume, you did not attend, is highly contemptuous. But regardless, let us imagine that the defendants had been found to be guilty of criminal acts. This makes no difference. Hansen testified as to the effects of climate change, which he was called upon to do, he made no testimony as to a judgment on the acts of the defendants. The jury decided that, not him.
Asserting that we should not be free to comment on Hansen’s all too public behavior as he pursues and other aspects of his agenda is even worse.
I have made no such assertion – I have simply pointed out the hypocrisy of complaining about one witch-hunt whilst enthusiastically pursuing another.
Unless you agree with Hansen that disagreement on AGW is in fact a criminal offense.
I could hardly agree with something that Hansen has not said, and I certainly don’t agree with your distortion of what he has said.
Greg Goodknight (14:55:24) :
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.
If you look at Figure 2 of the Nature letter, you will see that the green curve [reconstruction] falls way below the red curve [Group sunspot number] and that therefore the statement that solar activity now [the past 100 years] is the highest ever relies on the Group Sunspot Number [GSN]. It is a common misconception that the GSN is a simple measure: you just count the big easy to see groups, but that is not correct. Each observer turns out to have his own personal factor that his count has to be adjusted by to ‘harmonize’ it with other observers. It is in this way that the GSN is spliced together over the centuries and every error is carried over into the next slice. I work closely with Ken Schatten [one the developers of the GSN] and he agrees with me that this problem exists.
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
40 years ago we invented many of the concepts that forms the basis for todays systems, see for example the RC4000 system on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC_4000_Multiprogramming_System
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (15:01:40) :
More SC23 spots in January than SC24 spots
No, one day with SC23 spots and five days with SC24 spots. SC24 rules.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (15:01:40) :
“More SC23 spots in January than SC24 spots and according to solarcycle24.com perhaps a new SC23 spot forming now….I am not so sure we can say SC24 has taken over yet.”
Now they are claiming it has been numbered. I don’t have a strong enough magnifying glass to see it. Kevin might be right on when he said “you guessed it”.
“Sunspot 1012
02/11/2009 by Kevin VE3EN at 23:30
Comment on Message Board
Sunspot 1012 was numbered today and is located towards the eastern limb. It is low in latitude and its magnetic signature indicates it is a Cycle 23 sunspot. Yesterday it produced a small B1 flare. How many days was it since the previous sunspot? You guessed it… 23.”
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
“Ken Hall (03:09:40) :
Re the ferocious forest fires in OZ… I believe that these fires are not caused by AGW, but actually by sick and insane people with matches or cigarette lighters deliberately setting fire to the kind of tinderbox dry bush that forms in every Oz heatwave. Yup, Humans are to blame for these fires, but because of insanity with matches, rather than the mass use of SUVs.”
Police suspect the bushfires in the Gippsland region of Victoria, Australia were deliberately lit, they are getting close to the suspects. I also undersdtand Police suspect that upto 50% of the other bush fires are “suspect” too. In fact, last Friday afternoon, there was no “fire storm”, then all-of-a-sudden, there was.
There is also the issue that local councils permit people to live in these rural, fire prone, areas however, do not allow them to clear down trees, bush and potential fuel. Native trees, Eucalyptus, generate a huge amount of fuel and it builds up year on year.
We’ve also had a rash of “scientists” on TV recently claiming that they “warned” us this would happen due to AGW. I don’t think starting a fire has anything to do with AWG, but is a nice earner for these alarmists.
It was a cool start to summer here in NSW, Australia, it got hot recently, for about two weeks on and off, now it’s cool again, 21c max today.
Leif Svalgaard (14:46:39) :
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.
————————————————————
I am unfamiliar with meaning of climate tugger, so I can not comment.
Silly me for believing that the Sun’s gravitational “tug” on the Earth maintains the Earth in its orbit around the Sun.
Silly me for believing that the Sun does provide the energy that sustains life on Earth.
Silly me for believing that the Sun is the predominate driver of climate on Earth, apparently a view with which you agree judging by your saying “Even if all these other effects only shuffle around energy originally coming from the Sun.”
I dare say an impact would heat things up, but that is not a cyclical event as far as astronomical cycles are known. It is far more likely that the Yellowstone Caldera would burp and cover the neighborhood with ash.
I visit this blog several times daily and am well aware of the many factors discussed. Besides those phenomena driven by the Earth’s rotation the remainder seem to be related to the Sun or Cosmic Rays. My concern is, and always will be, that the global warming/climate change is not by man-made CO2 emissions. That is the only climate issue that will have a long term detrimental economic and political effect on the futures of my great grandchildren.
I generally avoid the Ad Hominem.
Somewhat OT, but I just saw one of these ads on Foxnews by americansforprosperity.org. Pretty good Gore slam, and pretty direct for a MSM broadcast…
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/021009-afp-launches-virginia-ads
So what are the official sunspot numbers for January 2009?, I have read in forums that SC23 spots out numbered SC24?
BTW… its official we have another SC23 spot, further backing up David Archibald’s statements.
Michael D. Smith,
I guess those videos were a little too direct for an MSM broadcast. They’ve already been removed.
Black Saturday: The Sequel by Steve Pyne http://tinyurl.com/byw5s7
… But even heat waves do not kindle fires of themselves, and cyclonic winds do not drive fire in the same way they do storm surges. Fire is not a physical substance: it is a reaction. It feeds on the vegetation, and whatever climatic forces exist must be integrated into that combustible biomass. Fire, that is, synthesizes its surroundings. Understand its setting, and you understand fire. Control that setting, and you control fire.
Green ideas must take blame for deathsby Miranda Devine, Sydney Morning Herald, February 12, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/db8q8z
It wasn’t climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn’t arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.
Environmental Policies Kill – Again! by Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute, February 11, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/c6tzzy
… It’s called bushfire season for a reason: the bush catches fire. If you want to reduce the effects, you cut back the bush. Policies that stop this are criminally dangerous.
Fuelish in the Land of Oz by Mike Dubrasich, W.I.S.E. http://tinyurl.com/a9paff
For the last 40,000 years (at least, some say 60,000) the residents of Australia have been “burning off the bush.” Anthropogenic fire was perfected in Australia, if not invented there. … Tackling climate change, however, will not do diddly to prevent bushfires. The climate has changed, dramatically, over the the last 40,000 to 60,000 years, yet Aussie bush fires have persisted throughout all those hoary millennia.
Phil Cheney. 2008. Can forestry manage bushfires in the future? Australian Forestry 2008 Vol. 71 No. 1 pp. 1–2 http://tinyurl.com/a9paff
If the trend in Victoria extends elsewhere and fire management is placed it in the hands of the politicians and their emergency services organisations that focus on suppression by back-burning from strategic firebreaks, we can expect that large areas will be burnt severely in summer, perpetuating the myth of megafires.
Rather than set up the organisation and training for an effective prescribed burning program, it is far easier, I guess, to attribute the bushfires to God and climate change.
Greg Goodknight (08:01:51) :
It was Svensmark’s citation of Shaviv & Veizer (2003) in his Cosmoclimatology article that was my epiphany: when two completely separate physical sciences arrive at the same point, one should take note.
Well put, Greg. That is indeed parsimony in science. I highly recommend Svensmark’s new book, The Chilling Star, which includes summary of Shaviv’s work on the role that the earth’s migration through the arms of the milky way galaxy has had on long range climate shifts. The case seems very convincing, and is consistent with the mechanism Svensmark proposed for the correlation between climate and the shorter 11 — and now say Lanscheidt, Nobwainer et al — 172 year solar cycles. Watch out for the coming freeze.
Question – if the Sun is less 0.1% responsible for climate, then if we changed our star from a yellow one to say a white dwarf would our climate remain the same? What about a Red Giant (assuming our distance was maintained)?
Hey, I am in Columbus, Ohio. Jym is one of the local weathermen. Okay, I don’t watch much TV these days (I get the weather online).
I just sent an email to the VP General Manager in defense of Mr. Ganahl.
The Police have done very well….
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/750345/arsonists-lit-churchill-fire-nixon
You mean Noah Wylie and the WWF are, *gasp*, lying when they tell me on TV that polar bears are facing extinction?? How can that be? It’s on TV, it must be true!!
/sarcasm
Greg Goodknight (08:01:51) :
Geochemist Jan Veizer had made a determination of the ocean’s temperatures over the 550 million year Phanerozoic, but it didn’t correlate with CO2 or anything else he knew of and was close to abandoning his line of research when astrophysicist Nir Shaviv noticed that Veizer’s temperatures pretty much matched his research into our solar system’s orbit around the galaxy. Galactic cosmic ray flux correlates well with the great temperature swings, from hot house to snowball Earth. The galactic cosmic ray connection with clouds is a far more plausible explanation for 20th century warming than CO2.
It was Svensmark’s citation of Shaviv & Veizer (2003) in his Cosmoclimatology article that was my epiphany: when two completely separate physical sciences arrive at the same point, one should take note.
IT SHOULD BE!!!!! but the truth is often over looked. another co2 dr pepper please.
Smokey, after you get the “removed” message, go to the bottom of the screen,
left side, and click on the video.
The insanity of it all…
http://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html
I am left to wonder how some people can focus on small changes in TSI and anything else the Sun sends our way while ignoring the overwhelming powerful temperature changes that the jet stream and ocean temperatures and currents bring to land. People die, not by the Sun’s small changes, but by jet stream loops allowing Arctic air to gouge out huge areas of the northern hemisphere and bury it in icy, wintry blasts, that can seasonally last for as long as the jet stream and oceanic cycle allows. So here is a suggestion. Let’s get a handle on Earth’s cycles (heck, knowledge of oceanic temperature and current cycles is still on mother’s milk), and then we can better understand whether or not the Sun does anything but smile at us.
Leif Svalgaard – As a non-scientist with some scientific education in my two degrees I find some of this to very confusing.
So, if the Sun was to suddenly go dark, are you saying the effect on our climate would be minimal? I know most life would perish because the Sun drives photosynthesis which supplies most of the energy to most living things. Does this mean the planet’s overall temperature would remain at liveable levels without the Sun? If so, ingenious humans would be able to use technology to maintain plant life thru artificial illumination. We could reside in contained habitats, growing food, while venturing outdoors when need be (with flashlights, of course) without concern for declining temperatures or skin cancer.
Despite all you say about the planet’s interior, tides, etc. , when I’m outdoors on a sunny day in July visiting South Florida, I get the unscientific perception that somehow the Sun is heating things up. I guess I must be wrong.
By the way, my above comment is equally applied to the CO2 AGW side of the debate. The ponds to your left and right, and the jet stream highway should be studied, debated, and understood before the CO2 minutia is dissected.
Thanx, Mr. T in T. Got it.
Also, this is the email & response that I sent, and received, after reading this article:
—–Original Message—–
From: “Smokey”
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:05 PM
To: Rogala, Richard E.
cc: Ganahl, Jym R.
Subject: Daily Kos smear
Dear Mr. Rogala,
The weather and climate related website WattsUpWithThat.com won this year’s Weblog Awards for Best Science site. I can assure you that WattsUpWithThat [WUWT] has a preponderance of highly educated commenters with advanced degrees in the hard sciences, including several with international reputations
who post regularly.
It is with dismay that I read of the political site Daily Kos demanding the head of your long time employee Jym Ganahl, for simply giving his informed opinion. I trust you will do the right thing, and disregard those who try to silence anyone whose political opinion is not the same as theirs.
If you happen to visit WUWT, you will see that others who state that the repeatedly falsified anthropogenic global warming [AGW] hypothesis is not true have also come under attack by Daily Kos and similar blogs. None of these attacks were successful, and I’m sure you do not want to be the first to show that you would cave under this kind of pressure.
Demanding that someone must lose their job for having an opinion is absolutely contrary to American principles of justice. I would ask that you go beyond simply waiting for this minor tempest to blow over [which it soon will], and take a stand in favor of publicly discussing why global temperatures continue to decline at the same time that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise.
The sad fact is that the proponents of the falsifed AGW hypothesis refuse to debate it, and by their silence they encourage the Daily Kos and others to rabble-rouse. This is not science; this is mob advocacy. Again, I ask you to take a public stand against this attempted lynching of your fine meteorologist.
Sincerely yours,
Smokey [I signed my real name. “Smokey” is my wife’s big gray tomcat.]
[Response]:
From: JGanahl@wcmh.com
Subject: RE: Daily Kos smear
Date: February 11, 2009 6:32:11 PM PST
To: [Ahem… “Smokey”]
I am honored and humbled that you would go to bat for me. Actually all I was doing was trying to educate a reporter simply and measured without any thought it would be published and no idea it would cause a firestorm. I have heard from people in 12 countries which stuns me actually. I can’t thank you enough for being out there.
Jym Ganahl
[IMHO, a lot of the responses from the “12 countries” is due to WUWT, which has a large international following. Thank you Anthony for helping out a fellow meteorologist.]
When that was shot down [the interplanetary magnetic field is now back to was it was 107 years ago], it is cosmic rays, except that the cosmic ray flux at minima has been rock steady since the 1950s [when our first good data starts]. Also, the cosmic rays were supposed to influence the albedo, except that albedo the last 20 years has not varied with the cosmic rays [or solar activity]. – Leif Svalgaard
I went back to the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station to have a look at the cosmic ray count since 1968. It appears (to me) to be cycling +/- 10-15% around its baseline value. And the peaks appear to roughly correspond with sunspot minima, and the troughs with sunspot maxima. Which is, as I understand it, part of Svensmark’s argument. What do you mean by “the cosmic ray flux at minima”? On the graph I’m looking at, the minima don’t seem to be “rock steady” at all. Two of the four minima in my 3-monthly graph are at 5% below zero, another 10% below, and the other 15% below. And cosmic ray flux right now, during a sunspot minimum, is the highest in the past 40 years.
I’ve not seen a website that provides a graphic display of the Earth’s albedo (is there one?), so I can’t comment. But Svensmark’s theory seems to be that the cosmic rays form condensation nuclei on hitting the Earth’s atmosphere, so that there would be more clouds than there might be otherwise. It isn’t necessarily that cosmic rays entirely account for cloud cover. Other processes are no doubt influential as well. But then this is, as I understand it, the bit of Svensmark’s theory about which there is some doubts, and an experiment is under way at CERN to find out whether cosmic rays actually do create condensation nuclei. Do you know when the results are likely to be published?
….
On the topic of notable climate sceptics, please don’t forget the current EU president, Vaclav Klaus! He is a constant irritant to alarmists.
Czech President Questions Global Warming Yet Again As He Attacks Al Gore’s Climate Campaign
World leaders, and skeptics especially, must understand that it’s not just about the rising temperatures or melting ice caps or record weather fluctuations around the globe. Investing in green technologies would not only create jobs and kick start the tanking economies but would also help countries to improve their air, water and land qualities – a recent study found that even the European countries do not meet the set air quality standards.
So there you are, then. It’s about kickstarting tanking economies as much as anything else.