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.”
Don’t feel too bad; getting speared in the other paper is like being the father of Anna Nicole Smiths baby. Everybody’s heard it, nobody really cares.
It is a shame though, that a video of three guys talking candidly about issues was posted (for one), and then used to create sensationalist news. Those are his beliefs on global warming, he’s not out evangelizing the sunspot theory of global warming. Nor would I say he’s preaching global cooling.
And to answer the astronomy questions posted above by Lance:
The sun won’t be gaining energy, it will in fact be losing energy. However as a star progresses through it’s life cycle, it burns different elements for fuel. Each element causes changes in the stars size, heat, and density. At the end of its life, a star is desperately searching for fuel and will attempt to use iron in the fusion process. This causes the star to swell in size. Why iron causes that swelling, I do not know.
But given the size of other red giants in the galaxy, it’s a safe bet that the earth will be in the sun when that happens. It isn’t an issue of the suns gravity getting stronger.
And with all things that are billions of years old (stars, galaxies, evolution) it’s just a best guess theory. In fifty years we’ll probably find a new one
Leif,
Just come out and say it- Is CO2 in your opinion a greater climate driver than solar activity?
The answer is going to unfold in the years ahead. But I’d to know your answer now.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (00:42:44) :
Wow Geoff, that’s an impressive chart at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2008/11/995-2985ssb.jpg .
Guest article material if you ask me. I know I’ve seen it before – did you have a guest article about this here or did I find it myself based on previous links? Looks like far more than coincidence to me! Great stuff! I’ll repeat the page link: http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
I have no problem seeing how angular momentum could cause shear / spin effects in the sun’s circulation, much like any other tidal effect. Reading up…
Michael D Smith (04:06:32) :
Thanks Michael, I am not sure Anthony would use my material in a guest article, although I would be happy to have my theory cross examined by the more than capable intellects (mostly) on this blog. This area of science is seen on the fringe at present, but I am happy to wait, the Grand Minimum is not far away.
Ross (00:16:31) :
Here is a fuller quotation:
Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming. CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children.
It is evident that what Hansen considers to be criminal is not disagreement with him but the methodical spreading of doubts in the interest of protecting special interests. As I’ve said, he’s either right or wrong, and if wrong then he has specifically defamed the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody. If it is true, however, that such figures have been deliberately spreading what they know to be disinformation in order to protect their interests, then it seems to me they are culpable, just as agents who spread disinformation about a stock to the markets would be culpable.
Regarding the protestors, I’ve already said that it actually makes no difference whether or not they’d been found guilty. Their guilt or innocence was irrelevant to the status of Hansen’s testimony, which was about global warming and not about an interpretation of the law.
Had a return email from Jym in response to my email of support. He has heard from people in 12 countries and says “that has amazed and stunned me.
I am grateful for the support – so much. Thanks”
Nice job WUWTers!
“CO2 is a bit player in this.”
We’re obliged to you for plain, unequivocal speech.
Leif Svalgaard (08:12:55) :
The “It’s the Sun, stupid” attitude is just as dogmatic and dangerous as the AGW propagit. While there may be [but not generally accepted – after 400 years of claims] a slight [0.1 degree] solar component in the Earth’s temperature, it is clear that the Sun is not a major climate driver.
anna v (20:48:37) :
Let us make the analogy of an open pot of water on the fire. The sun is the heating pad and after a while the only “climate” in the pot is “boiling”. Suppose the thermostat is kept just below the boiling point. There will be currents in the pot, water circulating , ready to bubble but not enough. Put a cover on. The water starts boiling. What changed the pot climate? The heating pad? The heating pad heats steadily, but we get a drastic change in the “climate” of the pot because of the cover and the changes in pressure/temperature it induces.
Anna V,
I appreciate the explanation. It clears things up a great deal. But when Leif said the heating pad (Sun) is not a major climate driver, it appears to mean that the Sun is not a factor.
And Landscheidt was indeed an astrologer, which sorta queers things a bit… – idlex
Perhaps you should inform yourself before passing judgment. May I suggest you start here….. allow yourself a couple of days. – nobwainer
I haven’t passed judgment. I just said it “sorta queers things a bit”. I was responding to Leif’s implied comparison of AGW and ‘astrology’. I think I understood what he meant by ‘astrology’ – Landscheidt.
But Kepler was an astrologer too. Should I ignore all that stuff of his about elliptical orbits because of that? And Newton was an alchemist. And, for good measure, he spent a lot of time analysing the Bible, and worked out that the world would end in around, oh, 1850. Should I dismiss his laws of motion and gravity because of that? I guess I think that any idea stands on in its own merits, rather than because of who thought of it.
And Landscheidt’s ideas about the angular momentum of the sun seem intuitively (to me) to be quite promising. I’m currently slowly piecing together a simulation model of the solar system, partly so as to look at Landscheidt’s notions a bit more closely, partly to look at a few other things. I’ve already succeeded in replicating his motion of the sun around the barycentre, and I may have replicated his figures for the sun’s changing angular momentum. That’s as far as I’ve got. I haven’t come to any conclusion about it one way or the other. The jury’s still out as far as I’m concerned. My main interest at the moment is to get a little spinning earth into my simulation, and I’ve been having trouble finding out which way to point it because astronomers seem to use different reference frames for more or less everything, and it’s a bit tricky to translate one reference frame into another. But that’s just where I’m at right now…
Ed Scott (17:06:55) :
I am unfamiliar with meaning of climate tugger, so I can not comment.
You only pretend to be unfamiliar. You have undoubtedly heard about Milankovich Cycles of glaciations. These are caused by the planets tugging gently at the Earth and altering its orbital parameters.
Leif, silly you. I thought that you knew that the dynamic interaction between bodies in the Universe is commonly referred to as gravitation. I guess not.
I posted an article on this forum concerning the Malinkovich Cycles and suggested the possible extension of analogous cycles of the Solar System with regard to the Milky Way Galaxy.
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.”
Yes, indeed, silly, if you believe that these things have anything to do with the climate.
I have heard that the definition of climate is the weather averaged over a long period of time. Climate is also dependent on latitude, elevation, ocean influence, continental atmospheric effect and terrain (mountains; hills). So, the Sun’s orbit around the Sun has nothing to do with climate? The Sun’s radiant energy has no effect on the Earth’s climate? The logical assumption is, therefore, the Sun has nothing to with weather.
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.
So, you are saying that the solar effects will have a long term detrimental economic and political effect on the futures of my great grandchildren and AGW will not. Well, if solar cooling is really coming, we better do something about it, like try to increase AGW if we possibly can.
A clever attempt at a straw-man and a deliberate misinterpretation of what I wrote (the global warming/climate change is NOT by man-made CO2 emissions). I said nothing about long-term solar effects and nothing about solar cooling. When I write or speak I do not need assistance, yet. (:-)
Is Dr. Solanki’s formula for group-counting somehow different from anyone else’s? I would imagine that he or the Max Plank Institute for Solar System Research publish their method in some sort of supplementary reference to their paper for the purposes of transparency.
Ed Scott (08:18:18) :
Silly me
It is hard to tell who is the silliest 🙂
But I’ll let you win that contest.
So, the Earth’s orbit around the Sun has nothing to do with climate? The Sun’s radiant energy has no effect on the Earth’s climate? The logical assumption is, therefore, the Sun has nothing to with weather.
I think your statement is an accurate assessment of the facts.
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.
“My concern is that X is NOT Y. Q is the only X that will have Z.”
So trying to understand what Q is, I have these options:
A: Q = NOT Y
B: Q = Y
My interpretation was A [Q = NOT Y], namely ‘the climate change that is NOT the result of man-made emissions’. Since you seem to be a solar enthusiast, I assumed that you consider the Sun to be the cause of climate change, hence my statement. Now you are telling me that I was wrong, so I’ll try option B [Q = Y], namely that you are concerned about the climate change that IS the result of man-made emissions. In that case, perhaps the Sun is less important.
bill p (09:00:30) :
Is Dr. Solanki’s formula for group-counting somehow different from anyone else’s?
No, it is the same as he just uses the group sunspot number already given by Hoyt and Schatten, and thus takes over their error.
Likewise Tom. A very nice note from Jym. What I mentioned was any system that denies fair and open discussion of science because it challenges “their” theory – is not science. And it is not democratic.
Not mentioned to Jym but appropriate for this forum is the recent Raspopov et al, 2008 study of the 210 year solar de Vries cycle. These researchers from China, Russia, Finland and Switzerland found the existence of the solar cycle in paleoclimatic data in Europe, North and South America, Asia, Tasmania, Antarctica and the Arctic, and ocean sediment. These data caused them to conclude:
There is “a pronounced influence of solar activity on global climatic processes” related to “temperature, precipitation and atmospheric and oceanic circulation.” And the paper indicates the climate response to the de Vries cycle has been found to occur not only during the last millennia but also in earlier epochs, up to hundreds of millions years ago.
http://tinyurl.com/cuumpt
While Jym may be off on his “sunspot” theory – according to this research he’s on the money with solar influence.
It is my understanding that the reason for different climates on Earth is mainly due to Earth’s obliquity and to a lesser extent Earth’s wobble and the slight changes in eccentricity of the orbit. These factors affect the solar isolation at different points of the Earth’s surface which gives us our seasons and climate. Then you must add or subtract the effects of albedo changes due to various reasons. Through all this the Sun itself doesn’t change very much so I think I understand where Leif is coming from. But then again, maybe I don’t.
Sorry. The URL compressor failed. Here’s a link to the Raspopov, et al abstract:\
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6R-4PXM6KD-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=873f608584c30aafdba6ac1a2e921713
“The influence of the de Vries (not, vert, similar 200-year) solar cycle on climate variations: Results from the Central Asian Mountains and their global link”
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 259, Issue 1, 17 March 2008, Pages 6-16
Leif Svalgaard (10:06:01)
So, the Earth’s orbit around the Sun has nothing to do with climate? The Sun’s radiant energy has no effect on the Earth’s climate? The logical assumption is, therefore, the Sun has nothing to with weather.
I think your statement is an accurate assessment of the facts.
You have added absurdity to your silliness.
Since you seem to be a solar enthusiast, I assumed that you consider the Sun to be the cause of climate change, hence my statement.
You assume incorrectly, as you are prone to do, about my enthusiasm and I have duly noted that you are again putting words in my mouth, so to speak, by saying that I consider the Sun to be the cause of climate change. There is a difference between effect and change.
“…the climate change that IS the result of man-made emissions.” No. Circle the block again.
Your arguments are circular, in addition to your proclivity for inventing straw-men. (:-)
Leif Svalgaard (23:16:03) :
” damage to power stations ”
So if the solar storm’s have no way to change climate, by not adding power.
how can we blow up million watt power stations?
I await your answer, BTW I have a degree in power systems.
Ed Scott (12:51:24) :
I’m simply trying to understand what you are saying:
“My concern is that X is NOT Y. Q is the only X that will have Z.”
So trying to understand what Q is, I have these options:
A: Q = NOT Y
B: Q = Y
My interpretation was A [Q = NOT Y], namely ‘the climate change that is NOT the result of man-made emissions’. Since you seem to be a solar enthusiast, I assumed that you consider the Sun to be the cause of climate change, hence my statement. Now you are telling me that I was wrong, so I’ll try option B [Q = Y], namely that you are concerned about the climate change that IS the result of man-made emissions. In that case, perhaps the Sun is less important.
—-
If I get this wrong then please parse your statement for me. Is it case A or case B?
So, the Earth’s orbit around the Sun has nothing to do with climate?
Then explain how the Earth’s orbit around the Sun [and it isunderstood that we are talking Milankovich here, just the regular yearly cycling] changes climate.
The Sun’s radiant energy has no effect on the Earth’s climate?
Then explain how the constant [to 0.1%] solar radiant energy changes climate.
Tim L (13:18:40) :
So if the solar storm’s have no way to change climate, by not adding power. how can we blow up million watt power stations?
I await your answer, BTW I have a degree in power systems.
In that case you tell me then.
Here is my version. The solar storms can create large dB/dt [induction] in very localized regions. In the presence of suitable conductors [e.g. East-West power lines] very large currents results which melts transformers etc. It is not an energy question.
I’m glad I found out the Sun has no effect on the Earths climate reading this thread. This means that the chemical bonds which hold together the carbon we burn which cause global warming are manmade too. It’s the extraterestrial carbon atom that’s to blame. Ban the carbon atom.
I sent an email of support to Jym and got the following reply:
********************************************************************
You would be amazed at the number of e-mails from Texas….my sister lives in Keller, I was in the Army at Fort Hood.
Thanks for the laugh – I actually thought with the kooks trying to get me fired, I should load a few weapons in the home for the first time ever.
Sad that it has come to that because all I was saying is we should celebrate warming and not curse it because the alternative is worse.
When we can grow food to feed people governments do better than when they are starving and for that I got attacked. So thank you much!
Shoot a target for me.
Jym Ganahl
From: Jon Jewett
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 6:05 PM
To: Ganahl, Jym R.
Subject: Thank you
…..for standing up and speaking truth to power.
I read about you here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/10/daily-kos-whips-up-an-email-campaign-agains-meteorologist-who-spoke-candidly-about-climate-change/
They suggest that you could use some moral support.
If you ever get to Austin TX, give me a call. We can eat BBQ, shoot guns, and go to a rousing bible thumping church.
(And all of those other red neck things the liberal elite think we do-like drink beer!)
Regards,
Jon
Leif Svalgaard (13:46:40) :
Here is my version. The solar storms can create large dB/dt [induction] in very localized regions. In the presence of suitable conductors [e.g. East-West power lines] very large currents results which melts transformers etc. It is not an energy question.
large dB/dt [induction] very large currents results which melts transformers etc.
I think we have solved the energy crisis! It dose not take power to make induction in wire to make electric (power) for homes and industry.
This is exactingly the circular logic that will kill our society.
BTW it takes large amounts of power to induce current into wire.
A 0.1% change in solar seems like a much more plausible driver than a 0.01% change in composition of the atmosphere by a trace gas with absorption bands mostly overlapping H20 (like CO2).
Leif, when I look at the sun’s various outputs, (magnetic, irradiance at different bands, solar wind, etc), I see some of them vary quite a lot over a solar cycle. Isn’t it plausible that some of the other factors that do vary a lot have an interaction with other physical systems that do have an impact on climate? It seems completely counterintuitive to dismiss such effects when they seem to be strongly correlated with climate, just because we might not understand the underlying physical processes. So from what I understand of your many posts, other people have made such hypotheses about (insert solar variation influence on climate here) in the past, with some explanation and physical process, and in a nutshell, every single one has been shot down… Right? So, when is it time to give up on solar variation of any kind as a climate driver? (short term to million year scale, not red giant stuff)…
Just out of curiosity, what has been the approximate change in irradiance since, say, 1 million years ago? Thanks.
Tim L (16:38:03) :
BTW it takes large amounts of power to induce current into wire.
No. A few TeraWatt are enough.
Well Mr. Evans you have the right to parse Hansen’s statements anyway you wish and, while I agree with some of your posted points, it seems clear to me that Hansen thinks that he “knows” [in an absolute sense] that he is right and, therefore the “special interests” must be wrong for not following his “advice.”
Therefore “…these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
Why should those [CEOs] who do not believe as Mr. Hansen believes [knows] be prosecuted for anything with regard to AGW? ( I am not asserting that you think they should be prosecuted)
As I said, his quotes speak for themselves.