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.”
I am so glad I returned to this thread; I was hungry for more discussion re the sun’s influence on earth and the sun’s part in the chaos that is earth’s weather and climate. What have I learned? Well, Leif, you are a real spoil-sport to our (my) desire to make the sun the “driver” (whatever that means). You hold our feet to the fire regarding thinking clearly with ALL the evidence. Thanks. I am working at the task, but you do not make it easy. And I hope some of your analysis is wrong because it is so counter-intuitive. After all, we appear to live on a still, flat earth.
Paul (14:07:52) :
I’m glad I found out the Sun has no effect on the Earths climate reading this thread.
That’s why we have been voted ‘Best Science Blog’. You get stuff here that you can’t get anywhere else.
Michael D Smith (16:58:08) :
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?
They all have an impact, it is just that the impact is too small to worry about.
dismiss such effects when they seem to be strongly correlated with climate
That is just the point, there is no strong correlation. People say there is, or have heard there is, or believe there is, or want there to be one, or need desperately such a correlation, or invent one, but that does not make one. If there be such a strong correlation, we should all be able to accept it without further discussion and to quantify it, and demonstrate it in a straightforward way. I look forward to such a demonstration as it would make the funding situation for my science a whole lot better. Bring it on!
every single one has been shot down… Right?
not quite, because believe weirds things regardless.
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)…
The time is now, because otherwise we might make decisions based on faulty science. Note that a strong solar driver is necessary for the AGW argument, since they need an explanation for the LIA, the MWP, and other natural climate excursions.
Just out of curiosity, what has been the approximate change in irradiance since, say, 1 million years ago?
+0.07 W/m2.
BTW it takes large amounts of power to induce current into wire.
No. A few TeraWatt are enough.
Science humor is great…….
Ross (17:45:41) :
Simon Evans (05:48:29) :
Ross (00:16:31) :
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.
Ross, I think we can see that we are not going to agree very much, but we have both put our points, so let’s agree to differ. I will say that if anyone – Hansen or anyone else – has been guilty of deliberately misleading the public then they are seriously at fault.
Going back to the original post, I think the Daily Kos item was really stupid. Mind you, it was calling for ‘education’ and not actually calling for the guy’s job. I am discomfited by calls here for Hansen’s head (and an encouragement to an email campaign to that effect) because he testified as an expert witness in a court case. Regardless of whether or not people agree with him, I think it is a perilous risk to liberty to promote such a reaction. I also happen to think that Hansen was rash (and certainly not politically adroit) in saying what he did. If his statements were without foundation then they were entirely wrong. I don’t know how to make a judgment on that question, but I certainly don’t accept the unsubstantiated insinuations that are regularly promulgated on this site that he is himself engaged in deliberate distortion. I think I should leave the matter there for now.
Leif
I accept that you think that cyclic changes in the sun do not affect the climate significantly. Do you think that human CO2 emissions do or will affect the climate?
I’m sorry but as this thread discusses solar activity and influence on climate – can anyone rebut the finding of Raspopov, et al ?? This team’s paper draws a fairly conclusive opinion that the de Vries solar cycle has had significant impact on climate – and for many millions of years. We’re talking climate on Earth, of course.
“but I certainly don’t accept the unsubstantiated insinuations that are regularly promulgated on this site that he is himself engaged in deliberate distortion. I think I should leave the matter there for now.”
The fossil record tells us that for a few hundred million years the Earth had 3-5 times more CO2 and 5-10C more temperature during which time the biosphere was extremely healthy.
Any idea that rising CO2 or temperature is bad for the Earth is obviously and blatantly wrong in the light of this fact.
That Hansen testified in court as to the disasters of man-made CO2 show the man, and any of his supporters to be deliberate liars or morons, take your pick.
Weatherman Jym Ganahl was interviewed and gave his honest opinion on the subject. Unless proven otherwise, he is still entitled to his opinion and to share it. The interview was hardly the perfect stage to debate science and that goes without saying or it should. What however is disturbing is the campaign to have him removed from his job. What’s next? Should he wear a “green” star on his jacket? This is pure and simple totalitarian behaviour from some activists, condoned by a larger group that included people such as Marie Hinge. These methods that we know all to well led to terrible events in Europe mid XX century. Wake up people!
Jeff Id (18:01:15) :
“BTW it takes large amounts of power to induce current into wire.
No. A few TeraWatt are enough.”
Science humor is great…….
Not an attempt at humor. Storms this strong occur perhaps once per decade. The power of an average hurricane is 100 times larger and there are about 500 of these per decade.
Jack (18:30:41) :
I accept that you think that cyclic changes in the sun do not affect the climate significantly. Do you think that human CO2 emissions do or will affect the climate?
Absolutely, the only question is how much. Perhaps a degree at the end of the century, but this is really not known with any degree of confidence as there are many factors in play [yes, even a small solar contribution]. In the far past, the Earth was 5-10 degrees warmer with 30-50 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere. So, perhaps 5 to 6 doublings can give us 5-10 degrees. I guess we [some of us, possibly] shall see how much a doubling yields. BTW, I think GW is good for us. Warm is better than cold.
Pragmatic (19:07:00) :
can anyone rebut the finding of Raspopov, et al ?
I’m not going to pay to read yet-another-conclusive-paper, find a link to it.
BTW it takes large amounts of power to induce current into wire.
No. A few TeraWatt are enough.
Interestingly enough,a few terrwatt is the mechanical energy required for meridional overturning cell (MOC) in the oceans.
Ocean mixing (turbidity) is thought to control the climatically important oceanic overturning circulation.
“Munk, W. and C. Wunsch. 1998.Argue winds and tides provide about 1 TW each to mixing, resulting in a total power that is a substantial fraction, and perhaps all, of the energy apparently needed to mix the deep ocean.Although this number is likely uncertain to a factor of two, St. Laurent and Simmons (2006) use an independent technique and find a comparable, if higher, bulk dissipation (_2.4 TW). To obtain the total energy flux through the system, these numbers must be augmented by an additional 20% “
Simon Evans:
I think most people calling for Hansen’s head would like to see him gone because he straddles a very thin line between merely being a concerned public servant and an ideologue using his public position in order to advocate political persecution against environmental heresy. The fact that he even involved himself in a trial thousands of miles away in support for a cause in which environmentalist “advocates” got clean away with an illegal act makes Hansen more than just a guy issuing public opinions about wrong doings. Especially since neither Hansen nor anyone else has even proven a crisis exists for which somebody has to be criminal liable anyway!
Should Hansen be fired? I think he should be muzzled since it is clear that he speaks out turn as it regards to who should be on trial for what. If he continues to issue unfounded accusations after receiving such a warning, then he needs to be shown the door.
@Leif:
I rather think it is up to you to demonstrate that this peer reviewed paper is “wrong.” Or is the access issue a way to avoid reconciling the data?
We have in this study empirical data demonstrating a major influence of solar activity on Earth’s climate. Prove them wrong.
Pragmatic (22:31:14) :
There is not much point giving a citation that no one has access to. The fact that the paper refers to the “de Vries solar cycle” is not a good start. Post a free link and you might get some response.
@Leif:
I assume that you think the following (rough) solar-sunspot correlation, using an 11 year average of data since 1850 (!), is coincidental:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/mean:132/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:132/scale:0.010/offset:-0.8
BTW, of course the correlation is not perfect, since there are many other things affecting our climate. CO2 may even play a small role 🙂
Reply: I’m not sure if Star Trek references are a violation of blog policy, but perhaps they should be. Anthony? ~ charles the moderator
But who will moderate the moderators?
Reply: beep ~ captain pike the moderator
Chris H (00:57:37) :
I assume that you think the following (rough) solar-sunspot correlation,
What correlation? some people would take your graph to be strong support for AGW.
Geoff Sharp – thanks for reminding me about citation etiquette. Here’s the author’s personal copy:
http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/Raspopov_2008_PPP.pdf
Leif – please pardon the unnecessary tone in my last post.
While Raspopov has several suggestions for the phase shift Δt (years), the periodicity in his data suggests the 200 year cycle has played a role in climate.
Hi Leif,
What do you think about the good correlation between South African flood cycles and the sun or between the Nile level reconstruction and solar proxies over several thousand years ? (I can find the papers ref. if asked).
Leif Svalgaard (20:59:49) :
“Pragmatic (19:07:00) :
can anyone rebut the finding of Raspopov, et al ?”
I’m not going to pay to read yet-another-conclusive-paper, find a link to it.
It is paleoclimatology, the Raspopov that I found:
http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/Raspopov_2008_PPP.pdf
I think all these people finding correlations in various time series should make the effort to go through a course on chaos and fractals.
Leif Svalgaard (17:52:51) :
That is just the point, there is no strong correlation. People say there is, or have heard there is, or believe there is, or want there to be one
Here’s the short term one:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2009/mean:43/detrend:0.6/offset:0.35/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1965/to:2009/mean:12/scale:0.001
Smoothe the temp data at 1/3 solar cycle length and all is revealed. You need to allow a bit of a detrend on the temp data to allow for the longer term process of heat release from the oceans, but apart from that, the data isn’t heavily messed with.
And here’s the long term one:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:80/detrend:0.5/offset:0.8/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:132/offset:-10/scale:0.01
Allow some hidden subsurface ocean heat storing here, and some botched SST measurements there, and it’s pretty good really.
What say you Leif?
🙂
Reply: beep ~ captain pike the moderator
“Don’t tell them your name Pike!”
Just to add, Leif, since I see Chris H has posted a similar long term graph, it seems the apparent disconnect after 1940 may have something to do with the fog of war on land, while the oceans busily absorbed heat under clearer skies unbeknownst to the record. This, coupled with the ‘bucket adjustment and inlet port sensor phase in issues could account for most of the mismatch. It also seems to me that there is increasing ‘lag’ in the system whereby the 1980-2000 temp increase is probably explained by heat release from the oceans a la Bob Tisdale, and the falloff in solar from 1980-2000 is actually a fairly good indicator of what is in store for us over the next 15-20 years temperature-wise.
Not that I enjoy being the bearer of bad tidings….
Anna V. (08:51:34), last night when my husband was reading to me about Hamiltonian mechanics, we went off on a tangent and started talking about chaos and fractals and wondered if, since you mentioned chaos in a comment some weeks ago, you might recommend some texts for us to study? Please?