For those of you who don’t know him, Joe Bastardi is one of the lead forecasters for AccuWeather. He’s also a global warming skeptic.
Fox news invited Greenpeace to come on and support their press reports here and here that:
“Climate change is driving a new generation of fires with unknown social and economic consequences,”
and
“With climate models predicting increased heat waves in the coming years, we are fast approaching a global emergency.”
These are statements from Miguel Soto, Greenpeace Spain forests campaigner. I think he’d be surprised to learn, and possibly even deny, that the biggest contributor to the cause of California wildfires was an ocean cooling event, La Nina.
Fox news invited Greenpeace to come on, they initially accepted. Then late declined. Perhaps they heard they’d be up against Joe Bastardi. Watch the video as Joe takes apart the Greenpeace argument and more.
For further background, see my arguments on 60 minutes recent re-run about global warming and wildfires.
More rubbish from 60 Minutes tonight. “The Age of Megafires”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Sonicfrog (10:15:33) :
I think Pielke’s group does the best job of reasoned skepticism but even Pielke Sr. thinks there is at least some level of AGW. The link provided by Ron de Haan (10:13:54) where meteorologist Matt Ryan lists his top 10 reasons to be somewhat skeptical is pretty fair also.
@Andrew (10:38:33) :
Thanks for the links. Very insightful and the following passage from your fist link, had I stated it this way, would have been a much better reply from me.
The impact of droughts over the last few decades have shown that some regions and sectors of the population are becoming increasingly vulnerable to drought. Compounding these vulnerabilities is the uncertainty of the effects of human activities and global warming on climate in general and on drought in particular. A number of climate model simulations for doubled CO2 conditions suggest an increased frequency of drought in midcontinental regions (e.g. Gregory et al, 1997 , Mearns et al, 2000) whereas other model simulations and recent decadal trends in the instrumental record suggest wetter conditions, at least in the short term, due to an intensification of the hydrologic cycle associated with warmer sea surface temperatures. Better constrained answers to the question of the severity of future droughts requires improved understanding and modeling of the processes underlying the drought behavior exhibited in both the instrumental and the paleoclimate records.
You stated: That has nothing to do with AGW which does not mesh with the information provided in your links.
Of course, I do realize that warmer temps means more evaporation means more water when it rains. However, my reading of the literature shows that BOTH drought and flooding rains will increase with AGW depending on the region.
@ur momisugly Nogw (10:38:02) :
“Only the beasts and God do not change.”
And the weather. I didn’t say he hadn’t or couldn’t change his mind. Just wondering.
Joe romm on climate Progress is convinced his ideology is stronger than science. He declared the fire caused by warming before they found it was arson. he also declared a plane crash was global warming before they found where the plane was down.
AGW ideology has all the answers. What are the questions?
Forest fires are fed by by seasonal variations and by dead growth fuel, the longer the interval between fires means more fuel from dead leaves/brush etc.
The greens have been very active in fighting the creation of fire breaks and regular planned burn offs.
Dry conditions following wet, warm following cool in a natural cycle, there is simply no evidence of an increase in wildfires has anything to do with AAM yet it makes for very good visual propaganda doesnt it?
The scary images of huge fires is worth its weight in gold to those who wish to instill fear into a population.
Supporters may be keen to suppose a link between future effects of AAM and forest fires but that means they have to rely on computer models of the future, all of which have been proven wrong.
Listen carefully to the propaganda, it concentrates on the future predictions and the ‘ifs/mays/coulds/perhaps’ abound.
Regular brush fires and forest fires are actually incredibly helpful to wildlife, for years scientists have known about the amazing regeneration of fire ravaged forests and brushlands, the African plains herds rely on the seasonal burn offs in the grasslands it replenishes the soil yet the greens have spent huge amounts trying to prevent planned burn offs and fire breaks.
Fire is life to forests and wildlife, it destroys and creates in a well known cycle essential for life on earth.
The cynical exploitation of a natural event for political gain by the greens will prove to be their undoing I think.
“I seem to recall O’Reilly stating that he was a believer in AGW not too long ago”
So was I for a very long time!
Scott Mandia:
Just who might be considered to be “an authority on climate change” and who gets to decide?
You seem to consider yourself qualified and I guess I reckon I’m as qualified to talk on the subject as Hansen, Mann, Briffa et al.
Scott:
“I think Pielke’s group does the best job of reasoned skepticism but even Pielke Sr. thinks there is at least some level of AGW.”
No, Pielke thinks there is a LOT of AGW, he just doesn’t attribute much of it to CO2, and that’s an important distinction. Pielke has taken pains to explain his position thus: much of the current warming is human caused, and in the main, this is due to land use changes, with CO2 playing a minor role.
Scott,
I think the key statement in “The impact of droughts over the last few decades have shown that some regions and sectors of the population are becoming increasingly vulnerable to drought. Compounding these vulnerabilities is the uncertainty of the effects of human activities and global warming on climate in general and on drought in particular. A number of climate model simulations for doubled CO2 conditions suggest an increased frequency of drought in midcontinental regions” is the “climate model simulations” part.
and the other key is “some regions”. Wouldn’t always be the case, some areas are going to experience more drought and other ares are going to experience less drought. The earth is a chaotic system after all.
it was gw bush’s biggest mistake not to put greenpeace on the axis of evil, as this organisatio really is a threat to the western world and democracy.
@David Madsen (10:12:48) :
“This video presented an issue that I have seen occur in increasing numbers in American Society: We are gradually loosing our critical thinking and analyzing skills and simply accepting what people in perceived positions of authority are saying as undeniable and undebatable fact.”
You are in one way correct, David. Many people accept most anything coming from those whom they believe hold a position of authority (called “directed deference”). However, it isn’t just beginning … it’s human nature and it has been around longer than any of us.
Al
Mike Abbott:
“What is the source of the Temperature Anomalies graph behind Bastardi’s head? (It appears at about 1:20 in the video.) It looks suspiciously like the one published by Lord Monckton that Lucia made “mincemeat”
Mincemeat you say? The graph shows a declining zig zag of observed temperatures superimposed against the IPCC projections. Lucia doesn’t even take issue with the declining observed temperatures, but with the slope of the IPCC projection. It turns out that Monckton used a gradient of 0.35C/decade and Lucia reckons in should be closer to 0.2C.
Devastating huh?
“You stated: That has nothing to do with AGW which does not mesh with the information provided in your links.”
WHAT???
Read again:
“When records of drought for the last two millennia are examined, the major 20th century droughts appear to be relatively mild in comparison with other droughts that occurred within this time frame.”
“recent decadal trends in the instrumental record suggest wetter conditions”
And this:
“BOTH drought and flooding rains will increase with AGW depending on the region.”
Lovely. A control simulation (no AGW) ought to show the same thing. At least if it is any good. There will always be places where drought increases and flooding increases. So you can point to anything that happens and say “consistent with AGW”. But what AGW means in general is the only thing which is observed (decreasing drought in general due to more precipitation). There is no discriminating regional drought trends as related to AGW, weather on that scale is to variable.
What about floods? Really, what about them? Only declining normalized damages:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2476-2008.02.pdf
Naturally things may happen with some AGW but as far as droughts and floods go, the natural “noise” is a huge envelope.
Now, in case you are wondering how increasing precipitation does not lead to more floods, the reason is because the increases across the US have been concentrated in the Fall (or Autumn if you prefer) when stream flow is lowest.
Small, D., et al., 2006. Trends in precipitation and streamflow in the eastern U.S.: Paradox or perception? Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L03403, doi:10.1029/2005GL024995, 2006.
Small, D., and S. Islam, 2007. Decadal variability in the frequency of fall precipitation over the United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L02404, doi:10.1029/2006GL028610.
Further, the precipitation that falls on the wettest days of the year remains proportional to overall precipitation-the increase in precipitation is not “concentrated” in heavy rainfall events which would lead to flooding:
Michaels, P.J., et al., 2004. Trends in precipitation on the wettest days of the year across the contiguous USA. International Journal of Climatology, 24, 1873-1882.
The fact is that irrespective of your view of AGW in general (I myself “kinda” believe in AGW) you should not go around spouting nonsense. There is simply no evidence for the things you are promoting.
Fox is a Republican propaganda instrument. Most of what is said there has to be questioned. If I were the guy from Greenpeace, I wouldn’t have attended neither. Fox is definitely not on the list of sources I would refer to, when I try to make my layman mind (which to date is not made at all) on that debate, polarised to a mind-boggling extent.
Andrew (10:38:33) :
Scott A. Mandia (10:01:21) : That has nothing to do with AGW. First of all, you should spend some time at NOAA’s paleodrought page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_data.html
“A number of tree-ring records exist for the last two millennia which suggest that 20th century droughts may be mild when evaluated in the context of this longer time frame.”
And i thought global warming changed tree ring size… so it was water all the time? Who knew … 😎
Henry chance (11:58:41) :
AGW ideology has all the answers. What are the questions?
There are no questions allowed. There are only answers. The science is settled. You must live in poverty and give away any material possessions and money as penance for sin or the earth god will burn you!! /sarcoff>
It certainly looks like BO’R is starting to have some misgivings over AGW.
Jeff (09:48:45) :
Aside from what looks like unwarranted rudeness toward our host, it would be nice and polite to the rest of us to specify just which article you want us to pay attention to, otherwise you are just another drive-by troll.
Mike Abbott (10:12:43) :
Yeah, I thought that looked a lot like Monckton’s chart, too… I’m not sure Lucia actually made mince-meat out of it, but she certainly demonstrated extreme misgivings over it. If you’d like some other charts, Alan Carlin has a new website which is worth a visit. He seems to be having some misgivings, too:
http://www.carlineconomics.com/
Hmmm…. “misgivings” seems to be my word of the day….
Oort cloud (13:08:20) : It shouldn’t matter if the Dalai Lama is the source you’re hearing from. Can you show where Joe’s facts are wrong? Can anyone? If they can, they can, if they cannot well…
But the source is irrelevant.
Vincent (13:04:10) :
“Lucia doesn’t even take issue with the declining observed temperatures, but with the slope of the IPCC projection. It turns out that Monckton used a gradient of 0.35C/decade and Lucia reckons in should be closer to 0.2C.”
As I recall Lucia’s criticism of Monckton, it was that he chose a linear rate of increase over the next century, which arrives at the same temp in 2100 as IPCC, whereas the IPCC chose to use a non-linear curve which did not have quite as high a rate of increase early in the century, but ended up at the same point due to higher rates of change later in the century (how conventient).
Oort cloud (13:08:20) :
Here, Mr. Oort cloud, let me help you out:
FoxABCNBCMSNBCCBSReutersCNN is aRepublicanLeft-wing propaganda instrument.There. Fixed it for ya.
[To be fair, I don’t watch Fox or any of them. Heck, I don’t watch an hour of TV a month, and never the TV news spin. Also, IANAR. So there.]
We know, as philosophically so succinctly summarised by Richard Lindzen, for warmists its always whatever it takes- polar bears, Arctic ice, cyclones, floods, fire, famine, earthquakes, tsunamis, just whatever it takes, ….
“I went to Penn State with Joe and he is a superb forecaster and a great guy. I do not think he is an authority on climate change…”
If by authority you mean a theorist who devises abstractions based on models that either cannot be verified or fail verification tests, then you are correct. But Joe Bastardi eat and drinks not only current synoptic weather patterns, but he also delves deep into climate analogs. He is one of a few medium to long range forecasters that get it right more than wrong. And when he is wrong, he admits it and tells you why. People and businesses pay him good money for being right.
Climate Scientists are usually experts on very narrow or very broad subjects. Normally, there is no way to evaluate thier theories. And when thier predictions do get put to the test they fail. The 2007 IPCC projections are barely 2 years old, and already many need “adjustments”.
Oort cloud (13:08:20) :Yours it is an “ad-hominem” logic fallacy. It does not matter what colour or creed you are but what your arguments are.
I lived in California in the summers during the 1970s, in the years leading up to at least some scientists starting to fret about a new ice age. Do some googling on the California drought of the ’70s (which some people who lived through it would happily stick a “Great” in front of), and Bastardi is exactly right. Cool Pacific is what causes drought in California. It’s when you get an El Nino going that California gets drenched. I remember quite well the winter of ’82-83 there. . . . yeesh.
But that’s okay, when the next El Nino comes and California starts flooding, that’ll be global warming’s fault too. EVERYTHING is global warming’s fault, it seems, including the heartbreak of psoriasis.
Concerning droughts, one of the worst droughts to hit North American occured in Virginia. It lasted from 1620-1680. That drought occured during the coldest decades of the LIA. It is also well documented that the Dust Bowl years occured during a period when the AMO was in a persistent warm mode, but the Northern Pacific was in a cool mode. The resultant long term synoptic weather pattern caused persisitent easterlies from Arkansas throught the Plain States (ie the most Gulf flow was cut off).
In both cases, AGW was not the cause. For the Pacific Northwest and West Coast, look to the Pacific SSTs. Wet cold winters followed by dry very hot summers lead to summer wild fires.
Aaron,
“As I recall Lucia’s criticism of Monckton, it was that he chose a linear rate of increase over the next century, which arrives at the same temp in 2100 as IPCC, whereas the IPCC chose to use a non-linear curve which did not have quite as high a rate of increase early in the century, but ended up at the same point due to higher rates of change later in the century (how conventient).”
Yes, yes, yes, but this is hair splitting. Did not the IPCC predict rising temperatures, whereas the observations show declining temperatures? And this begs the question, why are temperatures declining? As Akasofu has said, how can we make future predictions if we don’t know WHY these temperatures are declining.
San Antonio, TX: Flash flood watch.
Lots of weird wet stuff falling from the sky.
Now I have to patch the roof and dry out my car (left the windows open).