I’m proud to be a part of this second one hour long special report done by KUSI-TV and veteran TV meteorologist John Coleman. John is, in my opinion, the “Walter Cronkite of television weather”. His demeanor, humor, and delivery is reminiscent of that extraordinary television journalist.
I traveled to San Diego last week to tape my segment, and while I was there, I asked a few people I met at the TV station and at a restaurant what they thought about the first special last month. I was surprised to learn that the positive supporting comments far outnumbered the negative ones.
I also learned that the first special in January gave the station its highest rating ever for a one hour news report, so it is no surprise that they’d want to repeat that success. On a personal note, my entire taped presentation is not included here, and was edited for time. The end part where I refute NCDC didn’t make the final cut, perhaps the producer thought it too technical due to the graph of TOBS, FILNET, and RAW data that I used to show that NCDC’s claims about a cooling trend in poorly sited station doesn’t hold up. However, KUSI will make all the taped interviews available in their entirety, and I’ll post links to them when they are available for all to see. I should note that I don’t agree with the broad statement made in the video that “CO2 has no effect”. It does, but the magnitude of the direct effect and the feedback effects is disputed.
*The first KUSI program from January, “Global Warming: The Other Side”, can be viewed at:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html
Additional footage and unedited full length interviews from that program are available here:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner
Here is all of the latest program, which aired Thursday Feb 18th, at 9PM PST:
Part one:
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I should note that I don’t agree with the broad statement made in the video that “CO2 has no effect”. It does, but the magnitude of the direct effect and the feedback effects is disputed.”
Well I can find no evidence or scientific proof which show that CO2 does have an effect on atmospheric temperature.
The origin of the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas comes from the deeply flawed work of John Tyndall which is almost 150 years past its shelf life and has been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked. There is no modern up to date empirical science in support of CO2 as a greenhouse gas which is why we keep being told that the greenhouse effect is 150 year old established scientific fact.
I have a simple test which compares pure CO2 against ordinary air. This test involves exposing pure CO2 and ordinary air to the heat from one candle simultaneously and the result is that pure CO2 fails to out perform ordinary air at absorbing and retaining more heat. I have perform many variations on these tests with very similar results.
The equipment used in this test is cheap and easy to acquire. The test itself is simple and can be performed by a child. The results speak for themselves.
When you consider the results of this test and then look at the various melting points of all the gases involved, (The melting points of Oxygen and Nitrogen are 54.36 K and 63.15 K respectively. Whereas the melting points of CO2 and water, the two main so called greenhouse gases, are 194.65 K and 273 K respectively. ) it becomes undeniable and inescapable that the greenhouse effect is a fallacy. The only conclusion to be drawn is that either all gases are greenhouse gases or if not then none at all. The gas with the lowest melting point is the most sensitive to heat absorption. Oxygen and nitrogen are 99% of the gases in the atmosphere. They are the most sensitive to heat absorption and the test I’ve conducted are confirmation of this conclusion.
Video’s of my simple CO2 experiments can be viewed by clicking on my name above.
It’ s hard to imagine that an increase of C02 from .027% to .039% has warmed the Earth by even a degree.
Imagine all those lonely H20 molecules spending x# of years looking for a C02 mate. They would have a greater chance of being struck by lightning.
Question: What is the ratio of C02 molecules to H20 molecules at a RH of 50%?
Oh, and btw, I really did enjoy seeing John Coleman, E.M. Smith, and Anthony for the 1st time.
Make more of these.
Has anyone recalculated the temperature baseline using temperature measurements from only the 1500 locations instead of all 6000 or so?
John M Reynolds
ScienceOfDoom – what even the AGW theorists don’t understand is the lack of energy, see Kevin trenberth’s “travesty” email. So to say that the theory is well understood is wrong, it would be more correct to say: Greenhouse theory V 1.0 has just been sent to the junkyard and we’re working on V1.1 now. The AGW theorists are too dishonest to come clean about this and make no such public comment or have an open debate but try to shout down their critiques but it doesn’t change that. AGW Theory 1.0 is as toast as it can be.
scienceofdoom (02:20:00) :
Yes, its the feedback. Is it positive, or negative?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
scienceofdoom,
Dr. Somerville did not see fit to make the distinction between the basic physics of CO2 and the AGW theory of enhanced global warming, which implies, to the layman, that the IPCC projections of 3-5 degrees are ‘basic physics’, Perhaps if the AGW crowd would stop saying the there is no debate on the science of CO2 warming, John Coleman would not have to say that they are wrong!
You should be chastising Dr. Somerville for creating the confusion, not J. C. for responding correctly to the statement as implied.
Barack Obama’s climate change policy in crisis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7278638/Barack-Obamas-climate-change-policy-in-crisis.html
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
Published: Sunday Telegraph (London), 5:13PM GMT 20 Feb 2010 GMT
“red432 (18:35:21) :
off topic:
Note that the Atlanta Progressive News now officially admits it ignores objective reality. You have to admire their frankness about the state of modern media. ”
Too funny to make it up. From the FAQ of the APN:
“What is Atlanta Progressive News?
[…]
Our goal is providing news of concern to the working people and working families of Atlanta.
[…]
Is Atlanta Progressive News objective?
[…]
We believe there is no such thing as objective news.”
So they believe working people should be lied to. Too funny, i’m a working person and wouldn’t take their product for free.
Because some physicist think they falsified it
http://www.schmanck.de/0707.1161v4.pdf it is peer review by the way.
I think a lot of the science types here seem to have expected a program that would pass muster at a science symposium. This presentation was aimed at those who were willing to tear themselves away from the excitement of women’s curling to get some idea of what they are about to be taxed into poverty over.
Here’s what I heard. Dr. Sommerville said that it’s not the sun, it’s not natural variability, it’s man made and the science has been settled for 150 years. John Coleman said he’s wrong.
The vast majority of the public has no understanding of what is meant by a forcing or a feedback, negative or positive. If I lived in a virtual world then computer models would be more compelling. Here in the thermometer world, despite the claim of a warm January and February, my winter heating bill doubled. Now that is a doubling I understand!
This is about politics and media and only peripherally about science at this point. The key to success in politics and media is in knowing your audience. John Coleman obviously does.
We need to be sending news links like this to the PBS ombudsman and asking why the PBS NewsHour has so blatantly ignored Climategate, etc.
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback.html
“Marcus (05:04:58) :
Because some physicist think they falsified it”
Thanks for the link, i finally have the time to read it (It’s Gerlich & Tscheuschner) and find it remarkably accessible….
Oh goody, I’ve been waiting for this to appear!
I don’t know what is funnier.
“Record snowfall caused by Global Warming”
or
“We looked at the poorly sited thermometers and did see a problem, so we corrected it by adjusting those temperatures UP ! “
Coleman needs help. He pours scorn on the IPCC for a couple of minor mistakes in three volumes, then makes numerous mistakes in one short programme. Misdirections and omissions abound. For example, lots of coverage of cold conditions in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, but no mention that globally, January was the warmest reported January in the UAH record.
In part 8 during his interview with Christy, Coleman says that NASA has reported 2000-2009 as the warmest decade on earth.
This is a strawman.
The news release says that this decade was the warmest since record keeping began in 1880.
Larry (23:12:01) :
I’m still wondering why no one wants to argue about or deal with Miscolczi’s equations on CO2. He certainly makes a convincing mathematical case.
Yes, I think this calls into question the entire science of GHGs. Just because most alarmist and skeptical scientists accept the current theory doesn’t make it right. Miskolczi takes the theory one step further and deals directly with changes in the various GHG portions. It doesn’t dispute the physics of GHGs but looks into it in more detail (kind of like Einstein vs. Newton).
And then, nature itself seems to support Miskolczi’s theory. By utilizing less water at higher CO2 levels it seems to be telling us we can expect H2O water vapor to decrease. That is precisely what Miskolczi’s theory predicts.
Has anyone read Nick Stoke’s supposed refutation of this theory over on RC? Essentially, he says he doesn’t understand the theory but it must be wrong. Yup, one hell of a refutation.
climategate on finnish television 1/3
climategate on finnish television 2/3
climategate on finnish television 3/3
Ah, a “Share on Facebook” icon. I’ve been waiting for that.
You are in real danger, american friends… you should seek to really punish those liars who just want to make profit out of you and, worse, to take away from you what makes you an example among nations :Liberty.
You shouldn´t tolerate one more day the existence of such a source of conspiracy against you which is the UN at New York.
Good luck in this battle!
” R. Gates (22:05:02) :
Actually a very well done and interesting presentation…however, February is now following January 2010 as a very warm month as we’re seeing temps near the surface not usually seen until the beginning of April. These are global tropospheric temps, averaged over land and sea. Without some rapid cooling in the next 8 days, February will become the warmest on instrument record, after the warmest January. See:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
If there is an Ice Age in our future, is sure has a strange way of showing itself with all this tropospheric heat…”
Accu Weather’s Joe Bastardi has an interesting article on the current high temperature and tells us what the future will bring:
It’s going to be colder.
EARTH CONTINUES WARMEST WINTER SINCE SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS STARTED
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=rss
That was a good Special…I love those M4GW!
Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the basic concept of the greenhouse effect is understood. But, forcing and feedbacks and the exact impact of CO2 in creating low clouds is not well understood. There is much debate among scientists on both side os the AGW issue. I oversimplified. Critical comments are taken to heart. I will keep trying to do better.
Wait till I post Anthony and John Christy’s full inerviews. A week of so from now they will be on the net.
Richard Telford (07:40:50) :
Coleman needs help. He pours scorn on the IPCC for a couple of minor mistakes in three volumes, then makes numerous mistakes in one short programme.
Oh, did he not mention that the ipcc Climate Science is not real Science? If not, then I’d have to agree with you, Richard. – I haven’t seen the programs yet.