Over at The Air Vent, Jeff reviewed the book “Warnings” by CCM Mike Smith. This is a book about weather, weather forecasting, severe weather events, and the people and technology that save lives and help people in their daily lives by making weather forecasting their mission. I’ve got the book, I’ve read it, and there’s nary a mention about climate in it.
The number five comment out of the gate at tAV was from Professor Eric Steig, Real Climate contributor and author of the recently rebutted paper that purported to show continent-wide Antarctic warming, that turned out to be nothing more than a statistical smearing artifact.
Professor Steig must still be angry about his paper being effectively rebutted, because he launched a rather bizarre rant of the “weather is not climate” meme about the author’s website, while at the very same time labeling Mike Smith a “liar” and “dishonest” in the context of a book professor Steig has never read.
Eric Steig said
‘Curious’ wrote “Does it cover the distinction between weather and climate?”
Well, I have not read the book, but if you watch the video the author links to on his web site, you’ll find he uses the same lie that Lindzen does “If you can’t predict the weather 5 days from now, how can you be confident in a forecast 100 years from now.” Hello, these are completely different concepts. No one is claiming they are predicting *weather* 100 years from now (or even 10 years from now!).
Mike Smith may be a good meteorologist, but he evidently hasn’t learned this very basic difference yet. Either that, or he is a very dishonest person.
Wow, just wow.
Mike Smith replied:
Mike Smith said
Hi Everyone. I thought that instead of Mr. Steig hurling accusations about me and everyone speculating as to my positions, I would make a few comments and clear the air.
First, there is NOTHING about global warming or climate change in “Warnings.” The book has received excellent reviews and I am very proud of it. I believe that any of you who might chose to read it will enjoy it as much as Jeff did. I certainly appreciate him posting the review.
Mr. Steig says, “No one is claiming they are predicting *weather* 100 years from now (or even 10 years from now!).” I suggest, he read p. 118 of the 2009 National Climate Change Assessment. It makes a WEATHER forecast for the number of heat waves to occur in Chicago during the period 2070-2099. The is just one of the few weather forecasts in the document (i.e., a weather forecast is a forecast of specific conditions at a specific place and time). Here in Kansas, there are various predictions made about drought and reservoir levels on a sub-state basis in 2050. It is factually incorrect to say that “no one” is making weather forecasts decades into the future.
I am very well aware of the differences between weather and climate. The assertion that we can forecast climate decades into the future depends on climate models being unbiased, the errors averaging out, and their ability to forecast volcanic eruptions and changes in solar energy as as other non-atmospheric inputs. No skill (other than in hindcast mode) in any of these areas has been demonstrated. Here is a new paper on the subject: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928051726&fulltext=713240928 From the abstract: “Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.”
Finally, I don’t understand the need for pejoratives like “liar” and “dishonest.” We have never met and, to my knowledge, have never had a conversation. While we may disagree on these points, I do not doubt Mr. Steig’s good faith. I wish he would have given me the same benefit of the doubt.
Mike
‘Tis a strange world we inhabit in blogland where people accuse you of being a liar and dishonest without even reading what you’ve written.
Just in case Professor Steig reads this and decides to read the book, here it is:
Jeff Id should be commended for his even tempered replies to Steig’s unprofessional remarks, and likewise Mike Smith should be commended.
Their calm behavior make Steig’s behavior look like a personally motivated outburst.
John
Madman2001 says:
December 7, 2010 at 6:18 am
>>(Icecap Note: the age of Dickens was during the Dalton Minimum, with very similar solar conditions to the last several years.) <<
A correction: the Dalton minimum took place during the early 1800s while Dickens wrote during the middle part of the century.
============================================================
Dickens wrote from memory, and claimed to have a near perfect photographic memory.
RE:Nick Stokes says:
December 7, 2010 at 12:24 am
*** But what’s the specific time?***
Heat waves do not occur at a specific time, but over a period. So it still qualifies as a forecast.
I noticed about 6 or 7 years ago that the Alarmists were infringing upon areas that they were not trained to deal with. Climate Science is indeed a different thing from Meteorology. However, it wasn’t the “skeptics” who were going beyond thier area of expertise. And I warned at RC back in 2005 that they (the Alarmists) might want to be careful. Even before the 2005 Hurricane Season, I noticed an increasing frequency of Alarmists using weather events (a drought, tornadic outbreak, warm winter, etc…) to justify thier theories on AGW. Once you get caught up in the game it is difficult to get out of it. And I predicted to the folks at RC (before I was censored) that they would regret thier actions. The beginning of the end for the Alarmists was the 2006 Hurricane Season. Talk about getting egg on your face.
I think the reason why so many of these credentialed specialists fell into this trap was money and public acclaim. Climate Scientists were no longer closed up in thier small offices with tiny budgets and no public face. Sometime in the 1990s Climate Science became an exciting and agressive field of research. One could not only get large block grants, but also appear on TV!!!! Saving the World never was so lucrative and exciting. And the only way one can remain in the limelight and get the subsidies is to scare the heck out of the public. Why warn about future doom, when the present is at hand? And the 2005 Hurricane Season was a crisis that could not be wasted. Too many respected scientists who should have known better fell for the trap. From the autumn of 2005 onward predictions of impending doom became an daily staple. A day didn’t go by without a “study”, which blamed some misfortune on AGW. There were billions in subsidies to win, not to mention reputations to build.
Yes, Climate and Weather are two different things. One is something that is, the other is a human construct devised by shaky statistics, avarice, and a desire to get that 15 minutes of fame.
The very people who advocate this “climate is not weather” nonsense will cause us to miss the far more important parameters of daily lows and highs on a regional short basis. Florida is right now 50 degrees below normal for this time of year. Will this factor into the “global average” in a significant way? Of course not. What if it were to continue? Not even then. Somewhere else it is likely to be hotter than normal, so the global temperature just wriggles about a very narrow point, warming a bit here, then cooling a bit there, but nonetheless devastating to Floridians. Which is exactly why a global temperature is a dangerous statistic devoid of vitally important information about serious weather pattern variation change. In all likelihood, the ice age will commence and we will not know it. In fact, I can imagine the possibility that the global average may tick up a bit because it may get hotter in other places while it gets colder in “ice age” places. Stupid, stupid global statistic, and stupid, stupid argument over climate versus weather.
gratuitous ad hom coming up….
[sorry, yeah, funny, but over the top – SNIP ~mod]
Re: Michael says:
December 7, 2010 at 12:39 am
“…If we agree to give millionaires and billionaires permanent tax cuts…”
Interesting… since “millionaires and billionaires” tend to receive capital gains and pay capital gains taxes, not income taxes.
I don’t know of many “poor people” (since class warfare seems to be your thing) offering stable positions with upward mobility or a benifits plan.
The flailing is now getting truly entertaining.
Re: Demesure at December 7, 2010 at 3:24 am
I think you have highlighted a pearl of wisdom which should be a compulsory part of the banner at any site covering climate issues: A frightening and shocking warning indeed!
To be precise, Steig based his insults on a video linked at Smith’s website, not on the book Warnings which Steig admits he did not read. So it’s a bit disingenuous to feign shock as to how Steig could criticize Smith if he did not read the book.
Having said that, I could not find any weather vs climate claims in the linked videos, so some criticism may be warranted. But it should be directed at the precise points that were made by Steig, not at “straw man” arguments that were not made.
To do otherwise is to become just as “tribal” as many in the CAGW camp. Now that a more rational view is finally being accepted by more and more folks, it is counterproductive to fall into the thought traps that the CAGW camp allowed themselves to fall into.
I spat my coffee all over my keyboard when I read further down the comments to where Steig returned to proclaim indignently that he would “ingore the insults”.
Right. And weather is specific not only to time but to place. Does it ever make sense to speak of ‘global weather’? Then how much meaning can be imputed to the term ‘global climate’? In point of fact, the only defining property of ‘global climate’ is said to be ‘global temperature’, itself an abstraction whose referents are dubious and whose significance is tenuous at best. Yet so much is made of this vague and implausible concept that it has become the bogeyman of whole governments, terrified because a priesthood of self-described ‘climate scientists’ have prophesied imminent doom if this mythical ‘global temperature’ increases.
And how are these proclamations any different from the Oracle at Delphi, or those of any cheap necromancer reading tea leaves or chicken guts?
/Mr Lynn
In forecasting weather, the computer models generally have a good approximation of all of the physical processes involved that will determine tomorrow’s weather. However, in forecasting climate, we don’t have nearly the same understanding of the physical process involved (solar influences, ocean cycles such as PDO & AMO, thermohaline circulation, SOI, cloud responses to changes in temperatures, etc) to make an accurate forecast.
To say that forecasting climate is less difficult than forecasting weather shows a complete lack of understanding of what drives climate. Forecasting climate is not just forecasting an average of the weather. There are other physical process that are involved that affect the long range but not the short range. Just as a little noise in the data can disturb a short term weather forecast, lack of understanding of several of the physical processes involved can destroy a climate forecast. The influences on the scale of climate forecasting do not have an influence on tomorrow’s weather.
Here is a simple analogy that may help to explain what I am trying to say (if you don’t look too deeply into it perhaps). We know the Coriolis Force is a weak force, but this weak force acting over a long period of time greatly influences the circulations in the atmosphere. But, the Coriolis Force has no influence on short term fluid motions, such as water going down a drain (despite what shamans at the equator may try and show you).
Likewise, the PDO, for example will influence my seasonal forecast, but have no effect on my short term forecast. If we don’t completely understand the long term drivers of the climate, there is no way we can make an accurate forecast of the climate. It is NOT just the average of the weather.
1. Michael says: December 7, 2010 at 12:39 am
If we agree to give millionaires and billionaires permanent tax cuts, will they let us abolish the Federal Reserve and have our own federal government print our own money for us tax free?
This would be a pretty good trade, don’t you think?
The rich really aren’t giving us anything of great value in return for our gift to them.
************************************
Michael,
I am befuddled. Your post seems to have little to do with either weather or climate.
As far as “giving” millionaires and billionaires permanent tax cuts. For the most part, we are talking about their money that the government (we) are going to “allow” them keep. IT’S THEIR MONEY: THEY EARNED IT.
Congress controls the Federal government’s income and spending. They control the economic and industrial policies. They created Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Post Office, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security-which are all bankrupt. Congress writes the tax laws and they crated the Federal Reserve. Congress is responsible for these United States being bankrupt. (When 40% of your expenses are paid for on credit and when there is no conceivable way that you will ever meet your future obligations, you are bankrupt.)
The rhetorical question of the day: Why in the world would you want to punish successful people for what your elected representatives have done?
For the most part, rich people are rich because they provide goods or services people value. Everything that you have, with few exceptions, comes to you courtesy of the rich. The dwelling you live in was built by a “rich person”. The electricity that lights your house was brought to you by two rich people: Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse. The steel in your car was from Andrew Carnegie. The food on your table, ditto. Without the rich, your life would be “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short”.
If you were the religious type, I would respectfully suggest that you get down on your knees and pray that the rich keep doing the things that made them rich.
I will admit that there are exceptions. While Bill Gates earned his money, there are others that did not. John Kerry married someone else’s money and Al Gore made $100 million by fraud. I will agree that THEY do not deserve to keep that money.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Savethesharks:
Nick has been one of them from the first time I read his comments!
Nick:
A heat wave is a weather event!
batheswithwhales says:
December 7, 2010 at 5:14 am
I think it is a good thing that Steig takes part. we need more of that, not less. If he could assume a less defensive attitude, then all the better.
========================================================
Here’s the problem with ‘Steig taking part’. —- By his knee-jerk reaction and his emotive response, it is quite clear that he’s lost whatever objectivity he ever had to be effective as a “scientist”. While I don’t expect anyone to remain emotionally null, for anyone to be remotely effective as a scientist, one has to have a certain level of detachment and objectivity. Dr. Steig doesn’t appear to have such qualities in this arena. Clearly, he’s moved from scientist to advocate. Don’t get me wrong, obviously the man has a wealth of knowledge. Sadly, scientific discovery in this arena isn’t the place where he can apply it. Contrast his emotive response and advocacy with Dr. Spencer’s recent posts here. Dr. Spencer simply delivers the news of his findings. Often time, he knows his findings that he posts here are going to be met with jeers and disappointment. But his has a bit of detachment and objectivity that allows him to proceed without the impediment of emotive, subjective interpretations. Again, there isn’t anything wrong with possessing passion, but passion is ruled by the heart, not the brain.
Michael says:
December 7, 2010 at 12:39 am
…………
The rich really aren’t giving us anything of great value in return for our gift to them.
======================================================
Not unless you count jobs as anything of value. More, when was it said we were to be given anything? Why don’t we pretend that its their money and not ours to give and take from people that earned it?
BTW, I agree with you on the fed reserve. We should find a different way.
Steig should lie low these days…
Climate is the sum of weathers on a 30 year period Dr Steig. It is in fact your neglect of weather’s evolution in Antarctica that led you to believe your own flawed statistics despite them being in contradiction with weather’s evolution over there.
Kate, in case you had no luck in locating, the articile is easy to locate:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332343/Nine-pensioners-died-cold-hour-winter-prices-soar.html
….also, is dated Dec 7, 2010 and updated 24 Nov 2010. 🙂
Why is anyone surprised by Steig’s attempt to smear Smith’s name. As Anthony pointed out his claim to fame is a paper “that turned out to be nothing more than a statistical smearing artifact.”
Sure is fun watching these zealots blow up!
My respect for Stieg / Steig [I can’t be bothered any more to look it up] has plummeted. He used to make sensible statements. But his response to the book is the usual tired ad hominem attack, the first resort of warmist antilogicians. He refuses to read the book and argue regarding the science therein; he knows that battle has already been lost. He must fall back on cant, hand-waving, and All-Holy Climate Models. Pathetic.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Being born and raised in Kansas City (a few years after Mike), and following in some of his steps, it brought back a lot of great memories. At no point in time from this book could you tell Mike’s position on AGW. It was very well written, and told a great story of the success of the Operational arm of the Meteorological world in saving lives through accurate and effective forecasts and warnings.
I am growing tired of the “trash all non-believers” policy by the AGW crowd. To pan such a well written and effective book in this manor only goes to show that this is not about science. Only dogmatic beliefs cause such brainless activities. I respect what Mike has done in the field of Operational Meteorology, his dedication to the public has saved many real lives. People like him who have accomplished much, and contributed to society deserve better that to be trashed in this way.
RockyRoad says: Kate says: [December 7, 2010 at 5:35 am] “I came across the pensioners dying at 12 per hour information yesterday…in the meantime 9 pensioners dying per hour is bad enough. The more I look into this, the worse it looks.”
They don’t need “death panels” if cuts in heating serve the same purpose.
For every 9 pensioners they kill, the British Government can support one more UEA/CRU parasite. Every time the winter elderly death statistics are published, somewhere in England a bureaucrat divides by nine and allows a tiny smile to cross his thin lips.
Steig and his colleagues are completely dishonest when they state that climate is not weather. Climate is weather averaged over long periods of time. Of course dishonesty is Steigs meal ticket along with the rest of the charlatans at RC.