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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steig is bitter because his schtick is getting stale and the rubes are seeing through it.
Con-artists often project their actions on to others when they get pressured.
I would say that insce Steig’s major recent paper is falling apart in a very public way, and his pal Mann is melting down, the pressure Steig is feeling is not going down.
Is Steig the stig?
Steig be a liberal, which means that, if you do not agree with him or, rather, he does not agree with you, you are either stupid (and can be dismissed as such) or dishonest (and assigned an assumed agenda which must be financed by big oil).
Name calling is their first position AND their fall-back position.
All stats on deaths from hypothermia, in the UK, must be a bit hard to gather.
Here is part of an answer from Hansard about same:
“Although hypothermia may be mentioned on a death certificate as contributing to the death, according to International Classification of Diseases rules it cannot be recorded as the underlying cause. An event that led to the death such as ‘Exposure to excessive cold’, or ‘Accidental fall’ may be recorded as the underlying cause, with hypothermia recorded as a contributory factor. If hypothermia were considered to be the main contributory factor, it would be reported as the ‘secondary cause'”
So the number of deaths from same may well be considerably higher.
@Pamela Gray says:
December 7, 2010 at 6:49 am
“…Which is exactly why a global temperature is a dangerous statistic devoid of vitally important information about serious weather pattern variation change…..”
Pamela – an excellent observation about the use of global temperatures – and at a time the “3rd hottest year” on record message is being ramped up by warmists in the mainstream media. Thank you.
OK , Michael , what exactly constitutes “our gift to them”? I really wanted to ignore your off -topic , befuddling comment , but since others have responded to it I’ll jump in as well .
Hi Everyone,
Thank you for all of the supportive comments! They are greatly appreciated. If you are interested in “Warnings,” I’m having a book signing in Wichita at 7pm tonight at the Great Plains Nature Center.
I’m also having a book signing Sunday at 1pm in Kansas City at the Plaza Barnes & Noble. Would love to see you there.
If you are interested in getting an autographed copy for a Christmas gift or reading a chapter online, go here: http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2010/11/read-chapter-of-warnings-online.html
Thanks again!!!
Mike Smith
“Nick Stokes says:
December 7, 2010 at 12:24 am
‘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).”
That’s an odd one. OK, I guess it’s specific conditions at a specific place. But what’s the specific time?’
A bit disingenuous there. In fact “2070-2099” is a “time” in the commonly used sense of a time span. The fact that it is stated in units of years rather than hours or days or weeks is a matter of efficiency in communication more than anything else. Weather forecasts normally address a time span and his assertion is that the statement that a specific number or range heat waves will take place in that time span is a weather forecast. Theoretically, individuals and organizations that placed any credence in the assertion would prepare a head of time – rather like hauling out the umbrella when there is a forecast of rain.
RE: Duster says:
December 7, 2010 at 1:31 pm
There are many examples of weather forecasts in that document that I could have cited. Here is another. Is this specific enough?
“By the period 2080-2099, devastating heat waves of the kind that killed more than 700 people in Chicago in 1995 will occur three times per year.” (USCCP, p. 119)
That is a forecast of specific weather conditions at a specific place at a specific time — a weather forecast.
I don’t understand why this is even an issue. The document says what it says and it is riddled with this type of prediction. I stand by my assertion: If we cannot forecast the number of 1995-style heatwaves in Chicago for summer, 2011, there is no reason to believe we can do so for summer, 2085.
Now, if Dr. Steig or anyone else disagrees then I suggest they post their forecast (made by a climate model or otherwise) for number of heatwaves in Chicago for the summers 2011-15 and we’ll verify them.
Mike
Mike Smith says
Now, if Dr. Steig or anyone else disagrees then I suggest they post their forecast (made by a climate model or otherwise) for number of heatwaves in Chicago for the summers 2011-15 and we’ll verify them.
They tried that with snow fall over here in the UK,stating that snow fall would become a rare event……….and look whats happened in the last 12 months..twice,with more to come
forecasting whats going to happen on the day is hard enough for the Met at the moment, look whats happened in Scotland with the “forecast” few cms..nearly a foot of snow fell and fell heavily.
The much-abused “weather is not climate” mantra does make a point that the “climate is weather statistics” idea overlooks: the physical foundations of climatic variability are different from those of weather change. Ironically, far less is known scientifically about the former than the latter. That’s what makes climate predictions quite empty, with little more than political agenda and academic petulance filling the void.
Moderator: I tried to use italics in the phrase “DOES make a point…”, but only succeeded in getting the critical word it omitted.
Data corruption made plain:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/ball120610-2.jpg
The arithmetic is: a trend jump of 1.9°C in one year (1990), when the recording stations were slashed.
Image appears in this article: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30752
Weather is not climate! We are NOT predicting weather, just your overall, average Climate, that’s all!!!
And even though the Climate will change and be 10 degrees hotter a century from now, causing the seas to rise by 20 feet or more, with triple the heat waves and hurricanes — us climate scientists are really saying that it won’t affect your weather.
In fact, in one hundred years hence, if you’re stuck under 10 feet of snow and perma-frost due to your local “weather” conditions, that’s just MORE proof of this Global Climate Disruption stuff!!!
So please please please don’t confuse the 10 degree hotter temperature with your over-sized snowbanks!
Why is it so widely accepted that predicting the climate is fundamentally different from predicting the weather? Climate, as I understand it, is just the average of weather over a sufficiently long time. Tomorrow’s weather forecast is also a kind of average. It might tell me that rain is likely, or even “afternoon showers”, but it still is fairly vague as to time and duration. And the most precise forecast is when I look out the window and say “looks like it’s about to rain”.
What is different apart from the time scale?
Or maybe the argument is that “global climate” is fundamentally different from (local) “weather”. I’d agree with that — since I only understand what one of them is. Global climate seems meaningless to me, and seems to be either a bunch of hand waving or a single number — the global mean temperature. If that’s all it is, it can’t be very useful. Quite easy to conceive of a planet, half roasting hot, half bitterly cold — uninhabitable — yet with the same global mean temperature as Earth.
Have fun,
Robert
This is a beautiful illustration of the entire debate. Here’s Steig, an expert, a climatologist, a type of person the warmists put their entire faith into. He’s one of the consensus! If scientific consensus says so, it is probably so. And certainly, they are more credible than a bunch of laymen with a skill at blogging! And, obviously, weathermen don’t count as climatologists! They’re just a bunch of guys looking day to day and don’t have near the expertise required to engage in climatology.
So, when a new book is released by a meteorologist and is hailed by the blogging contrarians, it must be quashed. Steig, being one of the chosen few has a bone or two to pick anyway, so, why not whip them down to the place where they need to be?
Oh, he forgot to actually read the damned thing. He went about making an illogical argument against something that never was asserted. Thank you Dr. Steig in giving us the ultimate example of a “straw man” argument. Better yet, he also gave us a classic “ad hominem” with his summation, Either that, or he is a very dishonest person. All of that would be enough, except, he was attacking a guy that wasn’t engaged in an argument or assertion regarding climate. (BTW, a big hell yeh! to a home boy from Kansas! Sorry Mike, can’t make it to Wichita tonight and prob not K.C. this weekend.)
So, there you have it. A well-educated person, apparently not given to intellectual curiosity, but rather an emotive response. One that will not tolerate skepticism, alternate theories, or intellectual discourse. Given that he’s a Real Climate contributor and author of climate papers, many may perceive him as a representative of the climate alarmist community. I wonder, has Real Climate distanced themselves from Steig? Admonished him? What of Steig, himself? Has he offered an apology to Mr. Smith?
To the alarmists, I ask, first, are these people the ones you put so much faith into? And, secondly, I ask, isn’t it time you seriously reconsider your position? These people, they aren’t objective; they are subjective. They are emotionally attached to the subject they are studying. This isn’t science; it is advocacy. Not only are they not giving us the facts, they’re not attempting to establish facts. Dec 5 was just one example in a long line of examples corroborating my previous statement.
Gareth, Stumpy, others: Climate is just the average of weather.
Please, let’s not say this anymore. I know some like to make the average temperature (now and in the future) the issue on which to prove CAGW. Skeptics should not help them do that.
Climate for a place is better described as a “pattern over time” of things we think of as weather variables. For example, the Seattle, WA area is usually warm and dry in the N. H. summer but cool and damp in the winter. Meanwhile, Charleston, SC has its peak rainfall in August when it is warmest. If you only present the “average” of these things, then you miss the “pattern.”
Climates of places are much harder to come by then averages; see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification
Anyone who thinks Earth’s climate can be defined by a simple average of temperatures must be a member of “The Team” and we should insist they have a better definition of the concept.
Put one foot in a pan of hot water. Put your second foot in a pan of ice water. Describe your average comfort level?
The NOAA National Weather Service has re-drawn climate weather zones. If you take a close look at these new zones, you will see they have carefully considered the affects of topography as well as proximity to large bodies of water. Why would they have gone to this trouble? Weather is highly influenced by latitude and longitude along with the parameters of topography. The climate weather zone between Umatilla and Union County along the Blue Mountains has been fine tuned dramatically from what it was. This is because topography drastically affects what weather systems would do to this area and thus keeps its climate within a fairly well defined type. That NOAA has re-drawn this area (as they have done to most other areas as well) speaks to this understanding that climate is a fairly stable thing in which weather varies within the outer boundary range of that climate.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion about the weather/climate question so let me interject, if I may, with a very thoughtful, reasoned, erudite
and plainspoken definition. This was offered over 100 years ago by a man highly respected and admired almost universally. This definition remains as
succinct and relevant today as it was at the time it was first articulated.
“CLIMATE is what we EXPECT!…..WEATHER is what we GET!” Samuel L.
Clemens…AKA Mark Twain.
Denny
I’ve always described climate as actruarial tables for the weather. Expected ranges at specific locations based upon statistical analysis of past events at that same location. But the GCM’s are trying to map the whole world, and then use the vagaries they find for that data set to predict specific changes that go outside the established ranges based upon historical events at the locations. That is a statistical falsity.
John F. Hultquist objects to the statement “Climate is just the average of weather”.
He elaborates:
“Climate for a place is better described as a “pattern over time” of things we think of as weather variables. For example, the Seattle, WA area is usually warm and dry in the N. H. summer but cool and damp in the winter. Meanwhile, Charleston, SC has its peak rainfall in August when it is warmest. If you only present the “average” of these things, then you miss the “pattern.””
John, the expression is just a moniker. Why don’t you consider some sub-definitions? Say, “weather” is a state of atmosphere at a certain location S and time t. “Average of weather” is mathematical expectation of this state, again for certain S and t. In this way you have your “pattern over time” (because the expectation depends on t), and Seattle and Charleston are elements of S. Therefore, the expression “Climate is just the average of weather” is mathematically correct, and Mark Twain should be proud of his mathematical prowess.
“Mike Smith says: December 7, 2010 at 1:51 pm
…
Is this specific enough?
“By the period 2080-2099, devastating heat waves of the kind that killed more than 700 people in Chicago in 1995 will occur three times per year.” (USCCP, p. 119)
That is a forecast of specific weather conditions at a specific place at a specific time — a weather forecast.”
No. Same elementary question – what’s the specific time?
But I couldn’t even find that quote. What I found (p 117, 2009 NCCA) was :
“Events such as the Chicago heat wave of 1995, which resulted in over 700 deaths, will become more common. Under the lower emissions scenario, such a heat wave is projected to occur every other year in Chicago by the end of the century, while under the higher emissions scenario, there would be about three such heat waves per year.”
Properly quoted, they are clearly talking about a climate average.
This is the basic justification for skepticism-plus (to coin a term). The warmist scientists and institutions aren’t trustworthy. A second look is required, conducted by scientists from off the reservation.
This is what I said in the aftermath of Climategate: Half the embarrassing stuff can be explained away, and the rest isn’t THAT bad. BUT, given the trillions at stake, we need a second opinion. The whole field smells tainted, and we can’t take a chance. We need to take precautions.
Gotta love the guy. He’s got the right name, after all 😉
And yes, the “Global Warming” folks regularly make “Weather predictions”. A “30 year average of weather” is NOT climate. Climate is determined by things like elevation, distance to ocean, latitude, landscape. Those do not change on 30 year time scales. But regular WEATHER cycles do happen on those scales (PDO, AMO, AO). So right out the gate “Climate Science” has a lie at its core in that it tries to claim that 30 year average weather is climate, when it isn’t. Then it goes on to study AND predict changes in that 30 year weather. That’s a weather prediction. Just a bad one done on an overly broad basis.
So all my best to Mike Smith. He’s got it right.
R. Knight;
“not THAT bad”? “explained away”?
Not in any honest science lab or institute I ever heard of. Grounds for dismissal, with extreme prejudice. Reputation and probity are everything. If you once get tagged as a bunch of “fixers”, it’s game over.