Post by Dr. Ryan Maue (cross posted at my Policlimate)
“Must watch TV: Nye expounds on theory of racism”
Much “debate” has erupted in the liberal mainstream media concerning the effects of global warming on Hurricane Irene. With a few notable exceptions (Henry Fountain awesome), many of the journalists butchered the science and generally constructed disjointed narratives that quoted a variety of favorite experts which left me wondering why they even bother (Politico). Rush Limbaugh provided a compelling alternative explanation for the hurricane hype: “Politics is part of everything. The weather’s been politicized; the climate’s been politicized…Both Obama and the media were hoping for a disaster to revive his presidency and help prove climate change theory…The New York Times is trying to say that this violent hurricane is indeed indicative of global warming. It was a tropical storm when it left New York.”
But Bill Nye takes the “anti-science” crusade to a new level by showing up on Fox Business with my KFI 640 Saturday friend Charles Payne and embarrassing the hell out of himself. Once you watch the video and read the transcript, you will be left in amazement at his utter lack of comprehension of the topic at hand on national television! But, alas, Media Matters thinks Nye owned Payne (h/t to Andrew Revkin to Tweeted this). And CBS News headlines it as a story! Unbelievable!
The left actually thinks Bill Nye is a brilliant ambassador for their brand of global warming alarmism — a legitimate guy that understands the science and can articulate an explanation. However, Nye has no credentials or expertise with respect to global warming and hurricanes, at all. Not one iota.
Video is embedded or to go to CBS News and watch the Fox Business embedded video there. “Heady stuff, but Nye receives my respect for retaining his patience in outlining a life’s worth of work in a six-minute segment.” says Andrew Nusca. He has no idea that what Bill Nye is saying is disjointed and amateurish. Intricacies? Nye got almost everything wrong.
I transcribed my own transcript from the first 3 minutes of this (all I could take). Emphasis — bold and italics are my comments.
Charles Payne: While hurricane Irene brought more than just wind damage and flooding to the east coast, it’s revived a national debate as to whether global warming might be causing an increase in hurricanes and other extreme weather. In fact a recent cover story in Newsweek declared that this kind of wild weather may be quote “the new normal”. Here with insights on this is Bill Nye, otherwise known as the science guy.
Ok Bill, I’m going to come right at you. Um…Hurricane Irene – proof of global warming?
Bill Nye: Oh, I don’t think the word proof is what you are looking for – evidence of, a result of, yeah, yeah. Now here’s what the people will tell you that run these climate models. Now everybody, the word model in this usage is a computer program. A very sophisticated computer program. So you take data from satellites about the thickness of clouds and the extent of cloud-cover over the sea. You take data about the temperature of the sea surface. You take data about the existing weather say in North America or the Gulf of Mexico as this storm moves into it. Then you compute how much rain fell out of it, how much energy must have been put into it to create that much rain. It takes many months to analyze an event like Irene. Now the climate colleagues that I have will not tell you today that Irene was evidence or a result of climate change but check in with them about March next year after they have a few months to collect all of these millions and millions of data from weather services and satellites and compile them and run a climate model and show that Irene was a result of the world having more energy in the Earth’s atmosphere.
(Ryan: First of all, charitably, I think Nye is confusing a real-time operational weather forecast with a climate model. Climate models do not assimilate satellite observations of a given event — and it wouldn’t take months and months to compile the data. I have everything sitting on my server which generates my old FSU weather map page. Check back with them in March — that’s when they’ll have their climate model results back proving Irene was the result of more energy? This is a pretty unconventional way of doing climate or extreme event attribution. Bill Nye follows the “anti-scientific” method: I’ll give you the answer now, and then in 6-months, check back when I have the proof. )
CP: But here’s the thing here bill, ever since Katrina, right, we’ve heard that every year the hurricane season is going to be more devastating and apocalyptic, and the reality is we haven’t seen that. So how can Newsweek say “hey, this is a new normal”? is that irresponsible – is there any science behind that?
(Ryan: this is a great question by Payne. Since global hurricane activity — the number of storms, hurricanes, and Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) is at historical lows — collapsing since Katrina — as I showed in my recent GRL peer-reviewed paper, how on earth can you attribute one hurricane (Irene) to climate change.?)
BN: well there’s a lot more science behind that than just saying it’s not. But, uh, that aside. That’s only 6-years – in geologic time in terms of climate events, is not very long. Furthermore there is a lot of debate about this cool thing or remarkable thing is that the Sea-surface in the Pacific gets warmer, in the Pacific Ocean! Okay, tens of thousands of nautical miles away. As that gets warmer, it will strangely serve to decapitate certain hurricane or cyclonic storms off the coast of Africa – and actually get a few fewer hurricanes.
(Ryan: no kidding Nye, however, you haven’t come up with any science. Nye then launches into a tortured explanation of the El Nino Southern Oscillation warm phase — El Nino where the waters in the tropical Pacific cyclically become anomalously warm. But, it’s not “tens-of-thousands nautical miles away” — that’s more like the distance to the moon. There is actually little consensus in the climate community about the future of El Nino as the planet slowly warms. The CMIP3 models used for the IPCC AR4 report fail to reproduce historical ENSO events or variability, and therefore are useless prediction devices for the future. We already have a pretty good handle on the “teleconnection” effects of El Nino and La Nina on Atlantic hurricane development with research pioneered by Dr. Bill Gray and furthered by Dr. Phil Klotzbach who produces Colorado State’s seasonal hurricane forecasts. 2011 is a neutral-to-building La Nina year, so we should expect weaker vertical shear in the Main Development Region of the tropical Atlantic. It’s bizarre that Nye brought up El Nino which contradicts his original assertion that Irene was evidence of global warming.)
CP: But Bill, that’s not…
BN: This is another thing that’s very hard to show.
CP: But the Pacific Ocean, getting warmer, but that’s not from man.
(Ryan: excellent point again Charles. The tropical Pacific does not have a strong global warming signal over the past 30-years, which is due to the cyclical nature of ENSO on 2-7 year time scales. Our sea-surface temperature (SST) records get worse as you go backwards from the beginning of the satellite era in 1979. Nye has no answer.)
BN: (waving hands): you’re acting that you are dismissing those things like they they are not relevant.
(Ryan: Nye is defeated, and he knows it. After wagging his finger like Judge Judy, he pretty much has spent his arsenal of facts on this issue.)
CP: I’m not dismissing it, but you have so much information, I want to get to all of it. Are you saying though that it’s manmade, though?
BN: Well the world is getting warmer, uh, everybody, the world is getting warmer. I believe the debate is whether humans are causing it…Do we not agree that the world is getting warmer?
(Ryan: The world is getting warmer — so Irene has to be influenced by global warming. Maybe Irene did NOT reach its maximum potential because of global warming — has anyone considered that. Why must ALL of the climate change effects be a certain sign? Why didn’t Irene reach Category 5? Why did it weaken so fast if the SSTs were so warm? This is where the real tropical cyclone researchers will take over from the media hacks, and, yes, they will come with an answer in March. But, they will follow the “scientific” method and not the “I’ll get the proof later” Bill Nye “anti-science” method.)
CP: I have no idea. Someone told me that it’s warmed 1-degree over the past 100-years. I’ll take their word for it.
(Ryan: Charles is right.)
Show continues to talk about racism and shows the Al Gore “racism” clip – but Nye then really goes off into a different realm discussing that. I’m convinced that Fox News booked Nye knowing that he would butcher the science, and force me to write this post.
Neo-AGW Progress Report.
Outbreak of Gorebullimia blasts Britain.
…-
“UK summer the coolest for 18 years”
“Met Office says average temperature was 13.6C, the lowest since 1993, with forecasts for a wetter and colder September than usual”
“Hopes of a sunny summer to offset the UK’s economic misery have been dashed by confirmation that the holiday season has been the country’s coolest for 18 years.
Chill and damp on a scale not seen since 1993 may also break further doleful records if Met Office forecasts are right in predicting a wetter and colder September than usual.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/31/uk-summer-coolest-18-years
Newsflash: Wrong again!
The debate over global warming is over changes in the climate, hence the re-branding to climate change. In case you’re not familiar with the theory, the idea is man-made (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases is causing the climate to warm, or change in other ways. In accordance to this theory, no increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would mean no increases in hurricane frequency or intensity.
I don’t know of any skeptics who wish to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Many believe increases in CO2 is beneficial as it spurs plant growth. A warmer climate is usually better than a cold climate as well.
Your entire post is a complete straw man argument.
Robert in Calgary says:
August 30, 2011 at 8:46 pm
“Isn’t time to set up a separate website – WUWG – What’s Up With Gates?”
Yes, he has earned it. There might be need of a Bot to post criticisms of CAGW. Might not.
James Sexton says:
August 30, 2011 at 10:26 pm
(For Bill Nye six years is too few to show lack of hurricane activity, but one storm is enough to prove AGW)
Nice!
R. Gates says:
August 30, 2011 at 8:16 pm
” Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.”
R. Gates, we can agree on that. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so no greenhouse gases on Earth implies an Earth devoid of water and oceans; as a hurricane is powered by the hydrological cycle, a hurricane would then be impossible.
But that’s not what you wanted to imply; you wanted to somehow connect CO2 and hurricanes. And that is of course unnecessary, as 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, this completely suffices; CO2 is, as usual, a bit player.
barry says: August 30, 2011 at 4:39 pm
O/T – it’s been two weeks since we had a post on Arctic sea ice, … Normally there are a bunch of posts at this time tracking the ice melt in great detail – what’s different this year?
Because people are getting bored with “global warming” since it’s become clear it is not happening. So what is going on with Arctic ice has lost its luster.
cotwome says:
August 30, 2011 at 6:19 pm
“Hurricane Irene was a catastrophe of enormous severity and magnitude, Christie said, adding: “Torrential rains have caused significant flooding in areas across the state, impacting residences, major and local roads, and necessitating highway closures and a suspension of rail services.”…
… Actually it was an unfortunate double whammy. Trenton, New Jersey’s highest single day rainfall total for the month of August occurred two weeks before Irene. August 14, saw 4.67 inches of rain. The second highest daily rainfall total occurred on August 27, with 3.91 inches. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania had their wettest August on record, ‘before’ Irene even made landfall in North Carolina.
Thanks! I wasn’t aware of these other heavy rains. Now I see why flooding happened.
Robert in Calgary says:
August 30, 2011 at 8:46 pm
“Isn’t time to set up a separate website – WUWG – What’s Up With Gates?”
You must include this section:
Gatesisms
A Gatesism is a statement by R. Gates, an AGW proponent, who posts on WUWT. He uses catch phrases without regard to magnitude, relevance or context and creates straw man arguments with hopes of hijacking threads.
The response to all Gatesisms should be: “So what”
Classic Gatesisms:
“40 % increase in CO2 over the last 100 years”
“CO2 levels have exploded”
“The earth of 2011 far different in atmospheric composition than the earth of the 1600′s”
“especially with the increases in ocean heat content and water vapor levels we’ve seen over the past few decades. ” (new)
Ken Hall says:
August 31, 2011 at 3:02 am
I would be very saddened to see Johnny Ball come out on the side of the alarmists.
Can’t see that happening.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/18/johnny-ball-climate-change-attack
Whining? I made a three-line post asking WUWT after a very unusual 2 week hiatuson reports at the end of the melt season. This is a problem?
If you want to teach me manners, may I suggest you lead by example. An inline reply to me advising me of the imminent post would have been far better form that waiting for someone to notice my post so you could snipe about me after the fact.
I keep it polite here as you know. Fortunately, I do not learn from my entertainment. You surprise me.
I don’t care if you permit this, Anthony. It’s FYI.
REPLY: I didn’t approve your initial comment, another moderator did. So the reply to you was the first I’d seen, and yes I was more than a little ticked off at the time, so you may have unfairly gotten some of my frustration over the train wreck going at that time from Mr. Biscan in the current poll thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/31/final-arctic-sea-ice-forecast-poll/ . Inline replies are standard here, because when sloppy people accuse me of outrageous things, such as Mr. Biscan as done, I want people to see immediately the response or correction. Otherwise they’ll just run off willy nilly and slander me without bothering to scroll through the thread to see the answer. As I said though, and you and Mr. Biscan demonstrated, I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t. But it would be nice to see you make a positive contribution once in awhile instead of the constant knocking down you do. – Anthony
Dreadnought says:
August 30, 2011 at 6:44 pm
True, but they obviously couldn’t get Gore (besides, he’d have used a bunch of expletives on air and called them all racists), and Mann and Jones aren’t willing to stick their necks out anymore than they have to. I can’t think of a viable CAGW rep, really I can’t.
Looks like Bill Nye the ________ Guy (you fill in the blank) is all they could come up with.
Does that say a lot about their CAGW schtick or what?
(Maybe R. Gates would be willing to go before the Friendly Folks at Fox?–then we wouldn’t need a WUWG–he’d be given his day in the limelight and we’d have just another outstanding thread to discuss.)
Excellent post Ryan. Haven’t read all the comments but tens of thousands of nautical miles versus distance to the moon (funny analogy – and just as wrong as Nye’s analogy).
A nautical mile is one minute of arc around the earth’s equator or 360 x 60 = 21,600 nautical miles. The Pacific Ocean extends almost half-way around the world – let’s say about 9,000 nautical miles. The moon is about 385,000 kilometers away from the earth or about 215,000 nautical miles. A draw between the two analogies occurs at 44,000 nautical miles, which IMO is tens of thousands of nautical miles. That number is way too big to explain earth weather patterns and way too small to reach the moon. I know, back to work…
I like the political angle you bring and look forward to more of these.
Scottish Skeptic,
Reporting on sea ice was only ever about disproving AGW, and as long as there is other ammo, you’re just not interested? Sorry, but that is hardly news to me. There may be a few people left around here who have a whiff of actual curiosity left, or are careful to construct their worldview with adherence to intellectual integrity, but for the most part, people come here to cheer the dragons being slain on a daily basis. Enjoy the circus!
You can tell Joe B was a wrestler, he just performed a “takedown” on Mr. Gates. In all seriousness, science is about developing a hypothesis, testing it and then have others verify or debunk it. My point is that this site provides a forum for all sides to make their viewpoints known and that allows pretty much unlimited debate over the issues, so I welcome those like Mr. Gates who have a differing opinion and are allowed to express it within the confines of reasonable discourse. At other sites (hint: UnReal Climate), those with differing views have their posts eliminated, snipped, or subject to attempted ridicule without any semblance of impartiality. Personally I prefer the model that is WUWT over the Romm’s and Schmidt’s censored blogs of the world
“Ken Hall says:
August 31, 2011 at 3:02 am
I would be very saddened to see Johnny Ball come out on the side of the alarmists.
Can’t see that happening.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/18/johnny-ball-climate-change-attack”
Thanks for that Tallbloke 😉
Below is the composition of Jupiter’s atmosphere. From Wiki.
89.8±2.0% hydrogen (H2)
10.2±2.0% helium
~0.3% methane
~0.026% ammonia
~0.003% hydrogen deuteride (HD)
0.0006% ethane
0.0004% water
No CO2. Water almost nonexistant. Ninety-nine per cent plus is non GHG. So RGates what should we call the large storm on Jupiter if not a hurrincane. If it is a hurricane how did it get there without GHG’s?
James – thank you for the reply, enjoyed reading. I’ve heard pundits from both sides acknowledge that the earth is warming, but have never understood the generally accepted point of reference. The 30 year standard used for much trend analysis is clearly too short, but just how far back should we go.
@R. Gates,
I like how you sidestepped the actual, real world data on hurricanes. Take a step back and get your wits about you again, because you are losing your rational senses in this matter.
Robertvdl says:
August 30, 2011 at 3:41 pm
It was a joke.
BarryW says:
August 30, 2011 at 6:01 pm
But he must know what he’s talking about! He wears a bow tie!
—
More importantly, are his pants properly creased?
R. Gates;
Hurricanes are part of the climate system, meaning multiple interrelated causes and effects, and you could no more separate greenhouse gases from the existence of hurricanes on earth then you could, separate the whales from the existence of oceans…they all infer each other. Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.>>>
So…you’re saying that whales cause the oceans? Or that the oceans cause whales? Or that it would be impossible to take all the whales out of the oceans to see what happens as a result? You babble on about chaos theory and three body problems and then introduce an example so ridiculously inapropriate to either those concepts or the topic at hand that it ony shows how little you understand any of what you pretend to.
The real question is this: Do you know how silly you look and just don’t care, or are you so drunk on AGW nonsense that you don’t even know that you look silly?
R. Gates, you really liven the discussions. Keep posting! No sarc here at all.
It’s really nice to argue without all the emotions and you force us to double check our references.
We would be back patting sicophants if we didn’t have any outspoken opposition. We have enough back patting as is. It’s better to come here with an open mind that is changeable than simply bask in the confirmation and groupthink at other sites. Bill Nye has obviously been doing too much of that and not learning anything usefull with his time.
Interesting turn of phrase. I’d like to borrow that; “So much you strangle yourself in the process.” Sorta like a Yoda-ism or an “All your base are belong to us.”
BTW: If it was long enough to strangle yourself with it, he’d be very popular with the ladies.
polistra August 30, 2011 at 4:36 pm: Correlation isn’t all you need to imply causation. You need correlation plus a firm mechanism.
Not true. It’s possible to establish causation without knowing the how and why of the mechanism. Years ago people noticed the sun warms the environment without knowing how it could do so. In fact, I’d venture to say that knowledge of cause/effect more likely than not precedes research into the mechanism.
barry:
At August 31, 2011 at 7:08 am you say to Scottish Skeptic,
“There may be a few people left around here who have a whiff of actual curiosity left, or are careful to construct their worldview with adherence to intellectual integrity, but for the most part, people come here to cheer the dragons being slain on a daily basis. Enjoy the circus!”
Dragons? What “dragons”?
I see comments from R Gates being pulled apart and from you being ignored because they are not deemed worthy of any response. But I don’t see any dragons, only whimps.
I would like to see St George doing his stuff and I am missing the show. But I fail to see any “dragons” being slain. Surely, you cannot be making stuff up while complaining at lack of “intellectual integrity”, can you?
Richard