by Joe Bastardi
Being I am branded as a “denier”, I am having trouble dismissing the relevance of the tree ring studies that challenge the hockey stick, in light of the magnitude of the weight against co2 having any relevance to the climate.
I am hoping Dr. Mann can clear some things up for me, a PSU meteo grad that as I understand is no longer welcome in our department because of my outspoken stance on the climate change issue. A response here can also enlighten the other Neanderthals, some of them apparently devious enough to fool entire departments so they have PHDs, as to the latest “situation” with you and Andy Revkin. Andy, I am hoping this is not too “divisive or toxic”.
You tweeted that this graph, which has a version that shows no hockey stick was “largely irrelevant”
Here is the tweet:
And yet we see that the Chinese find no hockey stick in their studies:
In light of the Chinese studies, how can you say the other finding is largely irrelevant?
In addition you are asking us to believe that a gas that is 1/400th of the greenhouse gasses in a mixture ( air) that has 1/1000th of the heat capacity of the ocean,
WHICH IS BY FAR THE GREATEST CONTRIBUTOR TO THE NUMBER ONE GREENHOUSE GAS, WATER VAPOR, is somehow so relevant its pushing around the climate system. Even more remarkable is that this gas ( co2 if you have not guessed) has a specific gravity of 1.5 that of air, heats and COOLS faster than air, has different radiation properties and according to NASA satellite data, does not mix well.
Add to that the fact that in that mixture, air, it occupies .004 and according to DOE, mans total contribution is 3 to 5 %,
meaning using the high end 5% we have contributed .0002 to a mixture that has 1/1000th of the heat capacity of a prime source of the number one greenhouse gas , water vapor, that is 400 times the amount of co2.
Since I am an actual graduate of PSU meteo, and would like to again show my face there, I would hope you can explain to me and the rest of the “denial machine” how assigning such a high value to what would appear by the PHYSICAL evidence to be a non factor is somehow consistent with 2 studies showing NO HOCKEY STICK being largely irrelevant.
Again here is my problem: we have 2 studies showing no hockey sticks, they are irrelevant, yet the sheer weight of evidence AGAINST co2 being able to push the climate around seems to be of a much greater magnitude than the 2 studies.
And just for good measure, perhaps you can help us deniers with the apparent misconception with the ocean and sun correlation and the disconnect to co2 seen here:
TOP LEFT CO2 VS TEMP top right global temp since pdo flip bottom left ocean vs temp correlation pdo plus amo bottom right solar correlation
ocean strength of correlation is .83 solar is .57 co2 is .44
I look forward to the response convincing me that by looking at all sides of the issues, and reading just about everything you have done, that I am wrong, so I recant my Neanderthal views, and once again be able to sing “ may no act of ours bring shame” in our alma mater, since after all I am a graduate of PSU.
I am also a letter winner, so along with sweating out classes, I sweat and bled on our wrestling mats, so you might understand why my relationship with my University and its most famous member of our esteemed meteorology department is important to me.
Joe Bastardi
State Collge, PA
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Simply brilliant, Joe.
But you won’t get a response.
Mountain meet molehill That sounds about right. If Mann does the sums it comes out as a mountain, anyone with a modicum of honesty and it turns out to be a molehill.
Good luck with that, Joe. I feel the pain, because my alma mater, Acadia University, has gone hog-wild on the meme as well. I didn’t get a letter, but I was pretty much a 4.0 GPA. And watching science get sacked for political agendas is, well, a combination of irritating and depressing. And watching Mann’s unmistakably disdainful smirk must be a real drag.
Reading the responses in the link below illustrates just how shoddy the whole thing has become.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/understanding-climate-change/~/media/climate-change/prof-plimer-101-questions-response-pdf.pdf
Joe, you da man…
But, don’t you know, as Thomas Wolfe famously wrote, you can’t go home again.
Oh, he probably will get a response, Mardler, but it will be a “not worth even a serious rebuttal” tweet. 🙂
The mountain is under the right side of his graph. The molehill is under the right side of the Chinese chart.
Dim sum for everyone.
Joe, Joe, Joe. Tsk, tsk. Of COURSE it’s the CO2. Look at this equation: dF= 5.35 X ln C/Co (Wm^-2). See how simply the radiative forcing makes the temp go up? If you plug in values for C/Co one can easily see how the temperature of the atmosphere will increase. Why, with enough CO2 the oceans will boil away! What? One cannot do a tabletop experiment to confirm this? Why does that matter? The math is correct so it *MUST* be true! What? Why is it cooling off? Err…..ummm….. I’m not sure. I’ll have to recheck my figgers. I know Big Oil is putting more CO2 in the atmosphere so I’ll have to get back to you on that. I know the guys at GISS & CRU will be able to edumakate me. TTFN!
Do I really have to put “/sarc.” here?
Joe: the IPCC crew has somehow managed to make 4 major physics’ mistakes!
1. 1973, Lacis and Hansen adopt Sagan’s aerosol optical physics. NASA publications claim polluted clouds ‘reflect’ more sunlight because of higher droplet surface area/low size. Yet clouds with highest albedo are rain clouds. This was noticed by cloud physicist G L Stephens in 2010. There is no cooling by polluted clouds, in reality it’s the reverse, the real GW mechanism.
2. 1981, Hansen et. al. claim ~24 K lapse rate warming is a GHG effect, overestimating present GHG warming by a factor of ~3.7.
3. 1986, Houghton claims Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium in the lower atmosphere means it emits radiation as a black body: there is no such physics yet the IPCC climate models assume non-existent ‘back radiation’ in equilibrium with a black body Earth emitting as if it were in a vacuum. Any process engineer will confirm that to get radiation to exceed natural convection for ~0.9 emissivity you need >100 °C. The IPCC increases real IR warming by a factor of 15.5!
4. The Tyndall and CO2 in a bottle experiments do not prove direct thermalisation: there is no warming when the bottle is replaced by thin Mylar. In reality thermalisation is probably mostly at heterogeneous interfaces [cloud droplets etc.] as pseudo-scattering transfers the energy. This may explain the Miskolczi control system/constant IR optical depth..
The bottom line; there is indirect GHG warming; GHG-AGW has been vastly exaggerated and could be net zero. The subject has to be re-started by objective professionals, students should not be taught incorrect physics – ‘downwelling IR’ is an artifact of the measurement procedure, a measure of temperature convolved with emissivity, not an energy source.
You’ll never arrive at the right answer the way you’re going at this, Joe. The data must be adjusted using “sophisticated statistical techniques”. There are lots of such techniques available to the resourceful practitioner and you’ll know you’ve hit on just the right combination when you get the following effects:
1) Adjusted temperatures early in the 20th century come out lower than recorded raw readings.
2) Adjusted temperatures late in the 20th century come out higher than recorded raw readings.
3) The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period disappear.
Voila!
Joe: In one word – BRILLIANT. But real brilliance is seen as foolishness to those who are being deceived (or in this case, who wish to play the role of a deceiver). Hmmmmm…. sounds familiar. Where have I heard THAT quote before?
In the case of Mann it should be spelled hockey schtik.
Joe! Joe! Joe! How can you be so gauche as to cite actual, factual evidence and comparisons!!
Don’t you know it’s all about feelings? You have to “feel” the data, not examine it!
C’mon! Get with the program!
Or we’ll destroy your reputation! We’ll take your house and everything else you hold dear! We’ll try you for treason and hang you!
Oops! Did I just say that!!
Nevermind!!
I’ve yet to understand how CO2 levels can fluctuate 1000’s of ppm…..naturally
….yet can’t handle an additional 5 ppm (100 ppm X 5%)
and when CO2 levels were in the 1000’s…..managed to crash all on it’s own
Manns arse: 0 Bastardis boot: 1
Short and sweet with enough /sarc to hurt where it counts, superb job Mr.Bastardi.
I would think it would be more like the ‘I don’t joust with jesters’ line he’s used before.
Grrrrr. . . .
It is so obvious yet so many won’t even think about it.
0.04% of the atmosphere which is inconsequential when compared with the ocean has the ability to destroy Earth. Really !
/sarc
Well done !!
What is becoming ever more irrelevant is Michael Mann.
He’s has become simply a waste of time, an ignorant, whining, obsessed demagogue living in some kind of fantasy world where people respected his work.
His 15 minutes of fame are over.
Nice ground and pound work Joe. You and Hulk smash good.
Having worked in science at a university for some 28 years, I too am deeply saddened by this dismissal of real science in favor of popular “religious-science” (apologies to the actual church). It seems to have the properties of that notorious green gas that flowed through the city in The Ten Commandments, only now it’s taking brains, not first born.
Even more obscene is the importance being placed by these institutions of higher learning on sports, with spending increases on sports disproportionately greater than on science. Scientific faculty are being cut while the coach is getting a contract extension and a raise… on top of a half-million dollar current salary. It is no wonder that people who garner notoriety for populist causes that both reinforce and benefit from the myth of CAGW are deified.
A perfect example is my university’s recent hosting of Naomi Oreskes so she could give a lecture on why the deniers are wrong. Don’t get me started.
You offer some very good, simple questions, but I doubt they’ll be answered in any kind of direct manner, if at all.
ten out of ten for effort Joe, but he wont respond. Why not give Ho Chi Manh a call and ask him if he wants help to set up a CPCC
Joe you have to keep up. The satellites have been “adjusted”, what cooling? Now onto adjust those pesky balloons.
“In addition you are asking us to believe that a gas that is 1/400th of the greenhouse gasses in a mixture ( air) that has 1/1000th of the heat capacity of the ocean…etc, etc”
Sorry, but arguments like the above are not helpful. The theoretical underpinnings for AGW are valid as far as they go. Except for one thing. The real world data is not cooperating. And there is no “trapped heat” yet found to explain why that is. The way science should work, and usually does work is that when a hypothesis is shown to have no predictive value, that hypothesis is declared invalid.
As I see it, that’s the real argument… the fire to which we should be holding their feet.
I struggle with the text of this letter, which I find incoherent and difficult to follow – though the charts are of great interest. Could it be tidied up retrospectively? Thanks.
And “awarded a letter” – is that for representing the University at sport? Like a “cap” or a “blue”?
So, there goes my theory. I attended an NFL football game last year and my observations led me to conclude that wearing a replica football jersey causes middle aged men’s abdomens to grow. I guess that there must be more to it than that.