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.
I really feel bad for the Mann, not!
Nice job Mr. B !
Yamal was so obvious to many, but so well funded ™TheCause™ was!
🙂
Keith Minto says:
May 8, 2012 at 6:16 pm
I am interested in the vertical profile of Co2…
I will do some checking when time permits but someone may enlighten me first.
It is a common misconception that buoyancy applies to gases as it does to liquids, however that is not the case. If we take a helium filled balloon in a room, it would rise to the top, however a CO2 filled balloon would go to the bottom. However if we poke a hole in each balloon, the individual molecules spread out very evenly. And in the atmosphere outside, the distribution of all gas molecules with the exception of water vapor, is very consistent. If all heavier molecules would sink to the bottom, then we would never have very heavy chlorofluorocarbons in the stratosphere. Helium atoms do escape from our atmosphere. However it is not due to buoyancy. You could have a CO2 molecule and a helium atom in the same place high in the atmosphere at the same temperature. Being the same temperature means the translational kinetic energy is the same. Kinetic energy is calculated by the formula E = 1/2mv2. Since the helium atom is much lighter than the CO2 molecule, its velocity at the same temperature is much higher so it can reach escape velocity and thereby leave Earth. By contrast, Jupiter has a larger gravitational field and a lower temperature than Earth, so it can hold on to its hydrogen and helium.
For more on this topic of CO2 mixing, see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/global-temps-in-a-crash-as-agw-proponents-crash-the-economy/#comment-869343
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/global-temps-in-a-crash-as-agw-proponents-crash-the-economy/#comment-869356
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/global-temps-in-a-crash-as-agw-proponents-crash-the-economy/#comment-869370
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/global-temps-in-a-crash-as-agw-proponents-crash-the-economy/#comment-870037
“Boris says:
May 8, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Mr. Bastardi,
2. Your theories on CO2 and heat capacity are not relevant. Also, I’m not sure why that chart from NASA makes you think that CO2 is not well-mixed.”
The NASA report SAID CO2 is not well mixed:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-196
“December 15, 2009
WASHINGTON – Researchers studying carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas and a key driver of global climate change, now have a new tool at their disposal: daily global measurements of carbon dioxide in a key part of our atmosphere. The data are courtesy of the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA’s Aqua spacecraft. …….
Chahine said previous AIRS research data have led to some key findings about mid-tropospheric carbon dioxide. For example, the data have shown that, contrary to prior assumptions, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the troposphere, but is rather “lumpy.” Until now, models of carbon dioxide transport have assumed its distribution was uniform. “
Anthony will likely refer to this in a top post.
Bishop Hill has updated the ‘Yamal Explained’ essay he first wrote in 2009. More recent developments, including Steve’s latest, are reflected.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/8/the-yamal-deception.html
[SNIP – Multiple policy violations, fake email address, vulgar language, sexual references – who’s the BOZO now? ]
BOZO says:
May 8, 2012 at 9:47 pm
That was probably just Mann. Poor dude. 🙂
I can’t understand why you should want more than ONE thermometer to see if the GLOBAL temperature is changing. Sure, that thermometer will show seasonal and local temperature changes, but over a long enough period, maybe hundreds of years, you will notice the change.
The problem with treerings is that they respond to more than just the temperature. The same for ice cores, peat bogs, stomata, etc. etc.
Better get that correct….well done Joe Bastardi.
Robbie Says: ”Global temperatures are not going down like you would us have to believe in your last graph, but they will remain constant and increase again when the sun becomes active.”
When the sun becomes active ?? Does this mean that you acknowledge that the sun has greater influence over temperature than CO2 ?
Boris pointed out that CO2 is well mixed with about 4% variation across the globe.
Well, 4% is around the percentage of the atmospheric CO2 that is man made. The highest concentrations are around the regions where it is produced.
Who would have thought it. 😉
Haven’t seen all the comments BUT: Doesn’t mann’s comment ‘Yamal is irrellevant’ sort of tell Briffa that all his work was meaningless JUNK to michael mann?
So much for The Team…
Julian Braggins:
At May 9, 2012 at 1:54 am you say;
“Boris pointed out that CO2 is well mixed with about 4% variation across the globe.
Well, 4% is around the percentage of the atmospheric CO2 that is man made. The highest concentrations are around the regions where it is produced.
Who would have thought it. ;)”
Well, no, not according to the plot from NASA AIRS (dated July 2003) in the above article.
Most of one region of highest concentration is over the continental USA (i.e. a region of high industrial activity so a place where much CO2 is “man made”). All other regions of highest concentrations (i.e. almost all such regions) are NOT “around the regions where [man made CO2] is produced”.
Who would have thought it? Anybody who knows that nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for every CO2 molecule emitted by the total of all activities of humans.
Richard
Excellent work, Mr Bastardi.
“Huh, FACTS. You can prove anything with *those*.” (Homer Simpson)
@ur momisugly Mr. Joe Bastardi,
Perhaps the fact that you were involved in a physical sport led you to not be intimidated by the weak conniving type that have permeated the so called ‘climate science community’. It is obvious that none have the guts to stand on their own 2 feet without their peer support of approval.
Perhaps the fact that you graduated from PSU at a time prior to academia being reduced to a sad joke, you were educated at a time where ethics and sound knowledge were a prerequisite for graduation.
I would venture to say that you are not likely to fear a member of the ‘Team” beating you up physically (LOL) and you have clearly tossed the entire ‘Team’ to the matt intelectually.
@ur momisugly Anthony, thanks for hosting this site. The knowledge brought here is absolutely astounding.
It seems that the ‘Team” is feeling the heat now and suffering a meltdown of hockey stick proportions. Real men are swinging the stick now. The ‘Hockey Stick Team’ is about to get pucked.
[SNIP: More than just a little Off-Topic. Rants about moderation policy, Monckton, Hadfield and use of “denier” will be summarily snipped. If you have something relevant to contribute, fine. If not, don’t. -REP]
pokerguy says:
May 8, 2012 at 11:21 am
As I see it, that’s the real argument… the fire to which we should be holding their feet.
Unfortunately the model results have been fed back into the temperature data as the basis for adjusting temperatures. In other words, the models are assumed to be correct, and this is used to determine where the surface temperatures collected worldwide are wrong, and the data adjusted accordingly.
This is then used to justify the correctness of the models. And the taxpayers are funding this effort. And the folks doing it are assumed to be doing it correctly because they have the label phd after their names. Phd is the modern day equivalent of papal infallibility.
Gail Combs says:
____________________
No Robert he is correct. CO2 does correlate with an 800 year lag because as the oceans warm they outgas CO2. That is well know chemistry.
——————————
Given the natural warming that has occured since the LIA, this simple fact of the oceans out-gassing CO2 as they naturally warm means humanity could be eliminated from this planet and CO2 levels would still rise.
And then the oceans cool and absorb excess C02 so you seems to get it now
One gets the feeling that this Yamal thing will actually destroy the AGW theory because its based on a lie. I think that with this information (ie McIntyre) virtually any Company, legal democratic government or person agrieved by the AGW, can bring these people to court and win.
Dave says:
“If you look back to the 1970′s the last cool phase we had, you should be aware (unless your speaking from a position of total ignorance) that the PDO had been running consistently negative for nearly 30 years and the AMO for 10 years.
Currently we are approaching solar maximum, the 109 year running mean for the PDO has only turned negative in recent years and the AMO is just coming off its peak for the 10 year running mean. Even with all these factors we’ve seen no significant increasing temperature trend for approaching 15 years.
Where is the heat?
Your comments are ludicrous and uninformed. If your going to post try and do a little research about the subject your posting on.”
PDO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg (showing way below the 0.0 line clearly)
AO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winter-NAO-Index.svg (has decreased significantly in the last decade)
Solar cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png and of course cycle 24 http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/ (colder than ever before)
See for the UAH temperatures: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2012-0-30c/ (still high temperatures for April and 2012 will probably be another very warm year)
That is simply not possible with all the available data I have just shown you so far. It should be cooling right now. At least back to the early or mid-nineties. And if cloud cover were to blame I like to see the evidence for it.
So stop telling me that I am making ludicrous and uninformed statements.
duster says:
“You first have to show the planet’s mean temperature actually is high given current conditions before there is any need to explain it. Since it is self evident that no one really does know how the “climate” works – there would be no call for the current debate otherwise – we can conclude that there is no one on the planet that can say with empirical authority what the planet’s temperature really ought to be at present.”
It’s easy to leave everything in the dark and confuse people, but one thing is for sure if humans were not on Earth the planets current temperature would be cooler than today’s global temperature. Every climate scientist (I think even Roy Spencer and Lindzen would agree) with me here.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/GlobalClimateChange49
And here is the best primer why I asked the questions to Mr. Bastardi on May 8. Now look what the temperatures are doing http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2012-0-30c/
Really cold La Niñas??? I don’t think so. Cooling world???? I don’t think so either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4TC2bQqDTw&feature=g-vrec
Robbie,
If you look at the long term temperature trend line from the LIA to now, you will see that temperatures have not accelerated, but remain within their long term parameters — while CO2 has increased by ≈40%
What does that tell you?
Robbie says:
May 9, 2012 at 11:36 am
If so, why, if not, why not; please explain.
Your argument has become a vast waste of time and money, Robbie. You apparently aren’t a scientist–you’re just a bumper sticker writer. And you know what happens to bumper stickers after a while–they get washed off.
(PS> Please don’t post wikipedia links; nobody here takes them for more than two-bit actors.)
>Jerky, it seems you were pwned by Gail Combs before you even wrote your first word. Perhaps you should explain to NASA that their stance that CO2 is not being well-mixed in the atmosphere is “a blatant and easy demonstrable falsehood.”
Nice way to try and twist the data, but the resulting radiative effects will be the same. The AIRS data show that MID-TROPOPSHERIC c02 is strongly influenced by synoptics. That is what the actual data says, not Joe’s idiotic statement that somehow it’s so unmixed it can’t affect anything. When you look at the DATA, the total variations are on the order of 5ppm. In addition, the surface observations do indeed show a well-mixed boundary layer, e.g.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html
If you think this sideshow negates the radiative effects, you really don’t understand radiation physics at all!
Re: Boris who wrote;
“2. Your theories on CO2 and heat capacity are not relevant.”
With all due respect good sir, I submit this simple example;
1) A person with simple cotton clothing gets drenched by a rain storm; the water contained in the cloth has a thermal capacity that is much less that the thermal capacity of the “drenched” person. If the person keeps moving vigorously the cloth will eventually dry out and they will likely survive. In this case the thermal capacity of the person’s wet clothes is “insignificant” with respect to the thermal capacity of the person itself.
2) A person falls into a “large” body of water (i.e. the unfortunate souls that did not achieve a lifeboat seat after the Titanic tragically sank). In this case the “heat capacity” of the water did indeed make quite a “relevant” distinction in their “future plans”.
Cheers, Kevin.