People send me stuff. This time it is a press release from the laughably named “Institute for Public Accuracy”. Even in the midst of hurricanes, these people don’t give up trying to tie weather to climate. It’s shameless desperation.
Here’s my response to this Tabloid Climatology™ they are pushing. In addition, go look at the history of the Great Atlantic Storm of 1962 and explain how CO2 at much lower levels than today fit into that. Also, explain why this:
One of the strongly held assumptions of climate change is that the variability of precipitation will grow with an increase in temperature. Storms will become heavier but less frequent. Flash floods and droughts will increase.
Has been falsified today by the American Geophysical Union saying:
However, drawing on seven databases representing global monthly mean precipitation values, Sun et al. find that from 1940 to 2009 global overland precipitation variability actually decreased.
I pity any news organizations dumb enough to buy into this activist schlock they are pushing. I urge readers to counter them with facts anywhere they see them popup in the media.
==============================================================
From: Institute for Public Accuracy
Date: Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:09 AM
Subject: Interviews Available — Hurricane Sandy and Climate on Steroids
To: Institute for Public Accuracy
Institute for Public Accuracy
980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Monday, October 29, 2012
Hurricane Sandy and Climate on Steroids
Interviews Available
BILL MCKIBBEN via Phil Aroneanu, (551) 486-5833, phil@350.org, http://350.org
The group 350.org organized activists in unfurling a giant “End Climate Silence” banner in Times Square on Sunday. McKibben, the founder of 350.org said today: “Meteorologists have called this ‘the biggest storm ever to hit the U.S. mainland,’ which is a reminder of how odd our weather has been in this hottest year in American history … scientists are connecting the dots between increasingly extreme weather and global warming. Yet for most of this year’s presidential election, the words ‘climate change’ have gone unmentioned.”
JOE ROMM, (202) 483-1024, jromm@americanprogress.org, http://ClimateProgress.org
Romm is a senior fellow at Center for American Progress, edits Climate Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. He said today: “Like a baseball player on steroids, our climate system is breaking records at an unnatural pace. And like a baseball player on steroids, it’s the wrong question to ask whether a given home run is ’caused’ by steroids.” See the video: “Steroids, Baseball and Climate Change.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/08/421711/video-steroids-baseball-climate-change
“We also know that as we warm the oceans, we end up with more water vapor in the atmosphere — 4 percent more than was in the atmosphere just a few decades ago. That is why another basic prediction of climate science has been more intense deluges and floods.
“A new study finds, ‘we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large [storm] surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years.’
“Global warming and the loss of Arctic sea ice has been linked to the kind of blocking pattern that is driving this storm.” See “NOAA Bombshell: Warming-Driven Arctic Ice Loss Is Boosting Chance of Extreme U.S. Weather.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/11/989231/noaa-bombshell-warming-driven-arctic-ice-loss-is-boosting-chance-of-extreme-us-weather/
Romm recently wrote the piece “CNN Bans Term ‘Frankenstorm’, But It’s A Good Metaphor For Warming-Driven Monster: ‘Largest Hurricane In Atlantic History.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/28/1101241/cnn-bans-term-frankenstorm-but-its-a-good-metaphor-for-warming-driven-monster-largest-hurricane-in-atlantic-history/
JOSEPH NEVINS, (914) 631-0403, jonevins@vassar.edu
Nevins teaches geography at Vassar College. He recently wrote the piece “Ecological Crisis and the Need to Challenge the 20 Percent,” which states: “Although you would not know it from what passes for debate during the ongoing presidential campaign here in the United States, the biosphere is under siege. A historically high rate of ice melt in the Arctic, devastating floods from the Philippines to Nigeria, a record-setting decline in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, and extreme levels of drought in much of the United States are just some of the recent manifestations.” http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/2012101085331931338.html
TYSON SLOCUM, (202) 454-5191, tslocum@citizen.org, http://www.citizen.org
Director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, Slocum recently told IPA: “For the first time in 24 years, neither the presidential nor vice-presidential candidates were asked a question about climate disruption during the debates. And the candidates have failed to highlight the issue as well — unless you count Governor Romney’s use of climate change as a punchline to a joke in his convention speech. Some argue that the issue isn’t high on voters’ minds, but polls demonstrate otherwise. Rather, the hundreds of millions of dollars that the fossil fuel industry and their allies are spending saturating the airwaves with anti-regulation messages is likely the culprit. Obama’s ‘all of the above’ strategy locks in fossil fuels as the status quo, forcing us farther behind on the sustainable era of renewable energy. There is no such thing as benign fossil fuel production and consumption, and the future of fossil fuels will only become more expensive.”
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
_________________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
Mike Jonas:
At October 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm you write to Eric Grimsrud
You seem to not be aware that Eric Grimsrud claims to be a published authority on CFCs and the ozone hole.
Clearly, your comment that I quote does not give adequate obeisance to Grimsrud’s authority in this matter.
Richard
ericgrimsrud,
Show the difference between a hurricane or tropical storm that is natural compared with one that isn’t? Hence, you can’t so it is not science to believe something is causing it, when the planet is showing opposite signs with water vapor and cloud albedo of what CO2 should had caused. The Earth is not doing anything different than over many thousands of years, therefore how can you tell the planet is sick?
Changes in global cloud albedo can easily account for the recent warming period that so far ended years ago. CO2 relies on feedback with water vapor increasing in the atmosphere, but over recent decades it has been declining. Global cloud albedo during this warming period declined, again opposite what should had happened. This decline in global cloud levels easily changes a warming period since the early 1980’s flat when removed. Fair enough what had caused this is not really known, but is opposite to what the affect from CO2 should had been.
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6873/had3vlowcloudvsolar2.png
Joe,
I am sorry to have to inform you that scientists are human beings. They do tend to come to their own personal conclusions especially on topics that they spend their life studying and on subjects for which the conclusions seem clear to them. For example, when do you think a geologist should come to firmly believe and confidentently state that the Earth is round? Would that be when the last FlatEarther has died or do you think the time required would be forever, as you seem to suggest – if he is to remain a credible geologist. Many on this blog seem to think scientists are crooked but very few, I would guess, think they are as naive you suggest they should be.
ericgrimsrud says:
October 29, 2012 at 11:48 am
“mindless pissing match”
That is quite funny. Last time we chatted I supplied articles and you chose to ignore them.
Then bring your mind to “bear” on this and get back to me. No insults. Just science.
http://drtimball.com/2012/it-occurred-to-me-global-warming-is-another-undelivered-government-promise-polar-bear-propaganda-in-context-a-useful-tool-for-the-promotion-of-environmental-hysteria-and-politicized-science/
For the Record and contrary to the “contributions” to this discussion by RichchardCourntey.
I do not claim to be an authority on the subject of CFC – stratosheric ozone effect. I merely made the first measurements of the major carriers of the Cl atoms in the atmosphere, Freon 12 and methylchloride, in 1974, and developed several other methods of analysis for other ozone depleting compounds for several decades after that. Thus, I have both contributed to and followed the literature of the CFC – ozone issue for the last 38 years. That is what I claim – no more or less. AS always, RC is out of bounds with what he says others claim.
His only motive here and everywhere it seems is to “smear” and, as I have related on another thread or two, he is very well qualified for that function. He is only too happy to smear anyone with a substance he himself appears to be so full of.
I live in Manila, Philippines. We get these every year. Hundreds die, lose their homes, suffer massive flooding, landslides, disease. It’s called Typhoon season. No one in the West cares or notices. Usually after hitting us they go and hit one or more of Vietnam, Taiwan, HK, Korea and Japan. It’s part of life.
Now 1 storm in many, many, years hits the US East Coast and it is a global catastrophe. Give me a break. Yes, it’s bad, but at least the West have the emergency services to cope, building codes mean houses should be stronger.
Still no good as an analogy, Eric, because we don’t know what the weight or heartbeat of the planet “should” be. As far as the planet’s concerned, in all human history we haven’t even got past the pleasantries as it walks into the consulting room.
Ergo, we have no idea whether or not it’s sick in the first place – for all we know, it might just be here for some contraceptive advice.
To David Ball,
Would you feel vindicated if I gave you a reading list with more courteous instructions – that being that you should feel free to do what you wished with them – including ignoring them if you like?
At the same time, I do like to learn more science and if I find any of mutual interest in the references you provide, I might get back to you.
Remarkable amount of “natural variation” this year. Artic Sea Ice record low, monumental midwest drought, and now an unprecedented monster storm in the N.E. Seems like a lot of natural variation for one year. JP
To Mike Jonas, you say,
“Certainly there is no data to show that the ozone hole is anything other than a natural phenomenon with its own ‘cycles’. The recent sudden ozone hole in the Arctic would also seem to indicate that the effect is natural and not driven by man-made CFCs ”
Please!! There is a mountain of exceedingly convincing evidence concerning the cause of the Antarctic Ozone Hole that was first detected in 1985. That evidence shows, for example, that ozone is lost in the Antarctic springtime specifically due to the reaction, O3 + Cl -> ClO + O2, in the Antarctic stratosphere. And guess where the Cl atoms come from ? Look it up yourself. The whole story is everywhere if one looks including a full chapter devoted to it in my own book (see ericgrimsrud.com – warning – an e-version of my book might set you back a few bucks so I recommend a google search on the ozone hole first”
Now, at the same time, is it possible that ozone holes holes occurred previouslyand naturally? Yes, that is possible ( Boy, would I like to tell you about a bridge I have for sale in Outer Mongolia)
ericgrimsrud says:
October 29, 2012 at 2:51 pm
“The greenhouse gases are the ones with 3 or more atoms. Thus within your list, carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG. N2, O2, and Ar contribution nothing to the GH effect – they do not absorb or emit IR radiation. ”
Bull, and false, they do, please check the hitran database and since you didn’t know this then I call what you say are qualified in Bull too
To RC,
I must protest to your comment:
“PS I know where I think it should be shoved.” the thermometer, that is.
I have heard this comment many times before, but have found myself that Corpus Christi TX is not that bad a town.
( I realize that this bit of humor is waisted on a man that has no sense of – unless he delivers it at the expence of others. Will Rogers never met Richardscourtney !!) .
For Joe and others who don’t know why the Earth might be very sick.
The CO2 level in the atmosphere is now about 40% higher than it has been in 800,000 years for sure (unless the ice core record is also a big hoax) and very probably in the last 3 million years.
Since 1850, about 500 gtoms of carbon has been burned. Over that same period the amount of carbon in the atmosphere (contained in CO2) has increased from about 550 gtom to about 800 gtons, that is an increase of about 250 gton. THis means about 1/2 of the C burned stays in the atmosphere (about 1/4 goes to the sea and about 1/4 goes into plants and soil.)
So why wouldn’t one consider the Earth to be sick? It would have to be that CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas.
So that’s it. If you want to argue that the Earth is not sick, please do show that the excess CO2 does not matter. And while you’re at it, why not also show us all that a heavy diet of candy is OK – for the additional amusement of the non-adults in our midst.
I think we need to start promulgating the term “Voodoo Climatology”. These guys have flipped out; the hysterical propagandising is nauseating.
ericgrimsrud,
CO2 is very healthy for Mother Earth. It is harmless, and it is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better.
But don’t take my word for it. There are more than 31,000 scientists and engineers who have signed a statement saying exactly that.
So who should we believe? Them? Or you?
To ericgrimsrud,
Typical of warmist troll i prove you wrong in a statement you made
“The greenhouse gases are the ones with 3 or more atoms. Thus within your list, carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG. N2, O2, and Ar contribution nothing to the GH effect – they do not absorb or emit IR radiation. ”
You completely ignore it and go on to write more false and incorrect “facts”.
Please answer me
Regarding ericgrimsrud
In his first post on this thread, he opined
and I quickly responded that if he would only read the previous post about the analysis of Sun et al he would see that the data do not support the conclusion that “extreme weather events” have increased, at least not in the 1940-2009 period studied by Sun et al, and thus his basic hypothesis is falsified by the data.
I wish he would address this point.
REPLY: So would I, Anthony
Poor Eric hasn’t got a clue. He should live here in Australia and experience the days when a high pressure cell sits over Central Australia for a few days then moves across to the east coast and drives temperatures into the 40’s. No water there. Eric is a very foolish and deluded man (if he is a man).
HarveyS,
My understanding is that molecules that have vibrational modes which alter the center of electron density within that molecule as it vibrates with be able to both absorb and emit IR radiation at the same frequency as that of the vibration. Symetric diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 have only one vibrational mode – the symetric stretch – during which the center of electron density within those two molecule does not change.
Any molecule with 3 or more atoms will always have vibrational modes that are not symetric however and will be accompanied by a change in the center of electron density within that molecule. CO2 for example, which is linear, i.e. O=C=O has three asymetric vibrations, two being rocking motions and the other is the asymetric stretch. These will interact with IR radiation of the same frequency. Its symetric stretch mode does not interact with IR radiation.
So that is why I believe that N2 and O2 and Argon, of course, do not interact with IR radiation and, therefore, are not considered to be greenhouse gases. But please do continue to explain in your own words why I am wrong. And if you can show me an IR absorption spectrum of N2 or O2, please do. I love learning new things and this would certainly be new to me and many other scientists.
to ericgrimsrud
I told you where to go and look The HItran database, you said
“The greenhouse gases are the ones with 3 or more atoms. Thus within your list, carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG. N2, O2, and Ar contribution nothing to the GH effect – they do not absorb or emit IR radiation. ”
Ok Nitrogen absorbs infrared radiation at between 3.8 and 5 micrometers. This this wavelength falls inside the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is a similar case for Oxygen which also has many absorption bands within the range of infrared radiation.
Now i am not going to do the research job for you since all you can do is repeat typical warmist falsehoods.
ericgrimsrud – The earth needs us like a dog needs a flea. The case for AGW is trying to preserve some unlikely climate balance which is believed to have been experienced. However, as in any system, there is entropy, a decay, a constant change where balance is never found.
ericgrimsrud;
So why wouldn’t one consider the Earth to be sick?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because there are no symptoms of disease.
You’ve really dropped off the deep end of the rational spectrum at this point.
The Financial Post has a related article:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/29/terence-corcoran-frankenscience/
ericgrimsrud – You say “There is a mountain of exceedingly convincing evidence concerning the cause of the Antarctic Ozone Hole“.
That is quite simply not good enough. Like I said before, you need to check it against the facts. There is no data to show that the ozone hole is anything other than a natural phenomenon with its own ‘cycles’. In other words, for all the elegant theories about the effect of CFCs on the ozone hole, and for all the effort that went into replacing CFCs with ‘harmless’ compounds, they do not show up in the ozone hole data. The actual data does not indicate anything other than a natural process.
To Steve B.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments – they fit in very well, it appears, at WUWT. But your conclusion,
“Eric is a very foolish and deluded man (if he is a man)”
might only be partially correct. I did just check on that latter possibility and to my great relief, they were still both there !! Sorry to see your regard for science down under is no greater than that in my country. Have a nice life. Eric