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:
[snip]
To All ( Assuming that my “36-hr time out” assigned to me two days ago is now over).
On this thread and another entitled “Global precipitation variability from 1940 to 2009 contradicts models” there has been a lot of discussion concerning the validity of “Extreme Weather Events” and their frequency. As I have said above, I am skeptic of claims that AGW has not caused EWE if increase in both frequency and intensity. I have provided a good example of why I am skeptical on my last post on the other thread mentioned above so I will not repeat it here. Nevertheless, I would encourage anyone who is interested why we should be skeptical of so called “clear evidence” concerning this topic should read both my comment, that entire thread, and the reference to Sun et al provided in it.
(Note to the mods, If this post does not meet your requirements for some reason, would you kindly explain why so that I can made necessary corrections to it?) Thanks, ERic
[Reply: Your time out has expired. But I caution you regarding your incessant thread-bombing commentary, which violates site Policy. — mod.]
To ericgrimsrud
Stil waiting for to say you was wrong about nitrogen and oxygen not absorbing IR.
HarveyS, Yes I know you were waiting, but my response was snipped.
I can find no IR adsorbtion coeficients for N2 and O2 that would suggest importance in the case of the Earth’s atmosphere. You claims those absorbances are important. So please do the “proof”. With Beer’s Law, your absortion coeficients, and the known amounts of N2 and O2 in the vertical column, show me that IR absorption by N2 and O2 is important. That claim is yours to prove first. Don’t ask others to disprove it first.
To the mods,
[snip]
Apparently, a definition of the term “thread-bombing” might be in order. Whatever it is, I’ll accept it. Again I do not run this web site, Anthony does. I just want its operational rules to be clear to all.
[Reply: Engaging in a running commentary and arguing with everyone else becomes tedious. Since you want a definition, speaking just for this moderator: posting 200%+ more than anyone else should qualify as thread bombing. Note that there are several moderators, and each has some latitude in their moderating. We generally moderate with a light touch and when in doubt, approve the comment. But on occasion, a particular commentator can get obsessive. — mod.]
to ericrimsrud
No you said They dont absorb IR radiation they do, therefore you were WRONG.
You then, which is a typical response of a warmist go onto try to change the subject . So I shall stay on your original point. and i shall just re-quote you so u dont forget
“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. ”
If you cant admit you were wrong then dont respond with a different answer. Because i will not be further responding to u, and the crap you type
To the Moderator, Thanks for that clarification. In veiw of it, I will not in the future respond to many of the numerous questions specifically addressed me on WUWT. But please do also share this with others so they will know why I will not respond neither to their questions or statements so often. That procedure sure works for me – like Anthony, I also have other things to do.
To All from the New Me. Why I like WUWT
The reason I like to interact with others at WUWT is because when doing so, I am not just “signing to a proverbial choir”. I realize that I am going against the direction of the predominant grain at WUWT and, therefore, the shortcoming of my own thoughts are quite likely to be exposed – and I will be the wiser for that whenever it occurs.
One learns very little by preaching before one’s “yes men” and I spend very little of my time doing that. Tea parties and pep fests with one’s comrads are nice, I suppose, but I don’t care for them very much because relatively little is learned from them. They tend to provide a form of positive feedback instead of negative and, as I hope we all now, the former type of feedback can drive things over the cliff. Moreover, I would be exceedingly happy to learn that my grandchildren will not have insurmountable problems to address when they become adults. So with respect to any good news of that type that might be out there, I really am all ears and would love to change my present view of the AGW issue.
One last response here to the very persistent HarveyS.
OK, turns out that you are right – both nitrogen and oxygen will absorb IR radiation – when compressed to their liquid states – as all forms of condensed matter do.
You got me there. So good for you. You were right and I was wrong. In addition, I will also confess to you that I had knew this all along but had assumed for some reason that you were referring to a gaseous state of N2 and O2 of the sort existing in our atmosphere.
(Sorry Mods, will try harder to ignore questions addressed to me in the future, I promise. )
ericgrimsrud – nice words – “I really am all ears” – but not supported by your comments, in which you stick to your beliefs and ignore the evidence. Ears are only useful if they are connected to the brain.
Eric: You have finally posted something that I agree with but one can believe from what you have posted to WUWT that you are too old and far left and, I might add, because of the a fore mentioned conditions, unable to ever realize that ”the shortcoming of my own thoughts are quite likely to be exposed – and I will be the wiser for that whenever it occurs.”; ”whenever” being the key word because for folks with your mindset, that day will never occur.
I, in a way, wish that your comments on this thread had not been ”snipped”. Because of that occurring, I did not see what your total thoughts are regarding this issue. You can now come to understand that it can be frustrating to be shut out of the conversation, such as you do if only ONE comment is presented that disagrees with your opinion at your blog site, while here, WUWT did allow you to make many replies and presentations during the course of this thread.
I do find it different that when making comments on Alarmist sites, there seems to be a great deal of hostility, usually from the site owner, and in some cases an ample use of profanity, used to show just how much an opposing view is found to be intolerable. We have seen WUWT give much space to your views being presented while over at a site that I use to go to and no longer do because it is, quit frankly, run by a person that does appear to be insane:
http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/western-australias-catastrophic-forest-collapse/#comment-195
Another site that holds no interest for me is one operated by a Martin Lack who was not even smart enough to realize that he proved himself to be a liar. I have seen him post to WUWT and Anthony tolerates his inane take on the issue of the day.
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/an-open-letter-to-richard-lindzen/#comments
This link is interesting because it demonstrates Dr. Lindzen’s knowledge of this subject , AGW.
Martin at the globalclimatedebate
http://youtu.be/69kmPGDh1Gs?t=5m30s
Martin even had the gall to bother Judith Curry with his nonsense:
Martin Lack | February 29, 2012 at 2:52 am |
”What is the matter with you people. I have not actually accused Lindzen of doing anything “wrong”. I just wnat him to explain to me why he says what he says (and omits to say so much).”
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/
There is one, that I have found, alarmist site that does have a certain degree of integrity and a sense of fair play and that is this one operated by Peter Sinclair:
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/06/25/duluth-storm-yet-another-postcard-from-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-11285
Eric could learn something about tolerance and being just a little bit open-minded about; well, about any issue, from Peter.
Eric: Now to the actual issue: ”Hurricane Sandy and Climate on Steroids”
I do not understand why the debate should turn to the effect that N2 and O2 might have on the earth’s atmosphere. The fact that H2O in its various forms in the atmosphere is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
This site gives much credence to this claim:
This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
“One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(Acording to a NASA web page 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns.”
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html
I would like Eric to look at the 2.04 min. video at the site that I had submitted before that shows in no uncertain terms just how insignificant the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is. I know that Eric believes that simple demonstrations and graphs are a good teaching tool from his 2J graph that distinctly shows a ”canopy” that I assume he wants folks to believe ”traps heat” or something. When has anyone ever been able to trap anything with a gas?
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts
This site seems to show that perhaps, contrary to what the alarmist want us to believe, that there have been disasters in the past.
Read About The World’s Worst Disasters
http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/read_about_the_worlds_worst_disasters/
Believe it or not there were even disastrous storms back in distant past and how could that have been without Al Gore calling the shots and blaming every weather occurrence on the alarmist devil, CO2?
The First Invasion, 1274
The Mongols relented, and the great armada sailed out into open waters – straight into the arms of an approaching typhoon.
Two days later, a third of the Yuan ships lay on the bottom of the Pacific, and perhaps 13,000 of Kublai Khan’s soldiers and sailors had drowned. The battered survivors limped home, and Japan was spared the Great Khan’s dominion… for the time being. http://asianhistory.about.com/od/japan/a/Mongolinvasion.htm
The Second Invasion, 1281:
Kublai Khan was determined to smash Japan this time. He knew that his defeat seven years earlier had been simple bad luck, due more to the weather than to any extraordinary fighting prowess of the samurai.
On August 15, 1281, a second typhoon roared ashore at Kyushu. Of the khan’s 4,400 ships, only a few hundred rode out the towering waves and vicious winds.
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/japan/a/Mongolinvasion.htm