Eric Worrall writes: 
The Cabot Institute, University of Bristol has published a full video of Michael Mann’s presentation in Bristol, which Anthony Attended.
I haven’t had a chance to watch the entire presentation yet, but the opening scene shows picture of cooling towers emitting steam – CO2 is transparent to visible light, so it’s a little more difficult to photograph.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am astonished that Anthony could sit through the whole thing….I had to stop after only a few minutes…to vomit.
I found the video to be quite educational. However, it stressed me to see Dr. Mann was missing resources to update the graph in which he showed Dr. Hansen´s old prediction versus actuals. I used an average of all data sets and plotted the data on Dr. Mann´s plot, and it definitely look nicer (I hate to see data cut off). Here, take a look
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/p/screen-shot-mann-at-cabot-with.html
The other issue which stressed me a lot was my inability to understand the concentration pathways used by Dr. Hansen. If anybody knows what Hansen used and tells us he used green house gas concentrations similar to what we see today I would be enormously relieved from my paranoid delusions (that Mann may be showing the wrong model results because he was too busy to prepare the right slides for the talk).
Fernando, your excellentgraph might be a good resource for the Steyn legal team in their defense of the defamation suit by MM (or Mr “Fraudpants” as labled by Mark Steyn).
Great graph. That Michael Mann is a piece of work.
The graph is intended to illustrate the prescience of James Hansen’s 1988 warming prediction, and how does Mann do that? He shows an essentially linear rising “prediction” curve running from 1960 to 2020, and over that “prediction” plots the observed temperatures from 1960 to 2005, which are shown to be a reasonably good match.
10 seconds inspection shows how hollow that comparison is. Hansen gets no points for the 1960 to 1988 part since he had the needed results in front of him. He also gets no points for a confirmed prediction from 2014 to 2020, since we don’t yet know how that’s going to turn out. Consequently the only relative portion of this 60 graph is the 26 years from 1988 to 2014.
Hansen’s extrapolation worked for the 10 years from 1988 to 1998, but since then, there has of course been a divergence. To minimize the obviousness of that divergence, and with no justification whatsoever, Mann truncates the observed data in 2005 (Hides The Decline).
This graph shows Michael Mann has learned nothing from his serial public embarrassments. He is still deluding himself, and somehow expecting the rest of us to participate in that delusion.
George. The graph I prepared was really hand drawn (I used the Powerpoint free sketch curve). For a legal case the graph would have to be prepared properly. When I did it I wanted to see just how fast it could be done because (it seemed to me Mann was lazy by not extending the graph). Then I saw there was a large difference…the data he failed to show would indeed weaken his case.
Tyoke, as I pointed out there´s an unresolved question: the green house gas concentrations used by Hansen for that particular case. I suspect Hansen may not have visualized China´s incredible growth burst and the associated increase in greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand maybe he just extrapolated concentration trends, and overshot methane concentration. I´m trying to see if I can find Hansen´s input data. If the concentrations don´t match within reason then the whole comparison is vaporware.
I´ve been nosing around looking for the digital data and the concentrations used for this graph. While doing so I found this issue has been debated extensively in the past. Here´s a sample:
MCINTYRE
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/
This post gives links to the data, if I have the time I´ll try to update it. Or did somebody already do it with 2014 data?
Well, An-thony…..
Here’s what we truth-in-science people think of the fake “Clouds of Carbon” photo trick….. double down! Yeah!
HERE’S SOME REAL CARBON FOR YA! 🙂
Go, internal combustion engine!
God bless America!
#(:))
(love that blockquote! thanks again, An-thony! 🙂
Carbon? That’s not carbon. Here’s REAL carbon:
UP challenger 4-6-6-4. Wow!
Get on your groovy train.
Not only a Challenger 4-6-6-4, but UP has begun restoration of #4014, a Big Boy 4-8-8-4, at its Cheyenne steam shop. The Mt. St. Helens fountain of soot from that baby will be prodigious, as the fireman sands the flues to jar loose the accumulated oil soot from the boiler tubing…the locomotive originally burned coal, but like its lesser brethren the Challenger, and #844, a fleet-footed 4-8-4 Northern type steamer, was converted to bunker oil fuel. Mann and other death-train enthusiasts will surely have a cow.
Cool. Thanks for posting. Even has double stacks!
Big Boy, the mountain climber.
COOL!
Thanks!
My Dad grew up in a railroad town. Each train crew would let out a unique whistle pattern as they approached town to let their families know that they were home.
Ha ha ha… I can smell the carbon from here! 🙂
Nothing like cinders in your hair!
Here’s another, CUDA!!!!:
Ohh ….. those front wheel ‘line locks’. They were really cool at traffic lights.
Which cooling tower is that? It looks like this one:
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Steam-from-Cooling-Tower-at-Davis-Besse-Nuclear-Power-Plant-Lake-Erie-Locust-Point-Ohio-Usa-Posters_i8947347_.htm
Nuclear!
If I want to hear Michael Mann talk I’ll search him on YouTube. But I don’t. And I don’t want to see him here, either. WTF??
WHAT DID YOU SAY, Global???
lol
#(:))
Then just ignore the article, don’t click on it and go on to the next one.
See how simple that is?
Then don’t.
I do want to hear him. Thanks for linking. I have no problem with anyone who chooses not to listen, but why should their desires trump mine?
I don’t “want” to hear the serial liar Mann either, but I think I should.
One cannot learn about an enemy, or counter his propaganda, without listening to him.
If I want to hear Michael Mann talk I’ll search him on YouTube. But I don’t. And I don’t want to see him here, either. WTF??
WHAT DID YOU SAY, Global???
lol
#(:))
No one else commented, An-thony, because the sight of The Smirk made them so ill they can’t type…. shudder…. ghastly….
Alexa can predict the future! It knew you were going to post a picture of the Mann and it shows a plummet in your web traffic.
Now that is what I call an ALGOREythm …
lol — good one
Couldn’t stand to watch Michael’s video, but I sure watched the Camaro burnout, woo hoo them good-ole boys were drinkin’ whisky and wine 🙂
I think Don (McLean) wrote “whiskey and rye” not “whiskey and wine” – the good-ole boys I knew were not big on wine… Otherwise I share your enthusiasm.
Technically, what we see coming from cooling towers is water vapour, Steam is also an odourless, colourless gas I do believe.
This “scare the kiddies” parlour trick is a very dated cheap shot that no one with a modicum of intelligence would buy.
But those folk are not MM’s target audience are they?
I thought it ws the other way around. Water vapour is the gas. When it condenses it forms clouds or steam. Wikipedia seems to agree. Bur what does Wikipedia know?
From my high school chemistry class steam is molecular H2O (and is therefor a gas) and is invisible. Water vapor is droplets of water, it forms clouds and is what is discharging from MM’s cooling towers.
Wikipedia wrong again? Who knew? Steam is odourless and colourless and highly dangerous in the wrong hands. What you see is condensed water.
Yep. That inch between spout and steam.
http://www.tuttnauer.com/sites/www.tuttnauer.com/files/Steam-Kettle_1.png
See, did it myself there! Try again:
‘That inch between spout and water vapour.’
But isn’t water vapor also on the “list of evil things that will cause thermageddon”? I forget if the water vapor left high up in the air by airplanes is supposed to be good or bad, but apparently it is a good thing if they sometimes fly longer (alternatively: flying to climate conferences is good, everything else is evil). Bottom line: If we don’t do exactly what the cult of co2ists tells us, then we are all doomed! (And as one former acquintance kept telling me: There’s no downside to doing what they want! All hail the big overlords of climate!)
Water Vapour is nothing but the gaseous phase of water. As such its clear and cannot be seen. If conditions
such as temperature change then atmospheric water vapour can enter the liquid phase and clouds suddenly appear to pop up out of nowhere. The same phenomenom causes water vapour to be visible when people breathe out in cold weather and explains why spectacles ‘steam up’ when you walk into a warm room on a cold day.
Steam is a mixed phase flow produced by heating water above its boiling point. If you want to remove all the suspended water droplets and ensure its a pure gas you heat it further until you get dry steam where all the water is present in the vapour phase. If you heat it beyond that point you have superheated steam.
What you see issuing from cooling towers, in clouds or the spout of a kettle are liquid droplets of water condensed from the water vapour. They are in effect artifical clouds.
The role of water vapour in the climate is complex because of these properties. In the vapour phase water is a powerful greenhouse gas and thus increases surface temperature but in the liquid phase as clouds it reduces solar input and acts to cool the climate. To predict at any point in time and space the phase in which the water exists and hence its thermal properties is complex and current climate models are incapable of making the fine grained solution required.
Water vapor (indicated only by rings around the sun) in the atmosphere can be a significant block to incoming solar shortwave radiation (up to a drop of 100 watts/m^2) at the surface. Clouds can block almost all shortwave radiation from reaching the surface depending on their thickness. With enough sw blockage, lw blockage by CO2 becomes much less significant. Neither of these very dynamic and often fleeting sw phenomenon are well cataloged in my estimation.
Bernie
It really depends on what the kiddies are being taught. In Australia I don’t think they are being taught anything resembling science. The problem is the leftist teachers are ignorant too.
When I was in fifth grade, we had to write a description of the water cycle. In the interest of cutting down the amount of writing I had to perform, I substituted ‘steam’ for ‘water vapor’ throughout my essay. My teacher, Mrs. Schanbacher, politely but firmly explained to me the difference between water vapor and steam before making me re-write my description. So, yeah… that particular distinction is pretty well burned into my brain.
We don’t have a commonly-used term for artificial clouds, which are commonly formed by condensing water vapor near steam.
It must be late. I clicked on the advertisement instead of the Mann video, and learned the advantages of McDonalds flash-freezing their burgers.
Actually, I think I’ll watch that again then off to bed…
Flash freezing used to be done with liquid CO2 (from my Liquid Carbonic days), but I understand now liquid N2 is used. Because irrational fears perhaps.
4 minutes into the video and he raises so many unsubstantiated assumptions straw-man arguments, e.g. solar output, it’s unbelievable! The so-called 200-year old physics has recently been demonstrated ‘unequivocally’ to be wrong. Hanson’s prediction could have been done by a child who understood we’re still coming out of a mini ice-age, so of course temperatures are going to rise over the long term. What he has NEVER demonstrated is that CO2 controls the temperature. Never has and never will. His temperature projections are pure fantasy, and it’s Mann & Hansen that are on a different planet. 4-5 degC rise if BAU?? Pure fiction!
IPCC, conservative? Not!! However, the IPCC technical reports have a very low confidence in human caused warming. Only the SPM says there’s high confidence in contradiction to the reports. Further, models are NOT evidence. Mann is just SO confused!
Grrrrr….
Sorry, no time for Mann. More useful things to do. I’ve got some lint to pick out of my navel, then rearrange my sock drawer.
At 2:14 I had to stop watching. What he has learned from history is… nothing, really. He appears to be quite proud of a scientific faux pas of his own making that wipes the MWP and LIA from the scientific record. Only he could be. I also think he does not fully, maybe not even partially understand why he became the comic relief centerpiece in the climate debate he is. His entire life’s work is a retrograde of the progress we’ve made prior to his emergence onto the stage of climate comedy. What an awful thing it must be to be him. Obviously I can’t say enough nice things about him and his work so I’ll stop trying.
Dissemination of information is always good. However, personally, I cannot stomach this sort of nonsense and cannot stand watching it. If I want to hear Michael Mann talking, there is no shortage of examples. However they are all distasteful nonsense and I think that I will continue to avoid them.
Steam is also transparent. As is water vapour until it condenses into liquid droplets.
I listened to the whole thing. But I couldn’t watch it. It’s one thing to listen to the “hand waving” argumentation but quite another to watch it when he’s wearing a suit coat with sleeves that almost cover his hands. He must have left his own clothes at home and had to borrow a jacket from a man a foot taller than himself. Also he must have left the current graphs home and had to borrow some old ones that didn’t show the “pause”. Imagine highlighting the flood in the U.K. as evidence of your thesis. He’s got nothin’ and he must know it. Poor guy. His theory doesn’t fit reality any better than his arms fit his coat. And don’t forget the polar bears folks, because they’re real cute. You like to end a lecture strong, and, for him, the strong point is a polar bear. You can’t make this stuff up.
Wet steam is visible, dry steam ( superheated) is invisible.
I’m stunned that this presentation could pass as a scientific display.
Here’s a graph, and here are some pictures of people, and here is a red thermometer, and I don’t want to bore you with the details, but here is a quote and ‘unequivocal’ is a sciency word, and look at this bear, and here is a parade of people I don’t like, the end.
Yes it did seem rather trivial , which is surprising because if you Wiki him you find a remarkable resume of his achievements and academic awards . Some of the papers quoted there , from what one can extract without access to subscription material, appear to have been researched in great detail. Frankly I was very impressed and therefore surprised by the thinness of the Cabot presentation.
Agree, and it is (almost) the exact same talk he has presented many times before now. Here is an example from more than one year ago (2013 TAM-conference, James Randi Foundation).
The James Randi Educational Foundation has also recently released its video of Mann’s talk, this one from July, 2013.
In it he says that the “pause” in warming is not real, it’s just a deception made up by Deniers.
He also uses the graph from Marcott et al to ‘substantiate’ his hockey stick – a claim that even the authors of the paper disavow (not statistically significant).
Caught red-handed in two major deceptions.
http://web.randi.org/swift/michael-mann-the-climate-change-wars-tam-2013
“Caught red-handed in two major deceptions.”
But only caught by the informed, the astute and the educated. They are not the mass Target Market he is addressing. His targets are those that – like Gore – constitute the majority that get their information from people like them without question. Good marketing strategy goes for the numbers. And these guys are brilliant marketing strategists.
Sigh. And to think I the JREF used to be for skeptics. Not sure what to call them now.
Quite amazing that someone with such a background in maths and physics could be so misguided about reality.
He might have training in math and physics, but I’d say his true background it pretty clearly in activism.
Michael Mann. The gift that keeps on giving. Many folks I know, plus myself look to Michael plus on occasion a small dose of Steyn as our comic relief for the day. I hope he knows that.
I stayed the video course because its the first time I’ve heard a Nobel Laureate speak. The Mann is a stranger to reality. He also got it backwards. Climate science is being used to verify and support the political agenda. (When does his next case come to trial?)
If you want to hear a real Nobel laureate say something really worthwhile, I suggest the videos of Milton Friedman.
Unfortunately, the Swedish Riksbank’s price in honour of the memory of Alfred Nobel is not a real Nobel price.
However, Friedman did indeed receive it, and he is/was an excellent lecturer too (in addition to a brilliant mind). And he dared to debate his adversaries too …
For instance another lefty loon named Michael M.
Watch and enjoy MIchael Moore!
I agree. Dr. Friedman would be a most worthy choice. And, of course, I was being facetious with my reference to someone like Mann claiming to have been awarded The Prize. That was absolutely the worst, most flawed and frustrating speech I can remember EVER listening to. +5C by 2100? Its unpleasant to snort one’s iced tea – but being forced to snort hot coffee HURTS!
First time I have heard the Great Man speak. Thank you so much.
Huh!….Call those carbon???
Here’s REAL REAL carbon…..
.
Yeah. C14.
CFR unleashed.
On the top image it says that Mann is a “Distinguished Professor of Meteorology”. Shouldn’t he be teaching physics, math and geology?
Nope, he should be taught physics, math, statistics, geology, biology and biochemistry.
Especially statistics as Wegman at the senate committee said he wasn’t very good at that as he ended up with a hockey stick.
[…] I’ll be happy to field questions. CUT!
I really wanted to see the Q&A. 🙁
Oh, JT, here it is (found it in an obscure place…heh heh):
Mann: … happy to field questions.
College student visiting from Hamburg: Dr. Murry Salby’s work with ice core proxies says that rises in net CO2 lag behind temperature increases by a quarter cycle. Would you please explain this?
Mann {glancing at wristwatch}: Would you look at the time?! Gotta go! Thank you. You’ve been a wonderful audience! {runs from the stage}
The End.
******************************
Chronic liars are always cowards.
At 22.31 he shows the UK wet winter.
Drivers and impacts of seasonal weather in the UK – Met Office
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/…/Drivers_and_impacts_of_seasonal_weather_in...
14 Mar 2014 – extremes of weather may be affected in the future by climate change?
“As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the
recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding. This is in part due to the
highly variable nature of UK weather and climate.”
‘Nuff said.