Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Weather Channel pushes back against John Coleman
168 Comments
October 30, 2014 10:24 am
There is evidence in recent years of a direct linkage between the larger-scale warming and shorter-term phenomena such as heat waves and precipitation extremes. The jury is out on exactly what effects global warming is having or will have upon tropical cyclones or tornadoes.
This paragraph is extremley telling. There is zero evidence but much unsupported specualtation linking GW to heat waves and precipitation extremes, but for climate propaganda, bad weather is always a good example of the horror of AGW. On the other hand, if there is solid evidence in there being less hurricanes and tornadoes, it cannot possibly be due to AGW, so “The jury is out…”.
How so many pounds of manure can fit into such a short article is a miracle. It is obvious the jist here is that every bad thing that happens anywhere on the globe is due to AGW and any good thing that happens anywhere on the globe is not, definitely not due to AGW.
October 30, 2014 10:44 am
It is nonsense to say that the majority of scientists believe in man made climate change. The Oregon petition alone was signed by over 30 000 graduate scientists stating that the use of fossil fuels will not harm the environment. The latest paper from the Netherlands Institute for Atmospheric Research in Utrecht has revealed that of the 400ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere only 15ppm comes from the human use of fossil fuels. as for the Arctic the ice has reformed to the extent that it is now greater than anything seen for decades. All the models have been shown to be wrong.
October 30, 2014 10:44 am
Global Warming: The Weather Channel Position Statement
Introduction
The scientific issue of global warming can be broken down into three main questions: Is global warming a reality? Are human activities causing it? What are the prospects for the future?
The WC has three subjective questions instead of three objective questions to overview climate focused science.
The objective questions to be used to overview climate focused science are:
Q #1 – Is the EAS fundamental behavior in the last ~150 years the same as it reasonably has been interpreted to behave in the geologic and historic past?
Q #2 – Has human action in burning fossil fuels significantly and unambiguously changed EAS fundamental behavior compared to the geologic and historic pasts?
Q #3 – What basis is there for a fundamental concern that any human influence on the fundamental EAS behavior should have, by default, a net harm to life on Earth?
There is a reasonable case to be made within the current body of climate focused research to answer:
Answer to Q #1 – The same
Answer to Q #2 – No corroborated and multiply reinforcing observed evidence
Answer to Q #3 – No reasonable basis, just belief
John
October 30, 2014 11:08 am
Another man from the hotwhopper stable of madness.
http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease
“By Paul Beckwith
On March 23, 2013, I made the following prediction:
“For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean”
October 30, 2014 11:51 am
Here is the Weather Channel’s position statement.
http://understandingagw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Globalwarming-clothes-line.jpg
October 30, 2014 12:03 pm
Since when did AGW start 100 years ago? In addition, if you look at the temperature graphs in the 20th century there was a decrease from the 40s to the 60s – so of course half of the increase in temperatures occurred since the 1970s. Overall, the second half of the 20th century showed little more net warming in the second half than the first. The only part of the WC assertion I find reasonable is that some of the warming up until the recent pause might be attributable to land use changes and urbanization. The models and CO2 are computer exercises and unproven theory – in fact likely dis-proven theory, in my humble, unscientific opinion.
October 30, 2014 12:10 pm
Forget the science. It doesn’t matter what the Weather Channel people think. The only thing that matters is who you vote for. Can you identify any skeptical candidates? Anybody? Shouldn’t there be a sticky page here that identifies skeptical candidates and hopelessly green candidates? Nothing else matters because we now have government by fiat and an out of control EPA run by drones. And that’s just the US.
But Tesco admitted that it has overstated profits. The regulators are investigating whether this was criminal or not and for how long it has been going on. But what a also requires investigation is why the auditors failed in their job and certified as being true and correct accounts which were neither true nor correct. The only mistake that the Sage of Omaha made was to forget the warning of his mentor, the Dean of Wall Street, and to trust the accountants.
October 30, 2014 2:30 pm
“There is evidence in recent years of a direct linkage between the larger-scale warming and shorter-term phenomena such as heat waves and precipitation extremes”
Here is a list of world record rainfall events from BOM in Australia. http://www.bom.gov.au/water/designRainfalls/rainfallEvents/worldRecRainfall.shtml.
There are actually only thirteen events but none occurred in the 21st century and one was in the 19th.
I don’t know if its up to date as the similar page for Australia’s records do not mention Feb 2011 in Victoria, although that could be because of problems with BOM. We had an unofficial 280 mm in a few hours but the official daily rainfall was 195 mm about 10 km away (remember that the official prediction was that we would be in permanent drought).
Shocking!!
Let’s see, Half of 1.5F since the 70’s, that’s .75F.
1979 is 35 years ago. Close to 1/3 of a century,
3 times .75F equals 2.25F per century.
Gee, 2.25F is the upward bias that has been present since Earth began the recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Gee again. That means no warming signal at all from Carbon Dioxide None, Zero
It would seem this WT retort is nothing but good news disguised as bad news.
October 31, 2014 5:47 am
That use of “strong” in conjunction with “evidence” is even more dubious. Computer models are not “evidence”: they are projections dependent on the quality of the models and the quality of the data fed into them. Tree ring proxy data has been shown to be extremely unreliable. (Hence that infamous “hide the decline” Climategate email). As for ice cores, what these show is that previous historical increases in CO2 have lagged rises in temperature, not preceded them.
Then there’s that “nearly unanimously” in conjunction with “climate scientists”: where do we begin? Presumably this is a sly reference to the roundly discredited “97 per cent” claim. And even were the statement accurate, which it isn’t, science is not a numbers game. Well into the mid-Nineteenth century doctors and surgeons nearly unanimously believed that there was no need to scrub their hands before and after conducting an operation. It didn’t mean they were right. Nor that many thousands of people didn’t pay for this scientific ignorance with their lives.
October 31, 2014 12:26 pm
“These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence …”
So computer model simulations, which grossly overestimate warming relative to reality, are “evidence”?
Uhhhhhhhhh… no!
November 1, 2014 8:46 pm
Polish physician, Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski, passed away on November 12, 2011. Of all his achievements, I draw attention to a wonderful peer-reviewed paper of his titled “CO2: The Greatest Scandal of Our Time”. I encourage people to read it:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf
The Weather Channel posted this yesterday, no doubt to counter TWC founder John Coleman’s recent Open Letter and appearance on Fox’s Kelly File (several comments make the connection):
Global Warming: The Weather Channel Position Statement
Introduction
The scientific issue of global warming can be broken down into three main questions: Is global warming a reality? Are human activities causing it? What are the prospects for the future?
Warming: Fact or Fiction?
The climate of the earth is indeed warming, with an increase of approximately 1 – 1 1/2 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century, more than half of that occurring since the 1970s. The warming has taken place as averaged globally and annually; significant regional and seasonal variations exist.
Impacts can already be seen, especially in the Arctic, with melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and rapid retreat and thinning of sea ice, all of which are affecting human populations as well as animals and vegetation. There and elsewhere, rising sea level is increasing coastal vulnerability.
There is evidence in recent years of a direct linkage between the larger-scale warming and shorter-term phenomena such as heat waves and precipitation extremes. The jury is out on exactly what effects global warming is having or will have upon tropical cyclones or tornadoes.
Human Influence
To what extent the current warming is due to human activity is complicated because large and sometimes sudden climate changes have occurred throughout our planet’s history — most of them before humans could possibly have been a factor. Furthermore, the sun/atmosphere/land/ocean “climate system” is extraordinarily complex, and natural variability on time scales from seconds to decades and beyond is always occurring.
However, it is known that burning of fossil fuels injects additional carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This in turn increases the naturally occurring “greenhouse effect,” a process in which our atmosphere keeps the earth’s surface much warmer than it would otherwise be.
More than a century’s worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.
Humans are also changing the climate on a more localized level. The replacement of vegetation by buildings and roads is causing temperature increases through what’s known as the urban heat island effect. In addition, land use changes are affecting impacts from weather phenomena. For example, urbanization and deforestation can cause an increased tendency for flash floods and mudslides from heavy rain. Deforestation also produces a climate change “feedback” by depleting a source which absorbs carbon dioxide.
more…
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/global-warming-weather-channel-position-statement-20141029
h/t to WUWT reader Pat.