Michael Mann’s claims that Harvey was caused by global warming are destroyed by an operational meteorologist

Bastardi: No Michael Mann — Climate change did not cause Hurricane Harvey

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi takes down fake Nobelist Michael Mann’s lame effort in the Guardian to link climate with Hurricane Harvey.

By Joe Bastardi
August 29, 2017, Reprinted with the permission of Weatherbell.com

Dr. Mann at PSU has outdone himself. Back when New England had their famed February with snow and cold, he made the claim a warm eddy some 350 miles ESE of New England was enhancing water vapor and leading to extra snow. But:

  1. If he plotted trajectories from the storms he would see that the air from that source could not get back over New England since the mean flow would lead to enhanced snows in the Canadian Maritimes.
  2. Convective feedback from such warm eddies would act to PULL STORMS OUT TO SEA.
  3. The mean water vapor surface to 700 mb was BELOW NORMAL in New England in Feb 2015. The extra snow was high ratio snow with great crystal growth soundings because of the cold!

This is why climatologists should be forced to forecast for a year, so they can get an appreciation of what the weather does, not what they think it does based on their “research.”

But he may have outdone himself here.

I was emailed this quote, supposedly from him. It’s making the rounds in the skeptic community. It was in the Guardian

The stalling is due to very weak prevailing winds, which are failing to steer the storm off to sea, allowing it to spin around and wobble back and forth. This pattern, in turn, is associated with a greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system over much of the US at the moment, with the jet stream pushed well to the north. This pattern of subtropical expansion is predicted in model simulations of human-caused climate change.

He unwittingly describes THE EXACT OPPOSITE EFFECT to what is going on.

He could not have even looked at the 5 day means! There was no expansive subtropical high. Quite the contrary there was a well forecast MJO phase 2, with a major cool trough in the 5 day means trapping the hurricane. Out to sea? In August? In Texas? When does anyone see that? They move northwest or west through the state. BECAUSE NORMALLY THERE IS NOT A MAJOR TROUGH THAT FAR SOUTH TO STOP THE STORM! When has anyone given the coast of Texas seen a storm move “out to sea” what does it turn around and head back southeast? Look at the 500 mb means and 5k temps, This is what is a ridge? There is a major ridge in the west like we see when there are a lot of storms. It’s warm in the west cool in the east, but there is no subtropical ridge trapping this storm. It’s caught in trough.

That is the five-day mean.

Here are the temps at 5K.

Which looks a lot like the phase 2 MJO I have been drooling about for over a week to set all this up.

And it lights up the tropics.

Here is the other little ditty he is blissfully unaware of. If it was just caught in a subtropical ridge, it would HAVE NO BAROCLINIC FORCING which enhanced the rain. The cooling from the trough while the storm was stalled and STILL bringing in warm moist air clearly helped amounts. Take a storm inland with a uniform temperature gradient as in an enhanced subtropical ridge, they die.

So what apparently he is describing is a ridge position enhanced that means the storms moves slow. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE OPPOSITE? THIS IS A MAJOR TROUGH TOO FAR SOUTH. The same thing that caught Elena in 1985 except it was over the gulf.

It Caught Dennis in 1999.

But Dennis was over the water before he came back. You want really crazy? Look at Esther in 1961.

Major cool shots, not the kind of blocking ridge that you get occasionally like… let’s say Ginger in 1971 or Dora in 1964. Both storms that had major ridges to the north, which do happen sometimes steering them in. But amplitude happens. It always has and always will.

I usually do not get involved with the climatariat. But I set this pattern up from Spring. As soon as the cool started coming in July I said here we go. This phase 2 had me chomping at the bit (still does). So when I got emailed this tonight, I had to comment.

The gentler side of me understands he could not have looked at the major cold trough in the means when he accused the expansion of the subtropical ridge as the cause. The gentler side of me understands that he did not think about the implication of a storm trapped over land in a mainly barotropic atmosphere vs one where baroclinic processes are also going on (e.g., heavy rains on troughward side of recurving hurricanes) The gentle side would like to say, brother you should forecast for a year where something is on the line so you can understand what the heck you are saying.

That would be my suggestion, but that quote, given the actual reasons for what set this up and what occurred is about as opposite as you can get. And if someone wants to suggest the highly amplified pattern, which is what phase 2 in hurricane season does, where its hot in the west is the reason, then fine, quit talking about coast to coast heat cause it means there will be a whole lotta cooling going on.

Now if it’s me, I would be talking about the warmth of the oceans. (You see I know what they should be arguing.) And how in a phase 2 with all the cool in the US, that favors big storms near our coast. (You may see another next week, and whether named or not, this system tomorrow will have tropical storm conditions from NC to South Jersey). If the Atlantic was colder, it wouldn’t be as likely. But instead, to justify these nonsensical models, we get a quote when the actual set up reveals there is no abnormal subtropical ridge. IT’S OPPOSITE. THERE IS A BIG TROUGH OVER THE EAST. In fact Mann does not even understand that a stronger than normal SE US ridge generally means less impact on the US such as 2007. Our preseason idea showed how warmth may be distorting patterns so that it leads to less hits but this year we felt it would be different.Look at what has been going on, its been cool over the last month. Perhaps Mann is even unaware of that.

Let me tell you folks something, Harvey is horrible. For that area of Texas the rain is unprecented. Other areas have had it. But its not climate change, unless climate change means cooler than normal temps across much of the United states in one of the best growing season summers we have seen since the summers of 2013-2015 — even last year.

But what is despicable is what I see coming out. If Dr. Mann was out on a limb before the season showing what he thought, or even earlier this week, that is one thing, But this is an example of what will be a relentless tirade of statements Say nothing, make no forecast you can actually be held accountable for, then come out after and grab headlines with stuff like this. And if he wants to debate me on what caused this storm to act the way it did, given what I have shown, I’m right here, bring your stalled subtropical ridge but you wil have to glo look over Afrida cause tis not over the US And if he wants to tell me that the expansion of the subtropical ridgen now means a trough that catches and stops a tropical cyclone and enhances baroclinic processes in warm tropical air, I would love to see that explanation, that below normal heights and temps are a sign the subtropical ridge is stornger than normal, at an AMS conference with just operational mets looking on. Would be worth the price of admission

Get ready for more of this. We had a high impact, major hit drought ending hurricane season specifically targeting the northwest gulf in our preseason forecast with all the reasons. It’s why this year was different from the past 12, where by the way, because of it warming more in the north than over the tropics may be leading to a reduction of storms. You can read the why before what, having nothing to do with climate change, here. It’s from MAY! The only thing I updated was the ace to a normal range in June and there have been no updates since.

This is really starting to get nuts. They sit and hide and only come out after the fact. Let’s see him you make a forecast for the season or even 5 days out when this was nothing. Fat chance. But its not going to stop and its only going to get worse. In 10 days or so, another major impact event could threaten the southeast. Why? because that is the pattern we are in and it was predictable and still is. Nothing to do with CO2 or an agenda.


For further reading on why Dr. Mann’s claims have no credibility, one only needs to read this book:

You can order it on Amazon here, .

amazon-disgrace-styen

Advertisements

161 thoughts on “Michael Mann’s claims that Harvey was caused by global warming are destroyed by an operational meteorologist

      • Why is Michael Mann even still employed? He has all the credibility of AlBore and Looney Leo. Even Alex Jones is plausible by comparison!

      • Goldrider, he brings a lot of Federal grant money to his university. A lot can be forgiven of a cash cow.

      • Grant money can and should be evenly distributed to both sides of the debate. Hopefully someone in the Trump administration can facilitate that.

      • I think a good study would be to take the oldest GFS or ECMWF forecast that predicted Harvey’s behavior reasonably correctly, then in it’s initial conditions cool everything in the opposite direction and trends shown in a degree/decade trend map of HadCRUT4. What I expect that would show: Harvey going more east than it did, being bounced or turned back into the Gulf than it did, then making it’s second landfall farther east than it did, then going over Georgia and hitting the coast and developing into a very soggy nor’easter.

        But the whole story is that troughs weaker than the one that pinned Harvey are common. If they were stronger due to.removal of warming that warmed the Arctic more than the tropics, then some other hurricane that landfell southwest of Galveston and continued northwestward into the desert and dried out would have been pinned over Houston for a few days instead.

      • When James Hansen wrote his book ‘The Storms of My Grandchildren’ I thought – you silly old bugger, you’re sixty, your grandchildren are already born! Now it’s beginning to appear he knew exactly what he was saying.

    • Mann appreciates that if you paddle hard enough, even with something as inefficient as a hockey stick, water, temperature, storms, anything can be made to flow up hill.

  1. Get a load of this. The LAT’s yesterday, in an article headlined, “Catastrophic storms, once rare, are almost routine. Is climate change to blame(?),” quoted Mann saying:

    “There is a good chance it would have happened anyway,” Mann wrote of Harvey in an email.

    So, Mann is suggesting that absent AGW, there was a chance that Harvey would not have formed into a tropical system .. a hurricane . . a cat 4 hurricane?

    • Yogi Bear, that’s what’s interesting with so many people on this forum. You are so expert, speak so confidently of meridionalty and AMO. You ‘know’ what pattern causes some other pattern. But when it comes to the big picture, you can’t grasp that if you’re pumping more heat into a system than is able to escape, the system is going to heat up.

      • “But when it comes to the big picture, you can’t grasp that if you’re pumping more heat into a system than is able to escape, the system is going to heat up.”

        What system are you talking about? None of the “greenhouse gases ” prevent heat from escaping. If they did, we’d be long dead. They merely slow down the rate at which the atmosphere cools to space.

      • That’s the other thing you guys specialise in – missing the point. I was obviously talking about mismatched rates, with a net gain of heat. That’s what we have here on Earth – it’s why the planetary temperature is rising.
        Carbon compounds pouring into the atmosphere as a result of human activity are mediating that temperature rise. It is such an inarguable fact that with so many here arguing against it, this forum is a portal into the essentially non rational psychology of human kind.
        It’s interesting!

      • Jack says:
        “But when it comes to the big picture, you can’t grasp that if you’re pumping more heat into a system than is able to escape, the system is going to heat up.”

        Don’t try to paint me as an AGW denier, I know the physics better than you do. A warming planet has not increased Atlantic hurricane intensities over the last century or more, and has nothing to do with the storm stalling over Houston for so many days.

        “Carbon compounds pouring into the atmosphere as a result of human activity are mediating that temperature rise. It is such an inarguable fact that with so many here arguing against it, this forum is a portal into the essentially non rational psychology of human kind.”

        Nonsense, very few here deny that rising GHG’s should cause some surface warming, what is questioned is the scale.

      • Yogi Bear, Aphan chose to misunderstand what I wrote, and you show far too great a readiness to repudiate cause and effect:
        “A warming planet has not increased Atlantic hurricane intensities over the last century or more, and has nothing to do with the storm stalling over Houston for so many days”.
        In the future, PhDs in psychology will be earned by mining the body of argument you guys are laying down today.

      • Jack,

        How does one “choose” to misunderstand something?

        If I misunderstood you, then it’s just as logical to conclude you weren’t very clear.

        Your statement was:

        “If you’re pumping more heat into a system than is able to escape, the system is going to heat up.”

        That’s a statement that makes absolutely no sense in relation to Earths climate as it stands. Earth’s atmosphere is incapable of retaining heat indefinitely. Its not a closed, nonconvecting, noncirculating system, so heat is always able to move within it, and eventually escape to space. This is why when the Sun is shining on one side of Earth the temperatures on the opposite side drop. The temperatures on Earth rise and drop more slowly, and in a much smaller range, than those on the moon, because Earths atmosphere buffers both incoming and outgoing radiation. But the moon warms Jack…to 250+F….even with most of its energy escaping quickly and easily.

        Heat is the transfer of energy between two objects of different temperatures, in contact with each other…always the hotter object transferring energy to the cooler. Until the two objects in contact with each other reach the same temperature, the cooler one is going to warm. Period. It’s the “law”.

        Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t just slow down the radiation it releases from the surface, it also BLOCKS a great deal of the energy from the Sun and keeps it from ever reaching the surface.

        So if you want to talk “science” here, be scientific. Don’t make broad blanket statements as if they are facts, and then resort to logical fallacies and wild predictions about what PhDs in psychology will do in the future when someone points out that your statements aren’t accurate in the form you posted them in.

        If YOU believe that Earth is taking on more energy than can escape to space, you need to clarify that statement. What is preventing it’s escape? What is thermal equilibrium, thermodynamic equilibrium, and how are they accomplished? Energy only moves from warmer objects to cooler ones…so if Earths temperature is rising, it’s because something hotter than Earth is warming it. Our atmosphere cannot, does not, generate or make heat. Our system is not closed to outgoing radiation.

        So what exactly were you trying to say?

  2. And Mann’s claims are also destroyed by HH Lamb and others, who found the same blocking patterns and meridional jet stream back in the 1960s and 70s, when the Arctic was getting much colder.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/04/16/micky-manns-meandering-jetstream/

    Lamb wrote in 1982:

    In Europe, there is a curious change in the pattern of variability: from some time between 1940 and 1960 onwards, the occurrence of extreme seasons – both as regards temperature and rainfall has notably increased.
    These variations, perhaps more than any underlying trend to a warmer or colder climate, create difficulties for the planning age in which we live. They may be associated with the increased meridionality of the general wind circulation, the greater frequency of blocking, of stationary high and low pressure systems, giving prolonged northerly winds in one longitude and southerly winds in another longitude sector in middle latitudes.

    Over both hemispheres there has been more blocking in these years… The most remarkable feature seems to be the an intensification of the cyclonic activity in high latitudes near 70-90N, all around the northern polar region. And this presumably has to do with the almost equally remarkable cooling of the Arctic since the 1950’s, which has meant an increase in the thermal gradient between high and middle latitudes.

    The WMO’s CC Wallen also came to the same conclusion:

    The principal weather change likely to accompany the cooling trend is increased variability-alternating extremes of temperature and precipitation in any given area-which would almost certainly lower average crop yields.

    During cooler climatic periods the high-altitude winds are broken up into irregular cells by weaker and more plentiful pressure centers, causing formation of a “meridional circulation” pattern. These small, weak cells may stagnate over vast areas for many months, bringing unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably warm weather on the other. Droughts and floods become more frequent and may alternate season to season, as they did last year in India. Thus, while the hemisphere as a whole is cooler, individual areas may alternately break temperature and precipitation records at both extremes.

      • The increased meridionality accompanies the warm AMO and warm Arctic. Because negative NAO/AO drives them both.

      • The AMOC and AMO are independent of the NAO and AO. The latter are just different pressure zones in three different locations named below.

        The AMOC is part of a global current warming the Arctic ocean and therefore changing pressure patterns in the Arctic, Iceland and Azores have litter influence on a global circulation. If anything global changes in ocean circulation influence what happens in these three locations not the other way round.

        Negative NAO and AO cause warmer Arctic, but colder mid-latitudes.

        Positive NAO and AO causes a colder Arctic, but warmer mid-latitudes.

        The AMO is positive or negative regardless of how the NAO and AO is at any time. The only main influence being when there forcing together, they cause warmer and colder extremes, but against each other they neutralise the severity to some extent.

      • “The AMOC and AMO are independent of the NAO and AO.”

        Nonsense. the NAO drives the AMOC and the AMO variability.

        “The AMO is positive or negative regardless of how the NAO and AO is at any time.”

        Nonsense.

      • The AMO (not shown) was generally negative between 1870 and 1930.
        Positive between 1930 and 1970.
        Negative between 1970 and 1980.
        Positive since 1980.

        Yet the above chart showing the NAO has major positive periods in both AMO negative and positive periods. Major negative periods in the NAO also occur in both AMO negative and AMO positive periods. There is no general matching pattern with the exception that some NAO short periods seem to be increasingly becoming negative for some reason.

        If the NAO controlled the AMOC and AMO then this behaviour wouldn’t occur. How does weather pressure patterns control the AMOC when it is part of a huge global ocean circulation network? The lower atmosphere in these locations has little influence on the circulation of global ocean currents.

      • There is a reason for them months used as It is particularly important in winter, when it exerts a strong control on the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The NAO is generally weak at other times and has less influence on the NH climate. It is also the season that exhibits the strongest interdecadal variability and occurs whether the AMO is positive or negative. Therefore mild/very mild and cold/severe cold winters can occur in the NH during any AMO phase.

        The figures used are from this below.

        They are papers on the AMOC and only one’s using models are speculating that this is the case. Both the links quoted are models based on assumptions and speculation, not evidence.

    • Not only is Bastardi a co-founder of weatherbell.com but he created Accuweather (here in the US) in the 1980s. Every day he gives a 3-4 min weather update, and on Saturdays a weekly update. I’ve been watching these daily for as long as the dailys have gone on (18 months?) but absolutely the weeklies.

      Joe Bastardi has been right 99% of the time and weeks ahead of anyone else. In fact, I get severely P.O.d if he doesn’t produce his updates on time (especially the weekends, not interested in his sports contests excuses). I haven’t missed one of them in four years. Not one.

      Michael Mann does not hold a candle to Joe Bastardi’s insight and wisdom. Doesn’t have a clue. Period.

      • I listened to a regular weather report in the 1950’s on the radio. My Mom always tuned it in because it was more accurate- Krick Weather Central. We also obviously heard the US weather service forecast.

        Now the forecasts are actually quite good out to 5 days or so. Often further out the timing is off though.

        Kudo’s to Joe Bastardi though. Weatherbell certainly has one of the best track records

      • I listened to a regular weather report in the 1950’s on the radio. My Mom always tuned it in because it was more accurate- Krick Weather Central. We also obviously heard the US weather service forecast.

        Now the forecasts are actually quite good out to 5 days or so. Often further out the timing is off though.

        Kudo’s to Joe Bastardi though. Weatherbell certainly has one of the best track records

      • Someone please explain to me how Michael Mann, a proven incompetent in his own field of study (paleo climate), can be treated by the MSM as an oracle in the separate field of meteorology. Numerology would fit him better.

  3. I would add that all furturists should have to give an accounting of previous predictions much like Wall Streeters do: 1-5-10 year results of their previous predictions.

  4. For myself, I’d be careful when making a public statement in my field of expertise because I’d be concerned that if it were wrong, the press might pick it up and that would be embarrassing. From observing Mann and his acolytes, there is no concern that a wrong statement will come back at all, the bigger the howler the less the press will notice.

  5. The NHC doesn’t even trust their own climate models….
    …here’s what every model says….the bright red line is what NHC says

  6. WUWT Headline: “Michael Mann’s claims that Harvey was caused by global warming are destroyed by an operational meteorologist”
    Guardian Headline: “We can’t say that Hurricane Harvey was caused by climate change.”

    Tosh of the day.

    As for Bastardi, tl;dr as usual.

      • The Guardian is losing so much money peddling their insane propaganda that they’ve just had to take out papers in the USA (NY) as a “non-profit organization” so they can collect money from their acolytes as though they were a “charity.” Putting them in the boat with equal grifters BBC, PBS and the execrable NPR.

      • “Sure so just make up a new headline that quotes him as actually saying that, as did Bastardi.”

        1. Um nope grammar police officer. The headline DID NOT contain quotation marks, so it doesn’t actually “quote” anyone, and the subtitle says- “Meteorologist Joe Bastardi takes down fake Nobelist Michael Mann’s lame effort in the Guardian to link climate with Hurricane Harvey.”

        2. Maybe Anthony is just taking a page out of the CAGW playbook and finally using the same tactics on them? You know, like saying that 97% of scientists agree (insert claim here) when 97% of scientists have NEVER said any such thing. Or when Michael Mann and cohorts are caught saying fraudulent and completely shocking things in their own emails to each other, but then they deny that what they said, was actually what they meant. Or when Michael Mann CLAIMED to be a Nobel Prize winning scientist….and was forced by the Nobel Committee to retract that claim because the award was actually given to the IPCC….and not to him.

        Aside from the titles…how do you feel about the BIGGER issue here? You know, Michael Mann making up crap about a natural disaster and writing an article as if he understood the physics involved, and getting it backwards? I’ll bet you a million dollars that Anthony will change the headline here, and note the mistake without a second thought. but Michael Mann will NEVER, EVER admit he made a fool of himself, or ask the Guardian to print a retraction.

      • Watts and Bastardi’s claim that Mann claimed Harvey was caused by global warming destroyed by the reproduction if the actual headline which says “we can’t say Harvey was caused by global warming”

        Or how about: Bastardi and Mann in complete agreement that we can’t say Harvey was caused by global warming?

        The simple fact is that the headline is a complete straw mann. Mann claimed the opposite of what the headline says he claimed.

    • tl;dr = That’s logical; daren’t read?

      The Guardian says here:

      •Is there a link between the storm and climate change?
      Almost certainly, according to a statement issued by the World Meteorological Organization on Tuesday. “Climate change means that when we do have an event like Harvey, the rainfall amounts are likely to be higher than they would have been otherwise,” the UN organisation’s spokeswoman Clare Nullis told a conference.

      •But hurricanes are nothing new in this part of the world …
      Correct. Nobody is arguing that climate change caused the storm, but it is likely to have made it much worse.

      Yet Basrdi notes that the mechanisms that “scientists” like Mann say would exacerbate the storm are not, in reality, in place.

      If the Guardian employed journalists they would have fact-checked this and not allowed Mann to mislead.

    • Clarke:
      Guardian Headline: “We can’t say that Hurricane Harvey was caused by climate change.”

      That is merely reporter-speak for: “I want to say it is, but cannot justify it, so I will say it in reverse, so it is in the headline anyway”. Don’t you know how the media work?

      R

  7. Soooo……global warming forced Harvey to stall out and flood Texas, not because of intensity but because of lack of movement?

    How does that work?

    • Texas wind mills robbed Harvey of directional winds, so Harvey Hovered over a subsiding swamp where humans built a city.

      • Nobody thought I was serious about the windmills? Dang!

        As silly as the notion is, it is sillier to think your SUV caused Harvey to hover.

    • Thanks Jim. Important to note.

      I have asked for proof that WV in the atmosphere increased ( what with no real tropical warming, cooling southern oceans, the blob dissipated like the El Nino, and the AMO starting to turn) that global rain has increased, and then for evidence of how much of any increase in WV is man made, and further asked how much more humans caused Harvey to rain?

      What, zero takers?

      • Look up Australian climatologist Glenn Paltridge’s 2009 paper using radiosonde readings. Read the humidity section of the climate chapter in ebook The Arts of Truth (where Paltridge is footnote 45) and supported by much additional independent evidence. Perhaps peruse essay ‘Humidity is still Wet’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. Lots of evidence that the Lindzen adaptive iris and Eschenback thermoregulator theories are supported by physical observations. Humidity increases, so does convection, hence rainout, so the net is that with surface warming upper troposphere relative humidity decreases and the positive water vapor feedback is much less than in climate models.. Only the surface layer follows Clausius/Clapeyron. AR4 WG1 attempt to assert otherwise by ignoring evidence just shows the inherent IPCC bias.

  8. If the tropical storm Irma develops in full ledged hurricane Mickey Mann will be doing Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’ all the way from Philadelphia to the Gulf.
    Irma’s maximum wind velocity has doubled in the last 18h from just above 50km/h to 108km/h, it’s aiming at the Caribbean.

  9. Mann also deceptively gave a passing mention to land subsidence and focused on global warming, but the dominant cause of relative sea level change in the Houston area has been groundwater extraction. Between 1938 and 1978 some areas subsided 8 feet.

    Read https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182/pdf/07Houston.pdf

    Houston was a flood prone area and a disaster waiting to happen, and Mann is just an ambulance chaser trying to sell his fearful hypotheses.

    • Harvey also had the weakest ground based wind gusts of any Cat 4 in US History.

      Harvey is a story because Harvey hovered over a subsiding swamp where humans built a city.

      ( An earlier poster shows a subsidence map with some areas dropping 12 feet)

    • I commented on Mann’s complete lack of understanding of tropical meteorology and atmospheric conditions in an earlier post, but geology is not my specialty. I thought his comment about the land subsiding due. in part. to oil drilling was a factless attempt to further demonize oil, but, unlike Mann, I don’t like to say things I don’t really know about. So, a couple of questions:

      Is there now, or has there been a lot of oil drilling around the Houston area?

      If so, what is/was the depth of the oil?

      What is the composition of the rock layers between the oil and the surface?

      Finally, is there any evidence of subsidence from oil drilling in Houston or anywhere else?

      If anyone knows the answers, I would really appreciate it. In the meantime, I will look for them on my own.

      • jclarke341

        Finally, is there any evidence of subsidence from oil drilling in Houston or anywhere else?

        If anyone knows the answers, I would really appreciate it. In the meantime, I will look for them on my own.

        baytown TX is a small town just east of Houston, between I-10 and the water.
        It lost entire subdivsions in the 60’s and 70’s due a subsidence of more than 2 meters: Water overflowed those streets, cut off thehouses, and foced abandonment of several acres of developed land. The loss was water (NOT OIL) which was pumped out from shallow (less than 1000 feet depth) water wells for cooling water, drinknng water, and commercial (farming and irrigation) purposes. I understand the water was replaced, the land rebounded back up, and the acres left abandoned though.

        Oil pumping is very, very low volume (compared to the vast areas of the oil reservoirs below) and is (today) pumped from very, very deep wells at more than 5000 feet-15,000 feet. That only 5-10% of the oil rock pores are drained when a oil field is depleted indicates that the rock itself is not “emptied” of large proportions of the original volume. (That low volume may be at high pressure though.)

      • Thanks, RACook. My thought was that oil is extracted from at least 1,000 ft down, and usually much deeper, but I wasn’t positive. I also can’t imagine subsidence occurring from an evacuated space that deep in the Earth. If that happened, caves would be impossible. They would all collapse as they attempted to form, but they usually do not, unless they are very close to the surface.

        So once again we find Mr. Mann just making up anything he needs to advance his political agenda.

        I have a B.S. degree, but Mr. Mann is a full Professor of B.S.!

  10. Nice job JB making toast of the Mann! He reminds me of an ambulance chaser trying to take advantage of a disaster. How sickening to see…

    Mods, several typo’s in 3 paragraph from the bottom.

  11. Good stuff. You do your homework well Joe, and well in advance the old fashion way. I had a thought about all the water from Harvey. If I was asked (as a mining engineer and geologist!! ) to compare hurricanes with respect to rain, I would try to determine how much water fell out of each. The fact that meteorological conditions outside the hurricane stalled it and caused it to drop all its water in one place would be a different consideration.

    For example, Hurricane Hazel in the sixties made landfall as a Cat 4 (old fashioned, real Cat 4) , but it blew all the way to Toronto where it was still a Cat 1, and where it killed 81 people there but damaged and flooded every place in between. How much water fell out of that baby?

    Had this happened today, oh what a moaning doom festival that would be from the climateers. And let me note that Witch Hazel hit in a global cooling period that had the manmade ice age doomsters like Holdren, Schneider, Ehrlich and other ideologuish scientists in a twist. That’s another warning I’ve given here at WUWT about complacency with the hurricane drought. I suggested, using the what-happened-sixty-yrs – ago forecasting method that we should have put this prediction out there to forestall the alarm bell ringers.

      • Thanks MRW, I remember the news from memory but slipped a decade on the date (having lived through 7 decades plus tasted two more parts of decades, that happens to me occasionally). In any case, my point is had Hazel stalled at landfall because of other met conditions, it might have been the biggest of all and it was in a cooling period (like now?).

  12. Joe Bastardi and I go way back to Penn State days. He is crazy as hell… in a good way. And he calls it like he sees it. We have often disagreed over forecasting greatly but I’ve seen the utmost integrity from him in a moment when no one was watching. I’ll always remember that.

    We are both now appalled that Michael Mann slithers through the halls of our formerly beloved University.

    I would pay good pay-per-view money to watch the two in a MMA cage… or maybe more appropriately, a televised debate on climate change.

    • Joe is still lifting weights and was a wrestler. Mann wouldn’t stand a chance in an MMA cage and as Joe’s article demonstrates, would have even less of a chance in an honest one on one debate on meteorology.

  13. Yesterday,I posted the Junk Science article of Joe Bastardi’s response to Mann overboard, at Roy Spenser site. David Appell made this reply:

    “David Appell says:
    August 30, 2017 at 6:21 PM

    Bastardi is raw denier who is nowhere close to Mann’s expertise. He gets even the most basic things wrong:”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/texas-major-hurricane-intensity-not-related-to-gulf-water-temperatures/#comment-260567

    Left out the link to his site.

    He said this too:


    David Appell says:
    August 30, 2017 at 8:13 PM

    Joe Bastardi is a denier, and not a very smart one, as I showed. Nothing he says has any credibility. I’m glad that perturbs you.”

    See? twice he shows he has NOTHING!

    When warmist loons can’t bring up an intelligent counterpoint,it becomes clear they can’t accept the reality. David A. Had a clear opportunity to show where Joe was wrong,but he KNOWS he can’t which is why he chose personal attacks instead.

    I wonder if they taught David to employ lots of personal attacks in debates,when he went to University to get that PHYSICS degree.

    • As this article shows, most “Deniers” are thermometers.
      They just won’t agree with the theory.

    • Appell:

      Bastardi is raw denier who is nowhere close to Mann’s expertise. He gets even the most basic things wrong:”

      WOW. David Appell is a genuine fool who has not done his homework. He plucked this realization out of his a$$.

      [More Appell]
      Joe Bastardi is a denier, and not a very smart one, as I showed. Nothing he says has any credibility. I’m glad that perturbs you.”

      This proves Appell is not making his comments based on any daily research. Simply horrendous.

    • Bravo Tommy. I agree with you and strongly disagree with Mr. Appell [and one bad one spoils the lot :-) ]

      Joe Bastardi, and his colleagues at WeatherBell, including my friend and co-author Joe d’Aleo, have the best predictive track record in the weather forecasting field.

      Here is a recent example:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/13/new-butt-covering-end-of-snow-prediction/comment-page-1/#comment-2397292

      A little recent history about Winter weather forecasts:

      The National Weather Service (NWS) of the USA forecast a warm winter for 2014-15 and my friend Joe d’Aleo told me in October 2014 that the NWS forecast was seriously incorrect, and that the next winter would be particularly cold and snowy, especially in the populous Northeast. This was the second consecutive year that the NWS has made a very poor (excessively warm) Winter forecast, in Joe’s opinion – and he and his colleagues at WeatherBell have a great track record of accurate forecasts.

      Joe and I had been working together on a paper on Excess Winter Mortality, and I suggested to Joe that this false “warm winter” NWS forecast was dangerous, especially if the country and its people were unprepared. Joe agreed, but did not know how to tackle the problem.

      I proposed an approach, and we prepared a presentation for my friend at the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Joe then prepared his own monthly Winter Forecast by region for the EIA, who re-ran their winter energy demand calculations. Using Joe’s forecast, the EIA projected 11% more winter energy required for the USA than the “warm” NWS forecast had projected.

      After that brutally cold and snowy winter, a back-analysis showed that the actual energy used was 10% more than the NWS forecast projection, and just 1% less than Joe’s forecast projection.
      (Note: all numbers are from memory.)

      So I think we did a good deed.

      Regards to all, Allan

      • I’m a regular info geek, ALLAN MACRAE, and don’t have your or Joe d’Aleo’s credentials. But I do listen to Joe Bastardi’s updates every day of my life, without fail. Never miss them. Never. Not ever. At this point I have about four years under my belt of an ordinary person’s assessment of whether weatherbell is B.S. or not. I’m the type Michael Mann and that profound idiot David Appell are trying to convince.

        At this point I can accurately claim that this statement of yours is 100% correct.

        Joe Bastardi, and his colleagues at WeatherBell, including my friend and co-author Joe d’Aleo, have the best predictive track record in the weather forecasting field.

        Period. Basta. Finito.

      • Thank you MRW.

        The integrity and the competence of Joe A and Joe B are truly outstanding.

        It is reprehensible that they have been slandered by scoundrels and imbeciles.

    • Appell is also a stalker. He threatened the family of one blogger when the blogger would not cow to his tirades. He is one bad apple (pun intended).

      • Mr. Appell is a guy who reported Professor Curry to her superiors for publishing this horror (https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/14/week-in-review-politics-edition-13/#comment-817397)

        David Appell (@davidappell) | October 14, 2016 at 9:48 pm |
        “Some new batch of hacked emails is saying Trump groped Bob Dylan according to Putin. – David Phinney”

        So now the sexual assault of women is supposed to be funny?

        David Appell (@davidappell) | October 15, 2016 at 6:07 am |
        Glenn, Judith choose to post this insult to women.

        So I assume she thinks jokes about sexual assault are OK.

        I wonder what the Dean of her college will think when he reads about this….

      • The irony is that while Dr. Curry may have quoted a joke about it, Appell apparently practices it to silence his critics.

        Talk about living in a glass house.

    • Appell is so rude that I’ve reduced the time I spend at Dr. Spencer’s site. It’s really too bad, and I think that’s his goal. I know that Dr. S wants to allow a wide variety of ideas and opinions, but it may be time to ban Appell

  14. Anomalies of ocean surface temperatures in the tropics are conducive to hurricane formation in the Atlantic.

  15. Joe, thanks, but realize that your explanation is wasted on Mann. All he knows or cares about is that it’s cars and power plants causing anything bad, because that’s what his job depends on.

  16. Mann only demonstrated that climate affects added and contributed to Hurricane Harvey. And this only predicated on a limited timeline of a few decades, where warming has increased both air and sea temperatures. This warming based upon climate science is a added factor, as is ocean rise over the same period. His calculation was only a 3% to 5% increase in intensity. Stop creating a “straw man” over simple calculations.

    • Mann got a lot wrong and demonstrated nadda.
      I have asked for proof that WV in the atmosphere increased ( what with no real long term tropical warming, some cooling southern oceans, the blob dissipated like the El Nino, and the AMO starting to turn) asked for proof that global rain has increased, and then for evidence of how much of any increase in WV is man made, and further asked how much more humans caused Harvey to rain?

      Mann did not demonstrate this, nor did he demonstrate any global increase in cyclones or tornadoes, or Cat 4 land falls, or Texas rain intensity. Mann has a hypothesis at best with zero evidence of real world results. Defending Mann is as his own colleagues say ” defending the indefensible”

  17. I remember Elena in 1985 labor day weekend. Chased us out of the beach condo (Daytona Beach) It had been tracking east then soon as it nearly stalled we decided we had no idea which way it was going. Discretion part of valor we headed back inland.

  18. A very good read and eventually science will prevail, but not until the charlatans and snake oil salesmen are finished with it. Keep at it, but don’t expect Mann to even be aware of the extent of his errors as set out so clearly in this article.

    As for the propaganda machine, they have their disaster.

  19. Interesting. Title says Mann claims Harvey was caused by climate change, but caption says Mann says Harvey was enhanced by climate change.

    • Harvey also had the weakest ground based wind gusts of any Cat 4 in US History.

      Harvey is a story because Harvey hovered over a subsiding swamp where humans built a city.

      ( An earlier poster shows a subsidence map with some areas dropping 12 feet)

    • Hey, it’s just a “Headline”.
      Mann “et al” say stuff to grab them all the time. But all they want is for people to read and only remember the “Headline”.
      Here most people read the story.
      Many here and elsewhere are qualified to analyze and refute or agree with the story.
      Joe Bastardi read a “Headline” in the Guardian, read the story and tore Mann a new Ozone Hole.
      Access to both the are presented here.
      Access to both sides should not be “interesting”. It should be the norm.

    • Baba… Mann said ” its a FACT, humans made Harvey more deadly.” For reasons outlined in several posts and comments, that was an unscientific emote, with no essential scientific or statistical basis.

  20. Perhaps, with his acute awareness of the AGW modified characteristics of hurricanes, Michael Mann should’ve shared this expertise with the Houston mayor and convinced him to evacuate the city after all. But, then again it’s always less risky to prognosticate after the fact. And, of course, it’s not inconceivable that the only evacuations Michael Mann really should be involved with are those from his lower intestines. Unfortunately, however, those evacuations always seem to be more common leaving his body from his mouth

  21. He unwittingly describes THE EXACT OPPOSITE EFFECT to what is going on.

    It’s not the first time he got things upside down.

    • Unfortunately, the stock price for stupidity (Quote: STPD) is crashing due to excessive supply and channel stuffing). Funny thing is you can’t short it either because if a stock buy back thingy!

    • LoL I see what you did there. Dr. Mann had a paper in which he inverted an entire section of tree data that indicated climate was colder, so it became hotter instead, and was caught doing so.

  22. Watt a bunch of bullshit. You reference Michael Mann saying that Harvey was caused by global warming warming and than quote what he actually said, that Harvey was influenced by it. Not the same thing at all.

    Once in a while I’m curious enough about the broken logic behind adamant deniers to actually read one of your articles but the falsehoods are consistently right their in the first few paragraphs. In this case the title and subheading.

      • He already pointed them out. See the title of this post vs the quote at the top. Unless enhance is the new cause.

    • I find it ever so ODD that someone who talks about “broken logic” and “falsehoods” as if they are terrible, inexcusable things, to ONLY be interested in pointing them out in a headline while ignoring all of the other, far more “scientific” logical flaws and falsehoods that gush forth from warmists in general, and Mr Mann in particular, all the time.

      So please address the rest of the “bullshit” equally or be counted as a hypocrite who really has no point here at all.

      • I said this on Roy Spencer’s site:

        Gunga Din says:
        August 30, 2017 at 2:37 PM
        It’s almost amusing how Mann “et al” are trying to tie the effects of Harvey to caGW while conveniently forgetting that, from what they had been projecting, we should have been having strings of worsening “Harveys” each year for at least a decade.

        I said “almost amusing” because there are real people being harmed by this natural event. That’s nothing to laugh about.

        They’ll poke at the wording of headline but elect to ignore the failings of their own past headlines.

      • Good for you. You now know the headline was a giant strawman. That’s a good step. Keep up the progress.

      • This is a form of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, and quite interesting as it wraps other fallacies within. The basic idea that “no true honest commenter” could fail to see scientific and logical flaws in climate science. It assumes that these flaws exists and us therefore also demonstrates begging the question fallacy. It also manages to get ad hominem in as well. Quite a tour de force.

      • Seaice1,
        You try hard don’t you? I applaud that much.

        “The No True Scotsman fallacy occurs when one side of an argument makes a universal claim, is presented with an exception to refute that claim, then dismisses that counterexample as not being “pure” enough. The example this fallacy is named for goes like this: one Scotsman declares that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Another points out that he’s a Scotsman, and he puts sugar on his porridge. To that, the first replies that no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. The problem here is that whether or not those who put sugar on their porridge are “true” Scotsmen is a subjective claim, or just a statement of opinion. Opinions are weak evidence for an argument.”

        At no point did I make a universal claim, or even insinuate, that “no true honest commenter” could fail to see scientific and logical flaws in climate science.” And at no point did anyone put forth an exception. Nor did I then dismiss that un-put-forth exception. No “no true scottsman” happened here. Just the observation and calling out of hypocrisy and irony.

        I will now say that I also find it ironic and hypocritical for you to completely ignore the elephant in the room-that Michael Mann made completely false, backwards, and untrue statements that reveal his lack of understanding regarding this weather event. Why??? Why is it that you’d rather focus on offside comments when there’s a much bigger issue here?

      • Sorry Aphan, but you do exactly that.
        “So please address the rest of the “bullshit” equally or be counted as a hypocrite who really has no point here at all.”

        You see, this is saying that one must address those things you identify as important to be classed as a “true commenter”, rather than a false one – a hypocrite.

        This is exactly analogous to the Scotsman who claims you must not put sugar on the porridge to be a true Scotsman.

      • Seaice1

        The definition of the word hypocrite is:

        ” a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs.”

        As far as I know, there is no accepted definition of a “true commenter” at WUWT. And I call out hypocritical behavior on everyone when I notice it. I even backed up one of your points about the title. But you don’t get to redefine what the no true scotsman fallacy is and attempt to apply it where it does not, actually, apply.

      • Seaice1,
        Maybe this will help to clarify:
        (Rationalwiki-)

        https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

        “Noteworthy is that the fallacy does not occur if there is a clear and well understood definition of what membership in a group requires, and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., “no honest man would lie” or “no theist can be an atheist” and so on). Thus, the NTS fallacy only occurs if the group is later redefined for no valid reason.”

        There is a clear and well understood definition of what hypocrisy is. I didn’t change that definition, nor did I redefine it later for no valid reason.

        You see, in order to honestly, and logically accuse me of being guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy in this thread at WUWT-

        1.WUWT must qualify as a group that requires “membership”
        2. There must be a clear, well understood definition of what “membership” in that group requires.
        3. You would have to KNOW, that I KNOW what that definition is
        4.And that i had CHANGED that definition on order to state or strongly imply that Jack’s comment was a clear breach of my revised definition.

    • John, Mann said…
      ” IT IS A FACT THAT CC made Harvey more deadly”

      He has ZERO evidence for his assertion and got the meteorology back assward.

      • Evidence is impossible. For his statement to be true, AGW would first have to be a proven fact. And it never will be (at the very best it will be an accepted theory – which it is a long way from being).

        For any other scientist to make such a stupid statement, I would be very surprised. Coming from a quack like Mann, it does not surprise me.

        But one person who is laughing really hard is Mark Steyn. Just more evidence for his case against Mann.

  23. This balloon was on BBC world news here in KL this morning. I had the greatest pleasure in switching him off.

  24. Would someone PLEASE edit the last few paragraphs of the original post? They’re loaded with misspellings and typos. And the headline is also misleading. Still, a great dismantling of Michael Mann’s baloney by Joe Bastardi, but, geeze! :/

  25. Debate of the Year: Michael Mann vs. Joe Bastardi
    Organizer: Heartland Institute
    Moderator: Joseph Bast
    Venue: Trump Hotel, Washington DC
    Special Guest: Scott Pruitt
    Plus guest presentations from:
    Fred Singer
    Joe D’Aleo
    Willie Soon
    Lord Monckton
    Anthony Watts

    Come join the party!

  26. “Dr. Mann’s claims have no credibility, one only needs to read this book”

    Dr Mann’s alarmist claims have never had any credibility because it is clear to see he has never yet shown to understood how the planets weather behaves. Never mind trying to work out how any little warming or cooling influences it via climate change, really global warming. He has shown he is trying to run before he can actually walk.

  27. The Guardian’s subheadline quotes Mann: “We can’t say that Hurricane Harvey was caused by climate change.”

    This entire piece is debunking the notion that he said the exact opposite and nobody noticed?

    • No, there is a difference between formation of one occurring at all to debunking climate change influenced it in some way.

      Mann was referring here that climate change didn’t actually create the hurricane from nothing.

    • No, the entire piece is debunking many of the claims that Mann made. Do you really need it spelled out for you?

  28. Mann: We can’t say that Hurricane Harvey was caused by global warming….”

    Watts: “Michael Mann’s claims that Harvey was caused by global warming are destroyed by an operational meteorologist”

    Bastardi: “No Michael Mann — Climate change did not cause Hurricane Harvey”

    Matt G, however you try to put it, the headline and Bastardi’s comment is wrong, plain and simple. Mann did not claim the hurricane was caused by global warming, he stated the exact opposite.

    [When comparing headlines, you conveniently and predicatbly ignored this Guardian headline:

    It’s a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly – Michael E Mann

    MEGAFAIL on your part. Take a 48 hour timeout to contemplate why you are so blitheringly biased- Anthony]

    • ‘Take a 48 hour timeout to contemplate why you are so blitheringly biased- Anthony’

      I gotta hand it to you Anthony – you have an optimism I could never share.
      It’s a good thing too – if I were in your position, I’m sure I would have bitten someone by now.

    • Ah, so you came here to play the semantics games that Nick Stokes plays? Sure, Mann was shown to be a blithering idiot, but try to steer the focus to the words and phrases other people used to describe it!

    • I cannot believe I’m going to say this, but seaice1 has a point. But only one.

      Saying that “climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly” is NOT the same thing as saying “climate change CAUSED Hurricane Harvey”. To be even more clear, Mann’s article in the G states “We cannot say that climate change CAUSED Hurricane Harvey”. ( note that Harvey is one of the LEAST deadly US Hurricanes so far)

      Bastardi got his title WRONG. Period. But other than that, Joe tears Mann’s article about the Hurricane, and it’s behavior, apart perfectly. The ONLY point the alarmists can bring up here, is that the title here at WUWT, and Joe’s title, DO attribute something to Mann that Mann did not say. Why not correct that so they have ZERO to say??

      • Mann: “We can’t say that Hurricane Harvey was caused by climate change.”

        Bastardi: “No Michael Mann — Climate change did not cause Hurricane Harvey.

        Watts: “Michael Mann’s claims that Harvey was caused by global warming are destroyed by an operational meteorologist.”

        These three claims are almost adjacent to each other.

      • Steve,
        Yes they are. Already pointed out, repeatedly. Mr Bastardi’ s title, and the title of this OP are both inaccurate, and obviously so.

        The article written by Mr. Bastardi, is NOT inaccurate however. It details the many, large, “scientific” inaccuracies in Mr. Mann’s article in the G. Mr. Mann went so far as to call something a “fact” without meeting the criteria required by that word’s definition.

        BOTH inaccuracies bother me. Do both bother you?

      • Why don’t they make a correction? Because they have nothing without this strawman. It’s not like they’re going to acknowledge the role of heat in hurricane intensity after a career of downplaying it.

      • Because I try to be as logical as possible, and humans can’t read minds, any motive attributions made are only conjecture.

        But here’s what you seem to be ignoring. Change the title to ANYTHING YOU WANT; it would have ZERO bearing on the scientific FACTS laid out in Joe’s article demonstrating that MM’s understanding of how hurricanes behave is completely wrong. It also demonstrates a hilarious disconnect with logic, because there are so many differing factors in every single death that occurred, that even declaring “It is a FACT that climate change…” is as unreasonable and Unscientific as it gets.

        So Steve, instead of using the logical fallacy called “poisoning the well” as the basis for your argument, are you “willing to acknowledge”, based on the evidence shown, that MM is completely incompetent at meteorology and is calling things “FACT” when no such thing has been established?

        Or is flapping your hands at the title “all you’ve got”?

      • Cat,

        Please compare the two statements: (I cannot believe I even have to point this out to YOU of all people…or anyone else here)

        A. Climate change CAUSED Hurricane Harvey.
        B. Climate change made Hurricane Harvey MORE DEADLY.

        One of them is what Michael Mann said. One of them is NOT what he said.

        Trust me, I find the Mann arrogant, stupid, unattractive, and as Joe’s article demonstrates, completely inept as well.

        Correcting titles or articles at WUWT when inaccuracies are pointed out has always been the standard. Accuracy rather than hyperbole or sensationalism is why 90% of us read and follow WUWT. Giving the trolls and alarmist nuts any reason to highjack the actual message/impact on accident is bad enough, but easily corrected. NOT correcting it after repeated mention gives them fuel for a much bigger fire. So WHY??

    • Michael Mann – (After explaining just how “climate change” made Harvey worse) “In conclusion, while we cannot say climate change “caused” Hurricane Harvey (that is an ill-posed question), we can say is that it exacerbated several characteristics of the storm in a way that greatly increased the risk of damage and loss of life. Climate change worsened the impact of Hurricane Harvey.”

      Joe Bastardi – “By Joe Bastardi
      August 29, 2017, Reprinted with the permission of Weatherbell.com

      Dr. Mann at PSU has outdone himself. Back when New England had their famed February with snow and cold, he made the claim a warm eddy some 350 miles ESE of New England was enhancing water vapor and leading to extra snow. But:

      1.If he plotted trajectories from the storms he would see that the air from that source could not get back
      over New England since the mean flow would lead to enhanced snows in the Canadian Maritimes.
      2.Convective feedback from such warm eddies would act to PULL STORMS OUT TO SEA.
      3.The mean water vapor surface to 700 mb was BELOW NORMAL in New England in Feb 2015. The extra
      snow was high ratio snow with great crystal growth soundings because of the cold!

      This is why climatologists should be forced to forecast for a year, so they can get an appreciation of what
      the weather does, not what they think it does based on their “research.”

      But he may have outdone himself here.

      I was emailed this quote, supposedly from him. It’s making the rounds in the skeptic community. It was in the Guardian

      “The stalling is due to very weak prevailing winds, which are failing to steer the storm off to sea, allowing it to spin around and wobble back and forth. This pattern, in turn, is associated with a greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system over much of the US at the moment, with the jet stream pushed well to the north. This pattern of subtropical expansion is predicted in model simulations of human-caused climate change.”

      He unwittingly describes THE EXACT OPPOSITE EFFECT to what is going on….”

      Joe then goes on to, as I said before, rip Mann a new Ozone Hole.
      And all Mann’s defenders can do is focus on a headline.
      Read Joe’s article and defend Mann against the rest of Joe’s smack down.

      • Gunga,
        “And all Mann’s defenders can do is focus on a headline.”
        I KNOW. I’ve said the same thing in this thread myself. I AGREE that it’s all they’ve got. My point is, there’s absolutely no logical reason to even let them have THAT!! When did pulling the crap they pull all the time become acceptable?

      • Aphan, yes, the headlines are unfortunate. I don’t know how many of them are “changeable” by WUWT if they are quotes from somewhere else.
        I also don’t know what a mess it would be to change the headline of a post after it’s already been put up with over 150 replies.
        I suspect the best that could be done would be to leave the original title and include an “update” correcting it.

  29. There is an internationa legal and regulatory physics standard named the

    International Standard Atmosphere

    that actually states climate isn’t changing.

    It states the exact average pressure, temperature, etc of the global atmosphere,

    and if climate changes, that has to change, too: and it’s a physics standard.

    So even the claim climate is changing: is technically, false.

    When climate changes, global physics law related to atmospherics must change as well or we couldn’t regulate things pertaining to atmospherics and atmospheric matter-energy relationships.

    [It is hard to tell the difference between . . . well you know. So giving you the benefit of the doubt, and the accumulated wisdom of WUWT . . . mod]

    • Steve Vertelli,

      Um…no.

      “The International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) is an atmospheric model of how the pressure, temperature, density, and viscosity of the Earth’s atmosphere change over a wide range of altitudes or elevations.”

      “The ISA model is based on average conditions at mid latitudes, as determined by the ISO’s TC 20/SC 6 technical committee. It has been revised from time to time since the middle of the 20th century.” Wiki

      When “average” climate conditions change, the ISA gets revised. A standard is not a law, nor a regulation. Not even if you say so.

  30. A side note.
    From Joe’s post.

    But Dennis was over the water before he came back. You want really crazy? Look at Esther in 1961.

    He was talking about hurricanes looping.
    Tropical storm Delia was the first known to have made landfall, loop, and make landfall again at the same place (Freeport TX).
    She’s the one that almost killed me.

  31. “…climatologists should be forced to forecast for a year, so they can get an appreciation of what the weather [actually] does, not what they think it [should do] based on their [self-promoting over-funded forecasts of doom, and thus fund me more] “research.”

    Richard Feynman “if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results;” “Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. …We are not to tell nature what she’s gotta be”

    “A group of international scientists, including scientists from Australia, have issued advice that more research is urgently required to determine whether corals can acclimatise and adapt to the rapid pace of climate change.”

    Translation – Urgently give us heaps more money so that we can predict after 5 years that in a 100 years we will all be dead.

Comments are closed.