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:
- 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.
- Convective feedback from such warm eddies would act to PULL STORMS OUT TO SEA.
- 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, .
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.
New motto:
In Joe We Trust
Way to go Joe! If you can’t kill em with kindness, do it with FACTS!
‘Dr.’ Mann, the radical tree (ring) hugger
He chucks any tree rings that disagree. Splice and dice to fake precise.
Michael Mann. Serial liar and all round to$$er.
Evil or incompetent? Must be both because Mann is now merely a joke.
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.
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
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!
Which was a reverse split.
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.
Actually I was thinking of Tiljander
[snip -policy violation – mod]
No, come on, ristvan? I like his posts and now I am really curious.
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.
What inconsistencies? Please point them out and provide reasons why.
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:
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.
It’s stunning that nobody noticed Mann said the exact opposite of what’s being attacked.
This balloon was on BBC world news here in KL this morning. I had the greatest pleasure in switching him off.
Ollies place would have been a good buy
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! :/
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!
Gee, and I was hoping Mark Steyn would be invited. He’s more likely to show up than Mickey Mann.
When the geomagnetic activity is high jetstream moves north.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00929/5uhnxbh6nmwi.gif
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00929/7iz88mk3brwj.gif
Hurricanes can strengthen.
“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.
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?
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”?
Straight from the horse’s mouth:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/28/climate-change-hurricane-harvey-more-deadly
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.
Exactly.
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.
A side note.
From Joe’s post.
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.
“…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.