Climate Craziness of the Week – @kurteichenwald: “I predicted Irma using ‘climate equation’ 100% correct”

From the ‘I’m not a scientist but I play one in Vanity Fair” department comes this ridiculous tweet from writer Kurt Eichenwald.

Via Wikipedia: no mention of climate or weather skill:

Kurt Alexander Eichenwald (born June 28, 1961) is an American journalist who serves as a senior writer with Newsweek, a contributing editor with Vanity Fair and a New York Times bestselling author of four books, one of which, The Informant (2000), was made into a motion picture in 2009. He was formerly a writer and investigative reporter with The New York Times and later with Condé Nast‘s business magazine, Portfolio. Eichenwald had been employed by The New York Times since 1986 and primarily covered Wall Street and corporate topics such as insider tradingaccounting scandals, and takeovers, but also wrote about a range of issues including terrorism, the Bill Clinton pardon controversy, Federal health care policy, and sexual predators on the Internet.

Of course, that makes him highly qualified (in Alt-climate world) to say things like this:

Rightfully, since he didn’t show any work, he’s being flamed in replies to that tweet.

Dr Ryan Maue was quick to weigh in:

UPDATE: Eichenwald’s ego explodes:

Then, oh never mind, blame it on Fox news!

Advertisements

150 thoughts on “Climate Craziness of the Week – @kurteichenwald: “I predicted Irma using ‘climate equation’ 100% correct”

  1. Was it the same “climate change equation” that predicted the 12-year hurricane drought? Oh wait, there wasn’t one. Never mind.

  2. Step up, shout ‘bullshit’, and be prepared to be attacked by those who call you a denier. Sigh. It was bullshit anyway, of course.

    • Sorry , the magic formula only gives intensity and timing to 100% accuracy, I’m still working on track predictions. ;)

    • A simple linear extrapolation shows that Irma will not need to make landfall — by the end of the week, wind speeds will reach 300 mph, as the storm wall reaches inland simply by expanding. Within another week, wind speeds over 500 mph will scour Gaia’s enemies from North America, followed the week after by the rest of the Earth, which will eventually be torn apart by Irma’s planet-girdling >1200 mph winds sometime next month.

      Just had to drive that SUV, huh?

      • It’s just a question of where Irma happens to be. Winds on Venus gust at 250 mph and 740 K, but Neptune’s winds blow nearly supersonic at 1300 mph and 55 K. The cooling sulphuric clouds on Venus slow Irma down. /sarc

    • Bang on the SW tip of Florida, Sunday morning.

      It will be very very bad.

      Then it will rip up the east coast before wandering off into the Atlantic.

      The public will be told it’s all about climate change, and enough will believe it to make Trumps position almost untenable.

      It will set science back a generation.

      • Science has already been set back a generation, as has education in general. Perhaps more than one lost generation.

      • The stupid, it burns. I’m ok with stupid and even ignorant. What really burns me it the willful and blatant lies. This smuck is not stupid or ignorant. He’s part of the problem that needs to be addressed with lampposts and hemp. Give it time folks. Give it time.

  3. So where is the evidence of his prediction? Did he make it public or just write on the back of an envelop yesterday and bring it out ?

    Timing “100%” ? OK let’s see it .

    Maybe he would like to share his magic “climate equation” for public inspection. He certainly need to given credit for all this hard work !

  4. On any given day there exists some prophet of doom strutting around with a sign predicting some impending catastrophe, and eventually one will be correct, but this is no rationale for the correctness or prognostication abilities.
    How often in the past has this buffoon been incorrect? One correct guess out of many is not a sign of reliable guessing.
    “One would expect that a soothsayer would not be able to look another soothsayer in the face without laughing.”

  5. …. and I have invented a way to turn shit into gold. It works 100% of the time when there is a major storm brewing.

  6. This creep looks like a psychopath. A cold menacing stare like he’s about to pull someone’s fingernails out very slowly and enjoy every minute of it.

    • Oddly enough, if you can track down the thread on Twitter where he brings up tentacle p0rn (while talking to his ‘adult son’, lol) you will be amused for hours reading the massive amount of flames sent his way.

  7. @Kurt Eichenwald ✔ @kurteichenwald

    Can you please give us the names of the remaining storms, their intensity and timing, for 2017?

    Cliff

    • Yes, just using the old National Enquirer model: print 1,000 predictions, trumpet the one you got kinda right.

      In this case, at least the National Enquirer actually printed their predictions.

      This drip apparently is trying to take credit for predicting something without actually showing that he did.

      BTW, DON’T search for his name and “tentacle”…I warned you.

  8. Wow, think of all the lives he could save. He has a moral obligation to share his amazing gift. If he doesn’t, I’m sure alarmists will be outraged. (Extreme sarc)

  9. So this guy is…

    …a journalist, senior writer, contributing editor, bestselling author, investigative reporter, covering Wall Street, insider trading, accounting scandals, takeovers, plus terrorism, the Clinton pardons, health care policy, and sexual predators…

    And he writes this?

    I used a climate change equation &, using sea surface temps, predicted Irma intensity growth & timing. 100% correct.

    Maybe someone stole his identity.

    • Is there any chance that jet stream will push Irma northward and out over the Atlantic?

      [Yes, there is a chance that will occur. But disaster sells newspapers, TV time, and web-counted clicks on web sites. Also, “gloom and disaster-doomed” scenarios do encourage some people to prepare for potential disasters. Several models – but not all! – predict paths that stay east of FL. .mod]

      • I really have no idea what Irma is going to do but I’ll wing it and say that looking at nullschool it appears most likely that it will pound Jamaica and Cuba and then run aground in Central america. At least I have the cojones to post my prediction before it happens! You folks are my witnesses!

    • Hurricane IRMA
      As of 18:00 UTC Sep 05, 2017:

      Location: 16.9°N 59.2°W
      Maximum Winds: 160 kt Gusts: N/A
      Minimum Central Pressure: 926 mb
      Environmental Pressure: 1010 mb

  10. He is 100% correct that when you apply the climate equation of H=Harvey I= Irma, then Irma would be the next tropical storm/hurricane.

  11. This is what happens when climate scientists make brazenly unsupported statements of climate doom. It pushes science further into the post normal where heartfelt opinions are valid and where the butcher, the baker, the candlestickmaker… are welcome to participate. They do stick, come what may, to the CO2 heating formula that was handed down on a clay tablet by acolytes of Maurice Strong. Notice that no mainstream CliSci or fawning fake news outlets are calling bull to this. Heck, even the florist or the seamstress is qualified to call BS on such stupidity.

  12. I also made prediction, according to the prevailing ‘scientific consensus’ it was only 97% accurate.
    /sarc

  13. Wow! I hadn’t seen this before, Anthony, but you have scored with the appellation “Alt-Climate world”! What a great counter to the term “denier”!

      • Hmmm…this could be an idea for Josh.
        The Climate Seancetist Keyboard.
        It would not have a “Pause” key.
        The “Num Lock” key would be replaced by the “Num Adjust” key.
        The ‘Delete” key would be extra large for dealing with FOAI request.
        Of course, every key would be a “Hot Key”
        IE “Shift+G” would move the goalpost.
        (The “Esc” key would be a “No Esc” key and a slider which would self-adjust to be nearer or farther depending where the “Shift-G” sit the goalpost for dthe next “tipping point”.)

        And “C+O+2” would melt the computer’s Gaia-board.

  14. 12 years ago I predicted that some know-nothing boob that writes for one or more rags that are popular on the Upper West Side would make an assertion so offensive to the nature of human knowledge that it was beyond ridicule …

    I’m 100% right

  15. I just love the sizzling retorts and comments about Eichenwald’s absurdity. If I were the least bit intelligent, I would write at least one as well, but I ain’t got it.

  16. Yup! “Im deleting my hurricane tweet because idiots arent getting point. Climatologists use math to calculate. Math works. Idiots use fox news.
    73 replies 124 retweets 631 likes”

    • Suspicion confirmed. He was being sarcastic/ironic. Much more ironic than he realized. Who’s the idiot, Kurt? I think we all know the answer. Math works, but you have to know all the underlying physics, otherwise you just have mathematical wanker models that soon go off the rails…as has happened with virtually all of your twee “climate models.” Ignorance is no excuse, Kurt. Get out of your bubble or shut up.

    • If he would have claimed it was a satire of Michael Mann’s claim about preictictimg Harvey it would have been spot on funny.

  17. A journalist who doesn’t know mean from median but can do maths with “formulas” that don’t exist and get resukts that are transparently fabricated.
    Sounds like Kurt fits right in with the consensus.

  18. You folks are being way to cruel to our dear Kurt Eichenwald and very disrespectful of his true abilities. So, I’m going to set you straight and describe what I think I’ve seen with my own eyes:

    The other night I was at a seance, and alone amongst the five of us only Eichenwald was able to connect with the dead. In fact, he actually connected with General Ulysses S. Grant who informed him that history was mistaken and that it was actually Grant himself who surrendered to Robert E. Lee.

    But, that’s not all. Later, Eichenwald showed us that a Ouija board genuinely does work (as opposed to ungenuinely). He asked the board questions, for which everybody in attendance knew the answers (and we absolutely knew the answers since the events had already occurred), and gosh dang it, the Ouija board got every question right.

    Ok, there was one question, but only one, that despite Kurt’s psychic presence, the Oujia board simply could not answer. One of the attendees asked if any of Kurt Eichenwald’s girlfriends had ever faked their orgasms.

    • Jeez, Tom. That question’s even worse than asking a lady her age ;) ;)

      Kat ( female person of color / red

  19. I seem to recall another harebrained journalist who made very wild claims on this august blog not so long ago. He was simply looking for PR too.

  20. Make 100 predictions, but don’t tell anyone about them.
    When one of them is correct, run to the front of the line and proclaim your brilliance.

  21. Before pounding on Kurt too much, please understand he does have some medical issues. Google Kurt Eichenwald Tucker Carlson and you will see. Its probably not morally right to attack him. Of course Newsweek is open game.

    • Grandma always said “If you can’t say something nice about someone, then it’s best to just say nothing at all.”
      So, for Grandma’s sake, all I’ll say about Mr. E is well just bless his pea-picking little heart.

  22. LOL! Heh, I just can’t stop laughing. This guy is hilarious.

    Oh, wait, it gets better! He’s actually serious! Oh my stomach is hurting from laughing so hard!

    Stop! I can barely breathe……..heh. What a numbskull.

  23. He says he used this equation.

    Which I doubt predicts hurricanes and probably doesn’t have real-time data for either.

    • But I like the simplicity of that equation. There´s no co2 in there, so it is probably more correct than most of climate science.

      But I like that bullshit-measuring device even more, it seems sturdy. Look at how the needle bends, it can handle a lot of bullshit, unlike me. Where can I buy one?

      • L is ‘latent heat ‘ or “energy released or absorbed, by a body or a thermodynamic system, during a constant-temperature process.” – says somewhere or another

      • L is the latent heat of evaporation of water, (in this instance) .
        I guess by now everyone has twigged that this character has taken his terminology for a standard thermodynamic equation for equilibrium between phases. from a book of that eminent climate scientist , Maurice Salby , p112 of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics.
        Of course a hurricane is hardly equilibrium , so need to refer to Houghton ‘s use of the equation in calculating the vertical distribution of saturated air , and then Coriolis comes into play .
        So it would be interesting if this journalist could tell us how he manged to proceed from the equilibrium equation to a violently rotating body of water saturated air. I am sure that he could teach us a lot.

    • Straight out of Wikipedia.. All this means is that warmer air will hold more moisture. To give another example of the stupidity of his tweet, it would be like saying that you calculated a nuclear bomb with a formula that was 100% accurate and then saying the formula you used was E=mc^2.

    • I’m pretty sure that its used somewhere in hurricane modelling but surely even a writer could pick that you need a lot more – or at least one more equation with time in it! If you’re even that innumerate, at least a good journalist would know that NOAA just spent $44.5M on a computer upgrade for its modelling. There would be some serious questions to be answered if the calculation could be done on paper with a basic Cassio.

  24. This site is frequently informed of the antics of journalistic or political activists who manage to convince politicians and the media that they could and should take the place of professional scientists in the corridors of power especially on the subject of climate change.
    Each time I read about them a little ditty comes to mind: form WS Gibert :

    “Stick close to your desks and never go to sea
    And you all may be Rulers of the Queen’s Navy”

    Of course eventually the day came when the King’s navy faced its most dangerous encounter for 100 years at Jutland in 1916 . A battle that was almost lost , causing Admiral Beatty to complain :” something wrong with our ships today” . Yes all those years of desk sailors displacing professional navy men as satirised by Gilbert .
    We get rid of professional scientists and replace them with Oreskes and Klein and this fellow at our peril.

  25. All this reminds one of the quote of the year:
    ‘When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead.
    All of the pain is felt by others.
    The same thing happens when you are stupid.’

  26. Hey Eichenwald, you know your mouth and ego is writing checks that this equation can’t cash, right? Hurricanes are hardly in equilibrium. My Differential Equations teacher would have given me an F if I had popped this one out on a test.

    • Most assuredly so. He can just wait until science answers the questions and say that he predicted it.

      If wikipedia has an entry for weapons grade stupidity then his picture should be there.

  27. The Dunning Kruger effect also seems to have application here.

    Note that he says that he personally used a climate change equation to predict hurricane growth and timing.

    Apparently not knowing how to back down he doubled down and named the Clausius Clapeyron equation. Too dumb to say that climate scientists had done the work. Unfortunately he had already said that he personally had done the calculations.

    Fancy saying that he had all that knowledge and ability without any clue of what would be required to proceed from that equation to a hurricane prediction. And fancy imagining that his journalistic skills would enable him to persuade anybody of anything.

    Moral #1: never assume that you are not the dumbest person in the room.
    Moral #2: you need a REALLY good memory if you are going to tell lies.

  28. “I’m deleting the hurricane tweet because you idiots aren’t getting the point”

    Well he got that part right.

    Pretty funny he calls Maue the idiot.

    • I think the problem was the “idiots” did get the point. It was the author who didn’t understand what point he made.

  29. Way back when I was doing thermodynamics problems we always defined the variables in our equations. I am guessing that P is pressure, T is temperature ..but is L the latent heat? Is delta S the change in entropy? What units is he using? Looks like just another journalist in way over his head.

  30. He predicted it AFTER it had already appeared. He’ll wait to see where it’s track takes it and then he’ll claim he ‘predicted’ that as well… to 100% accuracy. Twit.

  31. weathernerds.org has a good spaghetti graph of the models and it appears the europeans are having it hit SC or out to sea (higher prob) than hitting FL. But we shall see.

  32. Regarding Kurt Eichenwald’s challenge, I’ll take a stab at it.

    [quote]The Clausius–Clapeyron relation characterizes behavior of a closed system during a phase change, during which temperature and pressure are constant by definition.[/quote]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation

    [quote]In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings.[/quote]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system

    Hurricanes are not closed systems under this definition. For one thing, they both gain and lose matter continuously, receiving matter in the form of moisture gained from ocean evaporation, and ejecting matter in the form of rain. Further, neither temperature nor pressure are constant in a hurricane.

    The Clausius-Clapeyron equation gives the derivative (local slope) of the curve demarking phase transitions on a pressure-vs-temperature diagram (see example below) for a particular material. It is applicable to describing the phenomena of evaporation and raindrop formation, which are both phase changes that happen in hurricanes. But the hurricane as a whole doesn’t meet the conditions for the equation, so the equation doesn’t make any predictions about any hurricane as a whole.

    The Clausius-Clapeyron equation is part of a description of a material property (specifically, how a material, which in the case of a hurricane would be water, behaves regarding phase transitions); it’s not part of a description of the size, intensity, or any other overall aspect of a hurricane as a whole. Hurricanes come in all different sizes and intensities; the phase transition of water between vapor and liquid, which this equation applies to, happens the same way in all of them.

    By the way, if Kurt Eichenwald thinks that somehow “global warming” had anything to do with the strength of Hurrican Harvey, what were his predictions for the previous seven named storms of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season? Or did global warming suddenly increase right after Hurricane Gert petered out in mid-August?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season

  33. I’m sorry, where I wrote “see example below,” I was going to try to attach the generic phase change diagram from the wikipedia page I cited, but then I couldn’t figure out how to do the attachment/link. If you want to see the diagram just go to the wiki page I linked.

  34. I predict more climate craziness and it can be predicted with 100 percent accuracy by rising CO2 along. That is until an ice age causes extinction. Extreme suppression of interglacial trends and indicators is also required.

  35. Why is it that so many of these climate change alarmists have German names?

    i.e. Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Schneider, Rahmstorf, Steig, Romm, ect.

  36. Many times this type of article and much of science itself reminds me of my statistics classes in college. There was a class for psych majors (required) that taught what a P value was and that it showed the results of the experiment were likely not from chance. (In those days, they didn’t say “caused by”.) However, I wanted to know why the statistics worked, so I took the calculus-based statistics course also, to understand how the math actually worked. I had a second major in Chemistry, so was already taking calculus. Most psych majors believed they understood the whole P value and statistics ideas. Yet they had no idea whatsoever if the process they used was appropriate to the situation, if there was a better or more appropriate statistic, that more than one statistical procedure could be used and different results would occur, etc. They just learned to plug in numbers and redo the experiement until the numbers worked or change the statistic applied. I see that over and over again in many sciences now (the most notable being the skeptic versus realists diagram at the infamous nonskeptical science site). Just find an equation that gives the desired answer.

  37. At a PBS NewsHour “Did climate change make recent extreme storms worse?” online comment section, a guy with the user name “Sequoia sempervirens” hurled the Clausius-Clapeyron equation at me right after he called me a paid denier. It’s the #1 comment now ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change-make-recent-extreme-storms-worse/#comment-3495266892 ), since comments upvoted to Best status rise to the top. Leaves me wondering two things: is Sequoia sempervirens and Kurt Eichenwald the same guy, or is the Clausius-Clapeyron some kind of new talking point tool created for AGW fanatics to use in order to make them sound like they are really smart?

    • Mann mentioned the equation in his pathetic explanation as to how climate change certainly made Harvey worse, and it has spread like wildfire. Instead of hurling “97% consensus,” they throw-out “Clausius-Clapeyron.” They don’t have to understand it or know how to apply it. They just say it makes hurricanes worse and can defer to Mann if necessary.

  38. BTW, a little background, for those who might care.

    This equation that he’s mis-using was discovered during the Age of Steam. In the mid-1800’s steam was the Big Thing. People had been building steam engines since the 1700’s and by the 1800’s they were being used to power many things and had become important. Industrial economic development, railroads, ships, all were being powered by steam. The development of the science of thermodynamics was in part driven by the desire to figure out how to build better steam engines. A nation that had better steam engines would have more efficient factories and faster Navy ships. So some of the top scientists were working on what is now considered classical thermodynamics. Clausius and Clapeyron were among them.

    What’s the deal with a “closed system” in the above definition?

    “In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system

    Something that fits that definition is … a steam engine! Another thing that can fit the definition is a benchtop experimental apparatus in a scientist’s laboratory. But let’s go with the steam engine and you’ll get the point.

    The steam engine takes in energy as heat from the fire under the boiler. It puts out work when high-pressure steam from the boiler pushes a piston in a cylinder, and the piston turns a crank which makes a shaft turn. This is called “shaft work,” a term also used for lame humor by sophomore geek engineering students. Finally, the engine outputs waste heat when the low-pressure steam coming out of the cylinder goes to a condenser, where the steam gives up its remaining heat and condenses back to liquid water. This is then pumped back into the boiler. Thus there is a closed loop for the matter involved (water) but with energy going in and out in the forms of heat and work. Hence, a “closed system” under the definition. Note again that a hurricane doesn’t fit this definition.

    A couple of minor points: Nowadays steam engines use turbines instead of pistons to turn the shafts. Otherwise all the above still applies. Sometimes nuclear energy is used instead of fire to heat the boiler. Also, in all practical engines, there are occasions to open the system. The main one is the safety valve on top of the boiler, which opens if the pressure gets too high, letting out some steam (matter). Likewise, the operator of the engine, (think old-time locomotive engineer) can manually open the valve, which toots the train whistle. He may do this to lower the pressure in the boiler, or just for signalling. Water lost in this way has to be made up by water from a reservoir tank.

    What about the business of constant temperature and pressure?

    “The Clausius–Clapeyron relation characterizes behavior of a closed system during a phase change, during which temperature and pressure are constant by definition.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation

    There are two parts of the steam engine where phase change occurs: the boiler and the condenser. In the boiler water changes from liquid to gas (steam, water vapor), in the condenser it changes from gas back to liquid.

    Think of a well-operated train running on a straight and level track at constant speed. The engineer is keeping an eye on the boiler pressure and temperature gauges, and telling the fireman when to occasionally shovel a little more coal into the fire under the boiler. He’s keeping the pressure and temperature as constant as possible so as to maintain the constant speed of the train. As for the condenser, it’s rejecting the waste heat to the ambient air outside, which is “constant” for practical purposes, until the weather changes. Likewise the pressure in the condenser is approximately constant while the engine is running steadily at constant power output. In the practical situation of an operating engine in the 1800’s, all of these “constant” parameters are actually jittering around slightly all the time, but they’re close enough to constant to make the idealized math applicable enough.

    As mentioned above, the benchtop apparatus for the scientist studying these phase transitions is also built to meet the criteria for constant temperature and pressure, and more accurately so than an operating engine would be. The scientists like Clausius and Clapeyron were figuring out the exact relationship between phase transition and heat energy under different temperature and pressure conditions for various substances, water the most important of them.

    I hope that helps de-mystify the whole thing a little. It’s a complicated subject but for some of us it helps to relate it back to its humble origins in the science of steam engines.

  39. Kurt Eichenwald, you have a degree in political science. You’ve spent most of your career in journalism, not science.

    You admit that you are not a scientist.

    Regardless of your lack of scientific credentials and experience, tell me, by what means and by what criteria did you decide that the Clausius–Clapeyron “equation” – by the way, it’s a relation, not an equation, a hint that you don’t know what you’re talking about – was the correct “equation” to use for predicting hurricane Irma’s intensity, growth, and timing?

    Oh, by the way, have you ever been suckered by anyone, perhaps by Michael Mann? No, you wouldn’t be, now would you. You’ve got a degree in political science!

Comments are closed.