Sigh, the usual suspects get another mouthpiece media outlet to blame severe weather on, complete with scary videos of weather, musical score, and wild claims. video trailer follows. h/t to Russ Steele
NOVA: DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE
Two-Hour Special Premieres Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8PM/7C on PBS
(check local listings)
BOSTON, MA Disastrous hurricanes. Widespread droughts and wildfires. Pervasive heat. Extreme rainfall. Something is up with the weather, and scientists agree the trend is not just a coincidence. Its the result of the weather machine itselfour climatewhich is changing, becoming hotter and more erratic. But some people are skeptical of global warming, and one-third of Americans doubt humans are changing the climate. NOVA, a production of WGBH Boston, cuts through the confusion and helps define the way forward in a special two-hour documentary: DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE. Why do scientists overwhelmingly agree that our climate is changing, and that human activity is causing it? How will it affect us through the weather we experience, and when? And what will it take to bend the trajectory of planetary warming toward more benign outcomes? Join scientists around the globe as they explore the dynamics of the air, land, sea, and icethe major components of Earths weather and climate machineand follow the innovators developing new ways to be resilient, and even thrive, in the face of enormous change.
NOVA DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE, a two-hour special presentation, premieres Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8PM ET/7C on PBS (check local listings).
Climate change is one of the defining public issues of our times, yet public uncertainty about the science still abounds, said Paula S. Apsell, Senior Executive Producer of NOVA. DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE takes viewers on one of the greatest scientific adventures of all time to understand the workings of our planet, what to expect in the future, and what we can do about it.
NOVAs investigation of our changing climate starts with how it affects us most directly: our weather. Are we actually noticing a change in the weather due to climate change? Charismatic career meteorologist Paul Douglas, of Minnesota, thinks so. Once skeptical, he started to detect a pattern over the years that was undeniable: bigger storms in his home state. But how are climate and weather related? And havent both always been changing? What is the evidence that our climate is actually changing and influencing our weather? These are the big questions that launch NOVAs grand exploration of how the weather and climate machine actually worksand why scientists are convinced the planet is warming.
DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE examines why this latest trend is different from other cycles in Earths history and shows the evidence that we are the culprit. The film traces the pioneering explorations to understand our changing climate, which began more than 200 years ago, and reveals how scientists established carbon dioxide levels in the air as a major driver of climate and a key factor in regulating Earths thermostat. By burning fossil fuels, we humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere, which is now trapping more heat. The documentary then analyzes how the other key parts of the climate system-the land, sea, icewill respond, which will determine how much our climate will change, and the impacts. NOVA takes viewers under the hood of Earths climate machine, following geologists, ecologists, polar scientists, marine biologists, and other researchers around the globe who are delving deep into our natural world at a scale never before possible. Leading climate scientists and experts also offer candid insights throughoutincluding John Holdren, of Harvard University (and former White House science advisor), Katharine Hayhoe, of Texas Tech University, and Princetons Stephen Pacala. Ultimately, the film explores what humanity can do to avoid the suffering that climate change might bringboth by adapting to the changes already underway, and by using technology to mitigate the worst outcomes.
Didn’t Trump talk about not funding or seriously limiting PBS funding? Was it another piece of pork in the budget that Congress allowed/wanted?
lt does not need extreme weather to change climate. it just needs a consistent change in the weather which can lead to change over the long term. One extreme winter does not lead to climate cooling, but a slow increasing trend towards winter extending into the spring most certainly can. What’s happening to the NH spring snow extent is a important bell weather to what’s going on in the climate as awhole. So rather then waste my time on looking at changes in CO2 levels. lts better to look for weather change that could cause changes in the spring snow extent over the longer term.
Be careful, Taxed. While northern hemispheric fall and winter snowfall have been showing an upward trend, the spring snow that you want to hang your hat on is showing a downward trend. Not due to the amount of snow cover, mind, you, but because the method for measuring spring snow cover was changed back around 2000. Rather than have a human scrutinize surface and satellite data, the measurement/guestimate is now done by albedo alone, which gets false negative (no snow) readings from a dimming of the snowpack due to dust and soot. In addition, any vegetation that manages to shed its white winter cloak of snow and ice reads as “no snow cover”…this would include low shrubs, which could easily still have snow cover underneath their canopies, however small they might be.
Bread and Circuses…
A phrase originating from Rome in Satire X of the Roman satirical poet Juvenal (circa A.D. 100).
In context, the Latin ‘panem et circenses’ (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which no longer cares for its historical birthright of political involvement.
And today in the USA?
No longer cares for its historical birthright of scientific integrity, or political involvement?
A very apt analogy.
It’s on Wednesday April 18, at 8PM you say? Darn! I’m busy then. Shoot. Somebody needs to watch it though, and report how idiotic it was. Draw straws or something. But, as I say, I’m busy then.
Hayhoe, according to the faith she claims to have, will receive a very harsh judgement.
NOVA, like PBS are state run organs, dedicated to the consensus/swamp/ bureaucratic state that funds them so generously.
For a population that found Whitewater, or any number of scandals since too complex to comprehend, climate change must be mind boggling. This is why they treat it superstitiously and just listen to the high priests.
Oh, ok, but what about “The Day After Tomorrow”????
In MN,Paul Douglas is known as the goof on the roof for his forecasts on top of the building. He is an original weather terrorist.
My question for alarmist is why has CO2 had no impact on hurricane numbers or strength? NOAA evens states it’s too early to tell and when you look at the data that goes back well over a 100 years…you can’t see a change.
Okay… who is he creepy guy at 1:55 saying “It’s a planetary crisis!” with a truly maniacal smile on his face. He looks like the ‘Joker’ from a bad batman movie!
At 1:36 we have the classical shot of what appears to be steam (H2O) emissions, while the pseudo-scientists proclaims that we are “…poking at the climate system with a long, sharp carbon-tipped spear.”! The analogy here is that the climate is a powerful, living entity that has been slumbering up until now. When we antagonize it with our CO2 emissions, the slumbering god will wake up and kill us all! This isn’t science. This is a mythological tale similar to the ones weaved by ancient priests and cultures. There is just one difference: the ancient myths were founded on real world observations with the attempt to explain those observations. The new myth is founded on a human idea, with the attempt to obfuscate what is really happening in the world.
Here is a mythological story that actually adheres to the observations:
For millions of years, the great climate god blessed this planet with warmth and relative stability. The god of life responded by spreading life in magnificent forms across the face of the Earth. The oceans were teaming with creatures great and small. The land was fecund, and diversity had a meaning far greater than we humans can now imagine. But all that carbon based life took a toll on the atmosphere, taking CO2 out of the air and sequestering it deep in the crust of the Earth. Around 5 million years ago, the climate god finally realized that he was beginning to suffer from the lack of CO2, and that ‘life’ was to blame for his suffering. He had no choice but to send a bitter cold that would greatly reduce life on the planet. He would also send chaotic and destructive weather to make it more difficult for the remaining life to grow larger again.
The god of life was devastated and severely wounded by this cold. In order to not die completely, the god of life promised the climate god that he would return the CO2 to the atmosphere, but he would need warm weather in order to do it. Reluctantly, the god of climate agreed to give life a chance, but when he did, life would jab at the god of climate with a long, sharp, carbon-tipped spear, and sequester even more CO2. In his righteous anger, the climate god would send the cold again, covering large parts of the world in ice, and raking the remain parts with ferocious storms. Over and over again, life would plead with climate, and climate would reluctantly give in, granting a brief respite from the cold, only to be disappointed, and be forced to return the planet to the deep freeze.
Finally, life created a wonderful creature that had the ability and desire to liberate CO2 back to the atmosphere. Slowly, the climate god was appeased. The more ‘life’ returned the CO2 it had stolen from the atmosphere, the more the climate god’s wrath eased on the planet. The cold and ice retreated, and the greening of life began to spread. The god of climate was looking forward a long and well-deserved bit of slumber.
But then a funny, and most irrational thing happened on the way to paradise…
“including John Holdren, of Harvard University (and former White House science advisor”
Probably the last guy you would want to have advising you. A real screwball.
Also on PBS on April 18 a movie about Bill Nye:
http://www.panhandlepbs.org/blogs/news-and-public-affairs/2018/04/12/bill-nye-is-a-man-on-a-mission-in-new-pov-documentary/
And to think, the Koch Bros are the main backers of this program!
Still one of my favorite programs of the last 30 years, when they avoid politics.
I agree, its about the only thing I consistently watch on PBS these days. Its true that for about the last ten years, any Nova program that remotely touches on Weather or Climate pushes the Warmist agenda, but I just filter that out as most of the rest of the programs are very good.
Edmonton Alberta has set a record of 167 consecutive days without temps breaking above freezing. Weather forecasts indicate there are more to come….
PBS has done about 17 “climate change” programs. Koch Foundation underwriting of the program does not give them any input to the content. The bias has unfortunately been baked in long ago in the educational system as this article on the producer demonstrates. http://mediaschool.indiana.edu/news/nova-producers-focus-on-the-facts-to-educate-on-climate-change/
Last time I recall watching NOVA it was funded by those evil Koch brothers.
Q: ‘Weather Machine’ – now where did they get that idea?
Ans: From when experts did honest science I expect!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/18/1975-documentary-the-weather-machine-climate-keeps-changing-gear-ice-age-now-due-any-time/#sthash.W5ISXkoF.dpbs
You got ahead of me! It’s difficult to believe that the name of this week’s agitprop dump isn’t an uncited echo of that earlier work.
I actually am the one who remembered seeing this as a child, and dug it up and set that along to Pierre. You can find the two halves here:
https://archive.org/details/theweathermachinepart1
https://archive.org/details/theweathermachinepart2
It’s basically two one-hour parts, with each hour split into two reels (the old days of movie projectors); note that on the right there is a download area where you can also download the four “reels” as separate files (e.g., mp4) to watch at your convenience. Given that this classic is also two hours in length, I’d suggest watching this instead of the agitprop fest on Wednesday evening – makes better use of the time.
It is indeed interesting to note the scientific humility on this topic back in 1975 – scientists actually discussing what they did know and what they did not know (as compared to the proof-by-lack-of-social-skills of today’s so-called “climate scientists”).
It’s also interesting that the main line of interest is the threat of a new ice age, and perhaps soon (this also demonstrates if needed that the “ice age scare” of the 1970s really did happen, if such proof is necessary). Many things make appearances, including possible warming due to CO2 and possible human-inducement of a new ice age via human-created particles dimming solar insolation (“the human volcano”). But returning to the ice age scare, whereas most of the discussion of a new ice age comports with the idea of a very slow slide into it (and thus of no real worry to anyone alive then or now), at the end the idea of an ice age starting very quickly via a “snow blitz” is discussed – and the closing credits roll with an image of the globe being covered up with falling snow.
(Anthony, if you never happened across this old classic, it’s VERY much worth a couple hours of your time.)
Isn’t the Internet time machine great…and networked together by an avid web of WUWT folk that can dig up this old ‘film’. Definitely worth watching this epic work from the mid 1970’s. I remember watching it now 40+ years ago, and was one of those TV films that got me really interested in weather and climate. It was in part responsible for those magazine headlines about the coming ice age and had no preconceived bias like we have today with CO2 the cause of everything bad, but goes where the data goes, and back in 1975 and by the mid to late 70’s it had been a cooling trend for 30 years since the late 1940’s. As compared to the warming trend we have had since 1979 and the beginning of the satellite era. I remember growing up in that cooling trend in the heart of the Siberian prairies, and it was brutally cold in winters and a return to the ice ages was completely believable. But it was only a 30 year cycle, as has been the last warming trend for the last 30 years. Maybe you have to be 60+ years old to have actually experienced this so it is in your DNA, but I can truthfully say that this winter definitely reminds me of a winter like the mid 1970’s. I sure hope the warming continues, because a reversal to a cooling planet would really suck the life out of civilization. Definitely worth watching, and would be good to see this put back on TV again to remind our youthful commenters that things go in cycles and while 30-60 years seems like a long time to us, it is merely a drop in geological time.
Crap
Seems to be full of lies and misconceptions. Right off the bat, scientists never registered and voted on this matter so scientists overwhelming agreeing is a fabrication. The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. All the great photography, the music, and the graphics are totally irrelevant to the discussion. Even if we could somehow stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events as well as sea level rise are both part of our current climate and would continue unabated. Mankind has been unable to change one weather event let alone change the climate. Climate change is taking place so slowly that it takes sophisticated networks of sensors, decades to even detect it. The AGW conjecture is based on a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction as hence must be the AGW conjecture. The show in question should be labeled what it really is, science fiction.
“Seems to be full of lies and misconceptions. Right off the bat, scientists never registered and voted on this matter so scientists overwhelming agreeing is a fabrication.”
This is not a logical statement, since there are other ways of determining consensus.
Your arguments about the science don’t hold water. For example: Venus has a CO2-rich atmosphere that accounts for its surface temperature; there is no evidence that the change we are experiencing is due primarily to the sun and oceans; and CO2 has long been known to have the characteristics that would make it a GHG. If you can’t accept such fundamental concepts as the fact that CO2 functions as a GHG, of course you will think reality is fiction, and education is propaganda.
“There are other ways of determining consensus.” And consensus still has nothing to do with science.
JL,
Consensus has nothing to do with the practice or results of science, but it can be a sign of a hypothesis becoming a theory, thereby becoming the equivalent of “fact” in layman’s terms. The old argument about age-old scientific consensus being disproved by the likes of Galileo is not relevant, since in this case the consensus has developed over the course of decades: it is the new paradigm replacing the old, just as Galileo’s theory eventually did.
It is a logical statement. In order to determine if a majority of scientists believe that the AGW conjecture is correct we have to first determine who all the scientists are by registering them. We then have to have all the scientists actual vote on the matter so that the actual number of scientists that believe that the AGW conjecture is correct, can be counted. It is a mater of direct measurement. All else is speculation. Of’ course science is not done this way. Science is not a democracy, The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated through a voting process. This consensus business is not science but rather politics.
The high temperature of the surface of Venus has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of CO2. Not only is Venus closer to the sun than the Earth but the surface pressure is more than 90 times what it is on Earth. If a radiant greenhouse effect existed on Venus, it would be an H of a lot hotter than it actually is.
The so called consensus was created by first discarding the view of any scientist who disagreed with those who were doing the polling.
Kristi:
In my left hand, I have 10,000 molecules of our atmosphere. In my right hand, I have all of the molecules of CO2 contained in the sample after I adroitly removed them…there are 4 of them. In order to enhance my magic trick and extract 5 molecules of CO2 from the same sized sample, I will have to wait 20-25 years. Is this the odorless, colorless gas upon which you are basing your apocalyptic screed?
RGisvacuous: “Is this the odorless, colorless gas upon which you are basing your apocalyptic screed?”
What apocalyptic screed? See, you have no bloody clue what you are talking about, it’s just the same old assumptions. Why try to reason with that?
Willhaas:
“It is a logical statement. In order to determine if a majority of scientists believe that the AGW conjecture is correct we have to first determine who all the scientists are by registering them. We then have to have all the scientists actual vote on the matter so that the actual number of scientists that believe that the AGW conjecture is correct, can be counted. It is a mater of direct measurement. All else is speculation. Of’ course science is not done this way.”
You are right, science is not done that way. It’s done by sampling. You don’t need to know what every scientist thinks to get a good estimate of the proportion that think a certain way.
Science can use different ways of sampling, but it’s usually directed toward a specific group. One group is comprised of those who have published research about climate. Within that group is one whose publication abstracts mention AGW. So, what proportion of them supports AGW? Unless the results are close, that should be able to tell you if there’s a majority pro or anti.
There are problems with this approach. If scientists on either “side” are more likely to mention in their abstracts that their results support their beliefs, that would bias the data. So would biases in publication practices. I don’t give the “97%” any credence myself, and it’s a shame the way it was hyped. There have been enough studies done, though, to support the “vast majority” idea, IMO.
The problem with a mass poll is choosing the group to “register” and getting them to comply. You would need a cut-off level of expertise. You would need to ensure that those who register and vote are representative of the whole, and how could you do so? There’s no way to use compulsion, especially internationally.
Vocal skeptic scientists say they are silenced and ostracized by the majority for their beliefs. That itself suggests a large majority consensus, if true.
None of this is a decisive factor for my beliefs, though. I don’t just go with authority.
I think you might want to look into Venus, its atmosphere and energy balance a little more.
Like most things Kristi was taught while earning her expensive college degree this little factoid is also completely untrue.
Venus’s atmosphere is hot, not because of CO2, but because Venus never cooled down enough for water to condense out of it’s atmosphere to form oceans, and the reason for that is because it’s closer to the sun.
MarkW,
So the 200 ppm of water vapor in Venus’s atmosphere is the real GHS? Is that what you’re saying? And that’s more important than the fact that the atm is 96.5% CO2? It’s closer to the sun, but without the atmosphere the dark side would be extremely cold.
“Like most things Kristi was taught while earning her expensive college degree this little factoid is also completely untrue.”
Mark, I graduated in 1994, and I’m pretty sure I didn’t learn squat about Venus’s atmosphere while I was there. Like anyone else, I’m capable of learning outside school. I graduated magna cum laud from one of the 3 top private colleges in the nation, and I’m proud of my education; I feel it was a good one. I went on to get 3 graduate fellowships, including a Fulbright. You bring up my education again and again, so don’t accuse me of bragging. I still know the limitations to my expertise far better than a schmuck like you who has never even met me. You can make all the idiotic assumptions you want about me, it only shows me how narrow your thinking is, how liable to error based on your foolish premises. Time for me to start ignoring all your insulting, erroneous, juvenile comments. Find someone else to bully.
Ah, such a shame they didn’t ask Jo Nova to front ‘Decoding the Weather Machine’. That would have been a neat fit. But then, of course, it would have been a presentation about how modern weather is not remotely exceptional in historical terms and that humans aren’t the primary cause of it. I’d pay to watch that!
Paul Douglas comes across on TV as being a decent person however there are other TV Meteorologists in MN who take the opposite tack. Looks like for balance they weren’t invited even though they risked their careers to make their statements. Even this weekend with us having received a huge snow dump that closed the airport yesterday Mr. Douglas continued with his warmist biased commentary in his forecast. I find him hard to read as a result.
Area lakes are still iced over to a large extent and that’s because we’ve had a long cold winter that just won’t go away this year. Lake Minnetonka near to Paul’s house still has two foot thick ice still in some of it’s bays. But I don’t claim that to be a sign of anything except natural variation, unlike Mr Douglas who would be trumpeting global warming if the ice was out earlier than the norm. it’s only weather Mr. Douglas whether it agrees with your bias or not, it’s only weather.
Over 24″ reported in Richfield, though I’m not sure I believe it. The rest of the Twin Cities seem to max at about 15.5″
Could be more on the way in a few days, they say.
Could be natural variation, but I don’t rule out other factors. It’s not just a snow storm in April – that’s not so odd in itself – it’s the fact that the ground and lakes are still frozen and the winter’s snow hasn’t yet fully melted. That really is quite unusual for mid-April. The scientific explanations make sense to me. A cold, snowy winter was predicted last fall, and they got it right this time.
“- The frequency and intensity of severe storms has increased. This trend will likely continue as the effects of climate change become more pronounced.
– The amount of precipitation falling in the heaviest 1% of storms increased by 37% in the Midwest and 71% in the Northeast from 1958 to 2012.
– Heavier storms are projected to increase in frequency at a faster rate than storms that are less intense.
– The amount of precipitation falling during intense multi-day events has increased dramatically.”
http://glisa.umich.edu/climate/extreme-precipitation
It really is fascinating how little historical knowledge the precious darlings coming out of college these days have.
She actually believes that she has proven that we are in a crisis because the weather has changed over the last 30 years.
Sweetheart, the weather has been changing for hundreds of years, there are well documented 20, 30, 60 and 100 year patterns in the weather.
Kristi, I predicted that back around 2013/14. That this winter would be the first shift of NH winters to prolonged cold spells holding into the spring. Wait and see what the next 2 winters bring in. The times have changed in this regard.
Good grief. You are naive.
Kristi: Tornados, hurricanes, wildfires, floods, droughts, cold waves, heat waves…you name it…there is NO data, as far back as reliable records extend, to support the fantasy that these events are becoming more numerous or intense. Believe the data, not the agenda…
Tracking the weather daily, I get photos of snowfalls when they are late in the spring season. Started this morning with sleet, then gropple ice, and then snow starting at 8AM,.and it’s now 8:45PM my time, and still snowing. Blizzard to the north of me, more snow expected, time line to run through to Monday PM.
Results: no bugs emerging for birds to eat, so I feed them; no leaves out of buds on trees to date; grass in lawn is trying to grow, but stunted by the cold weather.
C’est la vie!
And it sucks to no end. I have no prob with darkness in winter as far as S.A.D goes, but do this to me in mid April? I’m in a baaaaaad mood.
Why would you read that idiot’s screeds? He’s a leftist, alarmist punk.
Is Marc Moreno alerted to this? Sceptics need to crank out more good movies. We tend to let the other side have most of the propaganda ground. I feel a little guilty at employing weather worrier’s tactics but I guess this is the reason fighting fire with fire got invented.
In the cold snowy April that continues here in Ottawa, Canada, when people chat about the late spring, I quietly offer that “apparently” more and more scientists are starting to have doubts about the earlier projections of a planet in peril, that the early forecasts have turned out to be 2/3 or more too warm, despite even greater amounts of CO2 emissions than forecast. I mention that they were taken by surprise by NASA’s discovery of 15% expansion of greening of the planet and the doubling of harvests largely due to higher CO2.
Good for you on “quietly offering” the truth. My experience is that folks like to hear facts, when “quietly offered”. The most frequent concern is over Polar bears, and they are surprised that the population has grown, not shrunk. The CBC sure does a good job of misleading Canadians on that subject.
Wonder what ya’ll think about this report:
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/
1. It’s almost three years old
2. It’s The Obama administration and has been rendered moot.
Here’s a more recent report.
” To identify DoD installations with vulnerabilities, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment [OASD(EI&E)], initiated a preliminary Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) of DoD sites worldwide.
“…Analysis, Trends and Conclusions. The SLVAS responses yielded a wide range of qualitative information. The highest number of reported effects resulted from drought (782) followed closely by wind (763) and non-storm surge related flooding (706). About 10% of sites indicated being affected by extreme temperatures (351), while flooding due to storm surge (225) and wildfire (210) affected about 6% of the sites reporting. Nearly 50% of sites (1,684) reported they had no effects to any assets from the effects.
“…The survey questions focused on observed effects from past severe weather events (which may be indicative of more frequent and/or more severe future conditions)”
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/tab-b-slvas-report-1-24-2018.pdf
The DoD is clearly looking ahead at infrastructure planning and risk prevention in the expectation of climate change.
The military looks into those things that the politicians order it to look into.
At 5 to 6 inches per century, those bases will be dust long before the sea reaches them.
@ur momisugly Hawtkarl …looks like propaganda to me. Groupthink.
Pretty lousy job of proof reading this bilge before publishing it.
‘Climate change is one of the defining public issues of our times’
No, climate change is UNDEFINED.
Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated.
Is no one watching the high level propaganda on the Discovery channels, Smithsonian Channel, PBS, NPR, etc. I can rarely watch a documentary on any subject that does not have a PSA embedded in the video creating angst, fear, etc as to how this Park, Scenery, Culture, ad infinitum will be destroyed by Climate change. I have noticed these “PSA spots” have been there since at least 2001. Look for them, some are very suttle.