We are told there are more hurricanes than ever because of climate change? Does the world’s foremost senior hurricane statesman agree with that? In this episode you will be fascinated to hear what the former Director of the National Hurricane Center, Dr. Neil Frank, says about climate change and the biggest storms on earth.
Excellent video interview. Glad to hear from Dr. Frank again – and look forward to the rest of his story.
Yes, a very good interview…well worth a few minutes of one’s time. Should be widely promoted…I look forward to the next episode with him.
Always good to hear an educated, reasoned voice. That’s probably why we – outside the US – haven’t heard of Dr. Neil Frank. Talking of hoaxes, did you hear about the Koch brothers’ latest conspiracy?
“US climate scientist’s defamation case over online attacks finally comes to trial
Michael Mann alleges, in lawsuit first brought in 2012, that attacks on his work by climate denialists amount to defamation
…
The attacks on Mann came as part of a wider campaign against him by a network of climate skeptics connected to the fossil fuel billionaire Charles Koch, experts have said.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/17/michael-mann-climate-scientist-defamation-lawsuit
Experts have said…. Yeah, right.
It’s all they’ve got. ‘Oh everybody is saying nasty things about our work, it HAS to be an oil-funded conspiracy!’
Like this one, which claims Big Oil started hiding research in the 60s:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/30/fossil-fuel-industry-air-pollution-fund-research-caltech-climate-change-denial
Yuh, all the climate skeptics are on the take from the big ff companies. Sure!
Funny how all Mann’s legal costs are being paid by other people.
Yeah but the Climate Pseudo-scientists receive only special money that is incapable of corrupting them, unlike that “dirty fossil fuel money” that corrupts at a small fraction of the amount./sarc
I’d never head of him either, but certainly an authoritative voice of sanity.
Double CO2 and in theory it should cause some warming. Does Dr. Frank agree with that? I didn’t hear that question in the interview. Maybe when the full interview is posted here.
Why should that question even be asked??
He is a scientist, not a preacher or priest.
The interview was about facts, not dogma.
___________________________________
You know the answer, I know the answer, Brian Sussman knows the answer, and so does Dr. Frank, But not everyone in the audience knows the answer, and they are the ones that need to hear it. That’s why.
another upvote from me- it’s good to ask questions
See David Wojick’s post.
I’ve quoted Dr. James Hansen as saying:
In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C
(Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006).
Yes he says “…the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C ” he doesn’t say it would be a forcing of so many w/m².
If you follow the link IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 pdf page 45
He goes on to say that the water vapour/lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks are reinforced by a strong cloud feedback. He says nothing about negative feedbacks.
In the real world, negative feedbacks are the norm. Most systems; industrial furnaces, ovens, swimming pools, houses etc. cool off faster and faster when you try to increase the temperature. Heat is difficult to contain, we have industries producing insulation materials to fight all the negative feedbacks.
Maybe we could start a new branch of science called “thermodynamics” that would help understand that heat transfer.
They do discuss CO2. It is insignificant.
“Double CO2 and in theory it should cause some warming.”
Are you sure the theory is correct?
Even theory does not say that. GH theory says there will be a small increase in forcing but climate theory says whether that leads to warming or not depends on what else happens. There are many ways the forcing increase could be negated.
Forcing vs. warming? I’ll agree that those two term are different, and forcing doesn’t necessarily mean warming. And as Willis Eschenbach likes to point out that making an error on WUWT is pretty much instantaneous correction.
wow, 10 demerits as of this moment- not sure why – so I’ll give you one upvote
When the “theory” doesn’t match the reality… you need to rethink the “theory”.
No, you twist so-called “reality” until it fits you. Learn modern science.
Sorry, my teachers and my father would never countenance that sort of data chicanery..
I was brought up in the “old ways”. 😉
Because CO2 has nothing to do with it…
Why bring it up ?
Indeed. How COULD it? CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle (per ice core data).
But is there a correlation and if so why.
Yes. CO2 and temperature are COHERENT. It is, thus, highly likely that increased temperature causes a rise in atmospheric CO2. Ocean outgassing of CO2 is a large part of it.
“is there a correlation”
Over large periods of time.. NO. !
Is that the theory, that every doubling of CO2 causes X amount of warming or is it that Y amount of CO2 over the existing amount causes X amount of warming?
The “theory” has a major error. Climate science keep relative humidity constant all throughout the atmosphere as CO2 increases. NOAA data shows that claim is false.
It is this water vapor error that creates the tropical hot spot in GCMs. However, we know from Christy et al 2016 that there is no evidence of a hot spot.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wwww-ths-rr-091716.pdf
Miskolczi 2023 takes NOAA radiosonde data and plots out the overall change in the GHE over time. Check out figure 10.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf
Dr. Gray also looked at data and found water vapor was negative factor.
https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2010_ams.pdf
———————————————————–
Asking whether CO2 causes warming is the wrong question. It would in a world without water. On Earth with plenty of water, it also induces a cooling water vapor forcing. This second part of the science is ignored even by many skeptics (aka lukewarmers). In fact, I’ve been called names many times for trying to explain the big picture.
Yes, yes, yes, the Earth is a water world. I credit Rick Will and others for focusing my thinking. Given that the Earth’s oceans contain almost all of the heat content above the hard surface of the Earth, water and its properties are the key to understanding how and why the Earth’s climate changes. I am curious why the Earth’s declining magnetic field doesn’t get more attention. In my mind, this is potentially a big deal.
Well worth the time to watch this interview. Nothing the regulars at WUWT haven’t heard before about the propaganda and cult-like behavior of the “Believers”. Dr. Frank gives lots of good examples of the dirty tricks used to silence dissenting views from the alarmist narrative. What you may not know about is who the interviewer is: Brian Sussman. He was for many years a San Francisco Bay Area meteorologist on one of the big stations. He was funny, personable, well liked and had a long career in SF before he retired. The minute he started writing and speaking out on “global warming” and other cultural subjects, the left began to demonize him. Though they tried, he is a difficult target for the left to destroy. Brian has a loving family, he’s married to a Black woman and together they have Biracial children. So instead of trying to attack Brian directly, they have done their best to shadow ban his work. I’m going to subscribe to his YouTube channel, I hope some of you will do so as well.
https://www.youtube.com/@BrianSussmanShow
Very few retired people in Wokeachusetts dare to openly be climate skeptics. It’s comparable to openly declaring yourself a trans gender atheist in Mecca. I do see comments in the Boston Globe critical of the daily climate horror stories- but they all have handles, not showing their real names.
as attached;
Is anyone *really* surprised and for 2 reasons:
Climate is NOT complex: Don’t make it so, esp by using the 1st Law of Thermodynamics to violate the 2nd
Life certainly can be somewhat complex…
“Climate is NOT complex”…
I’m not sure if you are actually serious, but if so, I must take issue with your assertion. I believe that it has been thoroughly established within the climate community that climate is a complex, dynamic, non-linear, coupled chaotic system. Climate is indeed complex.
Simple explanations for simple minds, such as human emissions from the use of fossil fuels release CO2 that results in global warming leading to catastrophic climate change, are unproven assertions intended only to support a radical political agenda masquerading as science.
nailed it!
It must be quite complex, the models aren’t matching reality, again
https://www.9news.com/amp/article/weather/weather-colorado/colorado-climate-drier-climate-models/73-4b03657a-77c7-4b74-8a6c-6263c7292daa
And as many have said here before “ so what if there is a little bit of warming” and chances are if it is anthropogenic it is extremely small in the big mix of all things climate. Not mention the fact that most people will take a little warming over a lot of cooling any day as evidenced by where most people travel to right about now.
I demand that our government do everything in its power to warm our climate. The older I get, the colder these Michigan winters seem.
Upon our demise, best to be cremated to add our carbon to the atmosphere to improve it.
Yep.. climate equality is very important… 😉
Everybody should have an “equal” climate”.
Hear hear! This ‘global warming’ the nutters have been going on about for 30 years is progressing far too slowly for us up in Canada.
Frank is 92. Looks awesome for that age- still has his hair and it’s not all grey. Of course 92 doesn’t sound so old as you get closer to it. And his voice is strong. I’m impressed. And, I also liked what he said.
My father was 94 when he passed recently.
Still doing the “hard” crosswords in half an hour, still discussing science etc on email with old colleagues. Still great to discuss many things with until the end.
He was also a sceptic/realist, and a high-level inorganic chemistry Uni researcher/lecturer…
… and his one worry for the longer future was the possible lack of atmospheric CO2 to feed the world’s population.
I always used to point out China’s and India’s contribution, which always reassured him 🙂
Mind still as fit as a fiddle… ticker, no so 🙁
So sorry to hear about your dad, B.. 😔 Praying that God comforts you in this ENORMOUS loss. 😢 You, by the way, do your father proud in your fine, data-backed, persevering, bold, commenting.
Thanks… I do try to b.nice when the comments warrant it. 🙂
🙂
Dr. William “Bill” Gray is fittingly mentioned several times.
He, along with the likes of Dr. Harold “Hal” Lewis and Dr. Fred Singer stood up boldly for the truth about human CO2 emissions’ negligible effect on the climate zones of the earth.
For anyone unfamiliar with Bill Gray, here he is in his own, forthright, words:
Guest post by Bill Gray
Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University
(AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member)
June 2011
I am very disappointed at the downward path the AMS has been following for the last 10-15 years in its advocacy of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis.
The society has officially taken a position many of us AMS members do not agree with. We believe that humans are having little or no significant influence on the global climate and that the many Global Circulation Climate Model (GCMs) results and the four IPCC reports do not realistically give accurate future projections.
To take this position which so many of its members do not necessarily agree with shows that the AMS is following more of a political than a scientific agenda.
The AMS Executive Director Keith Seitter and the other AMS higher-ups and the Council have not shown the scientific maturity and wisdom we would expect of our AMS leaders. I question whether they know just how far off-track the AMS has strayed … .
***
We AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and CO2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think. This small organized group of AGW sympathizers has indeed hijacked our society.
The AMS should be acting as a facilitator for the scientific debate on the pro and con aspects of the AGW hypothesis, not to take a side in the issue.
***
Many of us AMS members believe that the modest global warming we have observed is of natural origin and due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation resulting from salinity variations. These changes are not associated with CO2 increases.
Most of the GCM modelers have little experience in practical meteorology. They do not realize that the strongly chaotic nature of the atmosphere-ocean climate system does not allow for skillful initial value numerical climate prediction. The GCM simulations are badly flawed … .
***
Instead of organizing meetings with free and open debates on the basic physics and the likelihood of AGW induced climate changes, the leaders of the society (with the backing of the society’s AGW enthusiasts) have chosen to fully trust the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate on this issue. I know of no AMS sponsored conference where the AGW hypothesis has been given open and free discussion.
***
CO2 is not a pollutant but a fertilizer. Humankind needs fossil-fuel energy to maintain its industrial lifestyle and to expand this lifestyle in order to be able to better handle these many other non-CO2 environmental problems. There appears to be a misconception among many people that by reducing CO2 we are dealing with our most pressing environmental problem. Not so.
***
Prediction. The AMS is going to be judged in future years as having foolishly sacrificed its sterling scientific reputation for political and financial expediency. I am sure that hundreds of our older deceased AMS members are rolling in their graves over what has become of their and our great society.
(Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ )
Story tip
Scientist who thought we ‘were all going to die from climate change’ reveals 7 reasons she was wrong – and how the issue is being overblown
A data scientist believes alarming warnings of disasters may be overblown
She said emissions per person peaked in 2012 – and are still about the same
Hannah Ritchie, a data scientist at the University of Oxford, claims that doomsday warnings of floods, widespread famine and deaths from disasters are overshadowing the progress that has been quietly made in recent years.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13028587/scientist-winning-fight-global-warming.html
Hannah Ritchie’s data has been mentioned in WUWT articles in the past.
Still stuck in the fallacy that CO2 causes warming, and that warming is bad.
Still trying to push the “vegan” way.
Still think EVs have a use except as shopping carts.
Still want to get rid of fossil fuels and think solar and wind are cheaper.
Still thinks the 1.5C scam means something (although not catastrophe)
Still totally brain-washed. !
Me. She’s still not passed all of the Kool-Aid she has consumed.
Still talking about “carbon footprint” reduction like it’s important.
Very nice. More proof of how corrupt and incompetent our government has become. Past time to start whittling it down, all cuts made from the top down.
Glad to see Dr. Frank mentioned Dr. Bill Gray. Dr Gray understood tropical processes. Here’s the paper Dr. Gray provided to the AMS.
https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2010_ams.pdf
Once you understand how Dr. Gray destroys the view of climate science and realize that NOAA data supports his view, you can put together what really is happening in the atmosphere. It requires understanding multiple physical processes. However, none of these are all that complex. It’s putting them all together that is difficult.
The bottom line is CO2 most likely causes no warming.