Climate Crisis? Al Gore and Michael Mann Fail Science 101

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

I recently wrote a post titled “Liberals Will Believe Anything,” in which I demonstrated that even the most ridiculous claims will be accepted as fact by kool-aid addicted liberals. I followed it up with a post addressing an article in The Guardian that made a claim and backed it up with quotes that proved their position 100% false. In another post, I highlighted the appalling record of failed claims made by the alarmists and followed it up with another post on the same topic. The point is that when a liberal finds themselves in a Climate Change Hole, they don’t ask for a ladder to climb out, they ask for a bigger shovel. The goal isn’t to find the truth, the goal is to keep the Climate Change Gravy Train running full speed ahead. Maintaining political momentum is the objective, not discovering the truth.

In this post I will address Michael Mann’s assertion that record cold temperatures are the result of man-made CO2 as detailed in a recent Climate Reality Project article, mentioned by Al Gore in his “Tweet.” Before I go any further, without addressing any of his claims, the important take home is that even if Al Gore and Michael Mann are 100% correct in their analysis and conclusion, the solutions they offer will only make matters worse.

  1. If CO2 causes more drought, biofuels like Ethanol are idiotic solutions as best.
  2. If CO2 causes more rain, then solar is an idiotic solution at best.
  3. If CO2 causes colder and snowier winters, then Wind and Solar are idiotic solutions at best.
  4. If CO2 causes warmer winters and less snow, then what’s the problem?
  5. If CO2 causes more extreme weather like tornados and hurricanes, then Wind and Solar are idiotic solutions at best.
  6. If we want to protect endangered species of birds, then Wind and Solar are idiotic solutions at best.
  7. If we want a reliable source of energy that doesn’t require a coal-powered plant as back up, then Wind and Solar are idiotic solutions as best.
  8. If we want a reliable fuel source so we can plow our streets, then Wind and Solar are idiotic solutions at best.
  9. If CO2 is going to flood NYC, then Wind and Solar are idiotic solutions at best.

Building more natural gas pipelines, dams and nuclear power plants are real solutions to the problem of climate change.

Facts are, even if Michael Mann and Al Gore are 100% correct, they have absolutely no viable solutions to the problem. Their nonsensical solutions make society worse off, and their cure is far worse than the illness. That being said, let’s take a look at Michael Mann’s explanation as to how CO2 can cause such record cold spells.

Ignoring the facts that the current cold is a weather phenomenon, not a change in climate, the problem Michael Mann and the climate alarmists face is that the only mechanism defined by which CO2 can affect climate change is be trapping outgoing IR radiation between 13 and 18µ. That is the only defined mechanism, and the only result possible is the “thermalization” of those wavelengths resulting in atmospheric WARMING. There is no way for “thermalization” to result in cooling…none. How then, does Michael Mann address this issue?

World-renowned climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains why the bitter cold and snowy conditions gripping the US are “an example of precisely the sort of extreme winter weather we expect because of climate change.”

Claim #1:

Global warming is leading to later freeze-up of the Great Lakes and warmer lake temperatures. It is the collision of cold Arctic air with relatively warm unfrozen lake water in early winter that causes lake effect snows in the first place. The warmer those lake temperatures, the more moisture in the air, and the greater potential for lake effect snows. Not surprisingly, we see a long-term increase in lake effect snowfalls as temperatures have warmed during the last century

The first problem with this explanation is that it may explain the increase in snow, but doesn’t explain how thermalizing outgoing IR radiation can result in the record colds. The second problem is that IR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t warm water. If the lakes are warming it is because more warming visible radiation is reaching them, not because of outgoing IR radiation. The last issue is that the chart they provided as evidence doesn’t show a relationship between CO2 and lake effect. The chart clearly demonstrates a non-linear pattern with an uptrend between 1930 and the peak, and then a downtrend between the peak and the current. Ironically, the current level looks to be just about average. The peak is most likely 1979 during the coming ice age scare, and the current level is way way way below that level, yet CO2 is about 20% higher.

storm1.png

Claim #2:

How about those frigid low temperatures back east this winter? Surely that extreme cold must disprove global warming?

Once again, the claim is misguided. While we have seen some daily all-time lows for a smattering of locations in the US, these pale in comparison with the number of all-time highs we’ve seen over the past year. In fact, the record highs have outpaced the record lows 61 to seven, i.e. nine times more often (see table below), consistent with what we expect to see as the globe continues to warm.

News Flash!!! Trapping outgoing IR doesn’t result in warming, it slows cooling. Putting a blanket on something doesn’t warm it, it stops it from losing heat. Record high temperatures require energy to be put into the system. Record high temperatures are the result of more warming visible radiation reaching the earth. That requires fewer clouds, lower particulate matter, and a hotter sun. The warming of the oceans is evidence of the fact that more warming visible radiation is reaching the earth, and the oceans control the global climate. Understand the oceans and you understand the global climate, and it has nothing to do with CO2. If CO2 were the cause of the warming, you would see a narrowing of the spread between the nighttime and the daytime temperatures, especially in the dry deserts, which isn’t happening. You would also see a warming in Antarctica, the natural control for the effect of CO2, which also isn’t happening. Putting a focus on the record high daytime temperatures is sophistry at its best. Also, the ground measurements are highly “adjusted” and unreliable.

Claim #3:

But what about this pattern of cold in the eastern US and warm in the western US? This so-called “dipole” pattern has become more common in recent winters, and recent research suggests that climate change may be favoring this contrast in temperature by causing the jet stream to meander in a particular pattern, with an upward meander or “ridge” in the west bringing warm air up from the south and a downward meander or “trough” in the east, bringing cold air down from the north. Some scientists think that the dramatic loss of sea ice in the Arctic may be favoring this jet stream pattern.

More sophistry. First, warm ocean waters are melting the Arctic Sea Ice, not the atmosphere. CO2, as mentioned, doesn’t warm water. CO2 is also evenly dispersed throughout the atmosphere, so you can’t blame regional differences on it, CO2 is a constant. The jet stream may be impacted by atmospheric warming, but that warming isn’t due to CO2, and most likely impacted by natural phenomena like El Niño and La Niña. Anyway, satellite data shows no warming over the past 20 years. What is most likely the cause is La Niña cooling the equatorial zone, resulting in lower pressures, allowing the arctic air to more easily travel south. To complicate things, the sun has been sleeping, pointing to cooler temperatures in the future…regardless of the level of CO2.

Claim #4:

Once again, rather the opposite is true. East Coast winter storms, known as “nor’easters” because of the unusual northeasterly direction of the winds as the storm spirals in from the south, are unusual in that they derive their energy not just from large contrasts in temperature that drive most extratropical storm systems, but also from the energy released when water evaporates from the (relatively warm) ocean surface into the atmosphere.

More sophistry. If this is the cause, you have to be able to explain how CO2, and IR radiation between 13 and 18µ can warm the oceans? It can’t and doesn’t.

Claim #5:

As the oceans continue to warm, cold Arctic air masses collide with increasingly warm Atlantic Ocean waters. That means larger temperature contrasts and potentially stronger storms. But those warmer oceans also mean more moisture in the atmosphere, even more energy to strengthen the storm, and the potential for larger snowfalls. We might, if you’ll forgive the pun, call this a “perfect storm” of factors for intensification.

Indeed, climate model simulations indicate that we can expect more intense nor’easters as human-caused climate change continues to warm the oceans.

Once again, the focus is on the oceans. I agree, if you understand the oceans, you understand the global climate. CO2 can’t and doesn’t warm the oceans. Also, the climate models are an embarrassing waste of money, and offer more proof against the CO2 AGW theory then they do support.

Claim #6:

This leads us back to the current strengthening storm. The entire North Atlantic is unusually warm right now (+0.6 degrees Celsius) relative to the already-globally-warmed late twentieth century (1971-2000) average, and there are large patches of ocean water off the US East Coast that are 2-4 degrees Celsius above that average. The storm will be encountering that exceptional ocean heat as it travels northward along the US coastline, and that is part of why it has a very good chance of becoming the most intense nor’easter we’ve yet observed.

So, to the climate change doubters and deniers out there, the unusual weather we’re seeing this winter is in no way evidence against climate change. It is an example of precisely the sort of extreme winter weather we expect because of climate change.

More sophistry. 0.6 Degrees is well within the normal variation for a single day. There are plenty of times when we’ve had similar temperature gradients and we didn’t have bad storms. Once again, however, they focus on the warm oceans. If you are going to identify the warm oceans as the cause, which they are, you have to explain how CO2 can cause the oceans to warm. That is an easy lab experiment. Simply put a bucket of water in a dark room and illuminate the bucket of water with IR between 13 and 18µ. If the temperature changes, then you have a case, if it doesn’t you are barking up the wrong tree. I assure you, that is one experiment Al Gore and Michael Mann will never perform. That would be the equivalent of Toto looking behind the curtain and exposing the Wizard as the fraud that he was.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Climate Crisis? Al Gore and Michael Mann Fail Science 101”

  1. The up/down/”back” radiation greenhouse gas energy loop of the radiative greenhouse effect theory is pencil on paper, a spreadsheet cell, a “what if” scenario and NOT a physical reality.

    Without this GHG energy loop, radiative greenhouse theory collapses.

    Without RGHE theory, man-caused climate change does not exist.

    And with a snap of the fingers and “Presto!!” the bazillion dollar global climate change fantasy is suddenly unemployed.

    Must be why nobody is allowed to talk about this possibility. Not newsworthy enough? Or too far outside the fake news narrative?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s