Monday, October 06, 2008

Gore demonstrates he doesn't understand basic meteorology, much less climate

Gore links Iowa floods and tornadoes to climate change, but makes a basic error on global temperature to evaporation linkage, plus he misses the real reason behind tornado increases

In a recent article in the Des Moines Register, Al ] Gore attributed the historic floods that devastated Iowa in June to man-made emissions causing more water to evaporate from oceans, increasing average humidity worldwide. "In 66 of your 99 counties, the flood damage was truly historic." Gore told the crowd of 1,000 Democratic donors. "No one has ever seen a flood like this." Gore also blamed climate change for increased tornadoes, including the one that leveled much of Parkersburg earlier this year. "Yes, we've always had tornadoes in Iowa and in Tennessee," he said. "But they're coming more frequently and they're stronger."

In my opinion, the biggest error Gore makes is that water vapor in the atmosphere (and water cycle) has a much shorter residence time than his worrisome CO2; days to weeks from evaporation to precipitation, and thus would not be linked to "warming" now, since warming has subsided globally.

And, as all four global temperature metrics (UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS) have demonstrated, we are cooler globally now than in 2005 than when his An Inconvenient Truth movie came out, and the current global temperature anomaly is hovering close to the zero line:

According to our current scientific understanding of the water cycle and water vapor on Earth, the average residence time of water molecules in the troposphere (where evaporation and most weather occurs) is about 10 days.

Since the global temperature trend has been a negative slope since 2007, and is currently near the zero anomaly line, and with the short residence time of water vapor in the water cycle, Gore's claimed "warming" could not be responsible for increased water vapor. If anything, water vapor in the water cycle would be less now. Gore clearly doesn't understand basic meteorology, much less climate.

Then there is Gore's claim of "Yes, we've always had tornadoes in Iowa and in Tennessee," he said. "But they're coming more frequently and they're stronger." Well, the graph below says otherwise.

Gore is flat wrong.

Source (See the original for links, graphics etc.)

Gore wrong again: 'Conclusive evidence' that solar output affects U.S.droughts!

Take a special look at a scenic part of West Virginia few people see - the state's hundreds of miles of caves - on this week's "Outlook," West Virginia Public Broadcasting's weekly television show about people, places and events in West Virginia.

"Outlook" airs on West Virginia PBS at 9 p.m. each Thursday with a re-broadcast at 6 p.m. the following Sunday. This week's program features three segments of the on-going "Lab 304" series which focus on science, math and research activities throughout the state.

"Underground West Virginia" - West Virginia has 4,300 known caves, more than a third of them in Greenbrier County. In this vast underground, recreational cavers will crawl, slither and climb to marvel at the beauty of this unseen world. Scientists from many disciplines are also reaping new knowledge in geology, biology, even pharmacology.

Greg Springer, professor of geology at Ohio University, can interpret a region's climate record through cave formations called stalagmites. "There is conclusive evidence that, in fact, solar output affects droughts in North America based on the study of stalagmites," Springer said in a news release. "Their growth is directly related to the amount of water obtained from the surface and we can study the history of droughts - some that have lasted 100 years."

"Ancient Secrets" - In Tucker County, a discovery of fossil animal remains is attracting international attention from the scientific community. "Ice Mountain" - There's a mountain in Hampshire County that harbors pockets of ice in its nooks and crannies all year round. Scientists are trying to determine if climate change is endangering this historic and natural wonder.


Britain: The first snow of the year... and it's only October

Any hope of a mild winter were dashed today when winter's first snow made an early appearance. It seems amazing that only a week ago, the sun was out and there was even optimistic talk of a dry season. But temperatures plunged to below zero overnight and today neighbours in the Highlands were left shovelling their driveways after a surprise snowfall.

Cairngorm in Scotland is the first place to see the snow but the rest of the country isn't in for much better weather. Torrential downpours and gale force winds are on the way this weekend. Those braving the outdoors will need waterproofs and umbrellas to hand, with 1.2in (30mm) of rain predicted in some parts. Following the relatively sunny and dry end to September, classic autumn conditions are now likely in many areas.....

Temperatures in London on Monday could reach a balmy 64f (18c) and 59f (15c) or 61f (16c) in other areas. But the overall outlook for the immediate future appears wet and gloomy. We should hardly be surprised. Following last year's record-breaking wet summer, weather statistics show the summer of 2008 was anything but average as well. In fact, it was one of the wettest and least sunny on record.

We had the dullest August since records began in 1929 and a well below par 463.9 hours of sunshine between June 1 and August 31. August was the sixth wettest since 1914 and some parts of the country experienced double the average summer rainfall.


Meteorologist slams Warmist Biden

Sen. Joe Biden's delivery comes across as very condescending - similar to many longtime congressional leaders - proposing that "we" (Congress) will make it all better for you poor incapable Americans who can't do it for yourselves.

His message was to blame President Bush for everything that is wrong, further claiming "we" (Barrack and I) have all the answers and will fix everything - and if you really believe that, I have a lot of cheap property for you to buy.

First of all, he doesn't have all the answers (a little humility and more confidence in the American people would certainly sound better). He also needs to get his facts straight. In particular, he stated that all climate change is manmade.

As a meteorologist with 37 years of practical experience and a master's degree in meteorology, I can tell you that is one of the most stupid comments I have ever heard. We can all debate global warming and how much of an impact it has had and will have on our future weather, but not all change is the result of man. If he would question that, have him give me a call.


Greenland was much less iced over in the past

As increasing numbers of real scientists are backing away from the manmade global warming hoax, I was surprised to hear Sen. Biden, in Thursday night's VP candidate debate, say global warming is man-made.Greenland's history proves the opposite.

I recently had the opportunity to inspect Greenland from the air. Today it's 85 percent covered with glaciers. In the Renaissance Warming around A.D. 900-1100, when Eric the Red settled in Greenland, it had less than 25 percent glacier cover and crops - even grapes - were grown there.In the Renaissance Warming, Greenland and the Earth were considerably warmer than today.

Still, Biden says it's manmade - maybe it was all those arrows the Vikings shot in the air.


Two good letters to "The Telegraph"

1). Your correspondent who contradicted Christopher Booker and expressed approval for the BBC's climate change programme (Letters, September 28) quoted figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for past CO2 atmospheric levels which are based on pure guesswork.

The CO2 figures for the past 650,000 years of 180-300 parts per million (ppm) are a guess based on corrected ice core data. Since they were published the corrections have been found to be wrong, based on supposition and giving figures that were too low.

Research into sedimentary carbon isotope data shows higher figures, and the fact that CO2 is not a fixed quantity but has varied over time after temperature changes. This would indicate that CO2 did not drive climate.

There is also the problem with CO2 atmospheric residence time, which the IPCC maintains is 200 years. Recent research by at least 20 independent scientists has given the true figure as 5-10 years. This discrepancy is a serious error and is the problem with the IPCC models, which do not work.

The greenhouse effect is also in question. It might have been proved over a century ago by good scientists, but science moves on and current research shows that this well-known effect is a false trail.

2). Writing in support of the BBC's position on climate change, your correspondent says "the onus is on the sceptics to explain why this [increase in atmospheric CO2 levels] should not cause climate change". The answer is well known to everyone in the climate debate. The relationship between CO2 levels and the greenhouse "forcing effect" is logarithmic. It is a law of diminishing returns.

The higher the level of CO2, the less effect any further increase will have. If the current level were, say, 20 ppm, the effect of adding an extra 20 ppm would be dramatic. But at the current level of around 380 ppm, the effect of an extra 20 ppm is trivial.

I have discussed this point with scientists on the IPCC and they accept it as fact, but then they postulate complex feedback mechanisms between CO2 and water vapour to justify their alarmist position.



For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: