No UHI effect evident here - approx. 1930. (Photo source: NOAA - via www.donnerwetter.de)
Strangely, this story comes to my attention from a German site: www.donnerwetter.de. Today, February 5, is National Weathermen’s Day in the USA. Actually now it is called National Meteorologists Day.
It is also to honour physician John Jeffries, born 5 February 1744, who kept detailed weather records in Boston from 1774 until 1816.
It’s no secret that a vast majority of meteorologists, i.e. experts in forecasting, disagree with the kook claims made by alarmist “climate scientists”, i.e. physicists who were taken away from their taxi-driving careers, thanks to government job-creation programs.
Okay, I know I’m going to get into trouble with that generalization. I admit – not all climate scientists started out as taxi drivers after getting their Phds.
What meteorologists think of climate science
Here’s what meteorologists think of global warming, according to a 2009/2010 survey of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) that was limited to television weather forecasters who are also meteorologists. Read here www.heartland.org:
* Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with the United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming.
* Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”
* Only 19 percent agree with the claim, “Global climate models are reliable in their projection for a warming of the planet.”
* Only 19 percent agree with the assertion, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought.”
* The survey results support the claims of rank-and-file scientists who say global warming position statements by the bureaucratic branches of groups such as the American Meteorological Society (AMS) are out of touch with the scientific opinions of member scientists.
Who are are really the better forecasters?
I’m sure there are readers out there who are going to bring up the academic qualifications argument, as well as claim meteorology and climatology are different…yak yak yak.
All you have to do is look at who has been successful in making forecasts. For example, compare the seasonal forecasts of the Met Office to that of private meteorological organisations – who are not no-risk government-pampered outfits producing results where quality doesn’t matter financially. In fact, the more off-the-wall your results are as a government institute, the more the funding!
If your models cannot even get a 3-month forecast right – don’t even open your mouths about 50 and 100-year forecasts. Even your five and ten-year “climate forecasts” of rare snowfalls and mild winters have been completely wrong. And claiming the appearance of Godzilla is due to AGW and setting your science up as non-falsifiable only make you appear all the more look like charlatans.
Thanks to meteorologists
So thanks to all the meteorologists out there who have made a major contribution in preventing climate science from descending into the realms of mass panic and complete madness. Without you, Al Gore and the rest of the climate kooks would have had us believe that CO2 is the only thing driving the earth’s climate and we would have long since been under enviro-martial law :).
We really ought to make February 5 a national holiday for that.
Nice piece. Always listen to the people who actually do the field work is confirmed again.
The answer to Tamino’s challenge to Roy Spencer i.m.o. ends the climate discussion (if there ever was one)
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/02/taminos-challenge-to-roy-spencer-answer.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29
Hi Ron, I made some spelling, grammar, style changes in my post )and also changed Riy to Roy :).
It’s pretty funny to hear people who know nothing about the meteorology field and have never worked within it, to make such broad (and downright silly) observations such as “Always listen to the people who actually do the field work is confirmed again.” What field work would you be referring to that the broadcast meteorologists are conducting? Would that be basing their forecasts on models made using the same fundamental equations, numerical algorithms, parameterizations, and sometimes the *SAME* model as that which climate scientists are using? Would that be basing their forecasts upon the models built and successively refined by those “pampered” academic scientists? Are you so completely ignorant of the field that you think that broadcast meteorologists, who focus their entire work upon a small 1.7% sliver of the entire Earth, have some sort of ‘in the trenches’ experience that trumps people who spend all day looking at the big picture? Are you aware that many ‘broadcast’ meteorologists do not even have a degree in the field, that many have communications degrees or less (e.g. check out the NYC market)? Your argument is based upon a false dichotomy of your own invention.
> For example, compare the seasonal forecasts of the Met Office to that of >private meteorological organisations – who are not no-risk government->pampered outfits producing results where quality doesn’t matter financially.
First of all, any private organization is using the data from the “government-pampered outfits” in their forecasts. There would be no private forecasts except for all those ‘pampered outfits’. Your ignorance of that basic fact makes your argument rather suspicious.
Second, please show me this ‘comparison’ you speak of (?) Where is it published that these private organizations have statistically significant advantage over all those pampered scientists?
“Are you so completely ignorant of the field that you think that broadcast meteorologists, who focus their entire work upon a small 1.7% sliver of the entire Earth, have some sort of ‘in the trenches’ experience that trumps people who spend all day looking at the big picture?”
If someone wants to do a good weather forecast for 1.7% of the globe he/she will surely have to look at the bigger picture; for instance the jetstream and the oceans, see what Bastardi does.
The “people who spend all day looking at the big picture” that you talk about – the Hansen’s and Rahmstorff’s – can never be held accountable for their mistakes as their predictions are far in the future and they even refuse to call them predictions, calling them projections instead, you probably know the difference.
And meanwhile, they concentrate on writing “summaries for policymakers” and alarmist books to influence policies and public opinion. They usually have no qualification in meteorology but in fields like quantum physics (Schellnhuber) or astrophysics (hansen). When called out about the uncertainties of their models they proudly proclaim that they work from “first principles”, using “the known physics”. Yet everybody knows that we just don’t have complete knowledge about cloud formation so how could you write a precise model based on incomplete knowledge; you can’t, but the physicists of the modeling brigade will never admit that. They are con artists and dishonest in this regard.
“First of all, any private organization is using the data from the “government-pampered outfits” in their forecasts. ”
This is incorrect as well. For instance, meteomedia in Germany has over the years built up a huge network of their own automated weather stations. They also use sources form other networks, but they have their very own stations.
The red dots in the map here are their own stations:
http://wetterstationen.meteomedia.de/messnetz/eu_d.html
Hi Ed,
Thanks for visiting. You seem a little upset.
First of all, the survey was of “television weather forecasters who are also meteorologists”.
I simply compared the forecasts of Joe Bastardi, Piers Corbyn and others to what the Met Office and the likes predicted. Clearly we know who the laughing stocks are here. And the one time they did get it right, they buried it from the public and purposely put out a false one. That my friend is what we call “fraud”.
Secondly, why is it that private meteorologists end up with completely different and much much better seasonal forecasts than the pampered government outfits?
Could it have something to do with the fact that the pampered activist scientists – the “people who spend all day looking at the big picture” – are in reality only looking at Co2, and are ignoring everything else like the sun, oceans and history?
Not only are they ignoring huge quatities of data, but they have also made up a lot of data.
Don’t bother coming back with another one of your bogus indignant lectures.
Thanks for the correction Pierre,
When I use my laptop I really need my glasses but I always seem to displace them, so never at hand when I need them.
Just let me say I really appreciate your articles, well written and to the point. Keep up the good work and for the sake of your blood pressure, don’t let the trolls get to you. Thanks.
@Edwin Adlerman,
“It’s pretty funny to hear people who know nothing about the meteorology field and have never worked within it, to make such broad (and downright silly) observations such as “Always listen to the people who actually do the field work is confirmed again.” What field work would you be referring to that the broadcast meteorologists are conducting?”
Edwin Adlerman,
When I mentioned the people in who are working in the field, I am talking about the meteorologists working at our airports. The people who provide the weather briefs for private, commercial and military flight operations. Some of them are tv meteorologists too.
Among these people you find ZERO, I repeat ZERO AGW/climate change believers.
And what about the pilots? They have been trained in meteorology, they fly, they observe, they feel the weather. You don’t find any warmists among them either.
And glider pilots who take a look at the skies and plan flights over distances from 300 up to 500 km piloting planes without engines, just by reading the clouds and the landscape for finding thermals and returning at their home field after spending many hours a loft.
You don’t find many warmists among these people as well.
And what to think about the people who are responsible for our coastal defenses. Not the guys in the offices but the people who wear the boots, check out our dikes and watch the variations in sea level day in day out.
Have a nice chat with those people about sea level rise!
I would like to say this.
We are bombarded with climate nonsense since the eighties of the past century now. People like the meteorologists you’re picking on but also people like me who simply were drawn into the climate scam because observation didn’t meet the claims made by the climate con community, we have all the rights to express our opinion and our views.
Most of us have been studying the ‘science’ for many years and we really know what we’re talking about.
Therefore a little more respect towards our host Pierre Gosselin and less pompous and ill founded remarks towards the posters here could make you look more like a gentleman and less like a dumb ass.
And if you have any doubt about alarmist claims predicting a thermogeddon if we don’t immediately stop the burning of fossil fuels and hand over lots of money to the masters, have a look at one of the standard messages from 1988 which now has expired.
It is a message from DOE and it predicted a temperature rise between 2 and 30 degree by 2008.
It’s messages like this that would even turn the biggest retard with no education at all into a climate skeptic. I really hope you get the message.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/doe-1988-temperatures-could-rise-30-degrees-by-2008/
Ron… Sorry to bust your bubble but I happen to be an instrument rated private pilot.
I heard that one coming long before I scrolled to the bottom.
Stick around, we’ll convert you yet.
Ed… I appreciate the sentiment but I’d rather that we find solutions for the problem instead.
What problem?
Ed… Ha! Nice one.
Been keeping up withe the posts on Science of Doom?
And, Ron… Here is a major aircraft company who is dedicating themselves to finding solutions:
http://www.diamond-air.at/
Location: Wiener Neustadt, Austria
The two planes I’ve owned were both Diamonds. First a DA20, then a DA40 G1000.
Also, Cessna is bringing out a line of electric 172’s.
http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2010/101104electric_cessna.html
“…unlike a fueled engine, electric motors are indifferent to density altitude changes. They don’t just provide a clean alternative to fueled airplane engines, electric motors keep all their power at altitude…”
Seems like even the aviation industry (where, according to Ron, NO ONE believes AGW) is taking climate change seriously.
If you google around you’ll see that Boeing also has projects going.
We had the theme of whether you can trust a company to do ethical things just recently and agreed that companies are in it for the profit, do you remember, Rob? Now, as you might notice, they mention several advantages of electric motors that are not related to hypothetical AGW. I would say they’re trying to land a two-fer: better performance through new technology, and placing a product for a future world in which ignition engines are more and more demonized and taxed. Of course you can call that “taking climate change seriously” but i would rather say “preparing for future market conditions”.
The weight of the batteries would be a killer, though, so
“Eventually he will use a jet-fuel-powered auxiliary power unit to recharge the batteries and give the aircraft greater range. There was no need to test it on the first flight, he said. ”
Probably a little turbine. So much for “taking climate change seriously”.
I actually wouldn’t completely disagree with that. I think there are companies stepping up to the plate. Toyota and Nissan to name a couple. Particularly Nissan. But there’s a marked difference between those companies and Koch Industries who is actively trying to obfuscate science, tobacco industry style, in order to maintain their competitive advantage whatever the consequences.
Regarding the weight of the batteries… Some of this is offset by the fact that a comparable electric motor weighs about 1/3 of an IC engine. And, new battery technology is advancing very rapidly and are expected to perform 3 to 5X better than the best li-ion batteries today within the next 5 years. As well, electric motors are 90% efficient while IC is about 30% efficient.
There are a few electric aircraft entering the market now. Their range is about 1.5 hours. Even just a 3X improvement will put these aircraft on an equal footing with conventionally fueled small aircraft.
And, as you read, these aircraft don’t suffer the same density altitude issues that a normally aspirated engine does. (I gotta tell you, it REALLY sucks to be at 10k when you can only climb 100-200 fpm.)
If you’ve ever owned an aircraft you realize the two big costs are maintenance and fuel. With electrics power plant maintenance will be almost nothing. And electricity will be a fraction the cost of avgas.
You can see why aircraft companies are interested in electrics.
And Ron… Did you bother to follow the Goddard link to it’s source? They say temperature could increase between 2 to 10 degrees (F) in the next 20 to 100 years. That was from the DOE who was not doing the primary research. And this was 1988 when it was a new issue. Obviously the understand of the science of climate change has advanced since then.
That’s right. Climate science is making big progress all the time. For instance, right now, researchers of the Max Planck Institute have, when working with one of the latest climate models, found out that ice freezes when it’s cold.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110204092149.htm
Well said. I had the impression that, when Noor van Andel gave his lecture at KNMI, he was greeted with enthusiasm. There may be meteorologists there who are skeptical but keep that behind the doors.
The Joe Bastardis in this world are in the business of providing accurate seasonal and longer term regional weather forecasts for farmers, agri-businesses, casualty insurers, etc. Unless they are correct most of the time, they will be looking for a new line of work. Funny, how capitalism works that way. Only the competent and successful are rewarded.
From Joe Bastardi: OKAY HERE IS THE DEAL.
Different weather centers forecast against different means. Here in the US, we have a running 30 year mean based on OBJECTIVE satellite guidance. The running means before that have to be based on less accurate thermometers and reconstruction. Its that simple. This is why the forecast I have out for the global temps in the coming 20-30 years are aimed at 1979 by the year 2030, because 1979 is the start of the “satellite era” How do we know what the satellite would have measured in the previous years. It could be .2, .3 different.
So the UKMET number is based on the 30 year means ending in 1990. I understand why, because they will probably change in 2020 again. But now wait a minute and this is why I assumed they werent using that. About 2/3rds of that is measured one way, the other 3rd has to take into account satellite data. So my question is why not just use the 30 year means just ended, its all done with a better measuring stick. I actually assumed that is what they were doing. But since they are not, and the increase since the period they are using is about .2, then I guess their number would be .24 against the past 30 years. Mine is normal. there is still a big difference…. 2 decades worth of warming.
Now if we used their base, then I guess I would have to be at .2, since the normal the last 30 years, and again no one is disputing the warming that has occurred, I am disputing the forecast for it to continue the next 20-30 years, is about .2 warmer.
But really, I think we should use what we know to be the most accurate running 30 year measurement and that is via satellite. No adjusting up or down, just let it ride. So in this duel,, my way it is normal vs what APPEARS to be .24, their way .44 to what APPEARS to be my .20.
I dont think there is any mischief involved, its just an honest disagreement as to how to do this. However, the difference in either case is about .24,so I guess if its .24 below what they say, then its as I said.
Current global temp ( noon london time) was plus .06 The US based GFS is forecasting -.46 by noon Tuesday. The Jan temp against the 30 year running mean was near normal…against the UKmet base about plus .2 Either way, it was on top of my forecast given either base period.
Here is the link for you.. book mark it, it changes every 6 hours
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/raw_temp_c.html#picture
Hope that clears this up. Seems like it should be simple.
ciao for now ****
@Rob Honeycutt
Rob, the entire aerospace industry has jumped the climate band wagon.
Virgin is planning for a 100% palm oil fueled operation and in Germany alone we have over 150 ‘green’ projects.
People like Michael Feinig from Diamond Aircraft take on any grand offer they can lay their hands on and he has been doing ‘special projects’ from the first year they have been in business. In fact the entire market is based on grants and most of them are advertising their ‘green’ credentials for the feel good effect.
Boeing tested a plane with a fuel cell and an electric engine and several producers of hobby gliders now offer electric propelled gliders for limited use of operation.
I don’t have any objection against the application of new technologies, on the contrary, I am all in favor of any innovation.
But the basic point of discussion here is that you think we have a problem I don’t.
And I certainly think it is madness to plant half a continent with palm oil plantations to fuel a fleet of 747’s.
And really, if you talk to meteorologists on airports most of them will tell you that ‘climate change’ = politics. That’s a fact.
And for the pilots you really are an exception.
The EU has approved a major merger between two aircraft carriers (I can’t remember which one) under the condition they would accept to compensate their entire carbon output via the ETS by 2012 and a plan is on the table for every carrier using slots on EU airports to do the same.
This i.m.o. are mafia practices and they will undermine the entire sector.
And if this madness continues, you really run the risk that all flying is going to be prohibited because that’s where we are heading.
As for your remarks of the Doe example, how many other examples of blatant propaganda with expired claims do you want?
How many articles and scientific publications with outrageous claims do you want?
This article here pulls the plug on the entire scam and if you have some common sense left you would agree with me. There is no problem, there is no proof to the claims that CO2 is causing an unstoppable out of control warming of our atmosphere and therefore there is no need for any reduction in CO2 emissions. We have not to restrict ourselves to driving or flying. Isn’t that great?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/02/taminos-challenge-to-roy-spencer-answer.html
Ron said… “And for the pilots you really are an exception.”
Based on what you just presented, that is obviously not the case. And where I live, amongst the pilots I know, this is also not the case.
I really want Diamond to do a electric twin!
Rob Honeycutt
5. Februar 2011 at 19:12 | Permalink | Reply
“And Ron… Did you bother to follow the Goddard link to it’s source? They say temperature could increase between 2 to 10 degrees (F) in the next 20 to 100 years. That was from the DOE who was not doing the primary research. And this was 1988 when it was a new issue. Obviously the understand of the science of climate change has advanced since then”.
And Rob, did you bother to check your blooming plum tree story before you posted it?
Have a re-read of Pierre’s article about the first introduction of the Climate Scam in 1986 warning us for an imminent climate disaster.
You know and I know that nothing has happened during this time.
The world populations has grown, we burned more oil than ever and our air has become cleaner, that’s what happened.
Don’t you think you need a reality check?
It’s similar to a pre flight check.
You simply work yourself along a check list and if everything is ok you can go.
let’s give it a try:
I only have three questions:
1. Do we experience a dangerous and unprecedented rise in temperatures?
2. Do we experience an unprecedented rise in ocean temperatures?
3. Do we experience an accelerated sea level rise?
Ron… “Do we experience…?” That’s a very strange way to phrase it.
Let’s try this:
Is current warming clearly attributable to an enhanced GHG effect attributable to human activity? …Yes.
Are we likely to see significant sea level rise in the next 100 years on a business-as-usual scenario? …Yes. Likely more than a meter and probably close to 2 meters.
(Switching 2 and 3 here.) Are we likely to measure an unprecedented rise in OHC as we improve our ability to measure ocean temperature? …Yes.
Rob,
1. “Clearly attributable”? It is anything but. I know you read “CO2 is Cool”. You said all I was measuring was natural variation. That is true. The warming we are seeing can’t be separated from natural variation.
“attributable to human activity”? Yep, mostly Urban Warming in the surface temperature record.
2. Sea level rise? Even Wikipedia has it at 200 mm/Century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
3. Ocean heat content? It’s gone flat in the last 6 years. The ARGO floats can’t find it. It is just as likely that as we improve our ability we will find it has gone down. (50/50)
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Actually, it did go down. Check this.
tp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/PDF/heat_content_differences.pdf
Ed…
1) Sorry but you have no other mechanism to explain current warming.
2) 200 mm/century… during the past century.
3) So, you are willing to make broad assumptions based on 6 years of questionable data? VERY un-skeptical of you, Ed.
Dear Rob,
It’s a bit late now. Tomorrow I will make a little change in a computerprogram. In stead of means it should compute medians. After a few minutes the program will give me a refreshing image of unprecedented global warming. Sleep well.
Have a look at this map, especially the Southern Hemisphere where it is summer now.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/raw_temp_c.html#picture
Also have a look at this map that shows the current ice and snow cover world wide:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Most_of_Nrthn_Hemisphere_covered_by_snow.htm
Yes, Ron. We know it’s winter in the northern hemisphere.
Did you notice that Arctic ice extent is at a record low?
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110202_Figure3.png
The point of the posts is to show you where we stand after the warning for ‘an imminent threat of climate disaster’ in 1986.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with our climate.
THE CASE FOR BENEFICIAL GLOBAL WARMING
Have you ever noticed, when looking at global temperature graphs they tend to concentrate on showing anomalies, rather than actual temperatures? Have you ever consider why? When you deal in anomalies, from the start you are looking for change, while missing the bigger picture.
The naked human body is able to continuously maintain its body temperature only when the ambient temperature is above 28 C (82 F).
http://www.sarec.ca/ice/hypother.htm
That means, should minimum temperatures – such as found at night and in winter – drop below 28 C (82 F) for a period of time, an unprotected human will die of exposure.
The global average temperature for 2010, the warmest year on records was: 13.9 C + 0.6 C = 14.5 C (58 F)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GISTEMP
This means that the earth on average is too cold to support unprotected humans. The idea that the earth is somehow at an optimum temperature for humans in not supported. Humans almost certainly evolved in a much warmer climate than the present day earth.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Even today, almost every place on earth is too colds for human beings without access to clothing and/or domesticated fire. In fact, there are very few places on earth where the long term minimum temperature exceeds 28 C (82 F) season to season, year to year. The current attempts to limit access to domesticated fire through CO2 reduction will certainly harm the ability of human beings to live outside those very few area.
The historical argument for this is found in the records of past civilizations, where most great civilizations, including our own, arose during warming periods and fell during cooling periods.
Rob Honeycutt
5. Februar 2011 at 21:57 | Permalink | Reply
“Ron said… “And for the pilots you really are an exception.”
Based on what you just presented, that is obviously not the case. And where I live, amongst the pilots I know, this is also not the case.
I really want Diamond to do a electric twin!”
If you were right we would see thousands of pilot getting mental treatment for all the CO2 they putting into the atmosphere.
About the batteries, there is ample development in this field.
Just take a look at the website of the electric drag racing association.
http://www.nedra.com/
These guys are at the forefront of battery development nothing has moved lately.
New battery factories a.o. providing the batteries for the Honda series suffer from serious malfunctions.
I think we can do a lot with electric propulsion but in combination with generator and a small battery pack as a buffer, hence the Chevy Volt/Toyota hybrid propulsion but not for fuel efficiency but noise reduction.
I think Burt Rutan has a balanced view on electrical powered flight (as on climate)
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
But I don’t see a twin electric any time soon and if it comes it will be too expensive compared to conventional propulsion concepts.
This really has a long way to go and we need a true ‘killer’ application, a totally new battery concept that comes with a dramatic increase in the power to weight ratio and a more reliable performance with lower temperature specs.
As for your remark about the advantage of electric propulsion compared to conventional piston engines for altitude adjustment this problem is has been solved with the application of electronic engine management systems that are now becoming the new standard.
For the time being the biggest innovation in small private aircraft is the introduction of diesel/Jet A1 propelled diesel piston engines and that’s it for the next ten years.
Besides that, meddling with piston propelled aircraft is a waste of time anyhow because there are no big numbers involved and certification costs are going down the roof.
That’s one of the reasons why everything in this sector is going slow, slow, slow.
Yes, Ron. We know it’s winter in the northern hemisphere.
“Did you notice that Arctic ice extent is at a record low?
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110202_Figure3.png”
Come on Rob are we screwing ants again.
The Arctic is in perfect shape.
Nothing what’s going on there today that hasn’t happened before during the past century.
One thing is for sure, you won’t find any blooming plum trees over there.
Good post Pierre. I often think just how galling it must be for the honest, hard working professional meteorologists of the Australian BOM to be forced to remain silent in the face of the blatant AGW propaganda promulgated by their BOM/CSIRO climate colleagues.
On electrically powered aircraft and ground transport, no problem provided the technology stands on it’s merits, rather than becoming yet another white elephant like wind and solar power. The last thing we need right now is for the economics of air transport to be hit by the kind of eco-politically inspired taxation/regulation/subsidy that is gradually strangling our western economies.