Al Gore blames record U.S. cold on climate change — then meteorologist drops truth bomb on him

[M]

Source; http://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/01/07/al-gore-blames-record-u-s-c...

Al Gore took to his Twitter account last week to blame the recent record cold-snap on climate change. But he was sharply rebuked with facts by a famed meteorologist.

What did Gore say?

Gore tweeted the link to an article stating that bitter cold is exactly what should be expected from man-made climate change.

Steve Milloy

✔@JunkScience

Al Gore: Freezing is the new warming.

But what can you expect from someone who relies on Fake Nobelist Michael Mann?

8:14 AM - Jan 5, 2018

• •  6666 Replies

 

• •  140140 Retweets

 

•  251251 likes

The article was written by Dr. Michael Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University. Mann argues that heavy lake effect snows this year near the Great Lakes are a sign of global warming because the warming temperatures cause the lakes to stay warmer longer therefore producing more snow. He also argued that despite the recent cold snap, the U.S. has seen many more days of very above normal temperatures than very below normal temperatures over the past several years.

He also argued that despite the central and eastern U.S. being locked into an arctic cold pattern for more than a week, the western U.S. and much of the rest of the world has been warm. Mann also blamed last week’s major east coast snowstorm on warmer-than-normal ocean water.

These allegations, however, are more narrative and opinion rather than fact, according to meteorologist Joe Bastardi.

What did Bastardi say?

Bastardi challenged whether the recent cold has anything to do with climate change, saying cold in the 1980’s was colder than this year’s recent cold snap and it was never connected to climate change or global warming. Bastardi also questioned whether or not the upcoming thaw is connected to climate change.

Joe Bastardi

✔@BigJoeBastardi

So let me get this straight, This cold is from climate change, Previous cold shots werent, Previous cold shots like 83-84 this period colder. So what these guys want us to believe is the cold is from climate change, but climate change made it come up short of previous cold shots https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/949267935683596288 …

8:34 AM - Jan 5, 2018

Joe Bastardi

✔@BigJoeBastardi

Heh @algore Big thaw coming like numerous years with as cold or colder starts, is that climate change? Is a Jan thaw,which happens enough to be in US weather lore,also a crisis, Why were previous shots colder? So climate change causes cold but prevents it from being as cold?

8:38 AM - Jan 5, 2018

Joe Bastardi

✔@BigJoeBastardi

Only thing I can do is try to reach people that want to know the WHY BEFORE THE WHAT ,Said hurricane season would see end of major hit drought in spring along with big wildfire season, Had roaring start to winter from October, None of that had anything to do
with climate change

8:43 AM - Jan 5, 2018

Sometimes if you want to see forward, you have to look back. No one is anti science, anti model, anti "climate" But one must question authority of models and causes of variances if one truly wishes to pursue the answer

8:44 AM - Jan 5, 2018

After four tweets, Bastardi concluded by chiding Gore and other climate change alarmists about pursuing narrative over truth.

[M]

I see one major flaw in the argument [" Mann argues that heavy lake effect snows this year near the Great Lakes are a sign of global warming because the warming temperatures cause the lakes to stay warmer longer therefore producing more snow. He also argued that despite the recent cold snap,"]

Here is the map of the latest major cold snap;

I doubt the Great Lakes could affect that much land mass.

[Virginia Foulk]

Living in the Great Lakes area, I believe it has little, if any impact..  Over 40 years ago, I remember reading about a scientist who believed that the climate changes are more related to the movement of the earth. Slight tilting of the earth's axis, puts sections in a different climate. Was he right?  I  tend to believe he is (my husband says I'm nuts.) Anyway, in Wisconsin we still have similar seasons, but Winter takes longer to get here, and Spring is longer away. Fits my idea of the world tilting. So instead of winter chills in October, Nov. it's still fall. Spring arrives in June or July, not April or May.  Humm.   

[M]

Virginia,

I believe you are correct considering the solar activity (sun cycles) and the precessional wobble from the tilt of the earth's axis  create about 95%-98% of the worlds weather. The rest is what humans all across the globe impact it by things like the slash and burn of the rainforest, changing the wind and weather flow patterns due to the new heating patterns the bare land reflects back.

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

A science driven reflection.

The Age of Earth has been estimated, w/99% accuracy, applying radiometric aging of meteors, at 4.54 billion years and its enduring attribute has been the cyclicality of Nature.

A serious people, which we no longer are, would have shown Al Gore the door long ago.

[M]

Thomas,

I would like to see just how much money Gore and his crowd will lose when the false global warming scam is debunked. I understand Soros is heavily invested in the issue too, but I don't have proof.

[T Amnesia]

Unfortunately for you, we're not going to live long enough to see the relatively few anti-science hacks proven wrong.   It took a hundred years of research and technological advances to prove the theory of plate techtonics - and all the while, people without the education, intelligence, or imagination refused to believe that the continents are actually moving across the mantle of the Earth. 

Now, in this corner, we have Michael Mann.  Graduated with honors and an AB in math and physics from UC Berkley.  Then earned an MS, and MPhil Degree in physics from Yale, as well as another MPhil in geology, and a PHD in geology and geophysics from Yale.   Dr Mann has written over 200 peer-reviewed publications and 3 books and is currently a "Distinguished Professor of Meteorology" at Pennsylvania State University.  He has won a boatload of awards and is on many research teams, and advisory boards.

Over here we have Joe Bastardi.  He earned a degree in Meteorology from Pennsylvania  State University, then worked for a weather web site for 33 years translating National Weather Service forecasts for public consumption on the internet.  He has also produced several weather analysis videos.  Mr. Bastardi now holds the position of Chief Forecaster at WeatherBell Analytics LLC.  He once correctly forecasted a storm, and in 2012, correctly guessed where Hurricane Sandy was going to make its landfall.

If you could ask one of these men if the Earth was in the middle of a climate change event that will be detrimental to the human species in the coming century and beyond, which of these would you ask?  Someone who actually studies the topic or someone who tells you how much snow you'll see tomorrow?

[M]

T.

Unfortunately there are qualified scientists on both sides of the problem. Neither side denies there is global warming and cooling as part of the geosphere. 

The disagreement is on how much impact is attributable to Human endeavors/activity. There is a reputable scientist that says it is a major impact, and there is just as reputable scientist that says it is a minor impact.

I am not a climatologist, and I don't believe you are either (If you are please tell me so). I can however, and I believe you also can research and adequately interpret the collected data including historical records, on Global Warming and Climate change. 

Both sides of the argument have agreed that the current computer models of climate are not all that correct based on observation of actual events and computer projected events. I cite one instance that is easy to look up; The Computer Climate models predicted the shrinking of the polar ice caps, and the actual NASA photos of those ice caps show them to be expanding.

So, We both do not actually know what is really going to happen but we instead believe in what one camp or the other says. Actual Climate records over the next ten to twenty years will give us some of the actuality, and will help the computer models to become more correct in their predictions.

I have one more observation; In the 18th and 19th centuries 1700's and 1800's the entire world was using the dirty fossil fuels like soft and hard coal, wood, peat,and natural gas on a world wide daily basis. That had to put many more mega-tons of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is even close to what is being put in today, including China's excessive use of coal.

Check the historical records for those two centuries and I believe you will get a much more accurate idea of what is the major factor in the average Climate changes.

[T Amnesia]

Officer M: "In the 18th and 19th centuries 1700's and 1800's the entire world was using the dirty fossil fuels like soft and hard coal, wood, peat,and natural gas on a world wide daily basis. That had to put many more mega-tons of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is even close to what is being put in today, including China's excessive use of coal."

Not really.  The two graphs I've included below BEGIN at 1820.  One would assume that the numbers prior to that would be even less significant.

The amount of fuels burned in the 1700s and early 1800s was relatively small in comparison, used mostly for cooking and heating.  The real pollution producing part of the Industrial Revolution did not get underway until the 1840s and 1850s with the production of steel in blast furnaces and Bessemer ovens both fired by coal and coke.  Even then, coal production for industrial use didn't really begin to take off until the end of the 1800s with the advent of coal fired electricity producing plants to supply the world with economical power for homes, factories, and the increasing urban areas.

The second reason, but probably the most important, was there were less than 1 billion people in the entire world.  Both the population and energy consumption maintained a lazy upward curve until 1950.  With the discoveries of penicillin and other antibiotics in the 1940s, the population surged, as did the life expectancy, worldwide.  That was also the point where roads were built to accommodate the new automobile industry around the world, and continents began constructing the electrical grid fueled today by coal, petroleum, and natural gas. 

The world population is now more than 7 times larger (7.6 billion) than it was in 1800. However, the world population burns 20 times more fuel than it did in 1800.

Source; ourfinite world.com

[M]

Actually T, that is my point about the historical records and especially the ice cores that show the variance in climate from before there were humans on the planet up to today. That is the long term from real life that shows the cyclic patterns of Climate and disruptive weather. Cross check the newest with recorded Sun Spot activity and that accounts for about 90% of the changes.

Did you know that during WWII the British and Americans tried weather control experiments to gain an advantage on the battlefields. They even worked to a lesser extent. Seriously though we do know that Russia and America have been experimenting with Ionosphere seeding of micro particles of ferrous materials and then using pulsed Micro waves directed at it to cause varying high and low pressure areas that change weather.

[T Amnesia]

He said the general warming of the Great Lakes creates more lake effect snow, which makes perfect sense.  In the past years there has been  a lot less ice-coverage on the lakes, which allows more evaporation, and that moisture gets dumped on the states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York as "lake-effect snow".  Since the winds come mostly from the west, Wisconsin does not get much, if any snow off Lake Michigan.

The US Geological Survey and NOAA web sites have an extensive collection of satellite images of the ice coverage of the lakes.

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

The Ancient Greeks defined amnesia as forgetfulness; yet this descriptive is much too kind.

One can only forget what one knew earlier and its apparent from these table thumping posts that nothing was either known or understood previously, involving rudimentary science.

So a brief reflection about several Greeks:

* Theophrastus created the science of Botany fostering the development of agriculture, a life sustaining force from plant life, allowing the dynamic development of Greece and the world in the 9th century BC.

* Eratosthenes accurately measured the diameter of the Earth.

* Hippocrates created the science of Medicine. 

* Euclid created Geometry w/o which structure is not possible.

* Archimedes discovered Physics.

* Galen created Biology.

* Hippopotamus created systems permitting water to flow into and waste to flow out of Greek cities, permitting urbanization.

Let me stop here and ask a question.

What did all of them have in common??????????

Why these unfortunates never had college degrees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Think of the deprivation, hardship and suffering they had to endure, the poor souls.

We stand on the massive shoulders of the giants of antiquity and know our ass from our elbow only in odd numbered years; instead producing a credentialed schmuck like Mann whose tangible accomplishments wouldn't fill the south east quadrant of a postage stamp.

But we are the greatest! Why of course.

[T Amnesia]

Science does not require you believe it in order for it to be true.

You can believe whatever you want.

You can believe whatever makes you happy and ignore whatever you choose.  If you choose to ignore the work of Dr. Mann, or any other person's scientific study, you are certainly free to do so.

But don't try to impose your willful ignorance on me.