Monday, September 18, 2017

#D) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (15-27)

“No, Michael Mann, Global Warming Didn't Cause Hurricane Harvey's Devastation”  (8/31/2017 - Investor's Business Daily at Written by someone unwilling to put their name on this libelous cowardly act of defamation.

I have no idea who's behind Investor's Business Daily or this editorial though it has the stink of GOP astro-turfing about it.  But I know fraud and libel when I see it and I will be spending the next few days dissecting this particular example of calumny crossing over into what seems to me felonious criminal vandalism on Professor Mann’s professional reputation - not to mention the citizen's right and need to honestly hear about what climate scientists are learning!

To spell out my case I will be quoting the entire editorial (nothing left out, nothing added) talking point by talking point, in chronological order.  Though broken down into bite-sized chunks, here we examine Points of Contention 15 to 27, Investors Business Daily quotes are in Courier font.

Message to interested readers, I'm just an outside life long observer and my writing is done in fits and starts with constant short and long interrupts, thus it never surpasses the 'grandma moses' level.  But, my information is solid and my reasoning is solid and I welcome anyone with more time and focus, to take anything at WUWTW and use it as a starting point for better efforts that reach more people.  

Of course, if anyone were interested in helping me work on this, my obvious passion, to see what I could accomplish with the luxury of full-time focus on my side, please do let me know.  Thank you, Peter aka citizenschallenge

P.O.Box 56 - Durango, Colorado, 81302 - citizenschallenge at gmail

Investor's Business Daily POC#16 - “It could happen because the giant global-warming industry — made up of government bureaucrats, professors, scientists, researchers and think-tank fellows, and allied as it is to the U.N.'s socialist agenda”

Here they go again, rather than sticking to the topic of Hurricane Harvey’s supposed non-connection to our warming global weather engine, Investor’s Business want’s us to forget the topic and climb into the world of polarized political showmanship and enemy fabrication.

The more outlandish the better for inflaming the troops.  UN is a socialist plot to take away all your freedoms.  Come on you sillies get real, we depend on our weather for all we hold near and dear, can we get on point?  Any appreciation for our society includes an awareness that weather impacts every facet of our lives.  

We want people to study it, we want people understanding how we are changing it and what those changes mean for our future, and how to prepare.

Oh speaking of sinister mega plots, 

Oil Giants Spend $115 Million A Year To Oppose Climate Policy

Major fossil fuel companies and trade groups shell out nearly $115 million a year to oppose efforts to reduce carbon emissions, according to a new report from the British research organization Influence Map.

The largest share of the money comes from the American Petroleum Institute, the country’s largest trade organization for oil and gas producers. It reportedly spends $65 million annually in efforts to block climate policy. API is followed by Exxon Mobil, which spends $27 million, and Shell, which spends $22 million a year on anti-climate advocacy. 
    These figures dwarf the amount spent by supporters of climate change legislation, which is estimated at about $5 million annually, according to the report. …
…“While we regard our estimations as conservative, they still represent significant use of shareholder funds to obstruct ambitious climate policy,” researchers wrote in their report. 
Investor's Business Daily POC#17 - “depends on government grants and aid to "prove" global warming is a threat. This year, according to a Daily Caller Foundation estimate, the U.S. federal government alone will spend some $27 billion on climate change, much of it on research.”

What kind of insulated kindergarten does Investor's Business exist within?  

This is not a game.  There are damned good reasons why we want our government scientists studying our climate and the atmosphere and the ocean.  Yes it takes billions and we should be spending much more preparing for what's heading at us.  It’s not a Hollywood movie we are playing in, this is for keeps.

Deny all you like, but a sober look around shows manmade global warming is driving storms and extremes of all manner into uncharted territories.  We need our government to be aware of what’s coming at us.

The stunning price tags for Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, explained
Damage estimates are rising, but they're still lowballs.
by Umair Irfan, Sep 18, 2017,

Estimates for the cost of Hurricane Harvey’s damage have come in at $65 billion, $180 billion, and as high as $190 billion — the last of which would make it the costliest disaster in US history.

The numbers from the second record-breaking storm that hit the US this summer, Hurricane Irma, meanwhile, are still rolling in. But totals range from $50 billion to $100 billion.

To appreciate how staggering these figures are, consider that they could be enough to make the $18.57 trillion US economy lose a step, knocking between 0.6 percent and 0.8 percent off of US GDP growth this quarter, according to projections from investment banks. …

Here’s one way to put the rising number of costly disasters in perspective: Nine of the 10 costliest Atlantic hurricanes (not including Harvey or Irma) have occurred since 2000. … 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Climate Change Funding and Management

As a result of climate-related risks, fiscal exposure for the federal government has increased in many areas, including federal property and infrastructure, supply chains, disaster aid, and federal insurance programs. Consequently, Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks has been on GAO’s High Risk List since 2013.

Over the past several years, federal agencies have made progress toward better organizing across and within agencies and among the various levels of government. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, for example, is a confederation of the research arms of 13 federal departments and agencies that carry out research and develop the nation’s response to climate change. In 2014, it published the National Climate Assessment report, which reviews observed and projected changes in climate in the United States, the effects of these changes, and options for responding.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

National Center for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

In 2017 (as of July 7), there have been 9 weather and climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each across the United States. These events included 2 flooding events, 1 freeze event, and 6 severe storm events. Overall, these events resulted in the deaths of 57 people and had significant economic effects on the areas impacted.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

U.S. Communities Clobbered by $53 Billion in Extreme Weather and Climate Disasters in 2016
By Miranda Peterson and Cathleen Kelly Posted on January 19, 2017

Extreme weather and climate disasters caused a staggering 297 deaths and $53.5 billion in economic damage in the United States in 2016. Of these disasters, 15 cost at least $1 billion and together triggered $49.1 billion in damage across 38 states. Center for American Progress analysis found that the economic toll of the 15 most destructive extreme weather events in 2016 was more than double the cost of similarly catastrophic events in 2015, which totaled $21.5 billion. 

Damage costs due to these severe weather, flood, wildfire, and drought events include insured and uninsured losses tied to damaged homes, businesses, buildings, cars, energy and transportation infrastructure, and agricultural assets. 

These damage costs, however, underestimate the total economic consequences of extreme weather: They do not take into account the destruction of natural assets—such as wetlands and parks—health care costs, and the economic impact tied to loss of life.
Investor's Business Daily POC#18 - "Any scientist whose work doesn't slavishly follow the strict theology” 

So the urban myth goes.

The scientific community does not censor competing skeptical voices.  They do weed out people who do garbage science and misrepresent facts, but that’s only right and good!  

One would actually have to listen to the scientific debates themselves to appreciate what an intrepid skeptical conservative community of people they are.  YouTube offers many opportunities to hear scientists lecturing about their work, fascinating stuff.
Investor's Business Daily POC#19 - "of the climate-change religion 

Religion is clinging to beliefs with faith, rather than experience and knowledge.  

Religion is a human construct, its tenets must be taken on “Faith” no matter if physical evidence conflicts.  Don’t get me wrong religions are okay, we need shadow plays that reflect our interior struggles to grasp our place in a greater unknowable universe and to help us through life’s many personal challenges.

But, religions don’t trump physics.  

Science is about disciplined curiosity and learning about the world around us to the best of our limited abilities.  Science is about allowing evidence to dictate the direction of what we ‘believe.’  Science appreciates we must remain open to the flow of new evidence which continually refines established understanding.  The learning never ends.   

Scientists are a community of informed, educated, skeptical, competitive people, constantly looking over each others’ shoulders.  Engaged in lively debates of the constructive type where you actually shut up and listen to what your opponent is trying to explain to you.  

The listener processes the information being offered and compares it to their own internal understanding.  Then responds by acknowledging what the other has shared, then to explain why we agree, disagree, or see it altogether differently.  

It’s dialogue with respect, fair play, acknowledging one’s opponents qualities.   It’s a constructive process that leaves both parties a little better informed.  A win win situation, that is, if a more thorough understanding is your goal.
I dare say scientists live and thrive by the ethos that ‘we need each other to keep ourselves honest’.

Investor's Business Daily POC#20 - "has little chance of getting his or her research funded by the U.S. government, whose bureaucracy has every reason to want to see global warming as a threat.”

If there were any truth to it Roy Spencer and Alabama's State Climatologist John Christy would have been given the boot long ago. 

No government official wants to see global warming, the consequences and implications are too overwhelming. Indeed, ignoring the issue has been the far more common reaction.  Kick it down the road, I’ve been watching it since about 1970, (might explain some of my palpable irritation).

Our government for all it’s short-comings are the ones who show up in disasters and help restore normality.  It’s government officials who are actually responsible for decisions that will impact millions.  Most government officials appreciate their responsibilities and do the best with what they have.
Investor's Business Daily POC#21 - "And now, Mann is at it again. Writing in the leftist British newspaper The Guardian,” 

This is the stuff of junior high bullies and ruthless power-politics hustlers, the desperate need to demonize and distract from the issue.

What’s wrong with the “left”?  Oh yeah we want to take over the world and enslave all good flag wavers.  Right, and who’s buying all the guns?

So here we are, the Murdoch media octopus proclaims “The Guardian” is our enemy and all they print must be labeled, demonized, ignored - and now Investor's Business is bashing us over the head with it.  

What about the substance of the article?   That’s what we should be discussing!
Investor's Business Daily POC#22 - "under the alarming headline "It's a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly," Mann had this to say: "Harvey was almost certainly more intense than it would have been in the absence of human-caused warming, which means stronger winds, more wind damage and a larger storm surge.  Interesting observation, but not a "fact" at all, as he suggests, but rather a hotly disputed opinion."

They believe such nonsense because they refuse to listen and allow these geophysical lessons to soak in. 

* Global warming is definitely directly related to those hot Gulf of Mexico waters that fed an explosive intensification of a tropical storm.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that the atmosphere is holding more moisture and making it available for storm systems such as Harvey to collect and dump, while adding energy to the system.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that our Jet Stream has gotten weirder and was the cause of Harvey stalling and reversing it’s northward movement.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that sea level is rising and thus adding substantially to damaging storm surges.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the "Brown Ocean Effect" that continued feeding moisture and energy into Harvey and certain other hurricanes after making land fall.

Read Dr. Mann’s article for yourself, you’ll find it quite informative: 

“It's a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly”
“We can’t say that Hurricane Harvey was caused by climate change. 
But it was certainly worsened by it” Michael Mann

Also see,
Influence of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Planetary Wave Resonance and Extreme Weather Events
Investor's Business Daily POC#23 - "Moreover, it's cherry-picking of the worst sort: Wait for a disaster to happen, and then say, in effect, "Global warming. I told you so.”

This is pathetic and childish, and reveals a disregard for the seriousness of what’s unfolding.  For Investor’s Business never is the time to seriously talk about global warming and its implications for our people and cities.  

The Trump administration wants to ignore a major aspect of these hurricane disasters
We can't plan for what's to come if we can't talk about it.
JOE ROMM - SEP 7, 2017

The greatest threat to Americans is climate silence, not climate scientists. As horrible as Harvey was — and as Irma is shaping up to be — recognizing the role climate change is playing in this year’s superstorms must help guide recovery and resiliency efforts.

That’s why the claims from the Trump EPA and others, that talking about climate science during a super-hurricane is somehow politicizing disasters, is exactly backwards. As climatologist Peter Gleick put it in a tweet on Wednesday, “Asking scientists not to talk about #climate change during disasters is like asking an MD not to talk about smoking when treating cancer.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Now is precisely the time to talk about Climate Change
By Sam Chipman - Sep 10, 2017

US environmental chief Scott Pruitt has said that now is not the time for discussion about climate change, and a senior Tory has said it is “inhuman” to discuss climate change after a set of deadly hurricanes ripped through the Atlantic. But with an unprecedented set of hurricanes hitting the Caribbean and mainland America in the space of weeks now is precisely the time to be talking about climate change, as this could be a sign of foreboding of what is to come. …
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Naomi Klein - August 28 2017

Turn on the coverage of the Hurricane Harvey and the Houston flooding and you’ll hear lots of talk about how unprecedented this kind of rainfall is. How no one saw it coming, so no one could adequately prepare.

What you will hear very little about is why these kind of unprecedented, record-breaking weather events are happening with such regularity that “record-breaking” has become a meteorological cliche. In other words, you won’t hear much, if any, talk about climate change.

This, we are told, is out of a desire not to “politicize” a still unfolding human tragedy, which is an understandable impulse. But here’s the thing: every time we act as if an unprecedented weather event is hitting us out of the blue, as some sort of Act of God that no one foresaw, reporters are making a highly political decision. …
Investor's Business Daily POC#24 - "This is an example of what will be a relentless tirade of statements. Say nothing, make no forecast you can actually be held accountable for, then come out after and grab headlines with stuff like this," wrote Joe Bastardi, the chief forecaster of Weather Bell Analytics, a weather consultancy and forecasting firm.”

Sad thing is, they believes this nonsense.  The nonsense that comes from sequestering themselves within a hermetically sealed echo-chamber.  The Kochs and Murdochs, etc. have spun a fine yarn that demonizes all opponents.  Treat all with scorn, contempt, fear and disregard what you don’t want to hear.

What’s up with that?  Say nothing, make no forecast, more nonsense.  Of course, if you make a habit of shielding yourself from the evidence, how can you know.  In reality climate scientists have been getting a lot more right than not, take a review:

1959 - “Carbon Dioxide and Climate”

An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?” … During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth [see graphs on page 43]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
1967 - “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity”

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
Ethan Siegel, March 15, 2017,

Modeling the Earth's climate is one of the most daunting, complicated tasks out there. If only we were more like the Moon, things would be easy. The Moon has no atmosphere, no oceans, no icecaps, no seasons, and no complicated flora and fauna to get in the way of simple radiative physics. 

No wonder it's so challenging to model! In fact, if you google "climate models wrong", eight of the first ten results showcase failure

But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1972 - “Man-made carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse” effect”
A remarkably accurate global warming prediction, made in 1972

A paper published in Nature in 1972 accurately predicted the next 30 years of global warming

John Stanley (J.S.) Sawyer was a British meteorologist born in 1916. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1962, and was also a Fellow of the Meteorological Society and the organization's president from 1963 to 1965.

A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1975 - “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”

Wallace Broecker was among the first climate scientists to use simple climate models to predict future global temperature changes. 

Broecker anticipated the actual increase in CO2 very closely, predicting 373 ppm in 2000 and 403 ppm in 2010 (actual values were 369 and 390 ppm, respectively). Broecker also used an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2; however, his model’s transient climate sensitivity worked out to be 2.4°C for doubled CO2.  …
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1981 - “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”

A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’  projections have proven to be rather accurate — and their future is now our present. …

Investor's Business Daily POC#25 - "Yet, ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2004, climate-change advocates have warned that hurricanes and storms would be far worse as a result of global warming.”  {Yup!   It's physics. }

Right.  Nothing going on around here, reminds me of an old TV character: “I see nothing, I know nothing!”

Hurricane Irma Meteorological Records/Notable Facts Recap Intensity/Day Measures
- 185 mph lifetime max winds – tied with Florida Keys (1935), Gilbert (1988) and Wilma (2005) for second strongest max winds of all time in Atlantic hurricane. Allen had max winds of 190 mph in 1980

- 185 mph lifetime max winds – the strongest storm to exist in the Atlantic Ocean outside of the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico on record

- 185 mph max winds for 37 hours – the longest any cyclone around the globe has maintained that intensity on record. The previous record was Haiyan in the NW Pacific at 24 hours

- 914 mb lifetime minimum central pressure – lowest in the Atlantic since Dean (2007) and 10th lowest in satellite era (since 1966)

- 914 mb lifetime minimum central pressure – lowest pressure by an Atlantic hurricane outside of the western Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico on record

- First Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic since Matthew (2016) and first Category 5 hurricane in the tropical Atlantic (7.5-20°N, 60-20°W) since Hugo (1989)

- 3.25 day lifetime as a Category 5 hurricane – tied with Cuba (1932) for longest lifetime as Category 5 in Atlantic

- 3 consecutive days as a Category 5 hurricane – the longest for an Atlantic hurricane in the satellite era (since 1966)

- 12.75 named storm days – the most since Nicole (2016) and tied for 23rd most in satellite era for the Atlantic

- 11.25 hurricane days – the most since Ivan (2004) and tied for 9th most in satellite era (since 1966) for the Atlantic – satellite-era record is Ginger (1971) with a whopping 19.5 hurricane days

- 8.50 major hurricane days – the 2nd most in satellite era (since 1966) for the Atlantic – trailing Ivan (2004).

- 3.75 major hurricane days in the tropical Atlantic (7.5-20°N, 60-20°W) – trailing only Luis (1995) for major hurricane days in the tropical Atlantic

ACE Measures
- Generated the most Accumulated Cyclone Energy by a tropical cyclone on
record in the tropical Atlantic (7.5-20°N, 60-20°W)

- Generated more Accumulated Cyclone Energy than the first eight named storms
of the Atlantic hurricane season (Arlene-Harvey) combined

- Generated the most Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy in a 24-hour period on record, breaking old record set by Allen (1980)

- 67.5 Accumulated Cyclone Energy – the 2nd most by an Atlantic hurricane in satellite era (since 1966) – trailing only Ivan (70.4)

- Generated enough Accumulated Cyclone Energy to satisfy NOAA ACE definition for an average Atlantic hurricane season
  • Generated more Accumulated Cyclone Energy than 18 entire Atlantic hurricane seasons in the satellite era (since 1966)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hurricane Harvey Meteorological Records/Notable Facts Recap (through August 30)

Prior to Landfall
- Lowest pressure (938 mb) for a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico since Rita (2005)

- First Category 4 hurricane to make landfall in Texas since Carla (1961)
- First Category 4 hurricane to make U.S. landfall since Charley (2004)
- First hurricane to make landfall in Texas since Ike (2008)
- First major (Category 3+) hurricane to make U.S. landfall since Wilma (2005)
  • Ended the longest-running U.S. landfalling major hurricane drought at 4323 days; Wilma (2005) was last major hurricane prior to Harvey
  • Harvey’s MSLP at landfall of 938 mb was the lowest for a U.S. landfalling hurricane since Rita (2005)

- 51.88” of rainfall at Cedar Bayou, TX is most ever recorded in the continental United States from a tropical cyclone breaking old record of 48” set in Texas from Tropical Storm Claudette (1979) – also just 0.12” shy of full United States record set in Hawaii of 52”. Likely broke that record too since still raining at time the gauge failed. Excellent resource for tropical cyclone-related rainfall here:

  • Four separate stations in Texas recorded over 48” of rainfall from Harvey – each of these would have broken the previous continental U.S. landfall record - 22.25” of rainfall in Bayou Conway - 5th most ever recorded in the state of Louisiana from a tropical cyclone
  • 33 reported tornadoes per preliminary Storm Prediction Center data – final numbers may change considerably.
  • Longest-lasting named storm after making hurricane landfall in Texas on record. Harvey lasted 117 hours. Fern (1971) was prior record at 54 hours.
  • 1st named storm on record to make two Gulf Coast landfalls >60 hours apart. The 2nd landfall was ~100 hours after the 1st landfall.
Speaking of the real world - this was unfolding today as I was working on this post.  Paul Beckwith posted this report on YouTube a couple hours ago.  He's another guy who's justifiably irritated with the mass self-delusion we've created for ourselves thanks to criminal vandalism such as this Business Investor's editorial I'm dissecting.

More Climate Change Collateral Damage: Hurricane Maria Takes Out Dominica

morning update

Hurricane Maria Does ‘Mind Boggling’ Damage to Dominica, Leader Says

By Austin Ramzy - September 19, 2017


Investor's Business Daily POC#26 - “It was inevitable, we were told. But the fact is, since 2010, the number of severe, category 4 hurricanes has declined sharply. Moreover, those who follow hurricanes and tropical storms for a living suggest global warming isn't the cause.”

Yes, it was inevitable and the author is speaking with the wrong experts or misrepresenting what they are saying.

You can take it to the bank that our shores will be getting hit with even greater storms who’s destructiveness will be multiplied by global warming induced sea level rise.  Simple unavoidable geophysics at work.

Ocean Salinities Reveal Strong Global Water Cycle Intensification During 1950 to 2000
Paul J. Durack, Susan E. Wijffels, Richard J. Matear

Science  27 Apr 2012:
Vol. 336, Issue 6080, pp. 455-458
DOI: 10.1126/science.1212222

Fundamental thermodynamics and climate models suggest that dry regions will become drier and wet regions will become wetter in response to warming. Efforts to detect this long-term response in sparse surface observations of rainfall and evaporation remain ambiguous. We show that ocean salinity patterns express an identifiable fingerprint of an intensifying water cycle. 

Our 50-year observed global surface salinity changes, combined with changes from global climate models, present robust evidence of an intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ± 5% per degree of surface warming. This rate is double the response projected by current-generation climate models and suggests that a substantial (16 to 24%) intensification of the global water cycle will occur in a future 2° to 3° warmer world. …
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Climate Change Has Intensified the Global Water Cycle

By Michael D. Lemonick - April 26th, 2012 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Water Cycles and Climate Change
Kevin E. Trenberth
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Investor's Business Daily POC#27 - “CNN Newsroom host John Berman asked former National Hurricane Center Director Bill Read point-blank whether climate change had affected the intensity of Hurricane Harvey.Read said he "probably wouldn't attribute (global warming to) what we're looking at here. This is not an uncommon occurrence to see storms grow and intensify rapidly in the western Gulf of Mexico. That is, as long as we've been tracking them, that has occurred.”  {Right and the warmer the water, the more energy for storms to feed on and burst into category 4 and 5 monsters the way they have been this season, that is something new.}

Quite frankly it doesn’t matter what I, or some politically terrified official pronounces.  The independent reality is that our planet has begun a radical transition towards a much much warmer climate regime.  Simply because measuring and putting exact attribution numbers on it is exceedingly difficult, doesn't justify ignoring the geophysics unfolding under our noses!  One more time:

* Global warming is definitely directly related to those hot Gulf of Mexico waters that fed an explosive intensification of a tropical storm.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that the atmosphere is holding more moisture and making it available for storm systems such as Harvey to collect and dump, while adding energy to the system.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that our Jet Stream has gotten weirder and was the cause of Harvey stalling and reversing it’s northward movement.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that sea level is rising and thus adding substantially to damaging storm surges.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the "Brown Ocean Effect" that continued feeding moisture and energy into Harvey and certain other hurricanes after making land fall.

If I’m mistaken it should be simple enough to explain my error in a constructive manner.

If you can’t do that, perhaps you should consider allowing those points to take prominence over nitpicking fringe uncertainties and the struggle for statistical perfection.  Dr. Mann was involved in another study worth learning about:

What We Know about the Climate Change–Hurricane Connection
Some links are indisputable; others are more subtle, but the science is improving all the time

By Michael E. MannThomas C. PetersonSusan Joy Hassol on September 8, 2017


Investor's Business Daily Character Assassination Attempt on Michael Mann 8/31/2017 -

An examination - 36 points of contention.

September 15, 2017
#A) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (1-3)

September 17, 2017
#B) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (4-9)

September 17, 2017
#C) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (10-14)

September 18, 2017
#D) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (15-27)

September 19, 2017
#E) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (28-36 and fini)

No comments: