Daily Archives: September 7, 2013

CNBC’s Joe Kernen Makes Up A Fake Story about Climate Change on Squawk Box.

Joe Kernen is a business finance talking head who co-hosts CNBC’s Squawk Box. I don’t know if he actually knows much about Wall Street, but I can prove he doesn’t know squawk about Climate Science. Have a look (warning: Might make you dizzy):

Something about a low participation rate because people are getting older. But that’s kind of unclear. Obviously, what is needed is a nice clear analogy from …. climate science!

So, the warmest period ever was in the 1930s when there were much lower CO2 levels. I did not know that.

Then the glaciers retreat and there are big forests. Arm wavingly big forests!

Then we realize in the Middle Ages it was warmer than it was now! Why??? WHY????

Why, then, why was the participation rate so low?????? Enquiring climate scientists want to know!!!

Please. Allow me to “put it in the big picture”

First, I have no idea why participation rates in some thing are low. That is not my field of study and I have no idea what they are talking about. Therefore I will not wave my arms around and tell you something about that.

Was the decade of the 1930s the warmest period ever? Let’s look at a graph!

The 1930s was a period during which global warming occurred, ant it was in fact warmer than PREVIOUS decades.  But then it got warmer.  Like in this graph.
The 1930s was a period during which global warming occurred, ant it was in fact warmer than PREVIOUS decades. But then it got warmer. Like in this graph.

So, no.

Was CO2 lower then? Let’s look at a graph:

CO2 was lower then.  And so was temperature.  In fact, temperatures and CO2 seem to ... correlate!  Huh.
CO2 was lower then. And so was temperature. In fact, temperatures and CO2 seem to … correlate! Huh.

What about the glaciers melting. Let’s look at a graph:

Glacial melting is not well measured back as far as the 30s, but we know they weren't melting back then or al the towns downstream from them would have noticed it then. But they certainly have been melting!  It's a global warming thing.
Glacial melting is not well measured back as far as the 30s, but we know they weren’t melting back then or al the towns downstream from them would have noticed it then. But they certainly have been melting! It’s a global warming thing.

What about the Giant Arm Waving Forests? Hard to say. Where glaciers have melted away, maybe some day there will be forests there. Many mountain glaciers, though, are up at high altitudes where there are very few arm-waving forests, but rather, stumpy short alpine forests with no arms. In any event, I’m not sure what the point of this is. Perhaps Joe is assuming that after glaciers melt giant arm waving forests grow and eat all the CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere. Or maybe the trees just wave their arms and blow the greenhouse gasses away. I await clarification.

Finally, there is the Medieval warm period. There was such a thing. It was warm. There are two problems, though, with this. First, it was a regional warming that happened in only some parts of the world enough to notice. But it was important. It was like having your heat on high in the winter time, then you go outside in the cold and it feels colder that it otherwise might because you were used to very warm air. This is because the Medieval warm period was followed by the little ice age. That sort of took people by surprise. The second problem with Joe’s statement is that it was not warmer then than it is now.

Let’s look at a graph:

Moberg_Hockey_Stick

So, no. Not that either.

Joe, I recommend you stick to your subject. I assume you know something about that. The random unexpected bloviation about how climate change science is wrong makes you look like a clown. Also, whoever produces this show … do try to keep track of these things. In other words, be professional!

Atlantic Hurricane Update (Updated)

Over the last several days the Atlantic has been very active, producing numerous storm systems that had promise to turn into something. Only one did, Gabrielle, and Gabrielle downgraded to a stormy blob (#1 on the above graphic from the National Weather Service). Gabrielle may well be back as a tropical storm, but there is only a small chance of that. If exGabrielle does turn into something it will most likely go straight north in the Atlantic. The second item is something that the NWS hurricane people have been watching since it was over the Sahara, hinting in their regular updates that something is coming. It isn’t that common that a tropical wave gets that much air time while still over West Africa, so I’m thinking this one is for real. The update from the NWS indicates that there is about an 80% chance of this wave (#2 on the graphic) will become a tropical cyclone during the next five days. This storm, as well, would likely track north across the Atlantic.

So, both storms have zero chance of affecting the Gulf of Mexico, and both have a high chance, if they develop into hurricanes, of tracking more or less harmlessly up the Atlantic.

Of course, Sandy tracked up the Atlantic and then made a left turn into New Jersey/New York. I don’t think the steering conditions for that happening with either of these storms is in place at the moment, though.

Update: That system off the West African coast now has a 90% chance of becoming a named storm. I believe the next name in line is Humberto:

Maybe_Humberto_National_Hurricane_Center