by Joe Bastardi

Being I am branded as a “denier”, I am having trouble dismissing the relevance of the tree ring studies that challenge the hockey stick, in light of the magnitude of the weight against co2 having any relevance to the climate.

I am hoping Dr. Mann can clear some things up for me, a PSU meteo grad that as I understand is no longer welcome in our department because of my outspoken stance on the climate change issue. A response here can also enlighten the other Neanderthals, some of them apparently devious enough to fool entire departments so they have PHDs, as to the latest “situation” with you and Andy Revkin. Andy, I am hoping this is not too “divisive or toxic”.

You tweeted that this graph, which has a version that shows no hockey stick was “largely irrelevant”

Here is the tweet:

And yet we see that the Chinese find no hockey stick in their studies:

In light of the Chinese studies, how can you say the other finding is largely irrelevant?

In addition you are asking us to believe that a gas that is 1/400th of the greenhouse gasses in a mixture ( air) that has 1/1000th of the heat capacity of the ocean,

WHICH IS BY FAR THE GREATEST CONTRIBUTOR TO THE NUMBER ONE GREENHOUSE GAS, WATER VAPOR, is somehow so relevant its pushing around the climate system. Even more remarkable is that this gas ( co2 if you have not guessed) has a specific gravity of 1.5 that of air, heats and COOLS faster than air, has different radiation properties and according to NASA satellite data, does not mix well.

Add to that the fact that in that mixture, air, it occupies .004 and according to DOE, mans total contribution is 3 to 5 %,

meaning using the high end 5% we have contributed .0002 to a mixture that has 1/1000th of the heat capacity of a prime source of the number one greenhouse gas , water vapor, that is 400 times the amount of co2.

Since I am an actual graduate of PSU meteo, and would like to again show my face there, I would hope you can explain to me and the rest of the “denial machine” how assigning such a high value to what would appear by the PHYSICAL evidence to be a non factor is somehow consistent with 2 studies showing NO HOCKEY STICK being largely irrelevant.

Again here is my problem: we have 2 studies showing no hockey sticks, they are irrelevant, yet the sheer weight of evidence AGAINST co2 being able to push the climate around seems to be of a much greater magnitude than the 2 studies.

And just for good measure, perhaps you can help us deniers with the apparent misconception with the ocean and sun correlation and the disconnect to co2 seen here:

TOP LEFT CO2 VS TEMP top right global temp since pdo flip bottom left ocean vs temp correlation pdo plus amo bottom right solar correlation

ocean strength of correlation is .83 solar is .57 co2 is .44

I look forward to the response convincing me that by looking at all sides of the issues, and reading just about everything you have done, that I am wrong, so I recant my Neanderthal views, and once again be able to sing “ may no act of ours bring shame” in our alma mater, since after all I am a graduate of PSU.

I am also a letter winner, so along with sweating out classes, I sweat and bled on our wrestling mats, so you might understand why my relationship with my University and its most famous member of our esteemed meteorology department is important to me.

Joe Bastardi

State Collge, PA

Share this: Print

Email

Twitter

Facebook

Pinterest

LinkedIn

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...