Pitting John Coleman

The BBQ Pit
1

John Coleman is a former weatherman and the founder of the Weather Channel. I just saw him on Penn & Teller’s show, Bullshit!

But so he’s hyping this graph, to show the lack of a link between temperature and hydrocarbon use.

Now as the saying goes, numbers don’t lie, liars figure. Well this graph is the poster of that.

Firstly, why in a discussion of Global Warming, is the temperature that he gives not the average global temperature? Why choose the Arctic? Could it be because the North and South poles aren’t as protected by the ozone from the sun’s irradiance? Hmm…

Well so over the same timeframe as displayed in the above graph, here is the average global temperature.

Now, further, there’s this graph (last 500 years) and this one (last 400 years), showing reconstructions of solar irradiation. These come from two separate studies (A and B), with more being listed here. Here’s the last 1200 years according to Bard and Yang. Bard’s 1200 year reconstruction is included on the NCDC page.

Now compare those graphs to the global temperature records of the last 1000 and 2000 years.

From 1640-1700 about, there’s a massive dip in solar irradiance. If you think of the red line and the pale green lines as the lower and upper bounds, it looks like things may have indeed dipped some starting around 1500 and coming back to merge around 1800, but there’s no obvious, major 50 year dip there. And looking at the longer scale, really there’s no obvious pattern to the solar irradiance. Possibly you could say that it’s been on the climb since 1443, but the average global temperature was on the decline all the way from ~1000 to 1800.

Now I can see using old data, but to use the Arctic temperature as being representative of the entire globe is patently creating false data. So Mr. John Coleman, you sir are a slimey scumball.

2

But… but he started the Weather Channel! Doesn’t that make him an expert?

3

At least he’s a meteorologist. What exactly are Al Gore’s science credentials again? :rolleyes:

4

Hehe…'bout the same as Penn Jillette’s.
*Not that I’m disagreeing or anything. I just like to point out that even if he’s sometimes right, Penn Jillette is an ass.

5

Is it considered a Tu Quoque when the other side wasn’t even being mentioned at all?

Nah, I’ll just call it a random hijack.

6

My qualifications are the same as Penn Jillette and Al Gore.

But that said, Al Gore’s presentations contain up-to-date material that goes back thousands of years and uses global data. You still shouldn’t trust him. But you should trust the EPA, NASA, the US Climate Change Science Program, the Presidential Office of Science & Technology Policy, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the National Academy of Sciences, and every other scientic organization, Federal, domestic, or international.

It’s blatantly dishonest to go around pretending anything other than that every single scientific organization on the planet agrees that the research on global warming is conclusive as presented. And it’s stupid to presume that they’ve all been manufacturing false data for 50 years in a grand, global conspiracy, to bring about a global government or make money doing book tours or whatever-the-fuck.

I personally couldn’t care less if global warming is going to kill off half of all of the people in Africa, but this idea that we’re experiencing the world’s largest conspiracy since all the Jews got together and testified falsely against Hitler, is just stupid.

7

He’s as much of a meteorologist as Willard Scott is. Are you aware that TV weathercasters are under no obligation to have any formal education at all? He doesn’t even have the flimsy “Broadcast Meteorolgy” degree from Mississippi State.

LM, B.S. Meteorology

8

Is this the guy? There’s no mention of any scientific background:

9

Actually, the saying is “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”

10

What are yours, Stephe? And no, that’s not a tu quoque. Mr. Gore is an advocate for a point of view based on his understanding of data and theory produced by scientists. Just as you are – except that, IMO and that of most others, the scientists and their data tend to support Mr. Gore’s contentions far more than yours.

11

Hey, Lamar – curious what you ay think of this guy. He’s head of our local TV station’s weather coverage, and seems to have a very high standard, in both forecast and education. I’ve seen him make a call on a forecast that contradicts or strongly modifies both the computer models and the NWS forecast based on his knowledge of what’s happened in the past for this area – and when he does that, he’s right far more often than not.

12
  1. Have you actually tracked his hits vs. misses?
  2. Unless he goes agains the model more than 50% of the time, he’s still agreeing with the model.
  3. Simulators are better at trends than they are at small, day to day, small locality predictions, so this isn’t particularly meaningful.
  4. No one is saying that global warming is absolutely happening and human caused, they’re just saying that based on what all data and understanding we have, it’s highly probable (90% certainty, I believe it is.)
13

John Coleman used to be the weatherman on channel 7 in Chicago during the 1970s. He was a clown then. I see things haven’t changed much.

14

Hey, now…!:frowning:

15

It’s always interesting to see a stupid person try to think.

16

[hijack]
Greg Fishel, the Weather Geek, is a god. While I understand that everything is better in Charlotte, I just wish that our local news stations would hire a weatherman with a quarter of his chops. BTW, he hates being called a weather geek.
[/hijack]

17

Yep. A USELESS clown, at that. I will happily live and die (OR, as is MORE important in a state that is primarily Agricultural, plant and harvest) per WGN’s Tom Skilling than that clown.

18

Meterology and climatology are two different sciences anyway. A meterology degree is not a credential to talk about climate.

It’s also deperately pointless red herring. The graph is either valid or it isn’t. What the fuck does Al Gore have to do with anything?

19

I’ve been out of town, but I thought I’d reply to this. That guy strikes me as just about the perfect TV forecaster. Great educational background (not as good as <ahem>Wisconsin<ahem>, but Penn State is excellent for Meteorology, with decades of experience in the same place. Particularly so since that area of the country is not the easiest prediction market. Experience counts. The aforementioned Tom Skilling is one of the best as well, despite his criminal brother (Jeff of Enron fame).

As also mentioned above, none of this means much in the AGW debate. Meteorologists might understand a good bit of the science, but it is really a question of climatology, and a need for an understaning of statistical modelling, which most forecasters don’t have.

20

How would you score the following forecast:

Forecast: 30% chance of rain
Actual weather: Rain

Is that a hit, or a miss? That is the great thing about being a weatherman, there is no accountability when you are wrong, because all your forecasts are couched in a percentage of probability. I would love to have that kind of plausible deniability in my job: “There is a 30% chance your computer still won’t work when I am done with it.”