by Judith Curry
The Senate Commerce Committee Hearing ‘Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate‘ is about to begin.
The website for the Hearing is at the Commerce web site [link]. Witnesses:
- Dr. John Christy
- Dr. Judith Curry
- Dr. William Happer
- Mr. Mark Steyn
- Dr. David Titley
It is my understanding that there will be a podcast on the web site, and that the Hearing will be televised on CSPAN, and that links to the testimonies will be available on the web site.
John Christy’s testimony [ChristyJR]
Mark Steyn’s testimony is a MUST READ [Steyn testimony]
My testimony is here [Curry Senate testimony 2015]. Below is the text of my verbal remarks.
JC verbal remarks
I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today.
Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.
I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.
I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.
What have I concluded from this assessment?
Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.
The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.
Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.
How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?
Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.
There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.
In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity – without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.
I would like to thank the committee for raising the issue of data versus dogma in support of improving the integrity of climate science.
This concludes my testimony.
JC comment: Owing to my travel schedule, it will be difficult for me to comment on the Hearing, hopefully I will be able to manage an internet connection somewhere.
Very good! Short and to the point.
Wonderfully clear, simple and true.
JC; “Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.
Frame it!
On behalf of future generations, I thank you for your efforts to restore society to contact with reality.
Senator Ted Cruz opening was great.
I listened to the hearing, missing only a portion of Mr. Steyn’s testimony to answer a phone call. AGW doubters had better scientific arguments than AGW believers, but Senator Booker (D, MA) was surprisingly effective in his support of AGW believers. I will write more later, but the hearing today convinced me the entire structure of post-1945 consensus science will have to be rebuilt, as started before the hearing started:
https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/an-open-letter-to-professor-michael-merrifield-of-nottingham-university/#comment-36338
Of federal research funds spent to investigate AGW:
100% goes to AGW believers
0% goes to AGW doubters
That was Senator Markey from Mass. Booker (from NJ) wasn’t there, but he angle of the camera made it look like Markey was in Booker’s seat. Markey was a total jerk, but–agreed–a fairly effective jerk.
Where is the video link for this hearing?
I saw something earlier but it showed “no content available”. Now the video element seems to have disappeared, there is just the pdf content. ( Happer’s testimony is missing).
A few video extracts from the hearing are here:
Ted Cruz chart presentations: .. https://youtu.be/xJLNFBb_X08
Judith Curry testimony: .. https://youtu.be/q-jttIlY2mQ
John Christy testimony: .. https://youtu.be/-AZu6Ijp5w4
Please ignore any problems with synchronization. I would have to delete the offending video and try to upload it again. Better to leave it live for people who want to see it.
Junk Science posted the video of Mark Steyn. Climatology has too much uncertainty and too few (Yes/No) issues, like
Do stars make or consume H?
The full 2 hour 43 minute video is here: .. https://youtu.be/5KVTmo2Vxnk … (Uploaded by ‘SenTedCruz’.)
Markey was good — until he was challenged by Steyn and Curry. He ended up looking like a deer in the headlights.
Judith –
This is simply not accurate. Even a brief reading of the comments at your very own website will make that abundantly obvious. Viewing comments on any variety of other websites will make it even more abundantly obvious. Polling data are unambiguous that your statement is not accurate.
Advocacy is fine, but inaccurate representation of data is bad advocacy.
Tedious. You need a new jump shot. Call up Steph Curry for pointers.
Perhaps you interpreted Judith’s reference to “No one” questions as follows:
– not one single person on this planet.
Doesn’t it make more sense to interpret her use of “No one” as one of the following?:
– no person of consequence
– none of us testifying today
– none of us academics challenged as deniers
– no serious academics
I am tempted to say “no one” is so pedantic as to insist on the first interpretation. But instead I will say no on, without an axe to grind and who does have a good grasp of language and how it’s used would insist on the first interpretation.
+100
I’m not insisting on the first interpretation.
——————-
How do you measure “consequence,” PE?
In other words, A VERY significant % of the American public respond to polling to indicate that they think that ACO2 has no warming effect. Many respond that they think that the climate is not warming at all. Others respond that any warming taking place is the result of “natural” phenomena, exclusively. These data are easily available. Are all of those people of no consequence? To what extent are they influenced in their view by inherently political advocacy of the sort that took place in the hearings?
Are the many “denizens” who leave comment here, at WUWT, etc., of no consequence?
Perhaps “none of us testifying today works,” but Judith has made very similar comments in the past that were not limited to such a frame of reference.
Not sure how to quantify “none of us academics challenged as deniers.” How do you draw lines around that label? And then there’s another problem, which is whether the arguments that all of those “skeptics” academics make arguments that are all logically coherent with not doubting each of, surface warming since 1880 (arguing that there is no verifiable evidence in support, saying that we’re actually cooling); humans adding CO2 (e.g., Salby); and CO2 warming the planet (e.g., warming has “stopped” even though we’re emitting ACO2).
Opinions that the GHE is a “hoax” and scientifically unfounded is a HUGE part of the public discussion around climate change. It is a huge part of common rhetorical approach from important Republican politicians. The “hoax” argument is not merely applied against a view that “catastrophe” is certain; it is also applied against the view that ACO2 presents a potential risk. It is a HUGE part of the political context in which Judith was testifying. Failing to discuss that aspect of the discussion when testifying before Congress on the question of “data or dogma”, in the context of a committee being convened by a presidential candidate, amounts to counterproductive advocacy, IMO.
IMO, Judith, as a scientist, when testifying before Congress, should present a full spectrum when discussing these issues. That should include, IMO, fully representing the spectrum of public opinions on climate change, and what the influences are that are in play across the spectrum that affect how people formulate those opinions.
Some people seem to think that by only presenting a portion of the relevant information, they can advance the cause that they’re advocating for. IMO, to the extent that is true, it is only true within a short-term time frame and/or within the structural limitations of a polarized frame. It helps people to feel better about “us” and more justified in our judgement of “them.” IMO, such tactics amount to sameosameo. They don’t, IMO, advance the cause of building bridges and helping people to identify and work towards common interests (as opposed to fighting over mutually exclusive positions).
As if on cue:
A perfect example of vague, unscientific rhetoric of an advocate that Judith’s testimony essentially ignored and certainly shed no light on.
Do you think he is unfamiliar with Judith’s opinions? Is he someone, who convened the hearing, of consequence?
I’m glad that although you have an axe to grind, your grasp of english is a sufficient curb. Vague unscientific rhetoric permeated the hearing. In some cases it was not a big deal, that’s just how people talk (even about science) and sometimes it was inappropriately used as a hammer.
I think consequence is in the eye of the beholder as Yogi Berra demonstrated when he spoke of a restaurant and said “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”
To me all the witnesses and senators are obviously persons of consequence but I don’t think your excerpt shows that anyone should think he takes issue with this statement – “No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet.”
Which of us here doesn’t have an axe to grind, PE?
My point is that Cruz, like the vast majority of people who have formulated quite certain views on the science of climate change, will adopt positions on the issue that aren’t contingent on their understanding of the science, but which reinforce the existing ideological, proxy, warfare.
We can see that when Cruz, as an aggressive rhetorical ploy, says quite clearly that someone is incorrect if they answer “yes” to the question of: “Is there global warming, yes or no?”
And my original point to Judith was that her type of advocacy doesn’t work to mitigate that more general characteristic of the climate wars (not that I would expect any one person’s efforts to have a significantly mitigating effect), but instead to further the polarization.
I find that particularly notable since Judith’s goal is to ameliorate the politicization of the science and the influence of scientist-“activists”…and despite being a smart and knowledgeable person, she thinks that she’s doing so by contributing vague and unspecific rhetoric (such as that I highlighted) to a hearing on behest of someone running for president, .
“In other words, A VERY significant % of the American public respond to polling to indicate that they think that ACO2 has no warming effect”
What they mean when they say that is ‘Under absolutely no circumstances will I agree to grant China-like arbitrary power to Al Gore, as Thomas Friedman fantasizes about doing’.
They may not understand all the quibbling subtleties, but they understand the larger issue very well.
eloris –
==> – “What they mean when they say that is ‘Under absolutely no circumstances will I agree to grant China-like arbitrary power to Al Gore, as Thomas Friedman fantasizes about doing’
I question the certainty with which you assess what millions really mean when they say that they think the GHE doesn’t exist….but I don’t doubt that asking someone about what they believe about the GHE returns more information about who they are (in an ideological sense) than what they know or believe about the GHE. In that sense, I agree with you to a certain extent.
The unmencsh are known for talking a lot and saying nothing.
The unmensch are known for their nitpicking.
Joshua: “Advocacy is fine, but inaccurate representation of data is bad advocacy.”
Unless you’re a CAGW True Believer in the business of Saving the World™ when you can fabricate and Mannipulate to your heart’s content, that right Joshua?
It’s interesting how many “skeptics” draw mistaken conclusions about my views. Due skeptical diligence could prevent that, you know.
One has no idea what you are stumbling on about.
Good we have honest people like y with a conscience and an obligation to science. I am a layman, a journalist in Denmark and wrote a book, out in june, by the title “The emperors green clothes”, an attempt to explain the origins and influence of the consensus/green movements. We all have to search for honesty and do our best – yes for the sake of our grandchildren
Now those who asked should know why Steyn is there. There will be dueling and inconclusive testimony from the two sides of the science and there will be Steyn knocking the snot out of the alarmist climate science establishment.
Steyn’s first rebuttal was good Don, but so far most of the statements are being made by Democratic Senators and their questions have almost exclusively been directed at Titley into what amounts to a filibuster hearing. I hope that changes, but their strategy appears to not ask questions of the “deniers” and therefore not invite “unwanted” information
Just read Steyn’s written testimony.
You have to admire a guy who isn’t afraid to lay into anyone and everyone who he thinks deserves it – judges and senators as well as Mann.
Epic, makes you want to stand up and cheer.
“The government of the United States is the brokest entity in the history of brokeness. It has to pay back $20 trillion just to get back to having nothing at all. Which nobody in human history has ever done. Yet it apparently is not so broke that it can’t throw down the toilet 700 grand of funds marked for science on a lousy musical.”
Watching Markey makes me want to puke.
Good job, Judith!
Perfect summary, Judy!
Simply BRILLIANT testimony by Steyn!
I am turning into a big fan of the man, I love the big cojones of the man telling off the senate guys in their own house.
I can’t wait to read Steyn’s post on this testimony.
+2
Here it is: http://www.steynonline.com/7351/markey-mark
Judith
Can I totally endorse the last paragraph of your piece regarding funding for alternative reseach?
It was a Good article but seemed very long and covered a lot of technical ground .
Do the members of the committee manage to take in this sort of extended technical information? What is their attention span?
Good work though.
Tonyb
DR Curry,
thanks so much and Steyn and Harper were also great.
Scott
Here’s the CO2 data added to Christy’s world grain plot.
http://pages.swcp.com/~jmw-mcw/Curry_Christy_CO2_level_global_grain.jpg
Fortuitous correlation with CO2? Or do better agriculture practices need more CO2 to produce those increased crops?
I have upgraded the graphics. Note “slowdown” (a “hiatus”?) in global grain production ~1988 to ~2002. This shows in the time plot and CO2 plot (CO2 is steadily increasing with time). Very strong linear correlation (R2=0.99) between Global grain production and atmospheric CO2 level. Cause-and-effect or fortuitous?
The equation for the “Global Grain Production” vs “Atmospheric CO2” regression is: GGP = 22.453*Atmospheric CO2 – 6403.8.
Global Grain Production = 0 at 285 ppm atmospheric CO2, if the relationship remains linear to the lowest levels of atmospheric CO2.
“Some” level of CO2 in the atmosphere IS NEEDED to support significant global grain production. 285 ppm is above the pre-industrial level of 270 ppm. Was 270 ppm CO2 all that great for MASSIVE GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY? What is a “goodly” lower CO2 level? Is today’s 400 ppm better than the 330 ppm circa 1975? What are the pros and cons of CO2 levels above today’s 400 ppm level beyond a concern about “global warming” which may or may not be related to man-made CO2?
For some thoughts on the matter see http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/06/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases
CO2 and the livin’ is easy …
‘Steering north-eastward from the Crozetts, we fell in with
vast meadows of brit, the minute, yellow substance, upon
which the right whale largely feeds. For leagues and
leagues it undulated round us, so that we seemed to be
sailing through boundless fields of ripe and golden wheat.
On the second day, numbers of right whales were seen,
who, secure from the attack of a sperm whaler like the
Pequod, with open jaws sluggishly swam through the brit,
which, adhering to the fringing fibres of that wondrous
Venetian blind in their mouths, was in that manner
separated from the water that escaped at the lip.
As morning mowers, who side by side slowly and
seethingly advance their scythes through the long wet
grass of marshy meads; even so these monsters swam,
making a strange, grassy, cutting sound; and leaving
behind them endless swaths of blue upon the yellow sea.’
Melville. ‘ Moby Dick.’
More vegetation produces more atmospheric CO2. Who could have imagined the obvious . Even plants and their soils are net respires.
What the…?
Thanks to Dr. Christy as well
That was very interesting. Surprised at Admiral Titley that he could not admit present murders in Paris and San Bernodino. more impactful.
Nothing about the oceans and abyss heating up.
Scott
.
Titely reminds me of the Peter Sellers character in Dr. Strangelove.
Which one?
Which Sellers character?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove#/media/File:Dr._Strangelove_-_Group_Captain_Lionel_Mandrake.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove#/media/File:Dr._Strangelove_-_President_Merkin_Muffley.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove#/media/File:Dr._Strangelove.png
Good point. I was thinking the General.
If you watch real close the copilot is Randolph Scott, in a cameo appearance.
These are good testimonies. However, they repeat the same thing over and over. Computer models failure, consensus, funding, gate keepers, nothing new. Where is the sound alternative answers to pressing questions? None whatsoever.
What pressing questions?
Perhaps they ansered the questions posed to them, not the questions you think should have been asked.
The answers provided are relative to pressing questions, no alternatives were provided. Just critics of the existing or present situation.
I’m still not seeing what the issue is. I’m assuming the Judy and others were given either questions to be answered, or discussion on a particular subject.
But it’s fair that every person should answer based on their knowlage and understanding. That’s why you invite more than one person, to get more than one view. One person = one view. More people = more views.
The Democrats are clearly demagoguing Climate Change.
I have increased respect for Happer. He made some good points during the questioning.
.
He was rattled.
he was shaking like crazy when he discussed Satillite temps and had to consult a cheat sheet.
too funny
Mosher has an odd sense of humor.
He may have been more rattled by the confrontation he had before the hearing began than by the topics of the hearing.
Mosher, some people just shake when they get older. I shake like crazy standing over a 3 foot putt.
steve
yes, I think he was rattled by that confrontation. it would make anyone on edge and certainly that might have affected his performance as I didn’t think he was that good (after 1hr 50 of the podcast)
tonyb
Sort of awkward that one of the esteemed witnesses is apparently agreeable to bribes and obscuring the source of the funding for his testimony. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
Tripp
The usual nonsense from that once great newspaper the Guardian. Here is the other side of the story that has much more the ring of truth
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/
Tonyb
I was shocked that Happer basically said that more CO2 is good. Do scientists and posters here really agree with that? Seemed like a parody.
Tripp
Both arrenhuis and g callendar thought that more co2 was better.
It’s provided some 11 % increase in vegetation which has helped to feed a rapidly increasing population, so that’s a good aspect isn’t it?
As for it’s other effects, the jury is still out as to whether it has any more than a trivial effect on temperatures.
Tonyb
I don’t think that feeding the troll is a good idea TonyB.
Here is the actual email exchange. Happer is outlining ways to obscure funding for his testimony/writing. And increasing CO2 is not a good thing.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html
I was shocked that Happer basically said that more CO2 is good. Do scientists and posters here really agree with that? Seemed like a parody.
Did you forget that you are a carbon based life form that is only alive because of photosynthesis?
1. You are a carbon based life form that would not be alive were it not for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
2. Plant life on land and in the oceans store chemical energy through a process scientists call ‘photosynthesis’.
3. Higher amounts of available carbon dioxide result in greater plant growth, apparently both on land and in the oceans.
4. Higher amounts of available carbon dioxide result in greater crop yield.
5. Higher amounts of available carbon dioxide result in reduced land based plant water loss because of more effective respiration.
6. Phytoplankton are the base of most ocean food chains.
http://images.emagazine.com/sized/images/issues/2012-may-jun/fes_lg_acidificationgraphic-450×558.jpg
7. Phytoplankton are apparently growing in abundance with increased CO2.
Is more life good? or bad? Maybe it’s neither, but more CO2 does seem to mean more life.
The greening from increased CO2 is now feeding an extra billion people, and more to come.
Yeah, that’s a good thing.
=================
“I was shocked that Happer basically said that more CO2 is good. Do scientists and posters here really agree with that?”
Yes, I do agree. Photosynthetic (i.e. green) life forms benefit from increased CO2. These life forms form the base of the pyramid that supports life on this planet.
I was shocked that Happer basically said that more CO2 is good.
I am shocked that there is anyone who does not already know that CO2 is required for green things to grow. CO2 is added in greenhouses and even in some open fields because this is very well known.
Reduce CO2 and you will make green things not grow as good and everything that depends on green things will fare worse.
I’m amused that Bill Clinton called CO2 plant food, but he only did so once. I think he couldn’t resist the dig at Al Gore.
It’s not just the nearly miraculous greening from anthropogenic CO2, but also the mild and reversible warming. A warmer world decreases weather extremes, from the decreased polar/equatorial temperature gradient. A warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life. Paleontology has never showed the upper limit of the benefit of warming and always shows the immediate detriment of cooling.
Where have I heard all this before? Oh, from Arrhenius, with the Force:
“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”
=============================
http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj540/thegriss1/itsnotwarming_zpsa88badb6.jpg
200ppm of Cee – Oh – too and yer approaching
death levels fer plants
let’s here
it fer
Cee –
oh –
too!
Freeman Dyson agrees that more CO2 is good. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/12/03/freeman-dyson-misunderstandings-questionable-beliefs-mar-paris-climate-talks/vG3oBrbmcZlv2m22DTNjMP/story.html
“The good news is that the main effect of carbon dioxide on the ecology of the planet has nothing to do with climate. The main effect of carbon dioxide is to make the planet greener, feeding the growth of green plants of all kinds, increasing the fertility of farms and fields and forests.”
I withdraw my remark to TonyB about feeding the trolls. Tripp Funderburk is a real name and he is genuine in engaging with others whose opinion may differ from his. I simply believed that someone with such a name would not be genuine, which is my bad and for which I apologise.
Peter
I provided a link to Tripp at the head of this thread as, like you, I had initially not believed his name (sorry Tripp, my surname is the much less exotic ‘Brown’)
I thought he engaged well and operates in an interesting area of climate science. Hope he returns regularly
tonyb
I agree TonyB, although I rather think that seeding coral is pretty much the sort of overkill that has been and is being applied by enviro bureaucrats to “save” various endangered species from extinction at great cost around the developed world, especially given that 99.9% of known life forms are already extinct.
Peter M Davies, you can always be relied on to do the manful thing. (Manful is a word I’m trying to revive.)
I’m reminded: My brother had a school friend who was Lithuanian. When he finally introduced my mother to Manfred Makauskas she reprimanded him and demanded to know the lad’s actual name. (Come to think of it, I was in a class with Dominic Truelove!)
That’s kind of you Mosomoso but I beg to demur, on the grounds that taking responsibility for one’s actions is surely not just the province of being manly? Judith comes to mind when I say this.
Greenpeace attempt to tamper with a Congressional witness has been referred to the FBI, this could get interesting.
Yes like that is going to do any good before Obama is out of office.
Will go nowhere unfortunately imo. See the crystal clear fraud by Peter Gleick, went nowhere either. Wrong side.
see whitewash of Black Panther intimidation, IRS abuse
Thanks for stopping in, fudderbunk. Out resident alarmist trolls seem to be absent, today.
Tripp, I guess no one cares that Happer paid to testify and write papers at the same time hiding his sources of funding. He even said that real peer review would weaken his case for CO2 as a benefit. That are more interested in FBI investigations..
Joseph, I guess no-one cares about your guesses.
> … at the same time hiding his sources of funding …
The email chain makes it very, very clear that Happer was NOT being funded. He deliberately pointed any donation to a non-profit organisation, from which he may receive some travel cost reimbursement on occasion, but NO salary, stipend, back-handed under-the-table funds etc
Now I shall feed the troll no more
Joseph,
I’m guessing Dr Curry’s dogs have more on the ball than you do.
Dr Curry, my apologies for slighting your dogs by the comparison.
Tripp Funderburk: “Sort of awkward that one of the esteemed witnesses is apparently agreeable to bribes”
I suspect that by publicly and explicitly accusing Professor Happer of taking bribes you lay yourself wide open to legal action for defamation of character.
You might be interested in this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/
Tripp – spend some time reading this site and get back to us re: co2. The net is, green things grow faster, larger, produce more of what we need and want while using less water when exposed to increased levels of co2 compared to current atmospherice levels.
http://www.co2science.org/
Tripp,
You prove that circus guy’s (Barnum?) saying about a sucker being born every minute.
It would be nice if Happer got paid for stuff he does for free. I’d gladly accept pay for dumping on the climatariat and its white elephants. But I do it anyway.
Of course, when sharp extortionists like Greenpeace get promoted by the kiddies of the Guardian, it’s Greenpeace that rakes in the dollars. That’s because Greenpeace are hungry and ruthless. For example, the only false pretensions here are the admitted phony representations made by the Greenpeace “investigators”.
Everyone else connected to the “sting” is above board, unless you count the Guardian’s graphic of smokestacks overlaying an American flag as a deceptive stunt. But the Guardian is so lame and juvenile I’d put that down to simple laziness.
Tripp Funderburk? It’s a mad mad wurld. :)
Startibartfast ?
I have expressed some indifference to the writings of mark steyn in the past but I thought his was a well written, informative and entertaining piece so i may have to change my opinion of him.
The entertainment element is important in order to get and retain the attention of his audience. I have attended a number of climate conferences and often the speaker and their presentation is so mediocre that attention easily wanders.
Will it have the slightest impact however? Those more aware of the Impact of such senate set pieces will be able to answer that better than me.
Tonyb
Tony, on the free speach front he has already fundamentally changed Canada. Took 5 years. He won. Now, I do not agree with him on many things. But on this, absolutely. As his verbal testimony pointed out. Only ‘weak’ ideas seek rfige from debate/rebuttal. Regards.
mark Steyn is one of my great personal heros. Very proud he is a fellow Canadian.
Tony, I’m glad you are keeping an open mind about Steyn.
I spent most of today watching the hearings and didn’t have time to read the submissions. I just finished reading Steyn’s written testimony. IMHO it was a work of art.
Of the “scientists”, I think Judith did the best, but Happer was a real sleeper. Christy was lost in the roundoff. Titely came across (to me) as the Mann tool he was. He was a stand-in for Mann who was probably invited but declined because he’s a punk.
I believe one of the things Steyn claimed is that Lennart Bengsston’s career was damaged. I believe he used ruined. I think that is hyperbole.
I assume some part of Zwally’s Antarctica study was paid for by NASA.
The impression given was that skeptical papers cannot get grants. And yet, paper about ENSO was recently cited as an example of what should be happening in terms of studying natural variation, and that research paper had already happened. A cursory search of the publications of those authors indicates they have written a large number of papers about natural variation.
There were claims made that appeared to be exaggerations, or claims made that I doubt can bear scrutiny.
Mark Steyn weighs in on line:http://www.steynonline.com/7351/markey-mark
He has a lot to say about the farcical nature of the hearings and the hearings process in general.
Another gem.
Thank you for this, Mark. :)
I didn’t get the hearing on CSPAN. Wonder why?
Very good presentation and good hearing despite exaggerations.
Some things missing:
1. What Water Vapor does in the atmosphere versus CO2
2. Mark Steyn mentioned the fake polls, but no one explained the debunking.
3. No one mentioned the El Nino as a cause of current warming.
4. Nothing about lack of coverage of surface temperatures.
5. No one asked the Admiral what Arctic ice and sea level were like in WWII and shortly thereafter.
I couldn’t get it on Cspan either.
Death by thermageddon as prophesized by Al Gore never happened. Still, we’ve got to keep the global warming hoax alive. Meanwhile, the Sun remains anomalously quiet and Earth cools and we learn more about what lies beneath the surface of our culture, society and us.
Superstitious global warming alarmists are Western civilization’s hothouse flowers. They’ve never known misery, suffering and death from energy-deprivation. The end-of-the-world prognostications from the Left of global warming catastrophe that never came but, the Left never cared if they were right or wrong about that and it does not worry them that the EPA prefers politics to science.
What a well written comment containing excellent facts and opinions. Bravo!
Well, just finished watching the final dregs of the Senate subcommittee hearing. Cruz should have insured more Republican attendees (IMO a big Rubio error given previous criticism of his past non-attendance). Some initial thoughts to pass on to all. As I calm down.
Tactical political. 1. Cruz missed a key point that the hiatus is not calculated from the past forward, but rather from the whatever present back. Got taken on that by Dr. Titley on an easily refutable point. He further missed the key McKitrick paper pointing out that to do this correctly (Monckton’s chart used by Cruz does not), you have to adjust for autocorrelation to say anything about OLR statistical significance. Somebody email Cruz staff on the ‘easy’ statistical rebuttal. The pause periods lengthen up to 26 years.
2. Markly’s onslaught on Curry, using Titley’s WMO/NASA graph, never got into the unsuitability of land thermometers (multiple adjustments, e.g. UHI), nor the gross uncertainty in ocean temps, which Markey/Titley admitted contained 90% of the ‘excess’ heat. ARGO is your friend even though a bit fiddled. I could have easily won a national debate contest on this multiple goof alone. Sad that the hearing did not bring this stuff out at all. Somebody tell Cruz’ staff. He is smart enough to not forget in the heat of battle.
3. 97%. The two studies purporting this are both fully discredited. (97% agree the climate changes. The two studies saying this is anthropogenic are fully discredited.) Get the word out. It is a core Dem/warmunist meme, easily refutable in a hearing like this. Peer review references, and such.
Strategic political, sound bite formulations only for these purposes:
1. Pause falsifies GCM’s by the very criteria established by warmunists themselves. Essay An Awkward Pause. Happer used the Zweirs model falsifications from the literature I cited , but Cruz did not follow though. Staff needs more education on implications.
2. Models predict upper troposphere hotspot. It does not exist. Christy could have followed through, but did not. Three points, not just two. Same time space. Like in the APS Koonin testimony.
3. Models predict polar ice will decline. It isn’t. That got discussed multiple times. Is one of the biggest future CAGW fails. Needs to be repeatedly overemphasized. With charts and images. Hey, Cruz, get more visual than the Ship of Fools–although it was a good lead in visual.
4. SLR is accelerating. No, it is not. TOPEX, J 1 and 2… More visuals. The hearing established (from Dems) an inch a decade. Right. Now tai that back a thousand years and refute acceleration. Missed opportunity.
5. Miami Beach floods. Yes, but has been happening for decades on max tides. Some history shots would have shut down the Dem senior FL Senator in about 1 extra picture. Does nobody remember history as a climate refutation? Very disappointing lack of staff rebuttal presentation. FWIW, Miami Beach is more than the asserted 5 inches over MHT, except during the exceptional ones. Has been since at least 1921, when Miami Beach started developing out of the then semi jungle swamp of all South Florida.Even ignoring the subsidence problem. As for the aquifer argument, salt water intrusion is what happens, always, when you overdraw. Just like TUVALU. Same physics, and same anthropogenic reasons having nothing to do with CAGW.
A short list of the memes the other side is using that are so easily refutable. Senate hearing was a great way to crystallize the core memes. Better to concentrate counter fire on core memes in simple, irrefutable, universal and easily verifiable sound bites. Lets get some political action going. Which Cruz appears to be sounding out. Help him (note to denizens, I would rather Rubio on other grounds, but he was a stupid no show.)
BTW, I was madder than Judith when Markey chose to display his ignorance of her written testimony and tried repeatedly to bully her. Good for Steyn for intervening. But, also learned in the Army it is sometimes better to withhold fire until the kill shot is certain.
I think Cruz did a poor job of stage managing this and let the dems get away with too much. OTOH he clearly understands the issues and his agenda (at least on climate and energy policy) is vastly superior to others.
FWIW, I favor Rubio as well and I wish he would get a bit more explicit/engaged on this stuff.
At the end of the day though ISIS and the Trump boogey man are probably the biggest issues to deal with.
Rud, your #3 point, the 97% meme, was on my wish list to quantify in the hearing. JC and Steyn both were able to partially quantify it in reaction to some of the statements, but without proactively establishing an argumentative beachhead that fully quantifies this meme it makes all other arguments an uphill battle. If for example any of the scientists had stated that they themselves are among the 97%, that alone would provide a pregnant pause requiring elaboration. Of course the 97% meme simply means a belief in some AGW, it doesn’t imply CAGW.
Overall, the Dem Senators tried to run the clock on Titley as much as possible who dominated the beginning segements, but there were some good counter punches once the good guys were able to get their licks in. The format didn’t allow for much lengthy deliberation or cross examination, what have you. There’s so much I would have liked to be expressed.
Isn’t the warmer perspective already will disseminated? In such a hearing I don’t see a need for both sides being represented, it simply invites more leftist smokescreen politics to eat the clock. The point was to hear the other side as far as I’m concerned.
The nature of the hearing would have been conducive to well honed soundbites as you describe. There’s not enough time to get deep in the weeds, but probably not enough attention span even if you could get in the weeds.
Rud
Having prepared for more legislative hearings than I can count, if Cruz was unprepared the fault lies with the staff. Ninety percent of the work needs to be done well in advance of the hearing. But in fairness to all parties on the Congressional side, there are a lot of issues and side issues to memorize. I doubt anyone in the Senate or employed by the Senate has spent 1% of the time that most denizens have spent learning about all the aspects of global warming.
That makes sense, cerescokid. It seems to me the best setup for this would have been for Cruz to quantify the nature of the 97% meme in a detailed preamble, armed with facts that JC and the others could provide. This would free the scientists to focus on the uncertainties surrounding the science instead of wasting precious time defending themselves on false premises as the Democrats point to global institutions endorsing the IPCC position.
Rud, I don’t often disagree with you (although I do wish you would learn to use shorter paragraphs, fewer arcane abbreviations, and actually provide … wait for it … links to material to which you are referring, even if it’s your own!)
The memes of “the other side” have been refuted repeatedly. But I’m always left with the impression at these hearings that those on the other side don’t seem give a tinker’s damn what the actual topic might be.
Their “job”, so to speak is to … well … recycle, recycle, recycle. And, of course, to do their level best to cast aspersions on the testimony which they have no intention of absorbing, appreciating or (my guess is) even reading.
For those who have not yet done so, btw, I would heartily endorse Judith’s comment above re Mark Steyn’s written testimony. It is an absolute “MUST READ” – and, IMHO a perfect complement to Judith’s own right on the mark oral comments above.
And I would give Steyn at least an extra 10 points for disregarding whatever the accepted protocol might be and jumping in even when not called upon! Kudos to Cruz for giving him the floor in these instances!
In short, Steyn makes me proud to call myself Canadian. Certainly far more so than our recently elected Prime Minister (and/or members of his – for the most part – lacklustre Cabinet.)
Nice job Judith. It must have been awfully frustrating sitting there listening to the demagoguery and misrepresentations of some of the senators and their attempts to belittle and marginalize you as one of the meager 3%.
Was Christy there after his testimony? He didn’t seem to say a word.
Happer and Steyn were an interesting and effective contrast in styles.
The biggest missed opportunity here was that nobody took on the 97% Consensus myth. The Democrat senators referred to it over and over and neither Cruz nor the witnesses ever attacked it–other than a quick swipe or two by Steyn.
I loved what Steyn had to say, and Judith was very good when she got the chance to speak. Christy and Happer were okay but pretty much disappeared. The Democrats were smart in having one well-spoken, credible (in general, if not to me) witness that they kept going back to over and over in between their own monologues.
Overall, I think the Democrats came out very well even if they’re wrong on the science. (Oh, Schatz and Markey are arrogant a-holes.)
Agree. Missed opportunity.
The biggest missed opportunity here was that nobody took on the 97% Consensus myth.
Steyn started there – 97% don’t believe in crippling the economy or some such.
Would be an important point to distinguish ( regardless of how made up the 97 % is ) –
Yes I’m in the 97% because CO2 is likely to lead to warming.
But 97% probably also believe that climate varies naturally.
And 97% believe that a few degrees of warming may be a benefit.
And of those that understand climate, 97% would say that global average temperature doesn’t have a lot to do with the general circulation.
And such.
Well said TE. Your list would help illuminate the absurdity of the 97% meme.
I still think Cruz should have took this on so the scientists could focus on substance of science instead of batting off political assaults on their integrity.
+50. Democrats are great on rhetorics and tactics. On substance, thumbs down. God save America.
Of course you will get 97% if your sample is peer reviewed, published abstracts. That is what the government is funding. That number has no validity, nor does the study that produced it.
Well done!
I hope it is over soon. If we dont´t get rid of flawed ideas more easily than this – I fear that bad ideas will flourish, suffocate our creation of wealth and limit our ability to prosper.
Is the podcast available? I can only see a website that is purely text about the speakers.
Tonyb
The full 2 hour 43 minute video is here: .. https://youtu.be/5KVTmo2Vxnk … (Uploaded by ‘SenTedCruz’.)
Sorry to say I don’t think that went particularly well.
It’s nearly impossible to tell whether or not it is necessary to bother defending some assertions, sometimes it’s better to let things slide than to be goaded into a defensive position.
Mostly, the democratic senators were effective in giving the impression that the scientists were arguing against the fact that temperatures have been rising rather than what the implications are. The ever important question needs to be asked, “So what?”
I think in the future it would probably good to focus on the myth that climate is stable absent human impacts and on making good decisions under uncertainty. Also, the fact that industrialization of immature and inadequate technology is very different from R&D. And, that limiting our options is not a good way to drive innovation.
The assumptions that temperature rise is dangerous, that temperature rise increases risks, and that temperature increases allow us to predict outcomes–that the information is actionable– need to be countered.
Sometimes we need to act with imperfect information, but it is important to know whether to act at all. It is also important to know what likely outcomes are. That the climate will change whether temperatures go up or down is important to stress, and focussing on controlling temperatures distracts from dealing with changes that inevitable. It is far more important for us to understand change than it is for us try to prevent change.
The issues of subsidence, rebounds, population growth, drawing down of aquifers are all far bigger concerns than increasing sea level should have been pointed out. The use of aquifers is a bigger factor than sea level in potential salt water contamination.
I haven’t seen this yet, and only read the above comments, but it is interesting that with the lack of many pro-AGW witnesses, it was the Dem senators putting forwards the science side of the debate, and seemingly holding their own in taking it to the scientists on the panel.
Lots of talking past one another.
Warmest year ever : no significant warming for 18 years
Warming is clear : much less warming than modeled
All are true.
One thing the hysterics pollute the conversation with though, is equating warming with disaster. There’s no basis for it but the public and the Congress are to stoo-pid to asses otherwise.
“… it was the Dem senators putting forwards the science side of the debate, and seemingly holding their own in taking it to the scientists on the panel.”
I didn’t recall much questioning of anyone but David Titley by the Dems, and it would be anyone’s guess who was getting the better of whom in those interchanges. I was pleased to see the Dems getting across the point that, based on the settled science, 97% of scientists supported the consensus. That didn’t leave those on the panel much room to move.
As pointed out repeatedly, the 97% figure is bereft of meaning and artificially and maliciously created. It’s a poor foundation upon which to hang your hat. Do not go hatless into that dark rainstorm. A big muddy awaits.
============
/sarc
Oh, jeez, you can see I’m out of practice.
=======
Venture not hatless nor hapless into
that dark storm but take with ye the
adaptability of effective energy.
Jim, Judith is pro-AGW. Your comment makes no sense.
‘No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. ‘
smokinfrog: “Jim, Judith is pro-AGW. Your comment makes no sense.”
Do they ever?
If Judith doesn’t believe the oceans are going to boil and Mt. Everest isn’t going to be submerged by the rising oceans, she isn’t an ardent enough believer for Jimbo to take her seriously.
Meanwhile, Eddie been tellin’ you…
Climate change: Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for second year in a row
It’s why the forcing from CO2 peaked in 2007 and is likely to decline for the foreseeable future, from demographics, before incompetent governments in Paris can even figure out what to order for lunch:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/AnnotatedRF10.png
That’s RF rates, of course.
And that should be ‘fortunately incompetent governments’.
No telling what they could screw up if they were competent.
You can keep repeating that, but it doesn’t make it true as I have tried to explain to you before. Unless, of course you have a crystal ball, If you could publish your analysis or find one that supports it. I might take it more seriously,
Repeat the truism after me: Demographics are destiny
There are emissions associated with infrastructure ( which tend to increase the efficiencies of use ).
But there are other emissions that are associated with personal consumption ( and corresponding production ).
Declining number of consumers obviously lead to declines in consumption.
Less obviously, ageing consumers alone lead to declines.
TE, energy demand is closely related to gdp. As long as GDP increases energy demand will increase. I pointed that out to you in a graph along with other information about China and you either ignored it or didn’t see it.
“…as I have tried to explain to you before.
LOL!
You’re funny!
Joseph,
Your comment about crystal balls is appropriate.
Obviously, Warmists have crystal balls. They, alone, can look reliably into the future. Delusional thinking, or what?
Cheers.
Joseph,
You have yet to “explain” anything in your comments.
What you do mostly is exhibit your lack of credibility.
TE, energy demand is closely related to gdp. As long as GDP increases energy demand will increase.
That doesn’t appear to be correct. If you believe China’s GDP numbers and the falling CO2 estimates, China is clearly an exception. So too are Europe and the US, though demographics are slowing the rate of growth worldwide.
This kinda makes sense.
When countries are developing, they are building infrastructure which means lots of construction and fossil fuel use. But the infrastructure enables more efficient use of energy ( think two lane highway to four lane highway allows less time spent in traffic jams and other such processes ). Also, through the course of development, economies shift from manufacturing to services. Services benefit from Moores Law.
Now, there is personal consumption of energy ( home heating, lights, entertainment, travel ). And the better an economy grows, the more people are likely to spend on these things. But even there, technology continues to improve the efficiency of consumption.
We are concerned about global energy demand and not growth in any particular country when it comes to global CO2 emissions. You can see the relationship in the chart below.
http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/world-growth-in-gdp-energy-and-oil.png
In fact, here’s US energy use:
https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/united-states-energy-consumption-bp.png
To be sure, we’re in a slow growth environment ( debt repayment and demographics again ). But the US is using less energy than it was fifteen years ago, in spite of greater population!
Curry followers never want to admit to peak oil either.
We are concerned about global energy demand and not growth in any particular country when it comes to global CO2 emissions. You can see the relationship in the chart below.
Yes, though that’s still consistent. Developed nations diverge but are growing more slowly than developing nations.
It does seem to argue most for policies fostering economic development which improves human life, reduces CO2, and reduces population.
However, falling populations resulting from development, may ultimately mean falling GDP, which is not good. Civil unrest and robot wars may be something else to worry about.
I haven’t seen anything to indicate that developing nations are not going continue to grow or that their growth is going to slow. All the forecasts predict continued growth especially in Asia.
CFC and methane show the effect of regulations. Likewise, hopefully, in the future for CO2.
Why regulate if its not necessary?
Do you just like regulation?
That fits the meme – this isn’t about the environment, it’s about governments grabbing more power.
These reductions did not just happen, because the most profit-making path would have been business as usual. Same with CO2. These were regulations with a purpose. Same with CO2.
We get your point, yimmy. All problems real or imagined can be solved by regulations. Very convincing. You can stop lecturing us now.
These reductions did not just happen, because the most profit-making path would have been business as usual. Same with CO2. These were regulations with a purpose. Same with CO2.
CO2 is a benefit, at least in the near term.
CO2 forcing rates are already declining.
That means global warming is declining.
There’s no need to regulate the compound that means more life on the planet.
Emission growth has slowed only because certain forms of emission have been easy to phase out and energy efficiency has become a priority for environmental reasons, but if you think coal, oil and deforestation will just go away by themselves, you are dreaming. Left to themselves, these industries intend to continue do what they do to the last, and to fight anything that prevents that.
Emission growth has slowed only because certain forms of emission have been easy to phase out and energy efficiency has become a priority for environmental reasons
No.
Efficiency has always been a priority for business because efficiency means profit. It was really funny when mandates about compact florescents came out because nearly every business used florescent lighting long ago. It’s not environmentalism that’s led to the declines, it’s mostly demographics but also marketplace efficiency.
but if you think coal, oil and deforestation will just go away by themselves, you are dreaming.
Wrong.
Coal started declining in the US because natural gas is cheaper.
If you read, you know that REforestation has been going on in the US and Europe for centuries.
Emissions of CO2 don’t have to go away or go to zero, only to the level of CO2 uptake for warming to cease. But that’s on top of the fact that you can’t even find harm for the level of warming we currently have or much link between global average temperature and climate change, much less adverse climate change.
TE, you probably are aware that net deforestation is ongoing globally. No emissions don’t have to go to zero, but to keep global temperatures low, global emissions need to drop about 50%, and the more industrialized countries would need to drop 70-80% to do their share, and not put the burden on developing areas like India and Africa. These are not going to happen within the needed timeframe. You can see that your fellow skeptics are kicking and screaming about people even meeting to talk about these types of reductions, and perhaps they are the ones that need the education in what is possible without collapsing the economy as they fear.
The higher the sensitivity of temperature to CO2, the colder we would now be without anthropogenic CO2. You’d better hope that the rebound from the coldest depths of the half precessional Holocene was natural, because if man did the heavy lifting of warming, then we really can’t keep it up much longer. And if it’s been mostly natural, and sensitivity is low, then we can all relax, and instead start hoping that the warming from CO2 is enough to keep us from cooling.
Never forget again, as we have over the last quarter of a century or so, that warming is good, and greening is great.
====================
If we use a professional definition of “crude oil” its production rate has been flat since 2007. There’s nothing to indicate it can increase more than say about 5 % in the next 50 years. On the other hand, we have very good indications it could decline and be much lower.
You see, the problem we have finding and developing CRUDE OIL is disguised by increasing CONDENSATE production. This condensate is made up of light hydrocarbons we find as a gas phase fluid in the reservoir. Worldwide gas production has been increasing, and this leads to more condensate production. It also leads to more NGL.
I like to keep NGL as a separate stream, because they have a higher hydrogen ratio, and a significant portion is used to make plastics.
What you see in some statistics and graphs are blends of these streams. They call these “petroleum liquids”. In some cases these include biofuels, as well as refinery gains (the refinery gain results from liquid and mass volume changes when molecules are hydrogenated). Thus as CRUDE OIL production couldn’t increase even in a high price environment, the condensate, biofuels, and tiny amounts of synthetics have kept production “increasing”.
Unfortunately the workhorse, real CRUDE OIL just isn’t there to be DEVELOPED unless prices increase. That price increase will happen. But I’m afraid it won’t be enough to satisfy demand. So the price will increase even more.
This is a relentless process. The timing is a bit uncertain. But crunch time is approaching.
Don’t you know, Jim D, that deforestation may be in decline. That’s why it’s not implausible that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic might not be declining. aTTP felt it necessary to make nearly 100 comments on this point last week.
Don’t you know, Jim D, that deforestation may be in decline.
Deforestation in the developing world, Reforestation in the developed world?
http://www.dtgraham.com/images/img1.jpg
Argues for increased development to save/regrow the forests.
So, I looked up and found China is putting cost on coal. But I can’t find the reason. Is it pollution (self serving)? What?
Economies ( and energy use is an economic variable ) are multifactoral, of course.
But we know that in 2001, China received ‘most favoured nation’ trading status with the US and their economy boomed.
We know that as China’s economy boomed, their wages also rose closer to levels of the rest of the world, making them less competitive.
We know that after the global financial crisis, the central government promoted lots of debt for construction, but construction that wasn’t useful, a la bridge to nowhere ( all the ghost cities you can read about ad nauseum ).
And we also know from demographics that China’s working age population is now falling and total population will be falling soon. This drags down economies.
These are the factors that I believe are leading to the China CO2 curve:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/ChinaCO2.png
Steyn’s testimony was fantastic.
While the remaining witnesses were credible and provided valid points, the luke-warmers position is eventually untenable.
CO2 can’t trap heat, the ocean can’t gobble up heat, and the geologic records could be interpreted in a model where CO2 concentration lags temperature.
Battling from the same side as the warmists leads to hair-splitting and this is why the democrats held their own.
SST rises dominate the combined temperature record that is used to “support” AGW, but this only proves climate is NOT man made. Until a scientist can show how cold air increases the temperature of warm water, the luke-warmist argument is a castle made of sand.
It was an airing of grievances and the usual conspiracy ideation about an organized suppression effort. Of course, he won’t mention Lamar Smith’s witch-hunt or the way climate science has been suppressed in the recent past in Canada and Australia and by the Bush administration through various methods of defunding and muzzling, and continues today with Republican efforts at defunding inconvenient things like NASA satellite programs that attempt to point satellites at Earth.
JimD, you do know that Smith is going off histle blowers? And that there are independent confirmatory means (see my guest posts/ comments)?
Please keep digging your hole deeper.
Wait till The Donald takes over, yimmy. Will you be moving to Canada?
“…the usual conspiracy ideation…”
Titter!
You’ve been reading too much Loopy Loopaper Lewandowsky, mate!
Nothing is coming out of the Smith “investigation” and he probably didn’t expect it to produce anything either. Investigations are a modus operandi by the Republicans to throw dirt at people they don’t like.
Jim D:
I guess some people DO suffer from conspiracy ideation after all.
the luke-warmers position is eventually untenable.
The Lukewarmer position is the only one borne out by observation:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/Hansen.png
It should be, because the ‘Luke Forcer’ position is the only accurate one:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/ABC_RF10.png
Sorry, I did not realize that Judith Curry’s blog was a science denial hangout. I work in coral restoration and have seen too many corals bleach and die because of climate change and thought it might be helpful for the readers here to understand that rapidly increasing temperatures are not a joke or a hoax. Climate change is causing coral reefs to bleach and die. Please don’t forget about the real world impacts as you “seek the truth” about climate change.
Sorry Tripp, it’s the warmists who deny climate change. Climate is always changing. Climate change is common and natural.
It is only about 8 degrees between ice ages, which rotate over about 100,000 years. We just increased temperatures 1 degree celsius in about 140 years. You can do the math right?
It is only about 8 degrees between ice ages, which rotate over about 100,000 years. We just increased temperatures 1 degree celsius in about 140 years.
Global average temperature didn’t cause the ice age.
Local incident solar radiation caused the ice ages.
Tripp Funderburk,
The use of the term “climate change” instead of AGW (or any other proper term) for the human caused climate change (GHG warming, mostly CO2) is revealing. It’s Orwellian.
The IPCC’s attribution argument is that only the warming from ~1950 to present was caused (mostly) by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. There is no significant human effect before that, according to the consensus (I am not buying any of it, but for the sake of the argument).
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/slide08.png
So, it’s only ~0.5 K increase during the alleged AGW period, not 1 K! There is no significant difference between the 1910-1940 warming period (clearly natural) and the 1970-2000 one (allegedly partly anthropogenic). You can do the logic right?
“We just increased temperatures 1 degree celsius in about 140 years. ”
What’s with this “we” stuff, Kemosabe? Temperature adjusters perhaps, but not real humans in the real world.
You mean actually you go out on reefs and restore coral? Or are you just another propagandist?
Yes, I go out to reefs and restore them with nursery-raised coral.
What are the long term effects of Cesium 137, going to be on the worlds coral reserves according to the UN?
You might not be all troll, fudderbroke. Are you replenishing the reefs with heat resistant coral?
Pleased to meet you, Coral Whisperer; Lady Gaia would have a word with you, if you please.
================
Trippy, coral bleaches, dies off and regrows without our help. I have seen it with my own eyes off NW Australia. But if it makes you feel good about speeding it up a bit, well and good. The thing is, it bleached in the 1890’s, 1930, 1990. and recovered without any help. it’s natural variation. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is an aid to growth, as others have shown here.
Some colleagues of yours have even been shocked to find strong coral growths in very hot Kimberley seas, with a reduced pH from swollen wet season rivers, without a sign of bleaching.
Try studying Scott Reef, a great coral laboratory on bleaching. Even better, use your real name.
Where have you been restoring coral? Would like to see, got a link? Do you assert the coral died because the ocean wasn’t alkaline enough and that this was caused by human emissions alone?
I assert the coral died for a lot of reasons. One of the main reasons is hotter oceans due to climate change. The correlation between high ocean temperature and coral bleaching is undeniable. Higher temps also cause more coral disease. It is not a joke or an assertion. It is a fact that climate change is causing coral reefs to bleach and die. And they cannot adapt to the the rapid changes due to human caused climate change. So, climate denial seems wrong to me. I work in the Florida Keys and we have done work in Curacao, Bonaire, Jamaica, and Mustique.
I assert the coral died for a lot of reasons. One of the main reasons is hotter oceans due to climate change. The correlation between high ocean temperature and coral bleaching is undeniable.
You can assert all you want but evidence is what resonates.
Here’s the wiki timeline of corals:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/c1ae943572fd1464aab6e2bb2c7d2540.png
Here’s the proxy record of temperatures:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg/1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png
The corals that are around today appear to be the scleractinian.
They go back 220 million years when estimated global temperatures were much higher, yet millions of years of these temperatures did not extinguish the coral. Like all long lived species, natural selection leaves them with genes to tolerate a range of conditions.
Consequently, I believe the coral thing is hooey.
Turbulent Eddie, corals can adapt to higher temperatures over many thousands of years, but they cannot adapt to 1 degree rise in 100 years. You understand that this incredibly rapid increase in CO2 and temperatures is bad for corals and for the environment right?
Turbulent Eddie, corals can adapt to higher temperatures over many thousands of years
Individual corals do not live thousands of years.
But they evolved just fine, some die, but more resilient live.
The coral thing is hooey.
You understand that this incredibly rapid increase in CO2 and temperatures is bad for corals and for the environment right?
Nonesense.
It’s not the rate – the rate of change from winter to summer in the tropics is about 4C per year or 400C per century.
The rate of global average temperature change is about 1.5C per century.
So skip the rate argument – it’s wrong.
Turbulent Eddie, you are not a smart poster. I did not say that an individual coral lives for 1000 years. I said that corals can adapt to temperature change that is gradual. Some corals thrive as it gets hotter over 100,000 years through natural selection. There is no natural selection possible in 1 degree in 100 years. Sorry that this contradicts your folklore.
I just want to finish this and destroy this absurd trolling.
Corals live in a limited range of temperatures, so the 4C per year change between summer and winter is OK. But we just increased avg temps by 1 degree, so the baseline has changed and the higher levels are too hot. That is probably too complicated for you. Sorry. If it takes 100,000 years to move 8 degrees, then 1 degree in 100 years is extraordinarily fast. I find it amazingly frustrating that such simple concepts are so hard for climate deniers to understand.
Where in the world did you dream up the stat that global average temperature change is 1.5C per century? So in 20 centuries, average temperatures could increase by 30C? OMG. That is just stupid.
It’s not the rate – the rate of change from winter to summer in the tropics is about 4C per year or 400C per century.
The rate of global average temperature change is about 1.5C per century.
So skip the rate argument – it’s wrong.
It’s a good thing that the ocean doesn’t warm or cool overnight.
I hope you realize how stupid the supposition that coral bleaching doesn’t happen without global warming and that corals can deal with long and short term variations, but not a modest trend is.
Global warming causing bleaching simply hasn’t been established. In fact, evidence is against it. Bleaching happens for a variety of reasons, naturally. Events happen and new corals move in.
Your work is mostly entertaining some rich men.
Tripp Funderburk : “One of the main reasons is hotter oceans due to climate change.”
I see.
Can you inform us of precisely how much ‘hotter’ the oceans have become due to climate change, and where you acquired your information?
To the nearest one hundredth of one degree centigrade will do.
Can you then tell us how closely this figure correlates with the data from the ARGO buoys?
Then, you can tell us how much increase in temperature is necessary to cause coral bleaching, again to the nearest one hundredth of one degree centigrade will be sufficient.
In your own time…
Where do these bizarre questions come from? NOAA has satellites and predictive capability that is mirrored by the actual bleaching that is occurring. When the OCEAN GETS TOO HOT THE CORALS BLEACH. That is happening as predicted. What precise data do you require? When I go diving and see bleached coral, my computer usually shows that the temps are around 88 fahrenheit. Corals bleached at 86 in the past, but those corals mostly died off. It is not some joke, or some debate with those that deny science. Corals in the Pacific are bleaching now BECAUSE IT IS TOO HOT. Do you assert that corals are not bleaching, or that the ocean is not getting hotter. In your time….
huh, I guess I got snipped.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Dust/Images/adapted.gif
Just in case it wasn’t something I said, the correlation with the Keys corals/sea urchins and Saharan dust is pretty strong. NASA even notes a bleaching period prior to 1998. The Paleo-bleaching proxy is a bit new but indicates at least two historic bleaching events.
catweazle666 asked “Can you inform us of precisely how much ‘hotter’ the oceans have become due to climate change, and where you acquired your information? […] Can you then tell us how closely this figure correlates with the data from the ARGO buoys?”
Global surface temperatures increased about 1°C over the last century and a half. The rate of warming over land was about twice the rate of warming of the sea surface. The sea surface must thus have warmed a little more than 0.7°C on average. Corals, however, live in shallow waters, which we may expect to have warmed a little more than the global average SST. Further, the temperatures variations aren’t temporally or geographically homogeneous. What ought to be expected isn’t a global and homogeneous response from corals to the average warming increase of the shallow waters where they live, but rather an increase in the frequency of the bleaching events.
PN, some good points. Coral has no interest in global temperatures. If an argument is to be made that the recent temperatures and/or rate of change is unusual for the corals on a geologic time scale then it should be made on a regional basis where it is claimed the coral is being affected.
Tripp, do you know what corals eat?
Yes, they eat plankton, but get 90% of their food from their symbiotic algae. That symbiotic algae gets expelled when it gets too hot, so the corals bleach and starve. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Oh yeah, I forgot.
The coral thing is hooey.
You don’t have to look past the Wiki page to understand this:
“corals first appeared in the Cambrian period,[27] some 542 million years ago”
Temperatures have been significantly warmer in the past, even with the +2C or so from the Eemian, much less the 8 to 10 C from coral evolutionary history:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg/1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png
Tripp Funderburk,
You are right. Warmists are in denial of science, and a few of the more delusional hang out here.
The weather has been changing since the creation of the atmosphere. Climate is the average of weather. Therefore, the climate has always changed.
Rapidly increasing temperatures are no joke. Rapidly decreasing temperatures are no joke, either. Just ask the flora and fauna that used to live on the Antractic continent how much they love the cold. Or the snap frozen woolly mammoths.
The “real world” has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. If you don’t like the long term average – reality – you are perfectly free to deny its existence, as do all deluded Warmists.
Coral comes, coral goes, as do other species. Australia is moving northeast at around 5 cm per year. What effect do you think will this have on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef? Can you stop Australia heading off into uncharted territory?
Maybe you could get a real job – trying to restore the human race. Call me politically incorrect, but if I have to choose between saving coral or people, I believe I’ll choose people! Or maybe you could try to save the deserts. Some of them seem to be turning green again – what a shame!
Cheers.
That was truly bereft of anything Mike Flynn.
Rip
Can you tell me the rate of warming of OHC per decade since 1950 vs the rate per decade during the 1800s?
Tripp Funderburk,
Good to see a standard Warmist non comment. You can give it, but can you take it?
Avoid, deny, divert. Warmism in action, but it doesn’t seem to be working too well these days! Good luck anyway – maybe if you deny facts long enough, they’ll go away!
Cheers.
Jeez Tripp,
You willingly show your ignorance on something you say is your profession? Amazing.
Even WWF lists ocean acidification last in their list of threats to coral reefs.
You should carry a warning label to make sure mo one allows you to operate heavy machinery.
TF:
I hope your efforts to improve coral reefs are successful. However, presenting a “one problem explains all” answer, as you well know, will not save the reefs.
Some of your own work in Jamaica with 5C involved fish sanctuaries so you are aware of the importance of preventing direct harms to coral reef ecology. Over-fishing, dredging, land runoff and aquifer pollution, tourism impacts and, yes, temperature fluctuations all impact coral reefs. Natural disease cycles and predator/prey ratios are poorly understood but also play a role.
Coral reef ecology is extremely complex and interconnected with far more than temperature. I find it disappointing that, despite knowing about the toxic effects of most suntan lotions since at least 2013, some are still talking about lowering emissions of GHGs as if that were some kind of magic bullet. http://www.alertdiver.com/Sunscreens-Coral-Bleaching
There is a lot more going on in the water than a 0.1C temperature increase every decade. And you know it.
You can add red lionfish to your list too, opluso. They’re a invasive species proliferating the Caribbean.
TF, You’re too biased which means you stop looking, or you ignore evidence, or both.
Dr. Mark A. Hixon, Professor of Zoology, and a team of graduate and undergraduate students from Oregon State University have demonstrated that a single lionfish can reduce the population of juvenile fish on small coral reefs by 80 percent in just five weeks. One large lionfish can consume 20 smaller coral reef fish in a 30-minute period. Lionfish are carnivores that can eat other fish up to two-thirds their own length. The loss of the herbivorous fish on the reefs will set the stage for seaweed to potentially overwhelm the coral reefs and disrupt the stability of the environment in which they exist. Once established lionfish will destroy our reefs and throw our entire ecosystem out of balance leaving our coral reefs to die and seaweed to take over.
http://www.lionfishhunters.org
Tripp,
tell us how much of the current corals are dying because of man-made pollution dumping, diving, etc as opposed to what you wish to attribute to “global climate change”. Let’s have your variables for the whole earth and specific places. Lots of ocean dumping everywhere. Corals go through night and day temperature cycles. What would you expect the adaption of new corals to be for 1-2 deg C per century? Any lab data on sensitivity to “mean” temperature change of 0.5 deg C over a decade while the environment is oscillating over a typical temperature range that the coral would see in the sea? I, for one, do not like bits of info thrown out to support a tenet.
Joel Williams –
”…how much of the current corals are dying because of man-made pollution dumping, diving, etc as opposed to…“global climate change”
Good question. Here is what one study (co-authored by Kim Cobb, Dr. Curry’s colleague at Georgia Tech) says:
“Climate change is now the leading cause of coral-reef degradation and is altering the adaptive landscape of coral populations.”
See also what the International Coral Reef Intitiative says:
“Overfishing, pollution and coastal development top the list of chronic stressors.”
But also: “The impacts from coral bleaching are becoming global in scale, and are increasing in frequency and intensity. Mass coral bleaching generally happens when temperatures around coral reefs exceed 1oC above an area’s historical norm for four or more weeks…If temperatures climb to more than 2o C for similar or longer periods, coral mortalities following bleaching increase.”
Unfortunately, some process occurs and attracts people to this supportive data, discarding additional factors, and contrary information.
Here is a map of coral diversity:
http://coralreefsystems.org/sites/coralreefsystems.org/files/u10/coral_map_928x303.jpg
Notice how corals are more diverse in areas with highest annual temperatures:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/elnino/img/gsst.gif
This struck me, particularly wrt the Red Sea, which gets quite warm.
Indeed, the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea, reads:
“A recent underwater expedition to the Red Sea offshore from Sudan and Eritrea[18] found surface water temperatures 28 °C in winter and up to 34 °C in the summer, but despite that extreme heat the coral was healthy with much fish life with very little sign of coral bleaching”
Laboratory experiments show coral bleaching with increased temperature, but the Red Sea example, the paleo record, the variety of corals and alga, the other factors with bleaching, lack of a global coral biomas measurment and many other factors mean we should keep our panties on.
Trip, I was diving along the Great Barrier Reef just a few months ago. The guides there were saying the reef had completely recovered from the bleaching event a few years ago and crown of thorns were also in decline. The reef there was in as good condition as at any time in living memory. The diving there was simply incredible.
It should also be pointed out that the sea temp along the GBR varies quite a bit from its most northerly point to its most southerly, and in general is much cooler than reefs further into the tropics along Indonesia and PNG with almost identical species of coral and marine organisms. So clearly, if they can live happily in sea temps that are several degrees warmer then they are not threatened by the relatively mild warming that has been predicted.
Ocean acidification is also not a major concern for them. Studies of ocean chemistry show huge diurnal variations in ph as relative aerobic and anaerobic activity varies from day to night. Laboratory testing of marine species also show huge tolerance for a variety ph conditions although certain species are more robust than others. But the amount of ph change required to induce a reduction in diversity (assuming less robust species do not adapt) is far in excess of what is expected by 2100.
Ocean chemistry is really fascinating and coral and other carbonate life forms interaction and influence of it is absolutely amazing. Did you know that the surface layer of seawater is 4 times supersaturated with carbonate? Or that there is actually a deep layer below which CO2 does not combine to create carbonic acid and other compounds because the pressure is too great?
I encountered a really interesting essay about this not long ago I think I could dig up if you like – likewise the studies regarding marine responses to altered ph and the diurnal changes. These are based on actual field measurements too – no modelling….
Given that the Florida Keys are near the temperature limits (i.e., too cold) for hard corals it would be interesting to see analysis of the genetic adaptations of the corals there compared to corals further south.
I strongly suspect that corals naturally harbor sufficent genetic diversity to rebound quickly from local and regional catastrophes. Considering how they spawn, they seem well suited to filling empty eco niches.
Climate science belongs neither in the courtroom or in the halls of Congress. Steyn, at least, had the courage to confront some of the tyrants in their lair. That’s about all that can be hoped for there. That’s no place for a rational discussion.
thank you for taking on Senator Markey, his grandstanding was laughable and you showed how clueless he is
Prof s’ Christy and Curry on data and dogma.
It don’t mean a thing
if it ain’t got that schwing,
troposphere warming that’s missing,
‘n models’ showing 3-fold exaggerated warming,
( though no expanded wildfire-flood activity as
predicted, instead greater agricultural productivity )
a theory that’s used for policy determining.
Hmm, that climate sensitivity
ain’t what it ‘s all cranked up to be.
– J.Christy.
It don’t mean a thing
if it ain’t got that schwing,
considering climate-data uncertainty
you’d likely expect scientific objectivity
re CO2 theory effectivity,
not scientists resorting to
doom message advocacy,
promoting a god’s-eye-view
theory monopoly, even action
against dissenters politically.
– J. Curry.
Say ‘who ever knew truth put to worse
in a free and open encounter?’
– J. Milton.
One of your best! Is this a Rap?
MS, could be, or American swing. )
Hmph – In first verse omit ‘as predicted’ to better scan.
Is the video or audio of the hearing archived somewhere? I can’t find a link anywhere. The Capitolhearings.org homepage has an audio icon labelled “listen” next to the hearing title, but it links to a live feed that is silent. I can’t find it on c-span either.
Same question as Pierre-Normand. I missed the hearing and would like to find it somewhere.
The full 2 hour 43 minute video is here: .. https://youtu.be/5KVTmo2Vxnk … (Uploaded by ‘SenTedCruz’.)
The Republicans abandoned Cruz. Ask yourself why
Christy was never asked about the UAH series. Ask yourself why.
The hearing was a complete disaster for Cruz.
The hearing was a victory for the generations that will follow. Steyn’s statements cut to the heart of the problem — the usurping of science by politicians. He laid bare the abandonment of science by this cult of warming bent on silencing debate, and his testimony will be forever referenced by those that respect the freedoms we are constitutionally guaranteed.
Although it is sad that it took a Canadian to stand up for American values
Where did you watch it Eli? Did you also watch it live? You provide a link to the commerce.senate.gov website on your blog but I can’t find any link to an audio or video there.
It is no longer there, but it was on the front page of the committee site. If Eli were Cruz, he would hide it under the deepest rock. All of the Dems except Booker showed up and asked questions mostly of Titley. The other four hardly got a word in although Steyn tried the big foot. Teh only Rep besides Cruz that took part in the questioning/statements was Daines and he was principally concerned with what would happen to Montana coal.
Eli live blogged it YMMV.
The pwofessor wabbette put a lot of effort into that live blogging crap. Looks like there were about four clowns who were awake and following the whinging wabbette’s worthless commentary. That’s significantly more attention than he get’s from the hapless students in his little chem 101 class.
I’ve found the video, at long last. It’s now up on the official YouTube channel of Ted Cruz.
Christy was never asked about the UAH series. Ask yourself why.
Oh, look it’s a data denier!
So Christy is sitting there and Cruz is going on and on about how much better UAH is, etc AND NO ONE ASKED CHRISTY MUCH ABOUT IT INCLUDING CRUZ. Titley at least twice explained the problems with UAH and RSS AND CHRISTY SAT THERE AND SAID NOTHING
Amazin, either he woke up with a horse’s head in his bed or something is stirring in the force.
Eli – your link is really old. Do you have something within the last decade or better?
So Christy is sitting there and Cruz is going on and on about how much better UAH is, etc AND NO ONE ASKED CHRISTY MUCH ABOUT IT INCLUDING CRUZ. Titley at least twice explained the problems with UAH and RSS AND CHRISTY SAT THERE AND SAID NOTHING
Sounds like Titley would have been familiar with how well RAOB and MSU correlate and how well UAH MSU correlates with co-located, consistent sonde data. And how the difference between modelled and either RAOB or MSU is greater than the difference between observed data sets. And also how RSS, Fu-RSS, and Fu-UAH are all generally consistent with UAH.
But ideologues suffering confirmation bias tend to exclude all but that which supports their preconceived ideas.
TE
I always take comfort from the fact that if people like Eli don’t believe in the temperature satellite record, then it surely follows that they obviously won’t believe in the sea level and sea ice satellites either. Mind you, that’s two very big pieces of ‘evidence’ taken away which would leave little for them to talk about.
tonyb.
There are some variations about the multitude of RAOB and MSU analyses, but for the most part, they concur.
And they concur that the Hot Spot is a no show, which is the point of the Christy chart.
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/HotSpot.png
Why is there no Hot Spot?
What does that mean about the models?
Since the HotSpot is supposed to create a negative feedback, and it hasn’t happened, what does that indicate about current warming?
These are the good questions.
I agree. Probably because he wouldn’t make a good president.
The sleep inducing prof. wabbette of chem 101 at a third-tier university:
“The Republicans abandoned Cruz. Ask yourself why”
They are happy to let the Demos yammer about how climate change is the greatest threat faced by the nation. Only the fanatical green base buys that crap. If Obama and his minions keep up this climate foolishness and continue to be AWOL on immigration and national security, one more terrorist attack will wipe the Democratic party out for a generation.
Just for you, Don Don:
https://youtu.be/kA7pzbjySr4?t=15m17s
His influence on you is very evident, willy. Your guru reminds me of Prof. Irwin Corey. Just a slightly different type of anarchy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/middleeast/us-cautious-on-iran-missile-test-claim.html
Wrong link. We were discussing the Ayatollahs running over our nominal C in C, on another blog.
Here is the Prof.:
The background noise you hear is the slow munching of lettuce – I.e.what one expects from a rabbet.
Got a kick out of Admiral Titley attacking the 19 1/2 pause graphic, by saying that Christy and Tisdale were now on their 4th version . . . while behind him was a chart illustrating NOAA’s Thomas Karl’s last adjustment to global temperatures.
.
I didn’t yet watch the entire session, but I’m wondering if anyone made a case regarding the lack of any long term worsening trend in climate change related issues (sea level rise, glacier melt, tropical systems, floods, extreme drought, tornadoes, etc) comparing pre 1950 (the consensus view of the birth of any potentially observable human footprint on GW) to post 1950?
” . . glaciers are amelting, sea level is arising, hurricanes are adestroying, forests are aburning, floods are aflowing, wind is ablowing, globe is awarming (in starts and stops) . .
What’s changed?
Yes. Udall and Nelson, both Ds
Ah, I see that JC tackled this well at about the 2 hour mark.
Here are some observations concerning what “Jim D” is saying further up in the comments string about CO2 regulation.
Jim D: “I haven’t seen this yet, and only read the above comments, but it is interesting that with the lack of many pro-AGW witnesses, it was the Dem senators putting forwards the science side of the debate, and seemingly holding their own in taking it to the scientists on the panel.”
Admiral Titley did a reasonably competent job of defending the basic tenants of today’s climate science, at least as far as what could be done within the confines of a politically-charged Senate hearing, and given the limited amount of time he had to make a defense.
That said, the Senate Democrats didn’t go anywhere nearly as far as they might have gone in examining the responsibilities currently assigned by law to the EPA for determining what kinds of dangers GHG emissions might represent to public health and the environment, and for determining what kinds of regulatory actions ought to be taken against ever-rising GHG emissions.
Jim D: “CFC and methane show the effect of regulations. Likewise, hopefully, in the future for CO2.”
Jim D: “These reductions did not just happen, because the most profit-making path would have been business as usual. Same with CO2. These were regulations with a purpose. Same with CO2.”
Jim D, it is important for Congressional Democrats, and for other defenders of IPCC climate science, to acknowledge that the EPA and the President don’t need permission from Congress to aggressively push a program of broad-spectrum, comprehensively-enforced CO2 regulations; i.e., the kind of program which could go far beyond the Clean Power Plan in directly reducing America’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The President and the EPA Administrator already have the legal authority needed to largely decarbonize America’s economy. They can do the job themselves if they will take actions which can enable the full legal authority of the Clean Air Act, and if they will develop a carbon regulation framework which distributes the socio-economic burdens of decarbonization fairly and equitably across all segments of the American economy.
This is how it would work:
STEP 1: The President issues an Executive Order which declares a carbon pollution emergency and which directs all departments and agencies of the US Federal Government to cooperate with each other and with the EPA in adopting a practical and effective approach for quickly reducing America’s GHG emissions.
STEP 2: The EPA publishes an Endangerment Finding written under CAA Section 108 which mirrors the finding already published in 2009 under CAA Section 202. The invocation of Section 108 is legally justified based upon the President’s prior declaration of a carbon pollution emergency.
STEP 3: The EPA then sets a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO2 under CAA Section 108. (NOTE: A candidate NAAQS ppm figure might be 425 ppm CO2 Equivalent. The choice for a NAAQS depends upon which corresponding Global Mean Temperature predicted by the IPCC’s climate models is determined to be acceptable for policy making purposes.)
STEP 4: Once a NAAQS for CO2 has been chosen, the EPA works with the states in developing an integrated regulatory framework for controlling all sources of carbon pollution. This regulatory framework, in addition to providing for directly enforceable limits on all carbon emissions from all of America’s carbon sources, includes a corresponding system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
STEP 5: All revenues collected from the system of carbon pollution fines are distributed with no strings attached to the individual states as a means of incentivizing their participation. An individual state may choose to retain these monies as general revenue income, or they may choose to return these monies in whole or in part to the citizens of their own state.
Once again, the point to be made here is that the President, the Executive Branch, and the EPA already have all the tools they need to legally and aggressively decarbonize America’s economy, assuming they are willing to use those tools to their maximum possible effectiveness.
If Congressional Democrats aren’t lobbying President Barack Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to use the full legal authority of the Executive Branch in regulating America’s greenhouse gas emissions, then those Democrats aren’t being honest in claiming that they truly and sincerely want to address the basic causes of climate change.
This is all well and good, but CO2 is a global issue, both from the emissions and the impacts perspectives. The US can’t have a binding global agreement with just Obama’s say-so that also would bind other countries in to tackle this problem together, and it is a problem that needs that level of effort to be the most effective. We’ll see what Paris produces, but the US is rather tied by its Congress in terms of what it can agree to as a nation.
Obama doesn’t want being run out of town on a rail to be part of his legacy. He doesn’t have the guts to do what you clowns want him to do. And The Donald will reverse it, anyway.
.
Tyler,
He’s probably a donkey dink, dead or otherwise, that fantasizes about Don.
Rather sad.
Jim D: “This is all well and good, but CO2 is a global issue, both from the emissions and the impacts perspectives. The US can’t have a binding global agreement with just Obama’s say-so that also would bind other countries in to tackle this problem together, and it is a problem that needs that level of effort to be the most effective. We’ll see what Paris produces, but the US is rather tied by its Congress in terms of what it can agree to as a nation.”
Jim D, are you not forgetting that President Obama has already committed the United States to a 28% reduction in GHG emissions by 2025, a 32% reduction by 2030, and a 80% reduction by 2050?
The President made this commitment as his means of demonstrating America’s leadership in the fight against climate change, His stated objective is to set an example for other nations to follow and to convince those other nations that it is in their clear best interests to do likewise.
And so the President’s commitment is operative regardless of whether a draft treaty is delivered in Paris this month, or one isn’t. The real question is this: Does President Obama’s unilaterally stated commitment have any real credibility?
The EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) gets us roughly halfway to the 2025 GHG reduction goal, but no further. Moreover, the president has offered nothing in the way of a credible, more detailed plan of action to get us beyond the CPP and into the more ambitious, more difficult to achieve GHG reduction objectives.
It is impossible to reach the President’s highly ambitious goals within the relatively short timeframes he desires unless the US Government puts a stiff price on carbon and unless it takes a series of coordinated actions which have the effect of directly or indirectly limiting the supply, availability, and consumption of all carbon fuels.
Even a Congress controlled by Democrats will not get on board with doing what has to be done to achieve the President’s commitments within the timeframes he wants them. The political price of asking Americans to make real sacrifices in the service of fighting climate change would be too steep for any Congress to accept and hence would threaten other legislative agendas which progressives hold dear.
The EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding for carbon identifies CO2 as a pollutant when present in excessive atmospheric concentrations. By law and by precedent, the Executive Branch and the EPA are assigned primary responsibility for taking those regulatory actions needed to address America’s GHG emissions.
This is the hard truth America’s climate activists refuse to acknowledge: Either Barack Obama and Gina McCarthy step up to their clear responsibility under existing environmental law, or else the steep reductions in America’s GHG emissions the climate activists are seeking will never happen.
I am sad for Georgia Tech and for Judith Curry that she was lumped with Steyn and Happer on the wrong side of history. History will not be kind to the science-denying crowd that posts here. Anybody want to bet me that average temperatures will will lower in 5 years?
Temps have been going up up hundreds of years Right about the time the first SUV was invented. If they start going down we could be in for some serious sh*t. And were going to need some big a*s cars to compensate.
This modern warm period is just like the Roman and Medieval Warm periods. It will stay warm for a few hundred years, not much warmer, not much cooler, up and down some with the 60 year cycle, then after a few hundred years of this more snowfall, it will get colder, like it always does after every warm period. It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it and we cannot stop it. In 5 years the average temperature may be a little warmer or a little cooler, but not a lot. We are in a warm period and you cannot change the ocean temperatures very much, very quick.
Wanna bet the hysterical crowd will still be in a fetal position about the impending collapse of the Antarctic Ice Sheet in 2100 just like they were in 1900? Of course it won’t be any closer in 2100 than it was in 1900. You have been reading too much science fiction. Wise up. The frat boys are calling you, better go have a drink.
.
Sure. 1k RSS global average temp December 2020 is lower than December 2015.
I am not sad for Curry and Happer and Steyn being wrong, they are not.
I am sad for the pope in Rome for siding with the pope who was wrong about the sun orbiting around the earth. History shows that when the Church makes a stand on science, they will not admit they were wrong until hundreds of years later, after all the people involved are long dead.
There is no science when you have consensus. Science must always be skeptic.
The the science-denying crowd is the consensus crowd and you, Tripp, are clearly part of that consensus, no science there.
We are all going to hell, too. See you there, flubber bunk. Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us. You are a notch above the usual trolls.
TF, you seem to think that there has been an unprecedented rate of temperature rise lately. Check on that.
Your desire to bet on a temperature rise in five years may be from an over-reliance on the belief that CO2 is the most important temperature change determinant. Check on that.
Reflections in a coral eye. Skat on a hot tin reef. African dust amazon’.
============================
Yes, I’ll accept the bet.
But first it needs to be established how to measure what “average temperatures” are. If you say from 9/12/2015 to 9/12/2020 relative to 9/12/2010 to 9/12/2015, then ok, I’ll accept but not with much confidence.
However if you say 9/12/2005 to 9/12/2015 as being warmer than 9/12/2015 to 9/12/2025 I would be much more confident of winning.
If my winning of the bet also means “no warming or cooling”, or anything less than 0.3 warming (the warming predicted by the IPCC) then I feel extremely confident. Given how temps have progressed over the last couple of decades, and the existence of other competing hypotheses to AGW that predict cooling, are you sure you want to make that bet?
TF, can a get affirmation of our $1000 bet?
Tripp,
I’ll bet you in 5 years time you still won’t have any evidence of harm caused by a warming world. Hell, if I thought we’d both be around, I’d stake you 50 years.
You can’t point to any disappearing islands, any climate change refugees, any worsening trend in extreme weather events, any species on the brink of extinction due to climate change. You apparently don’t even understand what the leading threats are to the coral reefs you say you work at restoring. I’m curious what your role is. Do you gas up the boat?
“wrong side of history” — oops, your marxist slip is showing
Of course, history happens to show that Malthusian gloom and doomers are always wrong.
Judith’s testimony includes this plot, and effectively is saying – nothing to see here, move on.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/decadal-comparison-small.png
She says NASA and NOAA should not be funding research into why it is warming so fast, and its impacts in the future, and she is trying to give Cruz ammunition to defund these agencies until they look at climate variability rather than this ongoing and very visible and understood climate change.
My, that’s a big jump after 1815! What happened? A Tambora resistant temp rise! And the Royal Society was reporting a suddenly open Arctic in 1817! (Let’s hope we’re so lucky after the next big blow.)
Hmm. That chart stops around 2000. I’ll bet they just couldn’t fit the rocket-like rise after that.
The chart ends within the last few years and the reason you can’t see the “pause” is that this is the land temperature which, of course, had no pause, as is not so well known in these parts.
That’s okay, Jim D. The temp can go up or down a bit. Always has. Even sloppy min/max records show that. (Would you believe that there are climate experts who think min/max is a straight record of temp?)
Now what’s with that big plunge from the 1770s to 1815? How can we play hockey with that dropped spaghetti?
Some little whinger is really angry. Must be the new troll. Sensitive little putz.
Thanks, here comes registration again.
=================
Yes, here it comes again
Since I still have clients and colleagues to protect, that’ll be me out of here
I’m pleased enough this time, though – I resisted having a go (as needed as it is) at The Smugness of Jiminy Doodlebug :)
I’ve noticed a few people asking if the hearing can be viewed or listened to anywhere. It’s available via Ted Cruz’s YouTube page. Here’s a link:
Thanks. I didn’t see your comment and also posted a link.
Given the scale of repetition of arguments on this and other climate blogs I consider any such duplication for the general good not just defensible but a blessing.
I certainly won’t complain about someone posting the same link as me. When it comes to providing sources people are looking for, I encourage any efforts people might make.
I would have liked to see one of you skeptical scientists take apart the good admiral’s chart on temperature vs. CO2. I didn’t get but a glance at it, but I’m pretty sure the ongoing 20 yr flat spot was there, just downsized to look less obvious. Two things could be said about that chart: (1) Though the flat spot was smaller in his chart, it was still unmistakenly there. Take a sharpie and draw a line under it so everyone can see it. (2) Point out that the relative rise of CO2 in that chart is exponential, and trends steeply upward from here. Comparing the current trends of CO2 and temperature, anything less than exceptionally rapid temperature rise for the next 5-10 years will cause his own chart to become laughable. Dang I wish someone woulda drilled down on it, put that smug pusilaneous admiral in his place!
… that fatal sure.
So I watched some of the hearing, and I’ll try to watch the rest of it later on. There’s one thing I have to say right away though. About two hours in (I skipped around) Senator Ted Cruz displayed two charts taken from Steven Goddard, on the basis they show adjustments to the USHCN data set cause massive changes in its results. That’s embarrassing. Those charts are complete and utter bunk, and it is shameful they were used in this hearing, much less that they went unchallenged.
The methodology Goddard used to create those charts is trivially wrong and known to introduce biases in the results. This has been discussed on this very site, with a humorous example of its flaws being that applying it to a global data set (GHCN) instead of just one for the United States reverses the results, finding that adjustments reduce global warming by a significant amount.
And while this point is pretty much indisputable, with any technically oriented skeptic acknowledging Goddard’s charts are bunk, Goddard continues to defend them. Today I expressed my shock and displeasure with Cruz using Goddard’s charts during the hearing on Twitter. A few tweets later, Goddard tweeted:
https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/674433043889655808
Zeke Hausfather has written several posts explaining why Goddard’s charts are bunk. Steven Mosher has explained the problems with Goddard’s methodology as well. Anthony Watts has acknowledged the methodology is wrong. I suspect readers here could think of many other people who have said things like, you have to spatially weight your data or otherwise account for where your data is located so you don’t give too much weight to any one area. According to Goddard, they’re all frauds.
Goddard says you can just average every station together, without concern for where it is located or what its baseline temperature might be (go ahead and simply average those 30C and 10C areas together). That’s the only reason he can come up with the charts Cruz used. And according to him, if you think that’s wrong, you’re a fraud.
Goddard is definitely a crank and everybody with any sense at all should simply ignore him.
Indeed. Sadly, Ted Cruz is a presidential candidate with significant polling figures, and he is endorsing Steve Goddard’s claims.
Data or dogma?
Charts used in the hearing ….
Given the breadth of the committee responsibilities, I doubt they have staff that are conversant enough to make judgments about many parts of the science. This issue deserves its own standing sub- committee with permanent staff, who are qualified to make the translation from a technical science to lay person’s language. There are economists hanging from the rafters in DC. A few scientists devoted to climate couldn’t hurt.
Brandon, my friend, you do not distinguish enough. Some of Tony Heller’s stuff is flawed, yes. Some is not. Like simple historical comparisons of what they said then to what they say now, purportedly their same charts. Distinguish the difference. After all, that is supposedly what you are all about.
ristvan, I don’t distinguish between the true and untrue things Steven Goddard publishes because I’m not going to spend the time wading through the cesspool that is his blog to try to find accurate statements amidst his lies. And yes, I said lies. Goddard flat-out lies, doing things like secretly changing posts to cover up mistakes as though it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
If you want me to acknowledge the good things Goddard supposedly does, then you take the responsibility of filtering out the lies and obvious nonsense he publishes. If you or someone else is willing to state outright that Goddard’s charts used by Ted Cruz in this hearing are complete BS, I’ll be willing to look at some other charts you think he has made which aren’t complete BS. But until you publicly and forcefully criticize the nonsense Goddard publishes, which has been picked up by the media and now a United States Senator running for President, you have no credibility on this issue.
Skeptics routinely criticize climate scientists for not speaking up when people on their “side” do bad things. Don’t be a hypocrite. Stop playing this off like all that’s happened is Goddard publishes some “flawed” stuff. That’s incredibly disingenuous. The reality is Goddard constantly publishes conspiratorial rantings based on things which are completely wrong.
Heck, even the comparisons you refer to are often wrong. Goddard has done tons of things like, compared a land-only temperature record to a land+ocean temperature record, claiming it was the same temperature but had just been fraudulently adjusted over the years. In one case, he went so far as to quote an e-mail as supposed proof adjustments were made to remove a warming blip in the ocean data by… showing a chart made up only of land data.
And skeptics never said a word. Instead, you copied one of his bogus comparisons into one of your books while other “skeptics” went on television and cited them as proof of malfeasance. In some ways, it’s no surprise Ted Cruz used these completely bogus charts. All he’s doing is copying what you and people like you have been doing for years.
So no, Goddard is a lying conspiracy nutjob who constantly publishes things which are completely wrong. I’m not going to distinguish between the true and untrue things he says because I don’t think blind squirrels deserve to be praised for occasionally managing to find a nut.
Huh. I just submitted a comment, but it appears to have vanished. It doesn’t show up as awaiting moderation or anything. Did it get flagged for something?
Hey where’s that pitchfork? Need ter pin the tail
on the donkey !
It looks likes one of the somewhat mentally challenged Waffling Warmists has completely lost touch with reality. Either that, or has become tired of saying “bum” to himself, and giggling.
Ah, the rich tapestry of life!
Cheers.
While I was waiting for my comment to clear moderation, I went ahead and wrote a post about what it says. The short version of it is Senator Ted Cruz displayed two charts created by Steven Goddard, a pseudononymous blogger who is well known for frequently claiming global warming is a hoax and accusing people of commiting fraud to promote it, without saying what the source for the charts were. This created the impression the charts had some official, or at least legitimate, source when in reality they are nothing more than bogus charts created by some random guy on the internet who uses an incredibly faulty methodology for creating results that are known to be biased and incorrect.
On top of this, the charts were only for the temperatures of the United States, and had they been applied to global temperatures instead (as one might expect for global warming), they would show the opposite result – that adjustments supposedly reduce the amount of global warming.
It is disgraceful a presidential candidate would rely on the work of someone who is basically on the same level as a “9/11 truther” during a Senate committee.
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2015/12/ted-cruz-endorses-'steven-goddard/
Yet you would accept the “Hockey Stick” and generation of rent seeking/politically correct “research” without a second thought?
I have no idea what you are talking about cwon14. I am not aware of anyone who is a more outspoken critic of Michael Mann’s hocikey stick than myself. There are some people, such as Steve McIntyre, who have spent more time on the subject than me, but none I am aware of have spent as much time while staking out as strong a claim as me.
Quite simply, I have accused Michael Mann of committing fraud with his Hockey Stick papers and actions as a lead author of the IPCC TAR to promote his own conclusions. These accusations have been condensed into two separate eBooks, which you can find here and here. Free copies are available to anyone who contacts me asking for them.
I probably understand the hockey stick debate better than all but a handful of people due to the time I have spent examining the subject. Accusing me of being a defender of Michael Mann simply because I am willing to criticize “skeptics” who say incorrect things is a very bad idea.
I think it is disgraceful that our nation would take any congressman as a serious candidate for the top executive office.
I’m not sure we wouldn’t be better off with Hillary of Biden over the likely republican candidates.
I’m likely to sit this election out unless something crazy like Mitt Romney running as an independent happens.
Goddard’s plot seems to be headed “USHCN Average Temperature of all Stations” (from your post), in which case it is presumably exactly what it claims to be. Doubtless a very poor estimate for a well formulated concept of US mean surface temperature. But that is a quite separate metric. One which the Karl saga highlights as being near impossible to estimate satisfactorily in a global context when the data is so diverse and variable. Sen Cruz may, just may, be enjoying that important political skill of misdirection.
Has anyone got a link to the actual podcast please? I cant really form an opinion as to how the hearing played out without hearing the questions, answers and interaction.
tonyb
Ted Cruz posted a video of the hearing to his YouTube page. I posted a link to it in a comment above.
Brandon
I have just seen it at your place and left a comment. The link above was just a blank screen when I first looked but seems to be live now. Thanks.
tonyb
No prob. It was just luck I happened to come across it, so I figured I’d pass it along.
Judith,
I enjoyed the Senate Hearing, despite the obvious lack of communication between the competing sides, skeptics and alarmists. This mirrors the rising Republican, Democrat competition for the Presidency in the longer run.
Ted Cruz had an excellent grasp of the issues scientific, added to his legal prowess. This duality has value in the Presidential context. Individuals have spoken out against the consensus many times. We can only hope this pressure tells in the end.
Mark Steyn starred again and deserves every credit. I am looking for a book to ‘hammer’ family, and friend, anti-skeptics.
Read this, soon everyone will be able to foot the bill…
http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/someone-will-eventually-use-crispr-to-try-to-make-a-dragon-or-unicorn
on to a newer model squarefish. This must be one of the reasons for the ‘fervent heat’ at the end of that story. Now back to the invisible gas ghost tail.
After 50 years, at least, of Green/Leftist agenda manipulation of “science” at the academic levels which Dr. Curry has often carried water for and indeed obfuscated though much of her career we are presented with the false narrative that the politization is somehow “recent” as the debate becomes more mainstream.
To get to the essential truth of climate science as a left-wing policy excuse it has to be correctly acknowledged historically. In that regard Dr. Curry remains part of the vast pool of useful idiots who legitimitized the gross decline of the scientific method in the past 50 years or more. Talking about “politization” as a recent event is as false and self-flattering as any other consensus rationalization.
“Middling” with a vile political agenda is what brought us the dark world of “climate change” policy/agenda to begin with. Why repeat the mistake by accepting Dr. Curry’s false history based only on her moderation since 2009 as she describes herself?
Spineless dissent and accepting who controls the debate is as cupible for the disaster of green expansion as the evil itself. Am I glad former climate advocates moderate? Sure, I just don’t absolve them until their contrition matches historical reality which Dr. Curry doesn’t do.
Judith, I have to say, on reflection, that at times you appeared genuinely hurt/wounded by the assault on your integrity by the Democrats on the committee. [Until recently, I’ve always regarded my politics as ‘Democrat’]
Under such circumstances I would be delighted to have Mark Steyn sitting beside me.
Judy:
I feel obliged to apologize for my ignorant, rude and obnoxious Senator. He is a buffoon of the first order and an embarrassment to the voters in Massachusetts. Cruz should have done something.
On the other hand, Markey’s behavior illustrates the type of bullying and haranguing that passes for rational debate. It sets an incredibly bad example for others.
Could it be that the leading global warming alarmists who have taken over Western academia are not Americans and are driven by hatred of America and that, “this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators?”
Wags, do you have a clue about which ethnic group Solzhenitsyn was writing about not being Russians?
Bolsheviks, aka Bolshevists, aka Bolsheviki –i.e., the majority: revolutionary socialists, aka Communists. Leftists! Although Leftists like Christopher Hitchens seem to have excused the methods the Bolsheviks employed to consolidate power as a necessary part of the Russian revolution, hopefully French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre evolved enough before he died to appreciate error in such thinking as he witnessed Communist totalitarianism unfold under his nose.
Everyone involved appeared to be dogmatically certain of the accuracy and interpretation of their favoured data, and conversely dogmatic about the errors in the data used by the opposition.
However the most dogmatic seemed to be Mike Steyn. He also used the hearing to record a lot of information into the record about his ongoing court case.
I doubt that anyone in the future examining the prescience or foolishness of these hearings will find much worth in such trivial detail of a long decided case mixed into what purported to be a debate on the data of a varying climate.
His name is Mark Steyn and this is a link to his web site:
http://www.steynonline.com
What’s a “long decided case”? You obviously don’t know what you are talking about.
Don,
Perhaps Izen is referring to the 3 years and still ticking clock on getting his case adjudicated when he says “long decided”.
Probably not. More likely you are correct in Izen not having a clue what he is going on about.
@-“What’s a “long decided case”?
The sentence started, – “anyone in the future examining the prescience or foolishness of these hearings…”
I have encountered transcripts of governmental hearings and meeting before that contained some ephemeral detail irrelevant to the matter that looks ridiculous in retrospect.
izzy, izzy
If anyone in the future is examining the prescience or foolishness of these hearings, it will very likely only be yourself. The rest of us will move on in a couple of hours.
@-Don Monfort
“The rest of us will move on in a couple of hours.”
Yes, it probably is that trivial and ephemeral a political byplay. I will take your advice and dismiss it as the staged irrelevancy it was.
Izen
I have previously said I was not that impressed by mark steyn but I thought his written testimonial was pretty good. I will be very interested to see what I make of him in real life.
Tonyb
If your come away not impressed by Steyn, it says more about you than him..
I watched the entire broadcast live yesterday and waited until today to comment lest my comments would have gone into moderation such that my thinking at the time was intemperate.
My parents, and for a while, I, grew up within the sights and smells of the steel mills in Cleveland Ohio. I have been a union member and was a life long Democrat. I guess I had watched US Senator’s behavior last during the McCarthy era and then again yesterday afternoon. As a young person I could see what Mr. McCarthy was doing and saying: to me McCarthy embodied a 1692 Salem Witch Hunt.
Yesterday I was appalled. At least I had learned lessons of McCarthyism. From Mr. Peters to Mr. Nelson, and the other Democrats who were present and spoke were illiterate, contrived, and disrespectful. Disrespectful not only to the three scientists including calling Judith Curry a denier but to the American people for their professing to address the science of climate change, then mouthing incomplete talking points of CAGW. Their questions were framed as assertions, directed at the US Admiral, bypassing the scientists even when speaking about satellite data with John Christy in the room!
This “hearing” could have been managed better by Ted Cruz getting more Republican colleagues on the panel to serve as some sort of counterweight to the badgering and Senator’s behaving in a way not of inquiry, rather castigating.
I applaud Dr. Curry for her measured tone and information.
Agree 100%
I think that Cruz’s well known lack of collegiality with his fellow Republican Senators probably hurt in recruiting them to be at his side in the hearing. It’s a shame, since it kind of left Judith and Christy hung out to dry.
Kind of made it clear how little the science matters in the political debate. It was clear that the dems didn’t read the written submissions.
I am only ten minutes in so have only met some of the main characters. I know nothing about any of them. I thought crux was pretty good but I made a note that I didn’t warm to him very much. Peters I have taken rather a dislike to after only a couple of minutes but I will wait until he actually says something related to the science.
I have blocked in this evening to listen to the whole programme so I will have to wait to see who came out on top
Tonyb
RiHo08
I agree with your general description. However, Admiral Titley is in fact also a scientist and Professor at Penn State. That said, his most obvious skill was avoiding answering questions and creating a smokescreen especially around the validity of the satellite record.
bernie1815
I did not miss the introduction and the enumeration of credentials, and yes I agree that Admiral Titley has a masters in meteorology although I didn’t catch what his Ph.D was in. The Admiral helped initiate the Penn State Meteorology & Atmospheric Science program and it is not surprising that Michael Mann migrated there nor that Mann’s the inquiry into Mann’s academic behavior was a whitewash by the University like the Joe Paterno football coach’s personal misbehavior was covered up for so long.
To me it was disingenuous for the Admiral to speak of the satellite program and data without acknowledging John Christy’s presence and work. The Admiral was taking sides, doing his duty like a good sailor and did not behave as a scientist. If I recall the book Up The Down Staircase correctly, the sign on the door of the Administrative Assistant was Adm. Ass.
bernie1815
I listened to the whole program from beginning to end and did not miss the introduction and credentials of panel members. The Admiral obtained a BS and Master in Meteorology but I didn’t catch what his Ph.D was in.
I understand the Admiral helped formulate the Penn State Meteorology & Atmospheric Science program to which Michael Mann later gravitated. The Admiral was present for Michael Mann’s academic fraud investigation which ended up as a whitewash for Mann. Curious that the timing of one misbehavior investigation and whitewash at Penn State reflected another long standing cover-up in the Joe Paterno assistant football coach’s misbehavior. Under the same Central Administration I believe.
As the Admiral did not acknowledge John Christy when speaking about satellite data, the Admiral was behaving himself as an advocate and not as a scientist; hence, my continued reference to the sailor doing his duty, what he has been told to say, as Admiral.
If I recall correctly the book Up The Down Staircase, the sign on the Administrative Assistant’s door was: Adm. Ass.
Here, let Eli google that for you. Given that Mann moved to Penn State about seven years before Titley your google fu is in dire need of a retread.
Eli also notes that Ted Cruz did not acknowledge John Christy when talking about the swiss army knife satellite data. John Christy did not acknowledge John Christy either. As the bunny said above it was curious
I think that Steyn’s spin on the good Admiral in his written testimony was prescient. The dems probably tried to get Mann to testify and he, of course, refused and sent his JV new boy Titely in to obfuscate.
Right, just like Bjorn Lomborg was a member of Greenpeace.
Mr. Eli Rabett
Thank you for pointing out my error regarding Mann’s and Titley’s collusion on academic fraud. Had I dug deeper, the dates, which were confusing to me at the time: 2005, 2009, 2012, 2013 would have demonstrated that Titley came after the PSU Mann whitewash. Of Course I stand corrected.
Mr. Eli Rabett. There is something that you can do for me. You said: “…the swiss army knife satellite data” which is confusing to me. Maybe you have posted an explanation regarding this phraseology earlier and I missed it. Please then direct me to the correct quote.
Sorry, should be Cruz. My iPad has changed it three times now
Tonyb
If you don’t like your iPad trying think for you, think for yourself and tell it to stop. ;) That is the crux of the matter.
I hate that kind of feature, one of the first things I configure out.
greg
Sometimes the changes are very entertaining. The ipad often invents much better Names for denizens than the ones they themselves have chosen.
tonyb
Calm, rational, reasonable, and civil opening statement from Dr. Curry.
Sure to be ignored by the press and demonized by the Left.
Many thanks to those who bear the heaviest burden for upholding objective scientific method and the fight for free speech.
I wish I could say Judith’s testimony was helpful in ending the insanity. But as long as the story is that the Greenhouse Theory is real and valid , the alarmists win. After all, can we afford to take the risk with a wait and see strategy?
Given the modern observations, the Earth’s climatic history, and what we know about physical reality, it is time to bury the Greenhouse Theory. The data and knowledge will never make any sense until the theory is tossed. One would have thought that science would have discarded the theory after the Robert Wood experiment in 1909.
It should be obvious to every scientist by now that the extra “warmth” we feel at the surface is the result of atmospheric pressure and that the global thermostat control is the Sun.
If we can get through this period without any drastic changes this manufactured crisis will pass and be soon forgotten.
Strange how we worry about things that don’t exist and ignore real problems like our debt.
Markey is the typical liberal Democrat who thinks there is no problem that can’t be solved by more federal spending and more federal control over every aspect of society and the economy. He is arrogant and smug. He is also wrong.
You are being way too generous and kind!
I am 1 hour and 40 in and can’t watch any more for the time being. What an obnoxious creature that Markey is. Who is he? He certainly had a very high opinion of himself didn’t he? Do people seriously vote him into a seat?
I liked Titley quite a lot but couldn’t understand why he seemed to be the ‘go to’ guy as I didn’t think he had as much technical knowledge of climate as the three sceptical scientists on the panel.
Didn’t think much of Happer. Quite a weak public speaker. Christy was much better than I had been led to believe. Warmists seem to imply he is but one step away from his dotage but that was far from the case. Well done to Judith for trying to respond during Markey’s tirade..
The undoubted star of the show was Steyn. I have criticised him here before and I know Brandon has many issues with his accuracy, but I thought he gave a good performance and stood up to the bullying of Markey and made some very good points.
I do wish someone would put over the historic variations in climate over the last 1000 years much more strongly, which would put modern warming in much better perspective.
But still, my questions remains, why is the less technically proficient-but very pleasant- Titley, the go to guy? Or do things change in the remainder of the hearing?
tonyb
Politics. Just Politics.
Well, Tony didn’t expect the Inquisition!
Tony,
Titely was the Democrats go to guy. They used him to make their worn out points. That’s what Titely was there for.
Unfortunately Ted Cruz couldn’t muster enough Republican Senators to support him in this venue because he has (for better or worse) pissed off just about all of them.
It must seem odd for a Brit with little frame of reference on US politics, but just think how I feel when I try to understand Monty Python and the like.
The problem with Mark Steyn is he acts the same way, regardless of whether he is right or wrong. So sure, you may like the powerful speech he gives in defense of free speech. Just realize he’s going to turn around and offer a full-throated defense of the absurd work of Steven Goddard, having no interest in or concern for the fact Goddard is a conspiratorial nutjob whose work is completely wrong.
That’s the problem with people like Steyn. They may be effective showmen, but because they don’t put any significant interest in accuracy or correctness, all they are is showmen.
Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos): “the absurd work of Steven Goddard”
As opposed to your absurd work, do you mean?
Titley is a loyal navy officer, retired and dependent on gov grants and Navy paychecks. Retired Navy officers still under absolute control of Navy and DOD for stepping out of political masters Meme. He was called upon by the democrats only. So with the funds to his Penn State sinecure and obligations to the military, he responds to the gov desires more than a free speaker and independent Mark Steyn. Simply a sailor he is not. A PhD and admiral, he is a complex mixture of honesty and dissembling to construct a plausible case for his political masters.
You notice, no outright lies, but implied slander by mentioning four modifications of the satellite record and yet he skipped the modifications of the much simpler thermometer readings from the surface record. One can accept some adjustments to satellite algorythems more readily than changes to tables of manually recorded temperature readings.
Christy et al provide descriptions of what they changed due to orbital adjustments or overlaps as opposed to tracking surface temps and krigging between thousand mile apart un measured projected temps.
very interesting though. Thanks Dr Curry for you calm and measured testimony.
Scott
I wouldn’t really try to use loyalty as a fault with Titley he is most likely a very stand up guy. He say something kind of odd, that is someone told him with 97% confidence what would happen on a battle field he would be thrilled. Personally, I would think I was talking to an imbecile or a spy if they had that kind of confidence in that kind of situation.
He also wasn’t very clear on a major point, the risk of taking inappropriate action. Biofuel and diesel auto initiatives seem to be doing more harm than good because there are a few other kind of important issues to consider. Ignoring the possibility than are 2 to 3 times expectation could be a fairly costly blunder.
Capt,
Just want to say thanks for all your interesting comments and links. I Never had the occasion to address you directly but your comments are interesting and links enlightening.
My point is military honor requires straightforward and honest reporting and evaluation. Other wise, if biased or slanted intelligence is driving decisions, mistakes result from faulty analysis of the situation.
When he presented his misleading graph, when he said 97% of climate scientists agree, (knowing full well the actual situation that the number is bogus and misleading,) when he mentions adjustments to satellite data but not to surface temperatures with major past cooling and absurd derived precision to .005*C, when he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibility. Given that he spoke well, was polite, much better than Mann or Markey, and respectful.
It would have been interesting if he engaged on a scientific level with the testimony of Curry, Christy and Harper. What does he really think about surface temp records vs satellite? Does he think the oceans are warming in the abyss or ARGO floats could be supplemented with the next phase of deep observations? What is the impacts on clouds over the ocean?
But thanks Capt, you provide lots of good discussions.
Scott
Really excellent Dr. C. Your testimony was impressive….composed, lucid, and compelling. I think your interchange with Markey was superb. Those guys are tough, because they can talk and talk and talk and before you know it they’ve used up a ton of time and stolen any momentum you might have had.
One important point, you guys have to find a way to challenge the 97 percent number. It’s their primary weapon. Lofty discussions of the philosophy of science with regards to the perils of consensus seeking won’t do it. That number is fraudulent and must be exposed as such in a simple to understand way.
(aka pokerguy)
Plus one, pokerguy.
Thanks Beth. I needed a point of two today :-)
pokerguy,
My understanding is the Cook et al 97% study was not a double-blind study – the employees/members of the NGO examined, interpreted, and recorded the “data”.
Is that correct?
I find it baffling nobody few people seem to even try to rebut the “97% consensus” message. It’s incredibly easy to do. The most important work it is based on, that by the Skeptical Science group, is fraudulent with the authors having intentionally misrepresented their results.
Brandon,,,
Me too. it drives me nuts. It’s their big gun, the 97percent number. And it’s bogus! Based on a shamefully bad “study!” Why oh why do they let it go unchallenged?
97% consensus and the hockey stick were both created specifically for their marketing value.
We need a scientific graph that looks like this… Mann creates it
We need to scientifically quantify the consensus… Cook creates it
Both are pure political propaganda, nothing else.
Listen to Morano’s interview with Cook today. He’s excellent on this point. Over at WUWT
chuck….it’s a long sit to get through that audio. Can you tell me approximately where Morano addresses it?
it’s kind of throughout…He keeps needling Cook about it but listen to the last 5 minutes or so… he’ll address it to Cook that he has a responsibility to correct those that misinterpret his study. Cook doesn’t try to defend those that do. I know its long but I think it is quite a remarkable interview.. I gained a little respect for Cook. Morano would directly call him out and Cook would respond respectfully. Really the way two diametrically opposed advocates should be able to converse. However my limited respect for Cook has to be tempered by the fact that he hasn’t done as Morano suggests…correct the misrepresentations of his study.
Except the problem isn’t that John Cook and others fail to call out people who misrepresent the results. The problem is John Cook himself misrepresented the results. So did all of the other co-authors. Marc Morano failed to highlight this. Similarly, Morano failed to highlight the fact Cook and his co-authors directly misrepresented their work in a number of other ways.
Because people have kept promoting the weak criticisms by people like Richard Tol and Marc Morano, John Cook and his co-authors can get away with what they did. It’s good for Cook to do interviews like this, because as long as he only deals with weak criticisms, he can pretend to have rebutted his opponents while not having addressed the damning problems with his work.
Pro Curry’s exchange with Sen Markey did not go well. It’s embedded at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/09/tables-turned-scientist-judith-curry-and-author-mark-steyn-question-school-sen-markey-on-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2092226
I hope this will be ignored and forgotten.
Markey came off well and got the best of Prof. Curry… when he brought up the “warmest year” issues she should have asked if he knows what El Nino is and the effect it had on temperatures in ’97-98… maybe that was implicit in her mention of natural factors but it was so vague that there was no impact. Curry also should have challenged him on the data series as well, since ’14 was not the hottest in the satellite record. Instead she conceded the point…
To the vast public the Climate News of the Year is the “Hottest Year” headline. The leading skeptical scientist is caught agreeing with this and has no adequate response.
Steyn acted like a blowhard and was all over the place.
Not really, On a 200 to 400 year timescale of warming you would expect warmest years ever in a short instrumental record until you reach what should be “normal”. You would also expect it to be the warmest year in the past 400 to 800 years.
There is pretty good evidence in the tropical ocean paleo that the LIA was about a degree cooler in ~1700 and since higher latitudes tend to amplify tropical advection, global temperatures could have be more than 1 C cooler. The issue isn’t just natural variability’s contribution but the time scale of the contribution.
To the American public who might be watching a US Senator asserted CAGW is valid because this year and last year are the warmest on record.
The leading skeptical climatologist did not challenge this claim in any real way… so Americans will conclude that CAGW is true.
That’s unfortunate.
@sarastro92 “….a US Senator asserted CAGW is valid because this year and last year are the warmest on record.”
Since recorded climate observations have only been for a very short period in the billion year history of climate on this Earth, I am bemused by both sides of the AGW debate claiming any discernable trend either way.
If Americans (or any other nationality) conclude that CAGW is true let alone AGW, it would generally be the fault of leftist ideologues and the MSM.
It is hard to know where to begin when Markey is starting from that level of stupidity.
He doesn’t know the difference between a value and a rate of change. He doesn’t understand that there is no reason to expect the natural climate to be stable. He thinks that a record in a 150 year time series is important during a 20,000 interglacial.
I do think the correct response to the assertion that 2015 is the warmest year ever in that venue is to point out that it isn’t. The MWP and RWP were in fact warmer and that the few millinea between then and now is a geologic blip.
sara.. I don’t think anyone is going to conclude much of anything from that bit of political theater. Dr. Curry mentioned the 200 years which is conservative and natural variability. Warmest year, day or month is a political issue more than a scientific issue or they wouldn’t be picking favored data sets or spending so much time trying to eke out hundredths of degrees.
The 200 year comment is actually pretty important though. Preindustrial is the reference temperature for all the pledges and the uncertainty in preindustrial is around +/-0.35 C degrees, maybe a little more with BEST, but what exactly what is “preindustrial” global mean surface temperature?
Well, after watching the full hearing, IMHO, nothing was accomplished. It is clear that the left will stick to their ideology regardless of any facts presented, and the left can claim the same of the right. The only way the trajectory of the debate changes is with a republican elected as POTUS while retaining both chambers of Congress – but that alone is not enough. We cannot have a POTUS who will be easily intimidated by the clapping seals, AKA,the MSM masquerading as journalists. The next POTUS has to have the cajones and the wherewithal to take on the green mob/blob which includes he MSM. I will be interested to read any comments by Dr. Curry.
Having read all of Judith’s “verbal remarks,” I’m very curious what her nonverbal message was.
“Having read all of Judith’s “verbal remarks,” I’m very curious what her nonverbal message was.”
The written testimony. (Of course that’s also verbal, but most people use verbal to mean oral, or spoken.)
Pingback: how good is CO2 … | pindanpost
Pingback: The All-Union Academy Of Climate Sciences – waka waka waka
Peters and Markey both were clearly not happy that Cruz had set up a panel of majority denialists in this day and age when the real debate has already moved on past these people. It benefited Judith to see the frankness of these senators on the outlier nature of the representation here, and Markey said it like it is. He spoke his mind and did not pull punches for politeness. It is probably very similar to the reception these people would receive in a scientific meeting if they put those same talking points to them.
What has to ask what your “the real debate” is about.
I’m still curious about what happens to the weather when the concentration of the various GHGs increases in the atmosphere, but I sense this isn’t on your list.
Probably not a matter fit for science in your mind. No doubt you like to debate the finer points of group psychology and behavioral economics and why populous at large are discounting future risks so severely.
Indeed the real debate is not about whether we are changing the climate much, as these particular people still think, but about, given the amount of change we could apply in the future, what are the impacts, how expensive that is, how much effort is it to reduce that impact, and where best to focus that effort. They can’t be brought down to earth on the real debate, however, which is great for the Republicans trotting them out at these hearings on a regular basis.
Regrettably “the amount of change we could apply in the future” isn’t a “given” – at least not in a scientific context (it could perhaps be a tenet of faith in a religious or political context, but that is a different kind of debate).
Perhaps that’s where you got confused?
Jim D,
You may not have noticed, but the 95% of the world’s population who do not reside in the US could probably care less what a few beauty contest winners (US politicians) think (or don’t think, more likely).
All beauty contest participants want to win, and trot out the same worn out phrases supporting Freedom, Liberty, and World Peace. In the same vein, they will support anything that sounds like it might get a few votes. Hence the charade of US Senate hearings. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.
If you live in the US, you are likely to claim it’s the finest country in the world – no corruption, justice for all, freedom and apple pie for all. So do the inhabitants of many other countries, whether you like it or not (with their own version of apple pie, of course).
My point is that that physics doesn’t care what anybody thinks. An actual experiment to support your assertions would be more impressive than any amount of consensus or agreement between politicians, psychologists, or anybody else.
Cheers.
Mike
It was sad to hear the senators believe that the US were still world leaders and that people would follow them. To my personal regret the US seems to have given up its leading role over the last 6 or 7 years.
tonyb
re physics, a tick fer yew Mike F,
Don’t matter how
many have thunk it,
tramp, tramp, tramp,
one inconvenient fact
will trump it. Fact of
the matter is that
data rules. ’tis an
oh so inconnvenient
fact that naychur schools …
bts
Jimd
Natural variability was discussed in a very ad hoc and unstructured fashion. The historic context seems to be pushed to one side just as does the discussion of extremes ancient and modern. This has been very noticeable in all the hearings of this nature that have been highlighted.
It seemed to me that both Peters and Markey thought of themselves as evangelical pastors to the church of Green
tonyb
They knew that natural variability wasn’t going to be the correct answer when asked why 2014 and 2015 are some of the warmest years on record. It is clearly more than that, but there was a refusal by those panelists to go that way, and I really think they trod lightly for fear of upsetting Cruz. They also did not correct him on some wrong assertions he made about adjustments when they probably knew better.
JimD
There were some dubious charts on both sides. The one by Goddard had no place at that hearing but I suppose politically it would have been impossible to contradict Cruz unless you did the same of warmist material and unless you knew in advance what was going to be highlighted by way of a chart I guess no side wanted to give the other an advantage by admitting the science was dubious.
Did both sides see the others graphic material WELL in advance or only as it was put on the screen when they may not have noticed anyway?
Yes, the last two years may have been amongst the warmest in a SHORT and controversial record for SOME places in the globe, but coming after several hundred years of warming we surely shouldn’t be surprised?
tonyb
“They knew that natural variability wasn’t going to be the correct answer when asked why 2014 and 2015 are some of the warmest years on record.”
This is something of a non-sequitur. The last two years temps measured within a short frame of reference (just how many different global climates have we had over the last few hundred years?) tells us nothing much about the significance of natural variability vs man-made impacts.
“Peters and Markey both were clearly not happy that Cruz had set up a panel of majority denialists in this day and age when the real debate has already moved on past these people.” – Jim D
Name the denialists and what it is they deny Jim D. You said a majority, so based on a panel of 5, that would be at least 3. Titley presumably is not one, Steyn may be one, Happer could be another. That leaves Christy and Curry. So…
Should be interesting
They deny that it is very likely that most of the warming is manmade. This despite the fact that nearly all the forcing change is manmade, and that the remaining imbalance being positive means that all the warming so far has been insufficient to catch up with the forcing so there is more in the pipeline. The positive imbalance alone implies more than 100% manmade.
Judith Curry ‘n Mark Stein, like Adam Voges ‘n Shaun Marsh,
– winners!
Pingback: The Senate hearing shows why climate policy has gridlocked | Fabius Maximus website
Except for the opening statements by the 4 scientists, I thought the hearing was pretty much a waste of time in political theatre. However, one interesting topic raised was the need for Congress to fund a Red Team (research on natural variability).
It would seem like a pro-active action of Republicans would be to introduce a bill to do this. But an illustration of professional criticism of doing this was Dr. Muller’s criticism (NYT Op/Ed) of Dr. Curry of going down a “Rabbit Hole”.
Is there any scientific consensus on exactly “what” we should be studying more on natural variability? Top 1 or 2 things — certainly not tens (a rabbit hole) of unknowns.
In the following NASA data link — it appears that a consensus is saying that its not the sun, nor volcanoes, nor . . . . .
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
The first step, just like going to your first AA meeting, is to recognize the denial by the establishment about the existence of the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. There is sufficient work identifying the possibility of those anomalies being warmer than present day that, at the very least, scientists who want to be taken seriously can try to understand why those warming events took place. Anyone who thinks all of the trends are unprecedented can’t make any progress in knowing what really is going on now.
ceresco kid
Denial of the existence of the Minoan (bronze age) Roman and Medieval warm period is the first impediment to gaining knowledge, as with the cold periods between them, of which the LIA is the most famous and most extreme.
However, there are other shorter periods that are not as famous or extended that can be characterised as either predominantly warm or predominantly cold. Separate to this generality are the specifics of picking out the extremes such as droughts, storms and exceptional heat and cold events.
This aspect of historic variability that puts the modern era into a broader perspective often seems to be obscured. You see the reactions here whereby people pour scorn on well documented ‘anecdotes’ whilst praising the detailed scientific weather information they believe can be ascertained from lumps of dead trees.
This side-lining of historic weather is very noticeable in the US hearings.
tonyb
Tony
I don’t know why I didn’t do the research into what the literature says about those previous warm periods until recently but when I saw how many peer reviewed papers mentioned them I was floored. I didn’t expect to see so many.
The only conclusion I can make is that there are a lot of lazy people or they have willful ignorance.
Another area that appears to be purposely overly dramatized is the Antarctic. Just yesterday I read yet another paper about geothermal activity in West Antarctica. When one couples the plausibility of underground heat causing instability in one region with the old newspaper articles about fears of ice sheet collapse from 100 years ago, at a minimum a reasonable person should wonder what has really been going on for many centuries.
Steven, Much as I hate to admit it, the first red team should be shrinks trying to explain why binary thinking is the default. The second should be failed statisticians and modelers lecturing on over-confidence combined with binary thinking.
Is that the Berkley Earth Muller who funds the surface temperature thermometer adjustments rabbit hole?
Mark
On the plus side, this is the same Richard Muller that in an email five years ago to me said that one third of the Earths stations were cooling. He repeated it in an article;
‘We discovered that about one-third of the world’s temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the IPCC’s average of 0.64ºC.’ (Please see article for context)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348
You will have seen me consistently asking Mosh for clarification of this and he places numerous caveats and says there is zilch cooling.
I think the fact quoted by his boss that one third are showing cooling, but they are masked by those showing extreme warming, is very interesting and illustrates the problems of a global average, whereby the nuances of local climates are subsumed into something that is not helpful in understanding the climate.
tonyb
Tony keeps mispresenting the facts here.
Do not trust any climate history he writes.
I will explain it ONE LAST TIME.
In a 250 year record you will have stations that START and STOP at different times.
Suppose you have three stations.
A: starts in 1750 and goes to today
B: starts in 1950 and goes to 1975
C) starts in 1900 and goes to today
1/3 will show cooling
GET IT!!!
the specific test he was speaking about did not compare LIKE with LIKE
Stop being stuck on STUPID
This is why real science works with data and not newspaper clippings.
or monks notes.
Mosh
Have I misrepresented you? No. I said you place numerous caveats and say there is zilch cooling. Do you disagree with that? No.
So just to ensure we are not talking at cross purposes-if I find ANY stations in the global record cooling for more than say the last ten years you will be surprised?
How are you doing with verifying the accuracy of each of the temperature readings you present as scientific data? It took Camuffo and Jones 5 years and 7 million Euros to verify/adjust seven European temperature records. Are you as rigorous?
You should be held to the same level of proof of the accuracy of the original data as you seek to hold me to.
tonyb
Mosh:
Simply put youre acting like a prat.
You declare: our adjustments cool the record, while not mentioning that any cooling of the prior history necessarily increases the calculated rate offwarming to the present.
You associate with and are paid by a group who piggy backed onto the reputation and name of Berkley, despite having nothing to do with that institiuon.
You spend your time posting snarky unresponsive comments.
Heres a rhetorical question for you Mosh:
“Have you no shame?”
Tony, Mosher’s a twit.
Calculating a global mean surface temperature from a dog’s breakfast of poorly controlled thermometer readings, endlessly churning and adjusting them and declaring warmest year bs isn’t my idea of science.
I think that your work, monk’s notes and all, is more informative and certainly more interesting.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology declared that official temperature records in Australia prior to 1910 were unreliable. The official BOM record starts after 1910. I believe this was done to get rid of inconvenient high official temperatures prior to 1910, which did not support the official Warmist dogma.
If BEST chooses to use records stated to be unreliable by real scientists including meteorologists, and officially sanctioned climatologists, then they should not be surprised if nobody takes them seriously.
Steven Mosher refers to real science, and data. He glosses over the requirement that the data needs to be relevant, rigorously defined and accurate, for starters. Pretend scientists have no time for the rigours of real science. Not even a pretense of following the scientific process, rather believing in strident assertion, and claims that debate and consensus are superior to fact.
All nonsense of course. Bodies do not warm themselves, whether wrapped in CO2 or not. CO2 is an essential plant food. The Earth is a slowly cooling ball of “rock”, still white hot at its centre.
Warmists have little concept of the difference between heat, temperature and energy, and can’t be bothered with real science. Fools or frauds, all.
However, at least it keeps believers happy, mostly off the streets, and soaks up all the spare Government money lying around. As Steven Mosher might say – too funny!
Cheers.
Tony
the misrepresentation is over what Muller said and what he meant.
##########
Have I misrepresented you? No. I said you place numerous caveats and say there is zilch cooling. Do you disagree with that? No.
1. yes I disagree
2. I have tried to explain to you many times what Muller meant,
the specific test he was refering to, the purpose of doing that
test, and the LIMITATIONS of the test.
3. In the 40,000 stations or so you will find some that cool.
stations that have short records from 1940 to to 1960,
stations with 3 years of data, 40 years, ect. You might
even find longer stations with cooling trends, but effectively
ZIP…
4. If you start to demand more complete data like 95% complete,
99% complete… 100% complete ( no missing months) the number
drops even more.
5. When you start to investigate THESE you will find more problems
station moves, instrument changes,, ect
Basically, if we look at stations UNADJUSTED starting in 1900
you have roughly 450 stations and 50 or so that show cooling
https://stevemosher.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/cooling-stations/
So just to ensure we are not talking at cross purposes-if I find ANY stations in the global record cooling for more than say the last ten years you will be surprised?
1. Not at all
2. You will find them.
3. The more demanding you are in the purity of the data–
length of record, no gaps, no missing data,
the smaller the pile gets.
for example… Of all the long stations from 1900 to present.. <15%
of RAW are cooling. eliminate stations that had TOBS changes
and you are talking about a handful of stations. zero. nothing.
NOT 33%.
In short you end up with some anecdotes.
Steven, do you not find some stations that show a warming trend, which have the same problems?
Mosh
Here is a typical interpretation of Mullers comments on one third of global stations are cooling
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021144716.htm
To me this reads that one third of the globes stations have been cooling for many decades during the last portion of our era.. If he did not mean this he expressed himself incredibly badly.
However when I asked him by email just before this study was published, as our own research showed this scenario also, he agreed that one third of the stations had been cooling . I think I used the words ‘over at least the last thirty years’ (as that was the criteria we used) but I couldn’t swear that was exactly the words I used.
Now. Muller seems to be saying one thing and you appear to be saying the other. One of you is wrong or one of you is not very good at putting over the findings, Which is it?
tonyb
The Berkeley Earth study concludes that:
‘The urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but
does not contribute significantly to the average land
temperature rise. That’s because the urban regions of
Earth amount to less than 1% of the land area.
About 1/3 of temperature sites around the world reported
global cooling over the past 70 years (including much of
the United States and northern Europe). But 2/3 of the
sites show warming. Individual temperature histories
reported from a single location are frequently noisy and/or
unreliable, and it is always necessary to compare and
combine many records to understand the true pattern of
global warming.
The large number of sites reporting cooling might help
explain some of the skepticism of global warming,” Rohde
commented. “Global warming is too slow for humans to
feel directly, and if your local weather man tells you that
temperatures are the same or cooler than they were a
hundred years ago it is easy to believe him.” In fact, it is
very hard to measure weather consistently over decades
and centuries, and the presence of sites reporting cooling
is a symptom of the noise and local variations that can
creep in. A good determination of the rise in global land
temperatures can’t be done with just a few stations: it
takes hundreds — or better, thousands — of stations to
detect and measure the average warming. Only when
many nearby thermometers reproduce the same patterns
can we know that the measurements were reliably made.
Stations ranked as “poor” in a survey by Anthony Watts
and his team of the most important temperature recording
stations in the U.S., (known as the USHCN — the US
Historical Climatology Network), showed the same pattern
of global warming as stations ranked “OK.” Absolute
temperatures of poor stations may be higher and less
accurate, but the overall global warming trend is the same,
and the Berkeley Earth analysis concludes that there is
not any undue bias from including poor stations in the
survey.’
Second paragraph, I/3 of sites around the globe reported
cooling over the past 70 years.
Beth
Thanks. This is why I don’t understand the vitriol from Mosh. The text seems quite explicit and matches the question I originally asked Muller, albeit I placed a definite boundary that the cooling must end at the present. Perhaps the Muller cooling was for the first 40 years but they have been warming over the last 40?
However, I would not read it this way. Seems like the only way to get a proper answer is to ask Muller himself.
tonyb
That graphic misses a really big issue:
Energy moving around within the system.
The answer to the question; Senate hearing: data or dogma? Is dogma. Why?
There could be no better exercise than this hearing to demonstrate that the left isn’t interested in data that either disproves, or so much as questions the veracity of any AGW hypothesis or theory. The Democratic Senators had every opportunity to go directly to JC and the other scientists to get an inventory of the ideas and questions on the minds of skeptics or lukewarmers, they not only didn’t do it, they did ends around the science guests and at times chastised them with the very group think that the scientists were warning against. The 97% meme was deployed to close down discussion in long winded ranting fashion by the Democratic Senators. There was not even then faintest want for illumination of science that counters prevailing group think, every effort was made to close down or cut off unwanted information.
If one is interested in truth then politics is irrelevant, or protecting the status quo. This wasn’t evident in this hearing. The conclusion of the hearing left no doubt that this so called science behind AGW will not entertain the science behind doubts.
The world knows what the proponents of AGW are saying, the science is in the media daily along with a bountiful supply of propaganda. This hearing didn’t require warmest representation, it should have been staged as an opportunity to openly “test the prevailing hypothesis” by allowing the other side to be heard, other sciences; the statisticians, mathematicians and other disciplines outside the 97% meme, and for them to express their proofs questioning the conclusions proposed by the IPCC. The idea that a representative needed to be in this hearing to defend the status quo is preposterous; it suggests just how uncomfortable the left is about losing grip on the stranglehold of AGW science and monolithic group think. The dogma. The dogma prevails.
[Moderator: Is there any way to fix the broken link function? It is difficult to keep up with newer comments if you have to scroll thru all comments to find new ones, rather than just click the “recent comments” link.]
opluso
I suspect that many of the silly links were removed, so by pressing on a commentators name you will now land up some way away from the one you chose. I find that clicking it again will enable you to hone in precisely.
However, it may well be that you have the problem that I experience on my ipad but NOT on my lap top , whereas the ipad safari will not take you anywhere and I have to scroll all through in order to find the latest comment. This started a couple of weeks ago .This ONLY happens on CE and not on any other site
Which problem is yours?
tonyb
The latter issue. Perhaps a Safari update caused this?
The portion missing from each link is, for example: #comment-749848
I haven’t personally updated safari but these things do have a mind of their own and it may have happened automatically. Is your problem related to safari also?
tonyb
tonyb:
I just checked at Steve McIntyre’s site and encountered the same problem. I have no idea what is stripping off the numerical identifier for comment links. When I get a chance I will dig around for answers since it seems to be limited to me and perhaps a few random others.
I posted a transcript of the Q&A between Curry, Steyn, and Markey. Senate performance art at its best, nicely illustrating why public policy is gridlocked on this vital issue.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/12/10/senate-climate-hearing-91817/
Given we’re setting the scientific method aside for the duration of the global warming debate, I’m a bit surprised the theory that aliens caused global warming was not even mentioned.
#JeSuisJudy
Curry seems to “know” that the satellite data is the best data for global temperature. MSU/AMSU that is. All the other temperature series must be biased high. But what about other satellite data?
Like AATSR SST?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yaDotXlg_Vg/U573_1y5pdI/AAAAAAAAACE/u7m3pOxeXLs/s1600/sst_surface_obs_and_obs_from_space.png
Or AMRSE SST?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/somethings-fishy-with-global-ocean-temperature-measurements/
(watch Spencer’s surprise when comparing the satellite data to the non-bias corrected ERSST3b…. The non-corrected series is running too low)
Or RSS water vapor?
https://i.imgur.com/IInkQx0.png
https://i.imgur.com/6znlz9x.png
Spencer’s response to that effectively kills TLT as the superior global temperature data:
“(1) it [water vapor] is indeed definitely tied to SSTs,
(2) but is increasing much faster than expected from constant RH, suggesting a problem with the TPW retrieval assumption of a constant specific humidity profile shape in the context of a warming trend, and
(3) how free tropospheric temperature doesn’t have to warm as fast as the surface temperature…it all depends upon changes in precipitation microphysics, which are not well understood.
The bottom line is that boundary layer vapor is not a proxy for tropospheric temperature…but it is a pretty good proxy for SST.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203356
The bottom line is that boundary layer vapor is not a proxy for tropospheric temperature…but it is a pretty good proxy for SST.”
Sounds about right.
Here’s an interesting possible effect if that is what’s occuring, however.
If the ‘top-of-the-water-vapour’ is lower, even if PW is greater, the atmosphere sends more energy to space:
https://turbulenteddies.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/comparetopofwater.png
One of the ways other than surface warming which could possibly restore balance to the global disequilibrium imposed by a doubling of carbon dioxide.
Turbulent Eddie, thank you for the link. In it you say: I don’t believe any of these cases means that CO2 does not likely ’cause warming’. To the contrary, while this is by no means exhaustive, it’s a reminder that whatever happens, the only response that can matter to reverse CO2 forcing is radiative. And I believe the most likely case is uniform warming including the surface.
Why do you expect, after all of that, “uniform” warming? If the upper troposphere cools only by radiation (with probably some convection across the tropopause), but the surface transfers energy to the upper troposphere via radiation, convection, and evapotranspiration, why would the concurrent CO2-induced warming be uniform? Much of the transfer from surface to upper troposphere occurs during non-equilibrium conditions that are hard to model, but it would seem that a small surface temperature increase ought to accompany a larger upper troposphere temperature increase. I don’t understand how your analysis shows something different.
Why do you expect, after all of that, “uniform” warming? If the upper troposphere cools only by radiation (with probably some convection across the tropopause), but the surface transfers energy to the upper troposphere via radiation, convection, and evapotranspiration, why would the concurrent CO2-induced warming be uniform? Much of the transfer from surface to upper troposphere occurs during non-equilibrium conditions that are hard to model, but it would seem that a small surface temperature increase ought to accompany a larger upper troposphere temperature increase. I don’t understand how your analysis shows something different.
Perhaps that comment was too much in haste. I don’t have a basis for belief that warming will impose an increase,decrease, or no change to lapse rates, other than that’s closer to what observations apparently indicate.
The GCMs do appear to indicate a decrease of lapse rate, manifest by the Hot Spot. Observations tend to indicate the opposite, of course: an increase in lapse rate, though closer to uniform warming than the Hot Spot (with apologies for the repetition ):
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/HotSpot.png
Reality differs from the models, and of course it should since the deep convection thought to provide the Hot Spot is parameterized and sub-grid scale. That means not only are the individual events not modelled, we also lack the means to verify the statistics of grid scale predictions to varying amounts of sub-grid scale thunderstorms. Perhaps that will change with increasing resolution, perhaps not, but it probably means that no one knows and the apparent failure of the models in this regard should give pause to all.
That said, I want to pursue the question:
If the upper troposphere cools only by radiation, but the surface transfers energy to the upper troposphere via radiation, convection, and evapotranspiration, why would the concurrent CO2-induced warming be uniform?
The implication that the upper troposphere loses energy only by one means ( radiation ) but receives energy by two means ( radiation & convection ) that would seem to increase with warming. That seems logical to me but also consider how convection moderates the process.
Convection acts to warm(and humidify) the upper troposphere.
The additional warmth and humidity makes the upper troposphere a more effective radiator.
The result is a faster cooling upper troposphere ( subsidence ).
I think the magnitude of these processes are not properly scaled to one another, especially since the deep convection takes place over very small ( 10 km ) areas within the ITCZ while radiation takes place everywhere.
Of course, Wallace & Hobbs (Atmospheric Science, Second Edition: An Introductory Survey ) cited Manabe & Strickler and demonstrated that convection tends to warm the upper troposphere and cool the lower troposphere beyond radiative only atmosphere:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/RadiativeEquilibrium.png
But then again, if the +CO2 induced warming aloft comes from increased convective transport of surface heat, and convection acts to cool the surface, again there is negative feedback to the processes, tending back to uniformity.
Turbulent Eddie, thank you for your reply.
And what a difference a year makes:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/do-satellite-temperature-trends-have-a-spurious-cooling-from-clouds/#comment-155414
Evidently facts change fast.
Senate hearing, data or dogma? Nobody cares. With the exception of a few committed partisans, nobody watched. It’s a non-story.
Here is the real story:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/morning-consult-23281
Questions and complete results of poll:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/morning-consult-23281
A large sample and thin margin of error. Very bad news for the Democrats and especially the little green radicals. Obama’s legacy is looking tattered, the people say the country is on the wrong track and climate change does not register on the list of the big problems we face. The Donald and Carson climate deniers beat Hillarity handily, with several other Republican also-rans in virtual ties with the candidate the Demos are going to be stuck with.
You won’t see this poll mentioned in the Democrat lapdog so-called mainstream media. I couldn’t even find an article discussing it in huffpo. Where’s the little huffpo librarian yimmy? Maybe he can help me.
Your hero, the Donald, has a bizarre idea about how to fight terrorism.
Donald Trump proposes ‘closing the Internet’ as a way to fight terrorism
http://www.extremetech.com/internet/219085-donald-trump-proposes-closing-the-internet-as-a-way-to-fight-terrorism
Thank you yoey for another example of the desperate lies that are being told about The Donald in a vain effort to slow his roll to the White House. In no stretch of the imagination of anyone other than a partisan clown could this be construed as The Donald proposing to close the internet:
“We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet and we have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them, maybe in certain areas closing that Internet up in some way.
Somebody will say, ‘oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people… we’ve got to maybe do something with the Internet because they are recruiting by the thousands, they are leaving our country and then when they come back, we take them back. Oh come on back. Where were you? ‘Oh I was fighting for Isis.’ Oh come on back, enjoy yourself.”
You know that he is not talking about closing the internet to relatively harmless clowns like you, yoey. He is talking about getting Isis off the internet, or at least trying to interfere in some way with the online furtherance of their monstrous plans.
The Donald is actually bold enough to propose exploring solutions to a freaking big problem. Sensible people like action. They don’t like namby-pamby pearl clutching politically correct clowns sitting around doing nothing, while we are under attack.
CHRISTMAS BOOK APPEAL-
In order to counter the abysmal knowledge of previous climatic fluctuations over the last 1000 years shown by some members of the Senate, I am looking for subscribers to fund the sending to 20 selected senators of E Roy Laduries’ magisterial book ‘Times of Feast Times of Famine. A history of climate since 1000.’
Warm periods! Gasp! Cold Periods! Gasp! Extremes of climate not related to the modern era! Gasp!.
A number of pages will be highlighted as being of particular interest to those who think that warming and extremes only began in the 1980’s. These daring revelations all performed without the benefit of a safety net
Please give generously. Suggestions for worthy Recipients gladly received
(English satire-but only just)
tonyb
Loved hearing Markey explain the recent east coast snows. Warm water creating humidity etc…But he explains it so much better than me. Quite the communicator, is Sen Markey. (Though you do get the feeling at times he’d prefer to send you to the back of the room or the to the principal’s office.)
Have to wonder how blizzards in that region got going before climate change. 1888 seemed to do okay (40 to 50 inches of snow in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York). To show it wasn’t a fluke, in 1899 there were 34 inches of snow in one day in New Jersey. And the Knickerbocker Storm of 1922 managed 3 feet of snow in parts of the east coast. Of course, our man-made Snowmaggedon of 2010 was up there with the best. Never let them put you down, anthropes!
Presumably, all these old blizzards were brewed up without climate change. And they called ’em blizzards back then, not “Lake Effect” or “potential melt hazard”. I guess if the names were different, the climate was different. It’s the only explanation…but I really should ask Sen Markey. He’d know.
As Mark Silbert noted above, Steyn posted an analysis of the hearing: http://www.steynonline.com/7351/markey-mark
He makes several trenchant points about Senate hearings, & unfavorably compares them to those at Canada’s parliament. Excerpt:
“Americans are the chumps of the planet for putting up with {Senators’ behavior in hearings}. … {and} their contempt for the citizenry who have graciously consented, at their own time and expense to appear before them, demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the relationship.
“… there was some extensive discussion of the satellite record: They have the scientist who created and developed the satellite temperature record sitting at one end of the table: John Christy. This is a remarkable scientific accomplishment. Yet they directed all their questions on the subject to the bloke down the other end – Rear Admiral Titley, who knows no more about the satellite record than I do. This is like inviting Sir Isaac Newton to a hearing on gravity and then only asking questions of Mr Timeserver sitting next to him. ”
“… Unfortunately, the “decorum of the Senate” means that there are never any debates and only performance art …”
He also comments about the appropriateness of him testifying at a hearing about climate science: “Sad that there’s no longer a place for a Renaissance man…” Exactly. I don’t want a Renaissance man doing surgery on my son, or testifying about climate science. This is the 21st century, not the 19th (when amateur scientists make many important contributions to science).
Eh…I dont need “Editor of the Fabius Maximus website” pontificating ..
. It doesn’t stop you now, does it?
I knew Publius…Publius was a friend of mine, and let me tell you…youre no Publius.
Steyn was testifying about the dogma. Try to pay closer attention.
Don,
Odd that “Excerpt” before the text in quotation marks wasn’t clear to davideisenstadt. But I’ve found activists (which he seems to be) to be quicker to attack than read. Perhaps fearful of exposure to heterodox thought?
“:Exactly. I don’t want a Renaissance man doing surgery on my son, or testifying about climate science. This is the 21st century, not the 19th (when amateur scientists make many important contributions to science).”
No, I read you quite well, and accurately.
David,
Those 2 sentences are the reason you rule ” dont need {me} pontificating”?
I guess you’re not clear how this whole “comments” thing works. I don’t try to write what you need; you don’t try to write what I need. It’s a daft rebuttal.
Editor
You will have seen me over the months making unfavourable comments about Mark Steyn. However, I think he was good at this hearing as he managed to shake up a very poor set piece where no one was listening to the other sides points.
The Democrats in particular bizarrely referenced only Titley. Nice guy though he seemed, he did not have the experience of the others and Steyn makes the surely valid point that Christy would have been much better qualified to answer questions on the satellite records than anyone else, assuming the questioner was genuinely interested in the answers.
This hearing was a charade and merely a political set piece and I am dismayed if this is the usual level of debate and argument at this august body. I have seen very little better standards at the presidential nomination discussions. Where is the cut and thrust of intelligent questions and thoughtful answers?
I don’t think either ‘side’ learnt anything from the senate hearing as they mimicked the three monkeys. So in that respect a non scientist shaking up a debate where science took a back seat seems an appropriate role for him
tonyb
I wouldn’t be surprised if more people read Steyn’s account of the hearing than the number who actually watched the hearing.
tonyb
Why does Moshpit attack you so? You are unfailingly polite and respectful and support scientists who dramatically alter the surface temperature records but say they are too busy to explain. Zeke did a valuable service with his derivations. we shall see if these changes stand the test of time. At some point they have to stop cooling the past and heating the present via adjustments. You support the professionalism and are open to discussions with anyone, even obvious trolls and nasty responders. Thanks for all your excellent work.
Any news on sea level part 2, Roman thru middle ages?
Scott
Scott
See item 4 here
http://www.carbonbrief.org/prof-richard-muller-not-adjusting-global-temperature-records-would-be-poor-science
How would you interpret it?
Tonyb
Scott
Mosh likes numbers, I like words. He seems to think numbers are superior to words even though his records are every bit as ‘anecdotal’ as mine, when they are merely recorded by pen in a book by the observer concerned, rather than caught on some sort of digital record.
As regards sea levels. As you know I am nervous about applying global averages to something like sea level, as all the levels in the various oceanic basins are rising or falling at different rates, greatly complicated by what the land might be doing.
A great deal of the work I have been doing recently concerns land conditions and the movements of glaciers, so although not specifically about sea levels, have a very direct impact on them.
In broad terms the Alpine (and most of the Alaskan glaciers) retreated greatly during the period from around 800 to around 1200AD. There was then a noticeable advance through the 13th century and then a retreat from around 1300 to around 1580, but not to the same extent as the earlier retreat. Then an advance again from around 1580 to 1850 but with a short retreat around the middle. They have been melting generally since that date, although Manley noted that a proportion of glaciers commenced their melting around 1750.
The LIA advances were particularly extensive and will take a long time to melt. There will be thermal lag with glaciers and oceans, but it is reasonable to say that there is likely an oceanic high water mark somewhere in the early 13th century and then, after a drop, another high water mark around 1600.
Sea levels have been rising again since the early 19th century at least, and are rising to this day. As the glacier retreat was more extensive in the period ending 1200 it is likely the oceanic water levels were higher than around 1600, or than they are today. Oceanic levels however were likely at their highest at the end of the Roman warm period as this seems to coincide with the maximum glacial retreat we can trace over the last 2000 years
Yes, I hope to weave this into a future article but thought you would be interested in the evidence to date. I think you will have seen the glacier chart I produced.
tonyb
climatereason, I don’t think there is anything bizarre about what the Democrats did at all. Mark Steyn’s outrage over the proceedings is largely misplaced. The entire reason the Democrats behaved like they did was to filibuster the hearing. And with good reason, the hearing was a joke.
I’m sorry, but if you think a Senate committee hearing put on by a person to do things like promote indiotically wrong charts Ted Cruz managed to get from some pseudononymous conspiracy nutjob on the internet deserves to be treated with any sort of respect, you’re wrong. This hearing wasn’t about getting at the truth. It wasn’t about finding the facts or learning information. It was nothing more than a show put on by Ted Cruz to talk about how global warming is exaggerated/not real/a fraud. That’s all it was. That’s why he didn’t have many colleagues in the room, and that’s why practically every question he asked was leading, with him basically feeding the answer he wanted to the person he asked. This was nothing more than another stop for his presidential campaign.
The Democrats treated this hearing exactly as they should have, with contempt and disdain. They brought in a likeable guy so anyone watching would have someone to relate to, and they used their time to make their own statements on global warming just like Ted Cruz was making his own. It’s true the one Senator was rather rude, and it’s fine to get upset or complain about that, but otherwise, there’s nothing here.
If Mark Steyn didn’t know this was going to happen, he’s a buffoon. With how much time he’s spent talking about the United States government and its actions, he has no excuse for not understanding when something is going to be nothing but political theater. That he signed up for it then turned around and complained about it is just silly.
Tony and Don,
I agree with both of your. Steyn shook up the hearing, which sorely needed it. And Steyn’s testimony probably will be read by more people than the other witnesses combined.
But the result? Clickbait stories in the news and at websites, cheering the White Hats and booing the Black Hats. All forgotten in a few days. So I called this performance art, and Steyn agrees.
Public policy in this vital area is gridlocked. Hearings like this do nothing to fix that, imo. Devising ways to do this should be high on our agenda, instead of this pointless bickering.
There are measures which both sides probably can agree upon — at least, those who don’t gain from or enjoy the status quo.
“There are measures which both sides probably can agree upon…”
Not really. Whoever has the political power will make the decisions. The consensus-alarmist-greeny position is that there is no debate and no compromise.
I predict their power is waning. The story that climate change is the greatest threat faced by mankind is not selling well. The folks are more worried about their leaders pushing loosey-goosey immigration that is fraying the traditional cultural-social fabric and importing terrorism.
Fantastic work at the hearing, JC. Articulated well and legally airtight.
Mark Steyn’s testimony is phenomenally comical. From the notion that Mann calls himself a Noble Laureate, to his bullying, to the hapless DC courts with no judgement, a story the American people need to read.
This is the first of two comments made in response to several of Jim D’s remarks posted further up in the comments string.
For purposes of readability, the two comments are split among two smaller texts posted separately one after the other.
Topic #1: What could the President and the EPA Administrator be doing under existing environmental law to greatly reduce America’s GHG emissions, versus what they are actually doing?
Jim D offers the following remarks, which I conveniently employ as my starting point for Topic #1:
Jim D: “Indeed the real debate is not about whether we are changing the climate much, as these particular people still think, but about, given the amount of change we could apply in the future, what are the impacts, how expensive that is, how much effort is it to reduce that impact, and where best to focus that effort. They can’t be brought down to earth on the real debate, however, which is great for the Republicans trotting them out at these hearings on a regular basis.”
Jim D, let’s review the respective roles, as identified under current environmental law, of the EPA, the Executive Branch, and the Congress in setting public policy as it applies to managing the emissions of substances identified as pollutants.
The EPA, not the Congress, is the agency of the US Government designated by the Clean Air Act to make an official determination as to whether or not a substance being emitted into the atmosphere from human activities represents a danger to public health and the environment.
Once that determination has been made and a positive Endangerment Finding has been published — and after the substance has been labeled a “pollutant” and its emissions labeled as “pollution” — it is the EPA’s responsibility to act as the lead agency of government in developing and implementing a strategy and a plan for reducing emissions of the pollutant and for mitigating its dangers. These kinds of strategies and plans normally become operative through a coordinated series of actions shared among the federal and the state governments.
The EPA published an Endangerment Finding for carbon in 2009 which identified CO2 and other carbon-based greenhouse gases as pollutants when present in excessive atmospheric concentrations. This finding was successfully defended in the courts in 2010, with the practical effect that the climate science contained in IPCC 2007 AR4 is now the law of the land for purposes of regulatory rule making.
As it concerns their official roles and responsibilities under current environmental law, what the Republicans in Congress think about the validity of today’s climate science doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things, unless of course they are intent on revising or repealing the Clean Air Act.
In the face of Republican opposition, President Obama has announced a goal of a 28% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2025, a 32% reduction by 2030, and an 80% reduction by 2050. The EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) achieves roughly one-quarter of the President’s Year 2050 emission target. Neither the President nor the EPA Administrator have yet offered any specific plan for how to go beyond the CPP in pursuing the balance of the President’s highly ambitious Year 2050 reduction goal.
Now, it could be that President Obama is truly sincere in making his public pronouncements concerning his very aggressive GHG reduction targets, but that he doesn’t yet have a clue as to how to go about getting the job done.
Or alternatively, it could be that he fully understands that he and the EPA do in fact have the legal authority needed to decarbonize America’s economy; and that he and the EPA can in fact decarbonize our economy without requesting further legislative approval from the Congress. Perhaps the basic reason he doesn’t take truly aggressive action is because doing so carries a political price which he and the EPA Administrator aren’t willing to pay.
The EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, is a Democrat. She works closely with other departments and federal agencies of the Executive Branch. The current President of the united States, Barack Obama, is also a Democrat. Is it fair to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the reason that the President and the EPA Administrator are so very reluctant to invoke the full regulatory authority of the EPA is because they both fear the consequences of sparking a widespread popular backlash against the lifestyle sacrifices which most certainly must be made in reducing America’s GHG emissions 80% by 2050?
Jim D, as a committed environmental activist, shouldn’t you be expecting something more from President Barack Obama and from EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy than what you are currently getting? Shouldn’t you and your fellow environmental activists be demanding a courageous display of Presidential leadership on climate change issues — leadership displayed in the face of what could prove to be intense opposition from an aroused public, once a truly effective GHG reduction plan is established?
The Republican opposition to this is heavily subsidized by fossil fuel money for campaigns in their various states. They will not be impartial on the science and this should be taken into account when they make proclamations against the scientific conclusions. Likewise their go-to thinktanks. Almost all the “skepticism” is coming from that direction. Universities, on the other hand, in the US and globally, gain nothing from scientifically being able to explain the warming seen in terms of the forcing known. It just is. In fact, if anything, it is an inconvenient truth because it leads to rethinking how we produce energy. Scientists don’t want this result, but they have to point to hazards when they see them, whether in this field of science or in others.
.
Beta Blocker | December 11, 2015 at 2:32 am:
Beta Blocker: “Jim D, as a committed environmental activist, shouldn’t you be expecting something more from President Barack Obama and from EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy than what you are currently getting? Shouldn’t you and your fellow environmental activists be demanding a courageous display of Presidential leadership on climate change issues — leadership displayed in the face of what could prove to be intense opposition from an aroused public, once a truly effective GHG reduction plan is established?”
Jim D | December 11, 2015 at 5:19 am:
Jim D: “The Republican opposition to this is heavily subsidized by fossil fuel money for campaigns in their various states. They will not be impartial on the science and this should be taken into account when they make proclamations against the scientific conclusions.”
It is impossible for the United States to meet President Obama’s highly ambitious schedule for reducing America’s GHG emissions unless the US Government takes aggressive action to directly and indirectly put a price on carbon, and to directly and indirectly limit the production, supply, and availability of all carbon fuels.
If President Obama and EPA Administrator McCarthy are truly sincere about fighting climate change, they will use the power invested in each of their respective offices to its maximum possible effectiveness in legally and constitutionally pursuing the President’s announced GHG reduction goals.
But in pursuing those goals, neither the President nor the EPA Administrator have come anywhere close to exercising their full legal authorities under existing environmental law.
Jim D: “Likewise their go-to thinktanks. Almost all the “skepticism” is coming from that direction. Universities, on the other hand, in the US and globally, gain nothing from scientifically being able to explain the warming seen in terms of the forcing known.”
The EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding for carbon has been successfully defended in the courts. IPCC 2007 AR4 is effectively the law of the land for purposes of environmental regulation and regulatory rulemaking.
Any lawsuits based on what the skeptic’s go-to think tanks might believe about the climate science contained in IPCC 2007 AR4 aren’t likely to get very far in the courts, because the EPA has already been successful in defending the process it used in evaluating and documenting the version of climate science it claims is valid.
As things stand today, nothing that Republicans could do short of repealing the Clean Air Act could derail the EPA’s citation of IPCC 2007 AR4 as its valid scientific reference for purpose of imposing GHG regulations.
The only basis that Republicans could use in filing lawsuits against a truly aggressive GHG reduction plan would the plan’s lack of fairness in equitably distributing the socio-economic burdens of decarbonization across all classes of GHG emitters, were that plan to be poorly designed and unfairly applied.
However, it is hard to believe the US Government doesn’t have the expertise in the application of environmental law needed to develop a truly effective GHG reduction strategy, including the development of a corresponding regulatory framework which can stick like glue to GHG emitters, assuming that said regulatory framework is properly designed and properly structured.
Jim D: “It just is. In fact, if anything, it is an inconvenient truth because it leads to rethinking how we produce energy. Scientists don’t want this result, but they have to point to hazards when they see them, whether in this field of science or in others.”
The inconvenient truth here is that America’s environmental activists refuse to acknowledge that they now have a clear public policy pathway available to them for achieving the steep emission reductions they desire, a pathway they can travel reasonably quickly and reasonably successfully without undue hindrance from climate science skeptics.
So why aren’t the environmental activists taking that path?
This is the second of two comments made in response to several of Jim D’s remarks posted further up in the comments string.
Topic #2: What could Congressional Democrats be doing to support the Executive Branch in its pursuit of a truly effective strategy for greatly reducing America’s GHG emissions?
Jim D offers the following remarks, which I conveniently employ as my starting point for Topic #2:
Jim D: “Peters and Markey both were clearly not happy that Cruz had set up a panel of majority denialists in this day and age when the real debate has already moved on past these people. It benefited Judith to see the frankness of these senators on the outlier nature of the representation here, and Markey said it like it is. He spoke his mind and did not pull punches for politeness. It is probably very similar to the reception these people would receive in a scientific meeting if they put those same talking points to them.”
Admiral Titley is a retired Navy Admiral and Senator Peters is a former Lieutenant Commander in the US Navy Reserve. Both have a strong background in national security matters, and both echo the point President Obama has already made, that climate change has profound implications for America’s security interests both at home and abroad. President Obama has even gone so far as to label climate change as a more serious problem for America and for the world than is terrorism.
Given their prior backgrounds in national security matters, Senator Peters might have asked Admiral Titley if he believes that the predictions of climate scientists are reliable enough to support the issuance of an Executive Order declaring a carbon pollution emergency in the United States. That Executive Order would instruct all departments and agencies of the US Government to work with the EPA and the states in developing and implementing a fast-track program for quickly reducing America’s GHG emissions to acceptable levels.
How short a time frame should that fast-track plan cover, and what would be acceptable as GHG reduction targets?
President Obama has already announced his goal of a 28% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2025, a 32% reduction by 2030, and an 80% reduction by 2050. What he has not said is how he plans to get there.
One reasonably certain approach for getting there would be for the EPA to set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon dioxide under Section 108 of the Clean Air Act, using the President’s prior declaration of a carbon pollution emergency as the legal basis for invoking that particular section of the law. The EPA could then establish a regulatory framework for controlling all of America’s GHG emissions, not just a limited subcategory of those emissions as we are doing now, thus distributing the burdens of decarbonzation fairly and equitably among all classes of GHG emitters.
It should be noted here that the prior declaration of a carbon pollution emergency by the President is a key enabling element of an effective GHG reduction strategy, an element which largely insulates the use of CAA Section 108 from subsequent lawsuits. (Not to say that such lawsuits wouldn’t be filed, but that their chances for success would be relatively small if a carbon pollution emergency has been formally declared.)
In any case, the Senate hearing might well have been the perfect opportunity for Congressional Democrats to match today’s climate science to a realistic plan for taking strong action against rising GHG emissions, a plan founded entirely in the provisions of existing environmental laws and regulations.
But the Democrats didn’t take the opportunity. They didn’t use the expertise they had available to them to offer a realistic path forward. All they did was grandstand for the press.
Jim D, as a committed environmental activist, shouldn’t you be expecting something more from Senate Democrats and their expert witnesses than what you are currently getting? For one example, couldn’t Senator Peters and Senator Markey have asked for confirmation from Admiral Titley that the predictions of climate scientists are sufficiently reliable to justify the issuance of an Executive Order declaring a carbon pollution emergency?
Whatever the US does would be nothing without a global commitment to reduce emissions. In terms of attacking the problem most effectively, the priority has to be global action. It is also recognized that the solution won’t come tomorrow, but with a directed effort over decades that encourages the right technologies and discourages the wrong ones. If you want to call that an “emergency” response, give the time scale, fine, but I don’t think that word achieves much except for guaranteed right-wing opposition. Words do matter, and it would be a drive or a program or a project or a policy framework to convey that there is a long-term goal here.
Fraud is what, again?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud#img-1
Loose screws still can affect communication.
You may take heart Jim D, Dr. Hansen, recognized a pattern.
“It’s all embarrassing really,” Hansen says. “After a while you realise as a scientist that politicians don’t act rationally.
Science marches on.
Beta Blocker | December 11, 2015 at 2:40 am:
Beta Blocker: “Jim D, as a committed environmental activist, shouldn’t you be expecting something more from Senate Democrats and their expert witnesses than what you are currently getting? For one example, couldn’t Senator Peters and Senator Markey have asked for confirmation from Admiral Titley that the predictions of climate scientists are sufficiently reliable to justify the issuance of an Executive Order declaring a carbon pollution emergency?”
Jim D | December 11, 2015 at 5:30 am:
Jim D: “Whatever the US does would be nothing without a global commitment to reduce emissions. In terms of attacking the problem most effectively, the priority has to be global action.”
President Obama has unilaterally committed the United States to a 28% reduction in our GHG emissions by 2025, a 32% reduction by 2030, and an 80% reduction by 2050. He has done so as a means of signaling to the world that the United States is willing to show exceptional leadership in the fight against climate change.
But his commitment can’t be effective in convincing other nations to follow suit unless it is backed up by a credible implementation plan, a plan which so doesn’t yet exist. How can the United States become the example to follow in decarbonizing an industrial economy if it has no credible approach for getting from here to there?
Jim D: “It is also recognized that the solution won’t come tomorrow, but with a directed effort over decades that encourages the right technologies and discourages the wrong ones.”
What more effective approach could there be in meeting President Obama’s highly aggressive schedule for reducing America’s GHG emissions but for the US Government to directly and indirectly put a price on carbon; and to directly and indirectly limit the production, supply, and availability of all carbon fuels? Once this has been done, the marketplace can sort out any practical alternatives to carbon fuels much more quickly efficiently than crony capitalism ever could.
As I’ve demonstrated in other posts here on Climate Etc., the President and the EPA Administrator have the legal power and authority required to largely decarbonize America’s economy, if they are willing to apply existing environmental law and regulation to the full extent the Clean Air Act not only allows, but also demands. They can use Section 108 of the Clean Air Act to directly and indirectly limit the production, supply, and availability of all carbon fuels; and they can impose a corresponding system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
Jim D: “If you want to call that an “emergency” response, given the time scale, fine, but I don’t think that word achieves much except for guaranteed right-wing opposition.”
The only basis that Republicans could use in filing lawsuits against a truly aggressive GHG reduction plan would the plan’s lack of fairness in equitably distributing the socio-economic burdens of decarbonization across all classes of GHG emitters, were that plan to be poorly designed and unfairly applied.
As I’ve said elsewhere, it is hard to believe the US Government doesn’t have the professional expertise in the application of environmental law needed to write a truly effective GHG reduction strategy, including a corresponding regulatory framework which can stick like glue to its targeted emitters — assuming the regulatory framework is properly designed and structured.
Jim D: “Words do matter, and it would be a drive or a program or a project or a policy framework to convey that there is a long-term goal here.”
A presidential declaration of a carbon pollution emergency can become much more than mere words on paper.
It can become a key enabling element of a long-term strategy and program for decarbonizing America’s economy, a strategy and program which can credibly reduce America’s GHG emissions 80% by 2050. If we presume that America is the nation the world looks to for leadership on climate change issues, the declaration of a carbon pollution emergency in the United States would be a clear demonstration of our firm commitment to the fight against climate change, one which no other industrial nation could ignore.
Jim D, I have to say that I do greatly appreciate your willingness to engage.
But I also have to say that I am perplexed by your obvious prevarications and posturings and by your persistence in pushing aside the great preponderance of evidence that President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy are not truly committed to pursuing the kinds of GHG emission reductions which are commensurate with the dangers they say we are now facing.
Jim D, open your eyes; open your ears, open your mind. Glad tidings are here. A clear pathway exists for achieving the emission reductions that you and many other environmental activists say are desperately needed. It is a pathway which cannot be easily blocked by the obstructionists. A message of good news has arrived at your front door, free of charge and without strings attached.
But you are refusing delivery.
I think Obama still holds out hope that Republicans will see the light, but I don’t believe he has the tools that you outline anyway. He needs policies that will last beyond his administration, and the EPA is the way that is being done as you may have noticed. He can’t direct stimulus money where he would like to. That takes congressional acts. He can work with other nations to get the global reductions needed, and he is. I think he has done as much as he can in the existing US political climate.
Jim D: “I think Obama still holds out hope that Republicans will see the light, but I don’t believe he has the tools that you outline anyway. He needs policies that will last beyond his administration, and the EPA is the way that is being done as you may have noticed. He can’t direct stimulus money where he would like to. That takes congressional acts. He can work with other nations to get the global reductions needed, and he is. I think he has done as much as he can in the existing US political climate.”
Massive public spending on alternative energy resources will not by itself get us to where we need to go in aggressively reducing America’s own carbon emissions, because Americans will not give up their addiction to carbon fuels unless they are compelled to do so. International treaty or no international treaty, even a Congress controlled by Democrats will never put a price on carbon or take direct action to limit the supply and availability of all carbon fuels.
If carbon dioxide is indeed a pollutant when present in excessive concentrations in the atmosphere — which the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding for carbon says that it is — then by law and by past precedent the Clean Air Act is the appropriate means for controlling all of America’s own greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of their source.
The Clean Air Act provides a sound legal basis in existing environmental law for developing all of the specialized regulatory tools which will be needed to achieve President Obama’s goal of an 80% reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2050. As long the regulatory framework developed by the EPA distributes the socio-economic burdens of decarbonization fairly and equitably among all classes of GHG emitters, there is no reason to believe it wouldn’t survive the inevitable legal challenges made to it in the courts.
Unless the President and the EPA Administrator step up to their responsibilities as defined in the Clean Air Act and begin to regulate all sources of America’s carbon emissions, not just those of the electric utility industry, then America’s own GHG emissions will never be reduced to the extent that climate activists are demanding. It’s just as plain and simple as that.
Fuel efficiency standards are also being improved. That’s another large sector.
Pingback: Le meilleur résumé de la situation climatique actuelle – MR's Blog
The Senate did not enhance their reputation with this shamelessly partisan matinee performance. I am reminded of the 1988 Congressional hearing that started off this belief that climate change was a state unique to the modern era, when James Hansen -apparently with the help of a hot day and no a/c-started the first chapter of a saga more extended than ‘War and Peace’.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
Was his testimony received in a spirit of genuine scientific enquiry or was it merely part of a stage managed political process?
Those of us who study these things often wonder why Dr Hansen commenced GISS from 1880, which omitted the warming hump clearly visible in previous ‘global’ temperature reconstructions (the first was made some 200 years earlier) in this case, those created by Mitchell. He writes in 1961;
‘The Pentads centred on 1882 was recognised as the first pentad for which all the latitude bands (except the polar extremes) were represented by some data. Consequently temperature changes are shown as departures from the temperature levels of the 1882 pentad’.’
Not ‘extensive’ data, merely ‘some’ data. Not ‘all’ latitude bans, but omitting those that, because of amplification, are the most important-those at the poles.
So a start in 1880 involves a lot of guesswork based on very incomplete data and those reconstructions that had almost as much data dating to the 1850’s show that Dr Hansen inadvertently commenced his readings from a distinct dip in temperatures, rather than the hump that preceded it.
The result; a long upwards trend, instead of one more fairly representing the ups and downs we can observe over a thousand years, with the current warming trend starting around 1700, making Giss a staging post of increasing warmth and not the starting post.
Do these current Senate hearings have any effect on what appears to have become a political process rather than a scientific one? I doubt it. Both political sides appear to be doing a good impersonation of ignoring each other in a passable imitation of the three monkeys,
tonyb
Pingback: Markey Mark by Mark Steyn | RUTHFULLY YOURS
As a concerned Environmentalist and retired Environmental Engineer, I am more concerned with the science behind the effort. Why is greater than 90% of government funding directed toward the anthropogenic side, rather than with all aspects of AGW, especially the natural side? Personally, I think there is some warming effect for “greenhouse gasses”, but I suspect they are quite small – dwarfed by the natural changes that occur. But, without adequate investigation, we will never know…and now Jim D tells us that “the real debate has already moved on”, where such investigation won’t matter. Have we progressed to the point that we know how to solve the problem and are ready to commit up to $Trillions on the outcome? I think not.
I’m sorry, I have been trying to understand the basis for the debate and cannot find it. Someone who knows better might try educating me (I’m open to all empirical studies) with knowledge that comes not from the GCMs. Without the observed direct link that atmospheric CO2 will cause global calamity, I remain unconvinced. Perhaps a controlled experiment large enough to have meaning on a global scale will help? How large a volume is needed?
The recent study concerning ocean temperatures, and how the Argo temps had to be “adjusted” to fit the historic ship temps is a concern to me. Mainly because I was a ship watch standing engineer, who put those intake temperatures into the log book. I was lucky to be able to read the thermometer to within 1/2 degree F, but the log book only recorded temperature to the whole number, with no decimal, how could you possibly say those log book numbers are accurate to the extent possible to be part of a scientific study? Even worse, the log book numbers were never verified. So, I consider the Argo temps much more accurate than the ship logs. It is surprising to me that such adjustments to accurate scientific temps were manipulated so that they would be comparable to temps which were entered into a ship log book by a seaman who had no scientific training!
Just saying…
tekguyjeff
I have covered this topic in a previous article of mine. The inaccuracy in intake temperatures were bad enough but far worse during the bucket era.
Yet this inaccurate stuff is help up as the scientific basis for far reaching policy decisions. Do you think the govt policy makers are even vaguely aware of the provenance of much of the historic climate data?
tonyb
Hey, I’m just a physics student, so I’m pretty sure I don’t understand fully the radiative balance of the Earth and its atmosphere.
But when I read :
“No one questions that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet.”
It seems to me a bit wrong.
Many scientists, as Gerlich and Tscheuschner (they are probably the most known) think radiative forcing never existed, or at least the re-emission phenomenon.
Indeed, I’m inclined to believe what they say when I applied myself my statistical physics and thermodynamics basic knowledge.
My first problem is why radiative forcing is needed ?
I calculated the effective radiative temperature of an Earth without atmosphere, I think the usual value of 255K . If I take this temperature as a good approximation of the average temperature (because it’s not the average temperature) without atmosphere, and apply the barometric equation (with experimental data) with our atmosphere, I found that the air close to the ground, because it’s compressed by gravity, has a temperature of 288K, as it should be.
No need of any radiative forcing. And it’s work with Venus too.
Second problem, if there is a radiative forcing, it seems to me impossible than a cold atmosphere warm a warmer ground without any work (thermodynamics principles).
Third problem, I can’t make the calculations by myself on the radiative problem of the Earth with atmosphere. But when I think about it in quantitative terms, I don’t see why the global equilibrium should change with few CO2 ppm added.
It’s an approximation, but we should just have a new spherical system with an albedo a bit different from the first one, and it seems to me implausible that a few CO2 ppm added could change the albedo of this entire new system.
So, if somebody could explain why it works differently and justify the introduction of a radiative forcing and re-emission, it could be great, because I can’t find any clear answers anywhere else.
And I’m not sure that there is such a consensus on the existence of radiative forcing or reemission.
Well… this gravity theory is interesting. But you have to keep your eye on the ball, or in this case the photon.
More CO2 seems to be acknowledged, by everyone with some knowledge of gas physics, to reduce the mean absorption distance of some wavelengths of light.
Light in the atmosphere near STP travels at about 99.94% of C. Energy captured by a carbon dioxide molecule travels at a pace in the human walk to run range.
Since the photon will spend more time walking, it will take longer to get out of the atmosphere. More energy outgoing and incoming will be stuck in the atmosphere longer due to the flypaper effect of reducing the absorption distance.
The energy per cubic meter will be higher. If the energy per cubic meter is higher, and the ideal gas law informs us the temperature is proportional to the energy, than the temperature is higher.
This is a qualitative analysis not a quantitative analysis. The temperature will be higher. In the lower 450 meters or so (the surface layer) there should be a measurable effect on the downwelling IR.
Some UCB scientists released a study in February where over a decade they measurabled the downwelling IR and there was a measurable difference, 0.2 W/m2 for a 22 PPM increase in CO2 over 11 years. It is 2/3rds of the IPCC direct forcing of 1°C for 2x CO2. It is 1/3 of the IPCC mean TSR of 2°C for 2x CO2. Since the TSR is a 20 year number and then direct forcing is instantaneous, the TSR is the more relevant comparison. By 2020 we should have an empirical measurement of the TSR
Question asked and partially answered.
This gravity theory is simply the fundamental barometric equation. It shouln’t be overlooked when we work on the atmosphere and its thermodynamics.
I understand your point. But there is problem of energy balance in my opinion. It’s like adding insulation, it changes the thermal conductivity, but not the equilibrium temperature.
And if an increase of few ppm can change so drastically Earth temperature, we should change our houses insulation to pure-CO2 filled glass panels.
Let’s try one more time. I am only concerned about the surface layer (450 meters or less) so barometric whatever is a DGARA consideration.
Rough numbers (not going to bother to be accurate), 160 W/m2 in, 100 W/m2 out non radiative. 400 W/m2 out IR, 85% of outgoing IR absorbed by surface atmosphere layer. The 15% of outgoing IR in the “holes” in the outgoing absorption goes out and the surface layer of the atmosphere and the surface play handball with the rest of the IR radiation.
If we add enough CO2 to bandspread and reduce the outgoing IR to 14% what happens? The surface has to warm to emit about 430 W/m2 (assuming non-radiative transfer doesn’t change). In the real world the other transfers change and we should end up emitting 410-420 W/m2 (10-20 W/m2 more) from the surface. That is 2-4°C warmer.
That is the global warmer viewpoint and parts of it are quite defensible.
Change your major to sociology, or better accoiunting. Skydragons don’t make a good living.
But I study sociology too. Especially to understand why some scientists who can’t make a living are so pedantic.
And skydragons are no fun, because their firebreath can’t melt steelbeams.
My sage advice is go with accounting. If you don’t like accounting, uber is always hiring. Whatever you do, forget the gravito-thermal BS.
Pingback: As the Paris Climate Summit Fades into History, A Real News Story | Big Picture News, Informed Analysis
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Well done Judith Curry. Your willingness to question the climate orthodoxy, at the potential expense of your career, reputation and by default, exclude yourself from funding, is beyond commendable. However what you are doing is simply the essence of science – to question hypothesis (and authority), that we may discover and understand more about the complex climate system. Bravo, thank you and do not stop doing what you are doing. It is *so* important for the future of science and the scientific method.
Simply, the jaw-dropping arrogance of Mann’s proclaiming himself Nobel Laureate should initiate any Federal judge to find him in contempt. This alone is enough to disqualify his case.
Pingback: Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink : The Corbett Report
Pingback: Must Watch: Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink | Philosophers Stone
Pingback: Must Watch: Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink | Alternative News Network
Pingback: Must Watch: Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink | A Sweet Dose of Reality
Pingback: Must Watch: Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink |
Pingback: Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink « GLOBAL ELITE TV | ALTERNATIVE MEDIA
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #209 | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink |
Pingback: 2015 → 2016 | Climate Etc.
Pingback: 2015 → 2016 | Enjeux énergies et environnement
Pingback: 2015 → 2016 – Web-Log9