by Judith Curry
From the website of the Committee on Environment and Public Works:
|Full Committee hearing entitled, “Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Local Adaptation Measures.”|
|Wednesday, August 1, 2012|
|10:00 AM EDT|
|EPW Hearing Room – 406 Dirksen|
|WitnessesOpening RemarksPanel 1
From David Appell’s blog:
It will be Webcast at http://www.epw.senate.gov, and it looks like CSPAN will have the audio here, starting at 10 am ET.
Update: At 10 am ET tomorrow, there will be a copy of James McCarthy’s testimony here. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists “he will explain that the ocean has absorbed more than 90 percent of the heat trapped over the past century by greenhouse gasses that have accumulated in the atmosphere, and that this heat is now penetrating deep into the ocean. According to McCarthy, this pattern cannot be explained by short-term natural cycles; it is a clear signature of climate change. He also will explain how what happens in the ocean affects the climate on land, including seasonal patterns of extreme weather events.”
At 10 a.m ET tomorrow, I will have a blog post on John Christy’s testimony.
True Believers of the global warming are looking pretty silly riding their pink donkey to the capitalism-free Utopian dreamland of the Left. But, something is wrong when to get there the Left just can’t stop the lying.
The sad fact is that I – and most of my friends and relatives – believed almost all of those lies too.
Until Climategate e-mails and documents were released in Nov 2009:
Then I went back and bought the CSPAN tape of NASA Administrator Dr. Daniel Golden belatedly releasing xenon isotope data in 1998 from the 1995 probe of Jupiter.
Fortunately, I cited the source as ref. #1 of the manuscript published in the fall of 1998 [“Isotope Ratios in Jupiter Confirm Intra-Solar Diffusion,” Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33 A97, 5011 (1998)]
This is a photograph of the mostly freshmen students that deciphered the isotope data from Jupiter and discovered how crooked government science was in 1998
At least three or four of those students now have PhD degrees, and are academic grandchildren of Dr. Paul Kazuo Kuroda, the first scientist to go to the ruins of Hiroshima and arrive at these still valid conclusions:
“One day in August 1945, while standing in the ruins of Hiroshima, I became overwhelmed by the power of nuclear energy.
The sight before my eyes was just like the end of the world, but I also felt that the beginning of the world may have been just like this.”
P. K. Kuroda, The Origin of the Chemical Elements and the Oklo Phenomenon (Springer Publishing, 165 pages, Dec 1982), p. 2 http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Chemical-Elements-Oklo-Phenomenon/dp/3540116796
Reading all the above comments is like wading through feces
You’ve been doing that a lot,. . . lolwot !
for different folks
Inhofe’s basket of bread turned into roses.
Hopefully he will donate the bread to future lines of unemployed, ex-leaders of world governments, the UN’s IPCC, the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK’s Royal Society, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the Royal Society, The UN’s Printing Press, Science, Nature, BBC, PBS, the New York Times, etc., ad infinitum.
I oppose any effort to send them to prison so they can continue to live off the work of others.
McCarthy, Arghh!. I mean Argo!
I would like to sumbit the following comment:
We have hard, undeniable evidence of fraud and data manipulation by government research agencies since World War II ended and the United Nations was established in 1945.
They started lying about the source of energy stored in the cores of atoms and stars in 1946 [1,2] . . . for reasons explained here: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/
They literally undercut the scientific revolution that Copernicus started in 1543, Galileo defended at trial by inquisition in 1633, Albert Einstein explained with E = mc^2 in 1905, and religious and spiritual leaders around the globe acknowledged as the giver of life in daily meditation at dawn.
I suspect that Fred Hoyle  secretly contacted another British writer of science fiction to warn him about the corruption of Western science in ~1947. George Orwell had already written Animal Farm describing the rise of totalitarian communism under Stalin prior to the Second World War.
In 1948 George Orwell wrote a futuristic novel that he entitled “1984” to describe the government that would and does control us today:
Today addiction, anxiety, confusion, depression, distress and mental illness are increasing.
Violence and social chaos will erupt if world leaders and leaders of the scientific community continue to ignore “hard, undeniable evidence of fraud and data manipulation by government research agencies”.
Then skeptics and believers, communists and capitalists, bankers and paupers – we will all go down together like rats on a sinking ship – if world leaders and leaders of the scientific community refuse to address the reality described here: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/
That reality was verified by data from the 1995 Galileo probe of Jupiter that NASA Administrator Dr. Daniel Goldin finally released at a video-taped CSPAN news conference in 1998:
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
1. Hideki Yukawa, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (1946); Introduction to the Theory of Elementary Particles (1948) http://www.nndb.com/people/759/000099462
2. Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-59 (1946); “The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen,” ibid., 343-83 (1946)
You have something there. The Left seems to live on the edge of a cliff of their own design and they are diametrically opposed to those who recognize their limitations and have an unquenchable desire to reach for the moon and fall among the stars.
Would you rather swing on a star, gather moonbeams wherever you are?
…with diamonds on the soles of our shoes?
I think I’d rather be a fish. Cuz the water’s getting warmer. They say so.
May this hearing be like the seine
Used to catch fishes, big and small
Not good news for fish. Drives down the oxygen content.
Christ my bad, the wading ended here
When you graduate from the wading pool you may learn that that to question science is called scholarship.
I rest my case on what happened to climate in 1940. “and that this heat is now penetrating deep into the ocean” Dr McCarthy is absolutely right. See my web site.
P.E.: The water may be getting warmer, but it’s at depths greater than 700 meters. I hope you’d be able to swim pretty deep.
Oops, hit the wrong reply.
Funny thing about this statement, “he will explain that the ocean has absorbed more than 90 percent of the heat trapped over the past century by greenhouse gasses that have accumulated in the atmosphere, and that this heat is now penetrating deep into the ocean.”, is that, in short, gravity downwells cold and upwells heat. “It is observed at great depths, say thirty meters, from the surface. The temperature of these places undergoes no sensible change in the course of the year; it is fixed. But it is very different in different climates; it results from the continual action of the solar rays, and from the unequal exposure of different parts of the surface between the equator and the poles.” and “The pressure of the atmosphere and bodies of water, has the general effect to render the distribution of heat more uniform. In the ocean and in the lakes, the coldest particles, or rather those whose density is the greatest, are continually tending downwards, and the motion of heat depending on this cause is much more rapid than that which takes place in solid masses in consequence of their connecting power. The mathematical examination of this effect would require exact and numerous observations. These would enable us to understand how this internal motion prevents the internal heat of the globe from becoming sensible in deep waters.
Liquids are very poor conductors of heat; but they have, like aeriform media, the property of carrying it rapidly in certain directions. This is the same property which, combining with the centrifugal force, displaces and mingles all parts of the atmosphere as well as the ocean, and maintains in them regular and immense currents.”
Nobody has commented on the McCarthy testimony since it has been published.
Should I conclude that everyone agrees with him?
In my opinion, McCarthy’s testimony was very polished, persuasive for anyone who has not figured out reality for themselves.
His testimony demonstrates the type of “pseudo-scientific, self-deceiving thought process” that has long isolated Harvard Professors inside their own ego-cages, completely unaware of this reality:
Rx for Professor McCarthy:
1. Study data and observations http://omanuel.wordpress.com/ to see if you can comprehend that you have overlooked Earth’s variable and unpredictable input energy. This peer-reviewed 2002 manuscript may help: http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf
2. Watch this video and see for yourself if there is any chance of correcting your bias: http://dingo.care2.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf
3. Study these photographs alone to see if they can help.
4. Contemplate this quote: “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” — Herbert Spencer
With kind regards,
– Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Where did the 90% number come from (and don’t say UCS)?
Dr. McCarthy’s presentation stands up to rigorous scrutiny. After the debacle of Christy’s deceptive, mistake-ridden homespun misrepresentative connivance, I was ready to tear apart McCarthy and Field, too. I could do the same for the many politicians who spoke, but that would exhaust me and I’d run out of time.
And I tried. I looked at data. Sources. References. Links. I looked for errors. Chinks. Flaws. Logical fallacies. Exaggeration. Specious statements. Facile statements. Corrupted statements. Hidden agenda. Bad math. Imprecision. Inaccuracy. Overconfidence. Lies. Mistakes. Bias. Confirmation bias. Pious fraud. Scientific fraud. Patronization. Historical falsehoods. Spin. Failure to warn of uncertainty where appropriate. Overstatement. Oversimplification. Generalization. Gloss. Abuse of data. Abuse of reasoning. Rhetorical devices. Propaganda techniques. Speaking beyond their knowledge.
Did you find any of these in McCarthy or Field? In the least? At all?
Unlike “complicated turbulent process” Christy (omg!), these two men were not lying to Congress so far as I can tell, having reviewed their testimony in great detail compared to available information.
Have I mentioned lately how much I despise those people of low ethics who exploit the condition of the disadvantaged to bolster their own unrelated arguments? Yeah, I’m looking at you, Mr. I-lived-in-brutal-and-short-Africa.
Bart, please explain in full detail why the phrase “complicated turbulent process” is a lie.
steven | August 2, 2012 at 7:15 am |
Please cf Scafetta’s “complicated turbulent process” of the nutation of the center of gravity of the solar system causing weather on Earth.
All “complicated turbulent process” arguments fall apart quickly with few exceptions. They’re an infamous family of highly caricatured claims in Chaos Theory. The short version, “complicated turbulent process” is an impossible to measure, confirm or disconfirm phenomenon, akin to Phloegiston, Quintessense or Aether.
Christy is purporting a mystical element with a pseudoscientific label to explain something already better analysed and better explained a dozen times over in peer-reviewed literature.
Bart, I doubt Christy was refering to Scafetta’s paper. He was much more likely refering to the one he was a co-author on
“cf” means compare with. Which is to say, look at the similarities.
I’m well aware of what Christy was referring to. Which is why I compared it to Scafetta.
Perhaps you could expand on the comparison. I’m not clear on what is mythical about turbulent changes to the boundry layer. Nor do I recall seeing literature that has directly refuted that there have been changes to the boundry layer. In other words, is there something specific you can point to as being false or is it just your opinion it doesn’t matter?
steven | August 2, 2012 at 11:27 am |
I do not dispute either that there have been “changes to the boundry [sic] layer”; nor do I dispute that the ancestral spirits are now more upset, that the ghosts that roam the wastes are moaning more furiously, that the leprechauns have started hoarding more gold at the end of rainbows, or that Big Brother has updated the Spying-on-You software.
My ‘opinion’ is Isaac Newton’s Principia applies: you need new data to produce a valid hypothesis that can be tested against the current working hypothesis to supplant it. While there’s some data, it’s hardly novel and not sufficient to perform the monumental miracle Christy claims it has worked.
I’ve gone back as far as Pielke and Panofsky, 1970 to look for some foundation in this line of reasoning for claims that withstand the simple statistical tests of BEST that show Christy’s turbulent boundary angels do not have any effect on real world temperatures, no matter how fast they flutter their little wings.
So for all the far-fetched, unseemly and bizarre press junket support the authors are whipping up for their paper, they’re simply overstating its import and ascribing to its conclusions outcomes no inference sustains.
BartR said, “My ‘opinion’ is Isaac Newton’s Principia applies: you need new data to produce a valid hypothesis that can be tested against the current working hypothesis to supplant it.”
Why would you new new data or a new hypothesis? THE hypothesis indicates changes that are not being realized in THE data. The troposphere “hot spot” has gone from being 1.2 times greater than the surface to about 0.83 to about 1.2 times greater. That in layman’s term is FIIK or maybe it will maybe it won’t if you prefer.
Water vapor is, according to THE hypothesis, likely to multiply CO2 impact by 3 times. THE data indicates that water vapor didn’t get the memo.
GHE theory has to defend itself, unless you are playing the “Merchants of Doubt” card :)
So you have gone back and read all the literature and yet don’t come up with a single reference?
Do I say he smells bad? His ears look funny? He’s mutters when he talks? No. I say that what he said was a connivance, deceptive, homespun (in the sense of the propaganda “Plain Folks” technique), mistake-ridden and misrepresentational.
Or do you mean where I said Christy has low ethics?
That stands as patent, on his exploitative and false conduct; it comes as the conclusion of the comment, not as the foundation of its reasoning.
THAT IS NOT AD HOM!
Look it up. Here’s a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Science has two avenues.
One of recording and guessing and the other is exploring and understanding.
Current scientists have chosen the box of keeping this massively complex process to their theories rather than look at the MANY fields they have missed or ignored.
Regarding climate scientists giving advice to policymakers and risk managers, Bishop Hill http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/8/3/rougier-on-trust-and-the-ipcc.html points out a very interesting discussion paper by a statistician and a climate scientist: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~MAZJCR/climPolUnc.pdf
“In a nutshell, we do not think that academic climate science equips climate scientists to be as helpful as they might be, when involved in climate policy assessment. Partly, we attribute this to an over-investment in high resolution climate simulators, and partly to a culture that is uncomfortable with the inherently subjective nature of climate uncertainty.”
If the ocean absorbs heat, then the water in it will expand. If the water in the ocean expands, then the sea level will rise. The sea level is rising, therefore the ocean has absorbed heat… to some degree.