by Judith Curry
Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate
Press release from the Senate Commerce Committee:
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, will convene a hearing titled “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate” on Tuesday, December 8 at 3 p.m. The hearing will focus on the ongoing debate over climate science, the impact of federal funding on the objectivity of climate research, and the ways in which political pressure can suppress opposing viewpoints in the field of climate science.
Witnesses:
Dr. John Christy
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Dr. Judith Curry
Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Dr. William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Mr. Mark Steyn
International Bestselling Author
*Additional witnesses may be announced
Hearing Details:
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
3:00 p.m. ET
This hearing will take place in Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253. Witness testimony, opening statements, and a live video of the hearing will be available on http://www.commerce.senate.gov.
This afternoon, I spoke with staffers from the Commerce Committee and also the Subcommittee, for the Committee Chairs and Ranking Members.
This is only the second time I have testified for a Senate Committee; my previous experience is that they dynamics are different than testifying for a House Committee, we will see.
I have been extremely busy the past week preparing my testimony, hence the large number of guest posts in recent days.
Senator Ted Cruz
Subcommittee Chair Senator Ted Cruz is a Republican candidate for President. His views on climate change were discussed on a previous thread. At a recent Senate Hearing, Senator Crus questions Sierra Club President on Climate Change [link], this is pretty entertaining.
In the last two weeks, I have spotted two starkly different analyses of Ted Cruz as a presidential candidate:
Senator Marco Rubio (also a Republican candidate for President) is also a member of the Subcommittee, but I suspect that he will not be at the Hearing, we’ll see.
JC reflections
Well this promises to be quite interesting, it will be a treat to be in the same room with Ted Cruz and Mark Steyn.
Back to working on my written testimony.
Odd there is no consensus testimony on offer.
Just heard that the Dems witness will be Admiral Titley
Even so, an extremely unbalanced committee. What result does Cruz want out of this? Apparently he tried to get the Sierra Club person who put up such a bad showing last time, endlessly repeating the same phrases, but thankfully the Sierra Club are not making him available this time. Cruz is also single-minded in his belief that the pause is in some way significant. The person he should have invited is Carl Mears of the RSS group who talks about satellite data having structural uncertainty, and that he would prefer surface data for trends. Or Tom Karl who can explain once again why his adjustments needed to be made. More here.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/02/ted-cruz-to-convene-congressional-hearing-to-examine-claims-of-global-warming-activists/
Judith,
Might I suggest that you point out the obvious facts: 1) GHG warming is real and significant, and 2) the magnitude, timing, and consequences of that warming are very uncertain, 3) prudent public policy choices ought not be based on any claim of certainty; no regrets policies that acknowledge uncertainty have lots of upside potential and little downside, and 4) the rate of warming which takes place over the next two decades will substantially narrow the plausible range of climate sensitivity, and waiting a couple of decades will lead to better informed policy choices.
Stop whining, yimmy. Elections have consequences.
JIMD
It is a shame you never talk about the structural uncertainty of the land and especially SST temperature record, but otherwise I am inclined to agree about an unbalanced committee.
Eli, has a post up about the satellite record which seems to maer some interesting points.
http://rabett.blogspot.fr/2015/12/uah-tlt-series-not-trustworthy.html
I have no idea as to how good a reflection the satellite record is of the temperature, but those used for sea ice and sea levels have fundamental flaws, so it may be the temperature satellite is also not as accurate as is believed.
As for the committee, words fail me. Mark Steyn? Why? He is a polemicist involved in a court case. This would be like a British Parliamentary committee calling Delingpole or Booker to give witness.
Lamar is fully entitled to hold everyone to account, but Karl or Mears would, as jim says, have been useful counterpoints. Why did the Democrats not put them up as that would provide a balanced enquiry? Are they not permitted to do so?
tonyb
Jim D,
Give your bia a break, Jim D.
Do you think this could, in fact, be a slight rebalancing of the 97% of committees that are 97% loaded with consensus advocates?
There is no way to get balanced. The Dems don’t have any data that supports their side. Mother Nature says that temperature and sea level are inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years. Anyone who disagrees with that is lying or stupid. Our side can tell the truth the alarmist side cannot and will not tell the truth.
These kind of politically staged ‘debates’ are pretty useless formats for any kind of constructive discussion……but they are very attractive to political show-ponies and advocates looking to raise their profile and do some self-promotion.
IOW you expect your side to lose.
“These kind of politically staged ‘debates’ are pretty useless formats for any kind of constructive discussion……but they are very attractive to political show-ponies and advocates looking to raise their profile and do some self-promotion.” – Michael
1) Its a hearing, not a debate.
2) ‘These kind’ suggests you can tell the difference between ‘other kinds’ that are presumably not politically staged.
3) All sides use hearings to support their agendas, so quit whining about how ‘these kind’ of hearing sticks in your craw.
Funny, you don’t whine about hearings you are sympathetic to. It seems like only ‘these kind’ that Judy participates in. More advocating against anything Judy does I guess.
Tony, our Congress doesn’t operate the same way as your Parliament. Don’t you remember we kicked you all poms outta here:) We still do things cowboy style.
Maybe they are calling Steyn as an example of how the consensus goons try to crucify dissenters. And he is good theatre (I am anglophile).
You might be better off not trying to make sense of U.S politics, Tony. You got enough trouble on your side of the pond.
So, the 1988 hearing featuring Hansen was perfectly balanced, right?
Dr. Syukuro Manabe of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration testified today that a number of factors, including an earlier snowmelt each year because of higher temperatures and a rain belt that moves farther north in the summer means that ”it is likely that severe mid-continental summer dryness will occur more frequently with increasing atmsopheric temperature.” A Taste of the Future
While natural climate variability is the most likely chief cause of the current drought, Dr. Manabe said, the global warming trend is probably ”aggravating the current dry condition.” He added that the current drought was a foretaste of what the country would be facing in the years ahead.
Dr. George Woodwell, director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Woods Hole, Mass., said that while a slow warming trend would give human society time to respond, the rate of warming is uncertain. One factor that could speed up global warming is the widescale destruction of forests that are unable to adjust rapidly enough to rising temperatures. The dying forests would release the carbon dioxide they store in their organic matter, and thus greatly speed up the greenhouse effect. Sharp Cut in Fuel Use Urged
Dr. Woodwell, and other members of the panel, said that planning must begin now for a sharp reduction in the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide. Because trees absorb and store carbon dioxide, he also proposed an end to the current rapid clearing of forests in many parts of the world and ”a vigorous program of reforestation.”
Some experts also believe that concern over global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels warrants a renewed effort to develop safe nuclear power. Others stress the need for more efficient use of energy through conservation and other measures to curb fuel-burning.
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, an atmospheric physicist with the Environmental Defense Fund, a national environmental group, said a number of steps can be taken immediately around the world, including the ratification and then strengthening of the treaty to reduce use of chlorofluorocarbons, which are widely used industrial chemicals that are said to contribute to the greenhouse effect. These chemicals have also been found to destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere that protects the earth’s surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
Michael said:
These kind of politically staged ‘debates’ are pretty useless formats for any kind of constructive discussion…
For once I agree with Michael. What I find amusing is that he apparently has not always held this view.. as I recall, he enthusiastically supported this kind of political theater when it was in his favored direction.
“1) Its a hearing, not a debate.
2) ‘These kind’ suggests you can tell the difference between ‘other kinds’ that are presumably not politically staged.” – JC
1- Did you miss the ‘scare quotes’? These “hearings” are where you won’t hear anything you couldn’t have easily heard elsewhere and 2. “these kind” are the kind where politicians, of whatever flavour, invite whom they know will tell the story they want to hear.
I’d like to hear some statisticians, or even Global Warming Alarmists respond scientifically to the following:
Earth has supposedly been habitable for 6 billion years -that is 60 million centuries. We have climate/weather data from only one century, out of 60 million. There is no statistician in the world who would ever say that analyzing the data from 1 part, out of 60 million, would yield an accurate understanding of anything. Would you trust a stock broker who has only studied 1 hour of the market, out of the last 2,499,960 days? (I know, that’s longer than recorded human history.) But, that’s nearly the same ratio of data that we have of the Earth’s climate. They always want to make the argument that weather is short-term, and climate is long-term. In terms of the widely accepted age of the Earth, we have no long-term data.
The answer is no, you would not trust the broker. The part you may be overlooking is that the marketing of CAGW overcame weak by trumpeting up the risk that it MIGHT be true so we HAVE to address the chance.
Essentially, the CAGW movement preys on the fear of uncertainty which is typically hypersensitized when externals forces not in your control are at play.
After reading this post think of the many things that are marketed to you in the name of preventing an unknown calamity. You’ll see many. This is just the culmination of decades of learning how effective that technique was … blame Bernays … he institutionalized the technique in business.
knutesea | December 24, 2015 at 9:34 pm |
The answer is no, you would not trust the broker. The part you may be overlooking is that the marketing of CAGW overcame weak by trumpeting up the risk that it MIGHT be true so we HAVE to address the chance.
CAGW advocates basically propose that we need to cut off an arm in response to a paper cut. The theory is that the cut “might” get infected and we might die from septic poisoning. This is called the precautionary principle.
The problem is so serious and urgent that we need to cut off the arm immediately, we are told.
Now, reasonable people respond to these sorts of requests with a “whoa now”. Given that it is been a couple of days (the pause) and the finger doesn’t look that red, perhaps we have time for a second opinion and can save the surgery for when we know there is a problem.
Perhaps it’s because the warmunists refuse to debate the realists in public. Remember Gavin Schmidt refusing to be on stage with Roy Spencer.
Yes, Dems whining about “balance” is the kettle calling the pot black arse, as me mum used to say. I think I’ll cry me a river…
Pingback: Climate Change: Data Or Dogma? | Transterrestrial Musings
Now there’s a gathering! )
The dogma cur-tailed?
We can all see now the evolution of life going full circle around the world.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/623808/Monkeys-killer-priest-stoned
They were under sixteen so they will not be doing any time soon.
Like the opening scene of 2001: A Space Odyssy…no bones about it.
Bts,
The curs have been culled and now they are barking mad.
The simple answer is still, One. Not, 42.
The most important message that you can leave with them, both verbally and visually, is the evidence against believing any of the current climate is unprecedented. If the public knows of studies establishing with reasonable probability the existence of the MWP, Roman and Minoan warm periods, that should trigger some independent thinking.
Highlighting some of the more egregious frightful headlines that have no foundation may also be beneficial.
Since Admiral Titley is quoted as saying global warming contributed to the 2011 Arab Spring, I assume the Syrian refugees issue will be raised.
Why exactly is Mark Steyn testifying at a hearing on climate science?? Comic relief?
Tune in and find out, putz.
Maybe because it is a hearing about dogma within climate science.
IDK, sounds like Steyn has read the writings of a lot of scientists:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ysQya9zoL._SX351_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
For that matter, why Leo DiCaprio or Mark Ruffalo? They seem to be frequent flyers for the Henny Penny team.
It’s on my calendar. I wouldn’t miss this one.
Christy, Curry, Happer, Steyn, Cruz. I can’t wait.
Nice to see that you’re still eschewing the politicizing influences on the science of climate change, Judith.
Oh, and nice approach to uncertainty, btw, but insisting that both sides of the debate are well-represented before you get involved.
Oh. Wait.
“Oh, and nice approach to uncertainty, btw, but insisting that both sides of the debate are well-represented before you get involved.”
Nah, just the “right” side.
If precedent is followed, the Dems will be able to call their own witnesses. Cruz’s witness list isn’t exhaustive, it’s just for the GOP’s side, AFAIK.
==> “Cruz’s witness list isn’t exhaustive, it’s just for the GOP’s side, AFAIK,”
That was my point. A political candidate running for office engages in politics and Judith participates while decrying the politization of the science and saying that she doesn’t know how to ameliorate that politiczation.
The issue is that the dems hadn’t confirmed their witness list as of yesterday afternoon.
Yes, scientists should do nothing until the campaign is over. Good thing Cruz is the only politician in the room. Shudder to think what Joshua would say if there were also Democrats present.
Gotcha..
I have no problem with Cruz or Judith or anyone else exercising their rights as a citizen, scientist, and politician.
The criticism I have is about consistency of standards.
This hearing is all about politicization of the science.
Each side will invite scientists to participate on the basis of the political implications of those scientists’ scientific conclusions.
It isn’t as if the inviters have studied the science in detail, and as a result have of deep understanding decided that only one group of scientists’ conclusions are scientifically valid.
If the inviters were really interested in being fully informed, they, themselves, would invite scientists with differing views to testify. They choose their invitees on the basis of political and policy-related criteria.
This hearing is about political advocacy. I happen to think that political advocacy is a very positive force in this country and although I obviously disagree with many advocates on many issues, I’m a grownup and realize that sometimes you have to accept things that you don’t like for the sake of the long-term gains.
Participation in this hearing, and certainly at the behest of a politician running for for the presidency, is a form of advocacy.
So be it, but let’s not pretend otherwise.
Joshua
“is a form of advocacy.”
You have effectively destroyed any meaning the term has
attending the meeting if a form of advocay
not attending is advocacy
ANYTHING can be construed as advocacy.
What matters to judith is the line she draws. Not the line you draw.
There is no simple way to decide “objectively” what constitutes “advocacy” Judith has her definition, we can hold her to that.
That would be a very impressive statement, if we didn’t know that you are a little partisan left-wing alarmist loon. We don’t recall how you characterized similar hearings that were held when your side was in charge. Did you say anything about politicization of the science?
If the Democrats are true to their announced positions on the science of climate change, they should be calling Michael Mann as a witness to testify in rebuttal to Mark Steyn.
J:)/&$ wrote, “…The criticism I have is about consistency …”
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines…” and CE trolls.
H/t Ralph Waldo Emerson
==> “What matters to judith is the line she draws. Not the line you draw.”
I agree. It is meaningful if she gerrymanders the boundary so as to be self-sealing.
Joshua
“I agree. It is meaningful if she gerrymanders the boundary so as to be self-sealing.”
The fact that she lists activities that she counts as Advocacy and those she counts as non advocacy means it is not self sealing.
A self sealing definition would be one where NO evidence would count
against it.
You describe the contour of her definition as “gerrymandered”. The problem is that spatial metaphor is pejorative. There is no objective basis for deciding whether or not a definition is gerrymandered. Its hard to avoid spatial metaphors but try to do it. They are especially poor tools
when it comes to meaning.
“If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
One witness, that’s the general rule at these things.
You can’t help yourself, can you Josh.
Judith doesn’t select the witnesses. Now could she have made a comment on the makeup of called witnesses? Sure, she could have. But what point is made by whether she does or doesn’t comment? Did you even consider the possibility she gives her readers enough credit to make up their own minds regarding the witness list? I’ll guess you probably did, seeing as you are not a dumbass, just a dishonest putz.
If our president really believes that the threat of man-made global climate change is real, he should use his bully pulpit to discourage consumption: to live close to work and ride your bike instead of drive, to live simply in small homes and avoid air conditioning, unnecessary travel, foods that are cultivated far from where you live. Simply living like the poor would be a proper atonement for our extravagant consumption that has brought this catastrophe upon us, don’t you think? Spending all this money and bankrupting our economy is so unnecessary if we would only use less. Or do you think the global climate catastrophe is about something else, like channeling money to, uh, political favorites?
Repent! Repent! The end is nigh!
Same old, same old …
Oh when they said ‘ repent!’
ah wuhndered what they meant.’
Heck, I am sorely tempted to get on Amtrak and watch in person. Get everyone to sign a copy or two of one of Mark’s books, then auction one off to support a good cause. Hmmm.
I imagine Steyn is going to discuss SLAPP litigation as it relates to dogma and his experience with it.
From Steyn’s site:
“Well over three years ago now, Michael E Mann, the global-warming “hockey stick” inventor who falsely represents himself as a Nobel Laureate, filed a claim of damages for defamation against me and Rand Simberg, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the DC Superior Court. I don’t live or work in the District of Columbia. Nor does Mann. But I voluntarily submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction on the careless assumption that if they were that eager to take the case they were presumably capable of adjudicating it in a timely manner.
All four defendants filed a motion to dismiss under DC’s brand new anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP means “a strategic lawsuit against public participation” – ie, someone sues someone else for the purpose of removing him from the public debate, as Mann has done over the years to other persons who disagree with him on climate policy. So this is a classic example of the kind of bogus, free-speech-chilling litigation DC’s new anti-SLAPP law was designed to prevent.”
http://www.steynonline.com/7316/no-change-at-the-climate-court
Mark Steyn? I am hoping he wins the law suits, but he strikes me as a peculiar choice.
I like the title: “Data or Dogma”, could inspire a large collection of point-by-point comparisons, such as data sets in left hand column, IPCC or Newspaper quotes on the right-hand column. Or maybe not. I’ll be on tenterhooks.
He does appear a peculiar choice at first blush, but Steyn’s an articulate guy, an interesting choice at least. His invite in part may be to elevate eyeballs via branding.
Mark Steyn has become an undocumented expert on the topic (lawsuit with Mann). His book, “Climate Change, The Facts” is well researched and contains a thorough summary of the facts and the debate. Mark sometimes guest hosts on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. His wit and charm makes him my favorite “undocumented” guest host. I think Mark S. will do well along side Judith C. and John C. It’s about time we have a reasonable debate. Ted Cruz is brilliant, his role as moderator will be, shall we say, fair and balanced.
JerryG∞
I’m sure he’ll be entertaining but Steyn’s inclusion could detract from the science-based testimony of the other participants. Not sure it’s a good idea at all.
I rolled my eyes about Steyn too, but all legislative hearings have become theater in the last 40 years. If you are a scientific illiterate producer at a news network or a scientific illiterate newspaper editor thinking about your scientific illiterate viewer/reader, Steyn may be able to deliver the more provocative quote. For all
politicians, optics is everything.
Hopefully, Judith and the other scientists will provide the meat for consumption among the politicians in the back rooms where they can focus on the more thoughtful aspects of the questions of science. Steyn is there for the eye candy.
Hopefully Judith and
Knock ’em dead, Dr. Curry. I’m pleased they chose to invite you.
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
Thank you, Professor Curry, for using 1. Your keen analytical mind, and
2. Your talents in communication
To help humanity through a period of great intellectual darkness. “May the Force be with you.”
Your testimony may delay or avert a return of humanity to the Dark Ages, before Copernicus reported a giant fountain of energy that sustains our lives at the gravitational center of the Solar System in 1543.
Give em hell Curry! Well maybe not that’s a hot model.
J (whose name shall not be invoked) mentions a most obvious point in that it appears that only one side of the debate will be contributing. This will have the ultimate effect of devaluation of any outcome for the purposes of informing the forthcoming presidential campaigns in a more balanced and nuanced way.
Only one side will be contributing. DUH!
They get the alarmist side every day from the media. There is no need to tell anyone in Congress about the alarmist junk. They know it by heart.
There is no debate, the alarmists do not debate. They have no data to support their side and they will not engage in any debate that that they will lose for sure.
+1
Tell them this.
About 2000 years ago, there was a Roman Warm Period and then it got cold. About 1000 years ago, there was a Medieval Warm Period and then it got cold. That was called the Little Ice Age. It is warm now because it is supposed to be warm now. It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it.
When the oceans are warm and wet, it snows more and that bounds the upper limits of temperature and sea level. When the oceans are cold and frozen, it snows less and that bounds the lower limits of temperature and sea level.
CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water.
The NYT and Republican establishment are telling you the same thing: Anyone but Cruz.
So it has to be Cruz, right?
We are the last generation with a chance. We have eight years to save our planet…from Green Blob.
Instead of taking potshots at estimates for 2100 I’d like to see some effort at developing a consensus of how to measure the next ~20 years of climate data and what what scenarios could confirm/deny high-sensitivity.
Judith has suggested flat temperature even through 40’s, does that still leave us debating?
But on the other hand, it’d be nice to see Cruz acknowledge that current uncertainty could give way to a 2040 with a true 97% consensus on 3C+. It’d be a nice step to consensus for laying out what kind of scenarios would sincerely convince the Republican party of CAGW’s imminence. And then how we could track those metrics.
CE readers, what type of scenario would strongly indicate CAGW in the next 20-30 years?
Climate sensitivity is not the main issue for CAGW. The main issues are the damage function and the probability distributions for time to the next abrupt climate change, sign of that change (warming or cooling), rate of change, etc. From my perspective climate sensitivity is irrelevant because the climate changes abruptly, always has and always will. The outputs from the models showing smooth projections of warming are just nonsense.
wsutton17
for this CE reader, the answer in none
to my ear your question is nonsense
even if all humans left the planet tomorrow
all future climatic events could still be attributed to us
the non human future is unknowable
you ask a theological question
I say it is still wine and bread
wsutton17 – We have all just lived through a period which strongly indicates CAGW is a faulty theory. All of the climate models were proven wrong. To me, the most recent data would indicate climate change is primarily due to natural causes and mankind seems to be adjusting existing climate change with great success.
What type of scenario would strongly indicate to you that CAGW theory is false?
The Committee has some sharp Democrats on climate change and energy: Edward Markey, Tom Udall, Cory Booker, Brian Schatz and Gary Peters, so there may be some interesting sparring in the cross-questioning.
Markey is a moron. The others may know something, but not Markey.
So is Udall.
Steve son of Patrick,
Odd that a state like Massachusetts, with so many citizens of Irish ancestry, would elect a clown like Markey Malarkey. Must be some kind of cosmic joke. We did pretty well with Marky Mark. We shoulda left it at that.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malarkey
Justin FitzBoston
+100 Steve
But it is Jim D making the claim, so that says a lot about accuracy.
booker is also a moron. His only argument is the 97% consensus.
Have Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) appear as an expert in playing the religion card. During a previous hearing in 2013, where the Dems stacked the deck concerning witnesses, Senator Whithouse’s question to Dr. Spencer about his views on creationism was out-of-line. It’s an attempt to label the witness as a keeper of odd knowledge (kook). Dr. Spencer wasn’t intimidated. He answered “I think I could be put into a debate with someone on the other side and I think I could give more science supporting that life is created than they could support, with evidence, that life evolved through natural random processes, so yes.”
I’ve studied Intelligent Design (ID), Behe, Dembsky, Overman, etc., and find ID to be a credible alternative to macro-evolution. The emergence of the self replicating RNA molecule is a problem for the other side. I’ve always found it fascinating that the moon and sun are the same apparent size in the sky, that water is most transparent to visible light (an inherent property of light) at a wavelength near where the sun’s output peaks, and that the tree of life is more like a wheel, complex genes emerged quickly and seemed to have been shared laterally with other species, not inherited. But I have gone OT. Anyway, I hope this topic does not come up at this hearing. It’s an attempt by the other side to disqualify the witness as an expert because they believe in God.
JerryG∞
We will all feel differently when he is standing upon the Mount of Olives. The cloud wars will cease the same day..
Credible to the credulous, perhaps, but it’s not science.
The “self replicating RNA molecule” is a myth. Whether or not it actually ever played a part in the origin and evolution of life (IMO not), any scientific discussion of such an animal must include substantial context.
The “lonely little RNA molecules in a black smoker” meme is barely scientific, but many scientists have pointed out why it’s so implausible.
The early origins of life remain a “problem”, but problems are there to be solved, not used as an excuse to abandon science altogether.
Markey is usually pretty fiesty.
Well, he was born Irish-Catholic in Malden, Ma. They didn’t name the “paddy wagon” after us for nothing.
Definition of sharp: They agree with me
+1
Markey is about as bright as a head of lettuce. The only job he ever held before becoming a politician was running an ice cream truck. Nothing to fear from “Mr Frosty”.
From Wiki:
I suppose “a lawyer in private practice” could be counted as not having a job.
AK
‘I suppose “a lawyer in private practice” could be counted as not having a job’
A lawyer in private practice is a business owner, potentially capable of working zero hours per year.
Richard
Wow, a lawyer. What great credentials for a climate “scientist”.
Dr Curry
I’m sure you’ll do great. Lord Monkcton recently wrote an articel that was displayed over at WUWT. The best graphic that I’ve seen in a long time that simplifies the reason nobody should be afraid is linked below. Perhaps printed ties or lapel pins with the graphic would be a nice touch.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/clip_image0107.jpg
Since Lord Monckton doesn’t himself deny the enhanced greenhouse effect due to cumulative CO2 emissions, what specific point was he making with this graph? Did he compute the radiative forcing from a mere 20ppm increase over 260ppm? Did he compare this value with the variation in solar radiation over the Northern Hemisphere due to Milankovitch forcing?
Might I suggest you go duck your head in the sea – no one denies that you will cause the sea to rise in theory, but do you really suppose that the change is meaningful?
Milankovitch is over rated. huge changes have no influence on temperature. Earth uses snowfall to cool when necessary.and temperature never gets out of bounds.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page85.html
Since Lord Monckton doesn’t himself deny the enhanced greenhouse effect due to cumulative CO2 emissions, what specific point was he making with this graph? Did he compute the radiative forcing from a mere 20ppm increase over 260ppm? Did he compare this value with the variation in solar radiation over the Northern Hemisphere due to Milankovitch forcing?
Good and apt questions.
* The forcing, 5.35 * ln ( 280/260 ), comes to about 0.4W/m^2,
somewhere around 0.1K to 0.2 K global temperature as we currently assess.
That’s certainly less than the +/-0.5 C that GCMs have as ‘natural background’.
* The summer incoming solar variation for the Arctic is about 50W/m^2, though the net is lower ( albedo, etc. )
* The Greenland proxy is not a global proxy, though it is a little bit wider spread than local proxy. The correlation is of oxygen isotope separation. I had always thought that this separation occurred at evaporation, meaning it remote tropical waters might also be a part of this, but condensation/sublimation is also a part. In any event, the record doesn’t reflect global temperature and is probably weighted toward time of year of max precip ( summer ).
Now, Monckton may be misapplying the glacial. But global warming enthusiasts also do this. The will say ‘Remember, only 6C caused the ice ages!’, but that’s wrong and misleading also.
The glacials and inter-glacials are not caused by global average temperature.
Ice accumulates or recedes because of the local energy in the Arctic, mostly sunshine. It is more accurate to say: ‘The Ice Ages, with their mountains of ice, only imposed 6C of global average cooling.’
On the other hand, the Greenland temperature proxy does, one would think, have some closer representation of the temperature of the Arctic.
If so, the Arctic apparently can vary in temperature by +/- 1.5K all on it’s own, regardless of global average temperature.
Perhaps it’s confirmation bias to assume the current Arctic state is all due to CO2 and we shouldn’t get irrational about variation that is apparently within the normal range.
knutsea
Is that Greenland version the one that finishes at 1855 or is it ‘current’?
Mind you, bearing in mind the amplification and that Greenland does not necessarily reflect a global temperature I am not sure how useful it is as a global proxy
tonyb
Ice core temperature data does not archive the temperatures in Greenland and Antarctic. Ice core temperatures do archive the temperature of the ocean water that supplied the water for the snowfall. Ice core temperatures do reflect ocean temperatures, not land temperatures where the snow fell.
Ice core temperatures do archive the temperature of the ocean water that supplied the water for the snowfall.
From what little I understand, both evaporation ( possibly from distant oceans, but majority from nearby? dunno. ) and condensation/sublimation ( more likely local ) determine the isotope ratio:
http://i.stack.imgur.com/xEiXQ.jpg
I would have more faith in the competence of author of the graph if he knew that the Kelvin temperature scale begins at zero ( called absolute zero ) and can NEVER have the negative values he shows.
The negative correlation is surprising since, even ignoring inferences about the direction of causation, all data I have seen to present shows positive correlation.
Neither does this natural variation give us the slightest indication of how the system will respond to the massive injection of fossil CO2 we are injecting into the atmosphere now.
All it shows is that the ice core record rose 20 ppmv in 8000 years, we can do that in 20 years. If you find that reassuring you clearly have no understanding of science. Maybe you could apply for a job in climatology , you are fully qualified.
Knutesea, that temperature at the top of the Greenland ice sheet brings up an interesting topic which gets very little discussion: as Greenland loses ice mass, the island tends to rise (due to isostatic adjustment).
it is always cold enough to support snowfall on Greenland, Antarctic and Mountain Glaciers.
In warm times, there is enough warm water to supply moisture to replenish and advance the ice until it gets cold.
In Cold times, there is not enough warm water to supply moisture and the ice is depleted and retreated until it gets warm.
It does not get cold first and then snow falls. The more ice advances and increases Albedo and the ice dumps into the oceans from Antarctic and Greenland and Mountain Glaciers and cools the oceans more when there is more ice after warm times increased it.
Lord Monkcton does understand this. I did discuss this with him at the Climate Conference in Washington DC. in June of this year.
knutesea,
If you plotted the 21st century temperature for the Greenland summit on that graph, it would be very close to the K that shouldn’t be there.
Whether or not the summit temperature of Greenland is a good proxy for global temperature, it can thus be show that at the summit of Greenland it was warmer recently than the MWP or the RWP, with the Minoan warm period still in play.
So do your homework and plot an updated graph.
If you are honest.
Bob
Is that better ?
http://smpro.ca/crunch/GISP2Civil.png
Not only no, but you know the rest.
How about including modern 21st century temperatures on the graph?
I would put the 2010 Greenland summit average temperature just about off of your chart, and warmer than the last 11,000 years.
But it is just one location and one year.
Bob
Can you live with this one ?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tONDKvJ4oLY/VAC324QB0sI/AAAAAAAAGRA/CoXluscrmzc/s1600/Kobashi11.png
Come on, knute. If you want something that will please dredge, you will have to get one of the other little alarmist drones to help you. Try little yimmy. He got plenty of BS charts that will tickle dredge pink.
Don
Yeah, I’m throwing darts to see what he wants. I do that whenever a visitor doesn’t know what they want to drink.
Unfortunately, I’m new to the CAGW rabbit hole. I am impressed with the historical records that says we’ve been much warmer in the past .. MWP, Romans, Egypt. Couldn’t possibly have been the effects of manmade CO2 back then. That knowledge is a show stopper for me. Demonstrates natural variability.
I did come across the Kobashi 2011 record and noticed that the paleoclimate charts don’t include that data. I’m still trying to root around and find out why.
Would love to hear a valid explanation if you are aware of it.
Hey Don, you know that limerick that starts “there once was a man from Nantucket”
Well, take the last two words and change “it” to “you”.
And Knutesea, I knew you could do the homework,
You see your first graph has Central Greenland temps about -27.4, which is warmer than any temperature on your middle graph and beats all but maybe two spikes on your third graph, one about AD 700 and one about 1000 BCE.
So, how does that jibe with your first post?
I think you have come around and admitted your first post was a crock of bull.
thanks
Bob
I take it as you’d like to see the Kobashi data included in the first chart ?
I’m knew to the rabbit hole and see no problem having it included if it is valid to do so.
What does the new chart (including Kobashi) tell you about temperatures of the past 10,000 years ?
You ask “What does the new chart (including Kobashi) tell you about temperatures of the past 10,000 years ?”
I won’t answer, because I think Kobashi speaks for himself.
You can tell from the time of this post that I have not had a chance to fully digest the Kobashi paper, but I found this
“It indicated that current multidecadal NH temperature
(1990–2010) is more likely unprecedented than not
(p = 0.36) over the past 4000 yr.”
http://www.clim-past.net/9/2299/2013/cp-9-2299-2013.pdf
That is what you have brought to the table, so you have to sleep with it.
Maybe you would like to read something I found
http://www.williamcolgan.net/pubs/grl50456.pdf
Summit of Greenland is warming at 0.09 C per annum.
Bob
Easy big fella.
Perhaps your used to ugly back and forth.
I politely asked you a valid question.
I’ll retry with specificity.
Now that we include Kobashi’s data I still see that the climate change continues to fall within natural variability.
I assume you see it differently.
What am I missing ?
You see what a humorless dolt dredge is, knute. All the little alarmist drones are like that. We are standing in the way of them saving the world by destroying consumerism, democracy and most other features of Western Civilization. They only want to keep pot, the Kardashians, and Birkenstocks. Strict secularism and a namby-pamby form of pacifism will be the law of the land in western societies, until radical islamists take over inside of 6 months.
Don
One of the more difficult things I find to do is not get sucked into the red herring category of bad arguments with its ad homs and appeals to hypocrisy. I am a highly flawed man and probably dished out more than my fair share of harm, so I have to be careful esp when I am on a mission for facts. The blood quickens, the personal differences become accentuated and before you know it, the divide grows. It’s hard enough with 2 well meaning people, near impossible in the wild and woolly world of CAGW.
I’m actually very interested in an accurate historical graphic concerning ice core temperature. If Kobashi’s data is valid in method, location and replicability, it should be used to update the historical record.
To me, the results it is still within natural variability and I’m interested to see what Bob thinks.
Ah humor, to see oneself as the imperfect mass of protoplasm that walks the earth seeking purpose and pleasure.
That’s a good attitude, knute. Good luck in finding one of those clowns who is interested in honest discussion. Their definition of natural variability is: zero. The shaft of the hockeystick. You can argue all the natural variability proxy stuff you want, they will just give you the shaft.
Anyway, the argument is about whether or not starting from the current temperature adding ACO2 to the atmosphere will result in dangerous warming. If you argue that natural variability is large, they can argue “OK, if it naturally get’s warmer and we also add a lot of CO2, it’s going to be worse than we thought. We can’t take that chance.”
Don
Yes, luck is always welcome.
Contrary to the impression I try to give in posting, I am not a patient man.
I try to be patient and fail more often than not. What I truly have no patience for is someone who willfully tries to make me impatient in a battle of circle jerking.
It’s the worst of behaviors to antagonize someone in a manner directed at their acknowledged weakness don’t you think ? For example, much can be accomplished in life if a man tells another that he for instance is lazy and the other says that he is a bully. Both can grow to be fast friends if they respect that the other will work on their weakness.
I figure it’s always worth a try before I break out the throat punch.
Even including Kobashi (btw, I have no idea if it is valid data and offered it to Bob out of respect for his wishes) we are still well within natural variability.
As for man made CO2, there is no evidence that it caused previous warming.
In fact, there were far less humans on the planet when those changes occurred so by default they produced less CO2.
There are other causes of climate change.
All we have are ideas and theories.
The preemptive precautionary principle can be the mark of the conman. It’s an urge to rush to action and sometimes it is valid, but the burden of demonstrating the proof that it is necessary is and should be very high.
Knutesea,
Here are links to the two Kobashi papers I am aware of
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kobashi_etal_1.pdf
http://www.clim-past.net/9/2299/2013/cp-9-2299-2013.pdf
I didn’t see that you were asking if current climate change is still within natural variability, but that is a moot point, of course it is, but it does not follow that it is ok because we haven’t exceeded the warmest temperatures of the last 60 million years.
Being polite and lying with graphs is still despicable behavior, your original graph wasn’t from Kobashi, it was from Alley and was probably modified by the likes of Moncton and Watts with the intent to deceive.
If your statement
“I’m actually very interested in an accurate historical graphic concerning ice core temperature. If Kobashi’s data is valid in method, location and replicability, it should be used to update the historical record.”
is true, then you should look to the Kobahi papers I provided the links to above and compare them what Watts and Moncton are selling. I find that the links show that Greenland summit temperature is out of the bounds of natural variability for at least the last 800 years, maybe longer.
You will note that Kobashi does put his data and Mann’s on the same graph, if you look hard enough.
Also you should note that I don’t stoop to ad homs
Bob/Dr Curry
Thanks Bob, but the links you sent send me to the same place for the ones I sent you. Odd. No matter, we are looking at the same article. I don’t understand why you would claim a 60 million year comparison as Roman and previous periods were warmer than even Kobashi. Essentially the natural variability claim still holds even when including Kobashi.
In any event, I’m on a mission to find out why Kobashi 2011 is not included in any common paleoclimate chart that is commonly found on the web. If they are valid measurements they should be included.
Dr Curry, if you know the reason for the above discrepancy, I’d love to hear from you. Save me a world of hours diving into something you may know the answer to.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*Uqvk6aa03xVD0_Qy5HXhlg.gif
The above is another common example of an article by Siegel 2015.
Hotwhopper goes on to claim deception.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/09/a-doozy-denier-don-from-anthony-watts.html
I am piqued in why Kobashi is not included.
Naively seeking the truth
Knute
Knutesea,
I mentioned the 60 million year thing because if you know the limits of natural variability you would know why. Maybe you can figure that out with that hint.
Kobashi 2011 or Kobashi 2013 is not included on various paleo charts because they are local reconstructions. Do you understand now?
You know the latest on reconstructions like Kobashi is 1855 right?
Cause it’s a reconstruction based on the ratios of O-18 to O-16 and can only be done on bubbles trapped in ice,
“Kobashi 2011 or Kobashi 2013 is not included on various paleo charts because they are local reconstructions. Do you understand now?”
Bob
Thanks.
As I mentioned earlier I’m relatively new to the debate.
I’d appreciate if you can explain what a “local reconstruction” is, how it differs from previous ice core measurements and why they aren’t included.
Links are fine. I’ll read them.
Seems that many Arctic data sets support similar inferences.
The Kulusuk Glacier is on an island off the east coast of Greenland about the same latitude as northern Iceland. With little effort one can read European climate history in the waxing and waning of the glacier.
https://geoscienceenvironment.wordpress.com/
Even the hiatus in ancient Greece described by Rhys Carpenter in his lecture Discontinuity in Greek Civilization (Cambridge, 1966).
==> “The hearing will focus on …the impact of federal funding on the objectivity of climate research”
Interesting. So someone will be presenting empirical data to show that effect, no doubt. We certainly know that Cruz and invited guests would not simply offer speculation about that “effect” in such a way as to advance an ideological agenda.
“….and the ways in which political pressure can suppress opposing viewpoints in the field of climate science.”
And of course, there will also be empirical data presented to show that the suppressing effect of political pressure only affects “skeptics.” Perhaps it’s not to late to get Lamar Smith, also, to testify about how political pressure is only affecting “skeptics?”
Sure, let’s get Cuccinelli, Grijalva, Shukla and Kevin Trenberth in there too! Because actually the language doesn’t have a word about skeptics, does it Joshua? It just says opposing viewpoints.
I would not be just a nuthin’, my head all full of stuffin’, my heart all full of pain…
Pingback: Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma? | Climate Etc. | jamesbbkk
Judith Curry
It is very nice that your voice will be heard in the halls of Congress. It is also encouraging that the theme of unrelenting catastrophe has a counter-point. What I believe will make a difference for the future in the financial stability of the USA with regards to climate change, will be a shift from mitigation to adaptation.
Therefore the message to those in power and persuasion should be the concept of opportunity lost cost. Spending money now to fix an uncertain problem projected way into the future squanders the resources that one has now, that may be called upon to adapt to a new world situation.
What is warranted is the investment into new energy systems that allow adoption of these energy systems at some future time as may become necessary or desirable.
I wish you safe journey.
You hit the nail on the head. Global financial resources are being squandered on alternative technologies that still aren’t cost effect enough or scalable which is creating global economic erosion. Link this with horrible redistribution schemes being planned that almost certainly will be abused then humanity can rest assured that technological progress will be stifled.
The very thing most needed going forward is efficiencies generated by modernization of infrastructure in concert with new technologies. I’ve mentioned this several times before; the Wright brothers flew for the first time roughly 100 years ago, think about that. The entire climate debate seems to tread water on existing capabilities that will be long obsolete within a mere 50 years. The scare mongering is full of “hot air”.
My guess is that Cruz would not like to hear about this, and none of his chosen panelists will broach the subject of 2015 or present this type of graphic. In the interests of honestly presenting all sides, the longer term picture should be shown there, and whether the already defunct “pause” had any significance at all should be discussed at length in this context.
http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/11/25/2015-likely-to-be-the-warmest-on-record/
Yet in the UK we had a summer which can’t really be described as having being hot
For a wider coverage, see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/
JIMd
I was at the Met Office just yesterday carrying out research. In particular I am looking at ‘global’ records prior to 1880.
It is noticeable that GISS have carried out a series of amendments over the years. I have five versions of GISS land global back to 1988. The past has been cooled and the present warmed.
I am not a conspiracy theorist so would appreciate the technical reasons why, from either you or Mosh, or indeed anyone here.
Bearing in mind we have seen a general 300 year rise in temperatures it is perhaps not surprising that a powerful el nino should continue that rise, but that doesn’t explain how and why it started or why we have seen those numerous ups and downs along the way. Perhaps you can clarify?
tonyb
Bearing in mind we have seen a general 300 year rise in temperatures it is perhaps not surprising that a powerful el nino should continue that rise, but that doesn’t explain how and why it started or why we have seen those numerous ups and downs along the way. Perhaps you can clarify?
We just came out of the little ice age. Ice on earth has depleted and retreated and that did cause this warming. The 60 year cycle and other cycles do cause this gradual warming to have smaller ups and downs. We are warm now, there is more snowfall now, the warming may continue, but not very much, earth does not get much warmer than now, for ten thousand years. At the end of this warm period, after a few hundred years, the ice that is rebuilding now will take us into another cold period similar to the last little ice age. Look at real actual data. What has happened will repeat, again.
I was not thinking clearly. When Tony B said “we” have had a 300-year rise in temperature up and down, I just assumed he was talking about central England.
But it just dawned on me he’s talking about the GMST of the earth, where lots of places were experiencing cooling. Just imagine if people from all those 300 years could log in to Climate Etc and chirp up that “but it’s cool where I’m living!”
I have read about the adjustments to GISS from a number of sources, but wondered about the reliability of those claims. A thorough analysis of these kinds of actions would be a real service for the debate and could provide more confidence in the historical record regardless of one’s position on AGW.
But it just dawned on me he’s talking about the GMST of the earth, where lots of places were experiencing cooling. Just imagine if people from all those 300 years could log in to Climate Etc and chirp up that “but it’s cool where I’m living!”
Its called anti persistent,and it is present.
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/14/723/2007/npg-14-723-2007.html
Yeah mak, but they’re talking about changes in the direction of the GMST, which hides billions of nuances. Will not that many maybe, but certainly more than can be counted.
Simple.
1. The DATA SOURCES CHANGED
2. They also changed their algorithm
By far the biggest change is in the DATA SOURCES.
the adjustments GISS do are tiny.. when noaa changes data on them
( OR US) that is when and why you see changes.
Mosh
Can you be a bit more expansive? Do you have an article or other explanatory note? Why should the data sources for 1880 or 1930 have changed? Thanks for any objective information you can provide as I hope to write an article on temperatures that preceded Giss by 30 years or so.
Giss commenced in 1880 at virtually the last dip of the LIA. Since the various versions of GISS global land temperatures from 1988, ( I have five) this early period has been cooled by another 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C. The present has been warmed a little thereby accentuating the rise. There was a warmer hump in 1840/1850 of some 0.3 to 0.4C that was calculated by Mitchell and Callendar.
Is the 2 degree ‘safe’ rise counted from the dip of 1880? The warmth of 1850? The warm 1730’s? The very cold 1690’s, in which case we are already there?
tonyb
rgb, in the comments below, doesn’t seem to be as sanguine about adjustments as Mosher seems to be. Of course when I read rgb I actually learn something.
We are in a warm period. Another warmest year is what happens in warm periods. over the next few hundred years we will have many warmest years that break current records, but not by a huge amount. This warm time will bounce along the upper bound just like the Roman and Medieval warm periods did. This should not cause Cruz any problem. We are warm now because we are supposed to be warm now. it is a natural cycle and we did not cause it.
Don’t get too excited Jim. We are in the declining phase of a fairly strong El Nino; global averages have been pushed up by ~0.2C in 2015 due just to El Nino conditions. By June 2016 temperatures will be declining. FWIW, if you back the influence of ENSO out of the historical surface temperature record, it is clear that the rate of underlying warming since about 1999 has been in the range of 0.08C per decade, while from the late 1970’s to 1998 it was more than twice that. It is unlikely either of those values accurately reflect the actual GHG forced trend, since both seem ‘contaminated’ by long term internal variation, which likely increased earlier warming and likely decreased recent warming. To understand the actual level of GHG forced warming, we have to understand and account for internal variability at all temporal scales.
Global temperature reached record highs in 2014… with no El Nino.
Global temperature actually went down for much of this year from last years ENSO neutral peak.
Most of the months covered by the 2015 El Nino have had a lower anomaly than the ENSO neutral peaks of 2014.
When you understand that natural variation worked against AGW from 1985 until 2005, what are you going to do? .08C my butt.
Global temperature reached record highs in 2014…
Just curious, did you survive?
God speed man, god speed.
So you agree the claim the record anomalies we have been seeing were caused by an El Nino is false.
Most of them came to be in ENSO neutral conditions. March is still somewhat ENSO neutral. A
April 2015 through today is the El Nino. Of those anomalies, only September, kind of, and October can be described as large anomalies.
An a La Nina will not erase this. Haha. And the Enso neutral surge to record anomalies cannot be explained by either low sensitivity or natural variation.
So you agree the claim the record anomalies we have been seeing were caused by an El Nino is false.
No, I’m agreeing that it doesn’t seem to matter much.
Which is why La Nina can’t fix the skeptics’ problem… they sukk at physics.
JCH,
Your information on the state of the equatorial Pacific is simply mistaken; surface temperature anomalies have been positive since the beginning of 2015, and these do influence average temperatures in the 30N to 30S region, albeit with some lag. NOAA has a nice web page with lots of data which shows this.
With regard to whether I “sukk” at physics: I really don’t think so, seeing as I scored 800 on my SAT physics achievement test while in high school…. without taking a physics course. Maybe all my later formal physics and chemistry education made me forget the basics? Nah, not likely. Comments like yours reveal more about your lack of analytical capacity than that of others.
An El Nino is defined. It started in March 2015, and is forecast to end spring 2016. The red line is essentially the ENSO-neutral surge, which was joined by the PDO surge in 2014.The PDO index started backing off before the El Nino commenced. When the PDO backed off, the GMST went down right with it.
Because the PDO is a beast and the AMO is a weenie.
JCH, you misunderstand.
I agree ENSOs are correlated with global average temperature.
I also agree that the global average temperature change we observe just doesn’t matter that much to climate, humans, or ecosystems.
JCH,
I am aware of the definitions of El Nino and La Nina. These have nothing to do with what I said. The central tropical Pacific temperature anomaly (de-trended) is strongly correlated with temperature variability of the whole of the the area between 30N and 30S. Since that is half the Earth’s area, the central tropical Pacific anomaly is also strongly correlated with variability of the average global temperature. If you back out the influence of the anomaly on average temperatures, the trend from about 1999 to present is fairly constant and about 0.08C per decade. As I said before, the true underlying GHG forced temperature trend may be (and I think likely is) higher, because some recent warming has likely been masked by longer term internal variability, just as the warming between the late 1970’s and 1999 was likely exaggerated by longer term internal variability.
JCH, the step change pattern before 2000 was probably a function of circulation patterns due to stadium wave climate regime with slight contribution from GHG heat retention. There was probably reduced heat transport to the deep ocean and increased mid latitude flux ocean to atmosphere during el Ninos and decreased heat transport to the upper troposphere in high latitudes and decreased albedo over the oceans.
With recent changes in the north atlantic, wavy jet stream, and pdo phase, there may be less uptake of heat in pacific, more transfer to deep ocean, and more transport of heat to the artic troposphere during some el nino events (ie higher troposphere temps, more winter ice formation, more radiation to space…). Don’t expect el ninos to have the same effects they did in the end of the previous century or neutral and la nina contidition to retain the heat they did.
Wish I could be there!
Interesting title. It seems a realization that there is a strong social side to the climate consensus, is spreading to folks that matter. No doubt in part due to the healthy output and debate at Climate Etc.The title implies that evidence of dogma, as much as evidence of data veracity, should be up for examination. Good luck with your presentation, Judith.
+ many
“Well this promises to be quite interesting, it will be a treat to be in the same room with Ted Cruz and Mark Steyn.”
That sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say. :-)
Mark Steyn writes that this hearing will be on CSpan as well as live streaming on the senate.gov site.
Thanks for the hot tip!
Judith, what struck me after going through the minutes from the APS-hearing, a year ago or so, is that one/the most important point, yours, about the ‘known unknown’, after all just filled two lines or so of the final, thick volume.
Here’s from a discussion I’m just having on Facebook (following the latest Michigan science-communication thing):
me: Skeptics too should man up to this, stop repeating talking points and flesh out more precisely, for themselves and all, why CAGW is most likely wrong: paleoclimatology’s detection of multicentennial solar-climatic coupling, and why that hasn’t been conveyed as frantically.
(a responder:) Why … its obvious ! Its because so much data has been faked and ignored to suit the argument! Add in that Christiana Figueres told the truth at last … and thats all that is needed! The whole thing was fake … a scam!
me: Because it aids understanding in light of the two front-messages now rallied around, as crystallized since two years: the 95% certainty and the 97% consensus.
The hearing might be a good opportunity to raise the matter of the Syrian drought and regulatory solutions.
No, not this drought or these solutions. I mean the crippling drought of the 1930s. (It was, er, worse than they thought.) The Interior Ministry, warned by the Mufti of Damascus, banned newly popular toys called yo-yos, on the grounds that the “exasperating motion” of yo-yos caused drought.
Three days after the ban, it rained.
(Not an internet meme-thingie. It’s detailed in a recent history of the French Mandate.)
Of course, we now know that crippling Syrian droughts are a new phenomenon and, in any case, are caused by SUVs and objects much larger than yo-yos.
the syrian drought will almost certainly come up; david titley has been writing about this. i will try to research this before the hearing; pointers would be appreciated.
Syria has had some doozies, this last one and the Yo-Yo Drought among them. Seems pretty likely that the last Bond Event, a cooling around 2200 BC, brought on a dinkum mega-drought in the region. The other ME mega-droughts in remote history occurred around 5000 BC and around 1000 BC. That’s according to people who muck about with pollen and charcoal.
The droughts of the 1300s and 1600s, which helped wipe out Ankor Wat and the Ming respectively, may well have extended into the ME. Coolings, again. Don’t know why everyone cheers for cool.
Good luck with the hearing!
Won’t be too hard to find a lot of material on the recent Syrian drought.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001123
Here’s a paper showing that cooler is drier in Syria. If you don’t have free access don’t be in a hurry to purchase it since I am fairly sure I have seen free full copies on line previously.
THANK YOU
http://leilan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/publications/article-specific/kaniewski_et_al_2011_medieval_climate_anomaly_gpc_0.pdf
thx
The Medieval Climate Anomaly is in Syria warmer and wetter than the Little Ice Age.
Ice Core data does show that there is more ice accumulation in warm times and less ice accumulation in cold times. Warmer water provides more moisture for precipitation.
John Nielsen-Gammon has told us that Texas precipitation has increased with the warming.
The alarmists tell us that warming will bring more droughts, but they get that from their models and not from historic data. Historic data shows more droughts during colder times.
Here is a balanced piece about the Syrian issue. Drought, even when within the boundaries of natural variability, may be a tipping point, but when other human actions create such a fragile equilibrium, what is the real cause? There is such a thing as carrying capacity of our environment. Water mismanagement over decades and high population growth rates just set up the probability of a perfect storm at some point.
http://footnote1.com/did-drought-trigger-the-crisis-in-syria/
thx
Judith
you can’t do better than this article on the Syrian drought.
http://euanmearns.com/drought-climate-war-terrorism-and-syria/
I have been there three ties It can’t be emphasised enough that historically the droughts are by no means unusual. What was different this time is that instead of the 4 million people they had in 1964 there are now 24 million.
The infrastructure simply could not cope, coupled with the civil war that had been rumbling for years
tonyb
thx
This is the paper that Titley has been citing on the Syria drought:
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241.abstract
you can’t do better than this article on the Syrian drought.
That’s a good article because demonstrates that most of the stations in Syria didn’t indicate particularly exceptional precipitation variations.
But examining google maps also depicts how much of the agricultural areas are support by the river irrigation fed by precipitation in the mountains of Turkey anyway. It is interesting to see the differences between ag land in Turkey and Syria at the border, though.
Never mind that the Syrian uprising was part of the larger Arab Spring that started outside anyway. Or that protesters called for a ‘Day of Rage’ because of police shooting, not farm subsidies or water. And that Syria was led by a minority Alawi ( Assad ) over a Sunni majority.
Invoking Syrian uprising is a very bad case of confirmation bias. But given some administration culpability ( leaving Iraq ), perhaps it’s not surprising that it could become a convenient ‘narrative’.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/45/E6119.abstract
Biofuel mandates and commodity speculation based on Climate Change policy are the more likely factors for the Syrian war and Arab Spring in general. Syria’s tenant farmer communal-ist system also isn’t very efficient.
Do not mention the War.
Don
Did you see who edited that paper you linked to?
It was none other than well known climate advocate sir Brian Hoskins of the famously objective ( not) Grantham institute …
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/b.hoskins
That paper is hardly likely to be fair and objective with sir Brian involved
Tonyb
Hmm. Lead author Colin Kelley is a freshly minted phd climatologist who was a member of the Sierra club for five years. At present this paper seems to smack more of climate activism than of scientific objectivity.
Tonyb
Without being specific about Syria, there’s no doubt that the 1600s brought about a climate crisis in the Ottoman Empire commensurate the that of the Ming (though different to the cold and flooding further west around the Mediterranean). In short, too cold, too dry and too many migrant incursions turning agricultural lands to pasture or nothing. Banditry and depopulation could not be controlled, and Ottoman tax records show a huge reduction in population from before the great drought of the 1590s.
I’m sure they had the odd sunny day and heatwave, as well as the odd good harvest. But overall I reckon we’re better off at this end of the hockey stick (which never was).
In all fairness it must be said that despite the activist background of some of the authors, they are well qualified to write on drought
Tonyb
The Arab Spring (of which Syrian uprising was a part) was caused by a jump of price of grains. They were used to produce ethanol, not for food. A demand for bioethanol was caused by a CAGW hysteria, so – in all fairness to Prince Charles – I have to agree that Syrian war was caused by CAGW (hysteria).
Judith, it would be good for someone to raise the topics of population growth, aquifer use, crop efficiency (the effect CO2 may have had on increasing crop water efficiency), whether there was increaced precipitation and humidity in the region in non-drought years and that the climate change may have contributed to productivity and even decreased water stress making the drought less severe than it might have been.
Dont forget solar brightening as a cause of warming!
Pingback: A “Powerful Rebuke” by Mark Steyn | RUTHFULLY YOURS
Please give Senator Ted Cruz this summary of data ignored by AGW alarmists: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf
“The source of energy in the core of the Sun is neutron repulsion, the
same source of energy in cores of the uranium and plutonium atoms that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945, respectively”
I was always taught that the energy from the sun came from the fusion reaction converting H into He and the energy from nuclear bombs came from the fission of U and Pu both reactions resulting in a loss of mass producing energy according to E = MC^2. Have I been wrong these last 60 years?
My wish list among topics for this Senate meeting would be to further quantify the 97% meme since it’s the center of leverage for every warmest argument in public debate and in the media. The pedigree of this exploitation meme is alarming. The first point; that the meme was established in a paper developed by Cook who was literally a cartoonist before he became a pundit; and who was not a scientist when the paper was published. Also if the 97% is to be believed at face value that skeptics and lukewarmers are inclusive of the percent.
I would wish a closing statement to underscore common sense; of describing the rapid pace of technological development that has occurred in the last 100 years and that the climate debate mostly ignores this while projecting into the future using current technological capabilities; to emphasize that only through a strong economy can rapid technological advancement continue; to further describe that waiting a couple of decades for better science and for cost effective technological solutions while developing no regret policies today is really the only reasonable solution to mitigate potential risks that aren’t certain today. By weakening global economies today with unnecessary, ineffective financial burdens we ultimately fail not only climate risk mitigation, but everything else too.
Steyn is a good match for Cruz in term of their ignorance of climate science, an ignorance that is inversely proportional to the loudness and certitude of their statements concerning the topic.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3e946f29fa534a0b9c1d064b16e06b61/ap-fact-check-most-gop-candidates-flunk-climate-science
Speaking of loudness and ignorance, where did Obama get his science degree?
Here’s a link you can review:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/27/fact-checking-the-u-s-presidential-candidates/
As I noted above in a another response, if the Democrats are to demonstrate that they are truly committed to their announced positions on the science of climate change, they should call Michael Mann as a witness to testify in rebuttal to Mark Steyn.
I flopped climate science. I saw the hockey stick for the first time and fell over laughing. Flop!
Hello Dr. Evil (Magma), your slip, um, er, bias is showing. Ted Cruz has provided the most intelligent answers concerning climate change and observations vs. model projections. Mark Steyn is fighting a ~5 year lawsuit filed my Michael Mann (the lead on that survey you cited) concerning one conclusion, as far as I can tell, that Dr. Mann’s hockey stick is “fraudulent.” Mark made a joke that Michael Mann was the Jerry Sandusky of climate change because he molested the data, a joke that he borrowed from somebody else. I think the joke is funny. Dr. Mann’s claim that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a localized phenomena because of a warm NAO is not supported by countless peer reviewed studies, many showing warming in the southern hemisphere during the MWP. Michael Mann’s approach to debate is to force the other side to shut-up. I hope Mark Steyn wins that case, based on the 1st amendment alone. If Mark can show problems with the hockey stick work, deleted data, data dependencies, flawed approaches to PCA, etc., so much the better.
JerryG∞
‘Ignore the millennial at your perennial.’
H/t kim, non pareil.
Hi Judy – I participated in an interview by Marshall Shepherd last January at the AMS meeting with Admiral Titley – here is the video of it http://www.weather.com/tv/shows/wx-geeks/video/climate-risk-perspectives-pt-1
It shows Titley’s views on the climate issue.
Roger Sr.
Dr Curry: as you know, the 2014-2015-2016 El Niño phenomenom has raised the average surface temperature a few tenths of a degree at the surface. This is used to mislead the public and requires clarification. As it turns out this morning the reanalysis product I can access shows the Tropical Pacific surface temperature anomaly has begun to turn around. Thus the senators nay find it interesting that in 6 months the temperature anomaly may be back to the decadal average. Or it may not?
Another issue: the tropospheric temperature in the RSS and UAH showed a lag but they did increase slightly. In recent days I’ve seen quite a few attacks on the satellite products, I suppose it’s driven by the satellite product lack of response to El Niño. These attacks may be of interest to the senate committee. As far as I can tell this disconnect between surface and troposphere may be due to lapse rate feedback? The question is wether the issue for the senate committee should be the actual science or the way it’s distorted to make political points.
I would suggest differences in winds, evaporation, and precipitation changing the amount of heat transport from ocean to troposphere. Less latent heat transport to the troposphere where satellites detect it.
Judith Curry’s written testimony before a Senate committee on January 16, 2014:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/curry-senatetestimony-2014-final.pdf
What will be the reaction of most Denizens here at CE if Dr. Curry (again) talks very favorably on Fast Mitigation (methane, black carbon, smog, HFCs)?
Will most CE Denizens just ignore what she says? If Dr. Curry emphasizes this in testimony, will a lot of CE Denizens turn on her (as they’ve done in the past)?
If Senator Cruz opposes all mitigation efforts, would Dr. Curry go on the record as disagreeing with him?
Are all CE denizens required to agree with Judith on everything, little dude? Are you supposed to be the conscience of the denizens? You will have to fight that out with little yimmy. He been here a lot longer.
I am not talking about any policies in testimony, although i do mention Lomborg’s analysis (and others) discussing how much warming will be prevented by INDCs (since this ties into my arguments on climate sensitivity and uncertainty).
According to David Mackay, former head scientist to the Dept Of Energy and Climate Change our sacrifices in the UK will result in a massive 2 thousandths of a degree difference by 2100. If only we could get that up to three thousandths of a degree, bankrupting myself trying to keep warm will all have been worthwhile
tonyb
Every little bit helps, Tony. That should comfort you on still, bone-chilling winter nights when the rolling brownouts become routine. We do appreciate your sacrifice. As soon as you pay us back on the Lend Lease thing, we will send you CO2 reparations as penance for our success at digging up and burning fossil fuels to make us rich and powerful enough to save the world from tyranny, numerous times:) And when your glorious isles are submerged, we will relocate you all to Montana. God save the Queen! from climate change.
My experience has been that the UK has quite a few bone-chilling summer nights, as well. ;-)
Well should they do more to make the sacrifice worth it? Do nothing and let everyone else make the sacrifice? Or should everyone do nothing and hope everything turns out ok?
What’s your plan, yoey? Do you have something that will actually amount to meaningful CO2 mitigation? If so, they need your silly butt in Paree.
Don
Sorry, but we paid the lend lease thing off some years ago. However you do owe The UK some 157 billion dollars
http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/rich-countries/top-countries-the-u-s-owes-money-to/
If you can just see your way towards paying it into my bank account I will be able to pay off my energy bill this year
Tonyb
Joseph
We are the only country in the world that has legally obliged itself to reduce our co2 emissions. This has impacted on us by way of expensive power, inappropriate power generation, unsightly wind and solar farms, not enough energy for a cold winter, driving away big businesses that use large amounts of energy. And for what? A highly theoretical temperature reduction so smallThat it can never be noticed.
The whole Paris pledges amount to a theoretical temperature reduction of 0.2 degrees centigrade at a cost said to be approaching a trillion dollars . How is that a sensible use of our time and resources?
Tonyb
So I assume from your response the answer is no one should do anything. I don’t know about the accuracy of your figures, but I believe it assumes that no additional actions are taken post 2030(?).
yes this is $1 trillion per YEAR, for the commitments out to 2030.
We can call it repayment, Tony:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Repayment
Anyway, we were happy to help out. And thanks for letting us use England as a base for our bombers and fighters and as a staging area for the invasion of North Africa, Italy and Normandy.
And we will be eternally grateful for Great Britian’s central role in the creation and survival of our Western Civilization.
Regarding U.S. debt to foreigners; nobody twisted your arms. You could have bought Argentina, or Greek bonds.
Tony, I did this article which seems to directly contradicts the estimate you gave:
Sorry here is the link:
http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/11/insider-why-are-indc-studies-reaching-different-temperature-estimates
Don
There is still a lot of Dday stuff in my area and close by was the site of one of the greatest disasters of the DDay training, which cost 800 US Lives.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-27185893
We make good allies and I am pleased that Parliament yesterday overwhelmingly agreed that the RAF could bomb Syria And Iraq
tonyb
Joseph
That figure came from the Lomborg article carried here on Nov 9th which in turn came I think from here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LtaBOv70pvXVPDgLUGtTKnSxofjfZy7jx06bTSaMaH4/pubhtml?gid=14385633&single=true
Anything greater than 0/.2C relies on China stopping their emissions increase by 2030 and the ratchet mechanism being put in place and being adhered to by 185 countries when it is increased every five years. To date the ratchet mechanism doesn’t really exist
tonyb
Tony, I well it’s far below all of the other estimates, What does that tell you?
The Tornados will do some proper damage, Tony. There are plenty of targets, as fearless leader from the rear Obama wouldn’t let our chaps actually drop their bomb loads, unless they could prove that they weren’t going to damage anything or hurt anybody.
We have to stick together, Tony. The rest of the world is either hostile, or unreliable.
The subset of studies that assess temperature increases suggest that with the INDCs, we will witness 2.7-3.7 degrees C (median chance) of warming compared with pre-industrial levels
Interesting that the IPCC wants to use as a baseline, pre-industrial, a time from which there is not a global measurement data base in place.
That’s probably because they were so embarrassed by AR4 predicting actual rates.
Don and Tony
I remember clearly, standing on the flight line at RAF Wethersfield in 1964 and watching in amazement as RAF planes came in low pivoted in front of us and went almost vertical into the clouds; these were not stunt pilots. My admiration goes to the RAF. At the time I was in the USAF, stationed at RAF Wethersfield.
Richard
Don,
I guess I could do a google check, but I believe the RAF has retired its Tornado fleet. They fly the Typhon multi-role fighter now.
The wonderful TV series Foyle’s War’ has an episode,
‘All Clear’, about Operation Tiger, the D Day training
exercise which cost 800 US lives.
Tornados still on the job, tim:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3343475/MPs-airstrikes-against-ISIS-Syria.html
Not the latest, but they still serve as very good hammers.
My comment went into mod. Link to story on Tornados returning to Cyprus from strikes in Syria. Oldies but goodies, tim. Still kicking bad guys buttocks.
See old workhorses B-52 and A-10. My aunt used to work at Wright Patterson AFB and when I was a little boy went with my uncle to pick her up several times. B-52s were new and it was a thrill to have them fly low over the car on takeoff and landing. Since then I have had them drop bombs within a few hundred meters. You can never have too much firepower, tim.
Guess i should have checked.
I might have been thinking of the Germans, but they still have one operational and one conversion squadron flying the Tornado.
Growing up they used to have an airshow at Andrews AFB. Somewhere my dad has slides of me and one of my brothers sitting in the pilot seat of a static display B-52.
The US AF has been trying to get rid of the A-10 since the day it entered service. They were on track to do so when Desert Storm rolled around. The aircraft performed so well that it has taken another 25 years to get it out of the inventory and they are still active with ANG units.
As to never having too much firepower – agreed.
Maybe the quote falsley attributed to mark twains re san francisco could apply to the uk “the coldest winter I ever experienced was a summer in sf”
Don Monfort | December 3, 2015 at 2:09 pm |
Regarding U.S. debt to foreigners; nobody twisted your arms. You could have bought Argentina, or Greek bonds.
————————————————————
good one
Joseph,
‘Well should they do more to make the sacrifice worth it? Do nothing and let everyone else make the sacrifice? Or should everyone do nothing and hope everything turns out ok?’
Your comment is a bit miopic. After we’ve spent these trillions and mobilized the entire planet for this emissions reduction effort, we’re still at the mercy of earths natural climate variability and we’ve gotten practically nowhere.
Considering the complex situation we find ourselves in, can you accept there might be different approaches than your prized solution?
Compare the maps of total fertility rate and nations which are past peak CO2 emisisons:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/TFRMap.png
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/FallingEmissions.png
Population growth, economic growth, and CO2 emissions are all intimately linked.
Truly knowledgeable world leaders would understand this and recognize that even with continued fossil fuel use, emissions will decline. They would focus perhaps instead on issues these trends imply, such as declines in economic growth, inevitable increases in automation and decline the value of human labour and what all that means for society.
“What will be the reaction of most Denizens here at CE if Dr. Curry (again) talks very favorably on Fast Mitigation (methane, black carbon, smog, HFCs)?”
It’s safe to say that the “low hanging” GHG fruit won’t be plucked. The war is against CO2 for geopolitical/anti-humanist reasons. So we yawn.
Warning, opinion
In the States the real fruits of the CAGW war are primarily twofold :
1. create enough turmoil in the fossil fuel industry to allow entry access for MSRs.
2. institutionalize CO2 as a pollutant so that it can be used as the primary contaminant in future class action lawsuits.
Evidence for the first one is best found by following the top tier VC money.
Evidence for the second one can be found by surveying the numerous smaller NGOs nationally.
The science was never compelling.
Still isn’t.
The dogma ate my data but I remember the results: Earth’s atmosphere is CO2 deficient. Plants love CO2 and people need plants, more energy, more water, more not less personal freedom. And, more CO2.
For mark Styne
https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming
Might the best choice of an academician for giving Mark Steyn a quick short course on climate science be Dr. Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University?
If the Democrats were to call Dr. Mann as a witness, the short course you believe Mark Steyn requires in order to become basically literate concerning the fundamentals of climate science could be offered as part of the testimony Dr. Mann makes in rebuttal to Steyn’s own testimony.
You know, the more we think about it, the more we should think it would be in the Republican’s own best interests to call Dr. Mann as a witness, with his testimony acting as a directly contrasting complement to their own favored witnesses, thus highlighting the deep divisions of opinion which exist concerning sources of climate data and its quality.
a lot of people would pay to attend an event with Mann and Steyn in the same room
RE: curryja | December 3, 2015 at 12:41 pm |
“a lot of people would pay to attend an event with Mann and Steyn in the same room”
I believe Mr. Steyn has been paying (apparently a lot) to attend an event in the same room as Mann . . . a room somewhere in DC.
A great suggestion. The lecturer, Prof. David Archer, is a contributor to realclimate.org, just like other luminaries, Prof. Lewandowsky and Naomi Oreskes. Don’t even think without them.
Steven Mosher | December 3, 2015 at 11:33 am | Reply
For mark Styne
https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming
—————————————————
PhysicianLinguist, heal thyself.I’m in my sixties and got a B.S. in meteorology in the mid-seventies (when the earth was cooling!). Besides nuclear power (I was in the U.S. Navy’s nuclear program), the transistor and the pc, perhaps the greatest impact that technology has had on our lives is the Green Revolution. We usually attribute it to pesticides, irrigation and plant genetics but how much is the consequence of enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide, longer growing seasons and warmer temperatures? How much of the changes that we see in climate is really Gaia making our world more habitable for us? Is nature helping us defeat Malthus and Ehrlich? Lovelock may believe that a cooler earth is healthier but it is more difficult to grow crops and raise cattle. Is Gaia guiding?
Ehrlich seems to have successfully killed of the West, but the third world seems not to have gotten the message and the West is quite happy to hand their lands over, so just delayed apparently. Of course the technological innovations the third world is so crafty at inventing will surely save the day for them.
Robert Brown on Bias & Corruption in HADCRUT & GISS
I strongly recommend reviewing RGBatDuke’s insightful comments on the divergence between satellite and ground temperatures, on the “strong correlation between carbon dioxide increases and adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature record”, and on the numerous biases therein. See:
Problematic Adjustments And Divergences (Now Includes June Data)
“Rgbatduke June 10, 2015 at 5:52 am
“rgbatduke
August 15, 2015 at 7:26 am
“rgbatduke
August 14, 2015 at 12:06 pm
rgbatduke
August 14, 2015 at 12:28 pm
rgbatduke August 15, 2015 at 8:45 am
rgbatduke August 14, 2015 at 12:59 pm
rgbatduke August 15, 2015 at 9:21 am
rgbatduke August 16, 2015 at 9:39 am
not even wrong.
Mosher
Do you dispute rgbduke’s core observation on UHI?:
Example
” simply because CO2 production is proportional to energy use and population and hence the UHI.”
The relationship between population and UHI is greatly disputed.
Even Oke who drew the first curves ( of population versus max UHI)
gave up on the idea because the data showed no simple relationship
between “population” and UHI. Even population DENSITY is a poor predictor of UHI by itself
To find this information about UHI you have read OUTSIDE the normal
“climate science” canon.
Here: looking at over 400 large cities with a tool (satellites) preferred by skeptics. ha.
http://cybele.bu.edu/download/manuscripts/peng-uhi-est-2012.pdf
there are some many other basic mistakes in his assesments that I dont know where to begin,
Steven Mosher,
Thank you for the link to a very informative paper.
You may benefit from reading it. Your final sentence is somewhat incoherent. What is it that you are trying to say?
Cheers.
Mosher writes: “there are some many other basic mistakes in his assesments that I dont know where to begin,”
Yet he did in fact choose what he thought was a mistake to begin.
Mosher beginning from a position of ignorance is in perfect character.
In fact Duke physicist Rob Brown is so much of what Mosher wants to be it’s just pure green envy inspiring the limp wristed attacks. Stick with nip sub-culture Mosher… it’s your only identifiable area of study.
Steven Mosher:
RGB’s assumption that it is easy to correlate CO2+population+UHI would appear to be wrong (or at least overly simplistic).
But you are not arguing that the UHI effect is neutral or negative, are you?
RGB’s primary point is that temp anomaly adjustments cannot be trusted. This would seem to be in your wheelhouse. Please take a swing at it.
What, no Oreskes?
I want to hear her explain how objectivity is ‘male heroism’ again and how true science is the process of ‘voting’ what is true.
After all, in these times, we all need a good laugh.
Here is steyns latest in which he manages to link the layst mass murders in the US and the forthcoming senate inquiry
http://www.steynonline.com/7333/a-powerful-rebuke
Tonyb
Disingenuous Tonyb. I’ve come to expect better from you.
Tony,
Your technical work is exceptional and I always look forward to reading it.
Your understanding of American journalism, politics and character is not very good. Your past dismissal of Mark Steyn as some kind of crackpot annoys me. Mark Steyn will go down in history as one of modern day’s most important defenders of freedom of speech. He is a unique individual who is doing a brave thing.
Steyn has cajones!
Excuse me Mark? The subject is about mark steyn who I know little about. I googled him and this link came up. Presumably it is his latest article in which he discusses the mass killings and then discusses the senate enquiry. There is nothing more to it than that. What motives are you ascribing to me?
Tonyb
Please excuse my out of sequence response:
Tony,
Your technical work is exceptional and I always look forward to reading it.
Your understanding of American journalism, politics and character is not very good. Your past dismissal of Mark Steyn as some kind of crackpot annoys me. Mark Steyn will go down in history as one of modern day’s most important defenders of freedom of speech. He is a unique individual who is doing a brave thing.
Mark Steyn is Canadian. I give Tonyb a free pass on this one.
Mark steyn appears to be making the link because of something that Bernie Sanders said. It’s not me making he connection
Tonyb
Tony, you said:
“Here is steyns latest in which he manages to link the layst mass murders in the US and the forthcoming senate inquiry”
I think Mark objects to the possible implication that Steyn is doing something not kosher. I believe that Mark’s point is that Steyn ain’t linking the mass murders to the senate inquiry. Steyn is using Sanders foolish contention that climate change leads to terrorism to take a swipe at Bernie and to segway into announcing his appearance before the Senate committee. It’s how columnists of his sort write columns.
“On a related subject, given that (according to Bernie Sanders) climate change leads to terrorism, on Tuesday I’ll be making a rare appearance in Washington:”
Thanks Don. You got it right.
No problem, Mark. We went to different schools together.
I don’t think that Tony realizes that our latest case of mass murder wasn’t our run of the mill mass murder, but it was islamic terrorism, again.
Don
It was merely the first link that a google search revealed of Steyn. In it he mentioned the killings and the senate inquiry. I thought it was therefore doubly interesting as it mentioned Judith and was obviously topical. There was no other hidden meaning or motive in making the link.Of course he wasn’t linking the mass murders to the senate enquiry. I never said or meant to imply anything of the sort My sentence has been way over analysed.
I do not like Steyn’s way of writing but I do admire his willingness to say difficult things. I wish there were many other people willing to say unpopular things. I have never thought of Steyn as a ‘crackpot’
tonyb
The ever objective Sou is obviously a great Fan Of Judith and Mark Steyn
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/12/what-treat-for-judith-curry-supping.html
tonyb
Tony:”There was no other hidden meaning or motive in making the link.”
I said “I think Mark objects to the possible implication…” You are a scholar and a gentleman and I will have a word with my friend Mark for scolding you without justification. Mark is also a scholar and a gentleman and I am sure he will apologize.
Tonyb,
If I thought that you weren’t worthwhile I wouldn’t have commented on your Mark Steyn put down. Does that make sense?
I hope you didn’t take offense at my comment. I’ll apologize if Don thinks it’s warranted and if it helps, but seriously you would do well to try to understand Mark Steyn a bit better before dissing him for his style. Try this:
http://www.steynonline.com/7337/mister-know-nothing-denier-goes-to-washington
mark
No problem. That was a better article, but what is this cat thing all about?
tonyb
Tony,
Steyn has a lot going on outside the climate arena. He has a regular posting on music, mainly the old standards and some jazz. He’s a celebrity of sorts. He sells all sorts of things to augment his earnings as a writer and to help pay his legal bills. I’m not sure where the cat theme comes from. If you don’t know about it it’s worth reading about his freedom of speech case in Canada vs. Islamic hardasses.
I am thrilled to see this discussion on the calendar and equally pleased that Dr. Curry will be given an opportunity to present her reliably objective and sober assessment of the state of the science and the discussions around that science. For those who are complaining that the list of speakers is unbalanced and that this is a politicized discussion, I would only suggest that first we should know the entire list of presenters (once the democrats confirmed list is available), and that if those very legitimate concerns about balance and politics in such an important discussion ar heartfelt, then it would be fully expected that you spoke up in the past with equal enthusiasm in criticism of the IPPC and the many very political framings of this discussion by the “consensus” that have happened over the past few decades.
Correction: “IPCC”
“Correction: “IPCC””
It really should be IGPOCC.
Rubio should attend this hearing of the subcommittee of which he is a part. Else he cedes an important initiative to Cruz.
And Steyn is sufficiently qualified to discuss hockey stick data versus dogma, which introduces natural variation, which Cruz gets based on his grilling of the Sierra Club dunce. And that is something Judith has published on, which I hope she will touch on (stadium wave).
This hearing will be well worth watching in real time.
a big theme of my testimony is natural variability.
+10
Even a 5th grader can understand the natural variability. You don’t have to be a scientist to see it and when the public finally understands how their trust was taken advantage of they will be pissed off.
Dr Curry
Will you be discussing the IPCC Fingerprint method; resulting in, essentially, zero natural variability?
Richard
nope, too complicated for this audience. i have long been planning a post on this topic, but haven’t gotten around to it.
I´m not a climate scientist, but I´m also concerned, to say the least, about how IPCC considered natural variability:
IPCC used circular reasoning to exclude natural variability. IPCC relied on climate models (CMIP5), the hypotheses under test if you will, to exclude natural variability:
“Observed Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies relative to 1880–1919 in recent years lie well outside the range of Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies in CMIP5 simulations with natural forcing only, but are consistent with the ensemble of CMIP5 simulations including both anthropogenic and natural forcing … Observed temperature trends over the period 1951–2010, … are, at most observed locations, consistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including anthropogenic and natural forcings and inconsistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including natural forcings only.”
(Ref.: Working Group I contribution to fifth assessment report by IPCC. TS.4.2.)
It starts to get really ugly if we combine that logical flaw with the realization by Gavin Schmidt that ” the model simulations are affected by the (partially overestimated) forcing in CMIP5 as well as model responses”
17
Mark says:
3 Nov 2015 at 6:41 PM
Apparently Roy Spencer’s CMIP5 models vs observations graph has gotten some “uninformed and lame” criticisms from “global warming activist bloggers,” but no criticism from any “actual climate scientists.” Would any actual climate scientists, perhaps one with expertise in climate models, care to comment? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/models-vs-observations-plotting-a-conspiracy/
[Response: Happy to! The use of single year (1979) or four year (1979-1983) baselines is wrong and misleading. The use of the ensemble means as the sole comparison to the satellite data is wrong and misleading. The absence of a proper acknowledgement of the structural uncertainty in the satellite data is wrong and misleading. The absence of NOAA STAR or the Po-Chedley et al reprocessing of satellite data is… curious. The averaging of the different balloon datasets, again without showing the structural uncertainty is wrong and misleading. The refusal to acknowledge that the model simulations are affected by the (partially overestimated) forcing in CMIP5 as well as model responses is a telling omission. The pretence that they are just interested in trends when they don’t show the actual trend histogram and the uncertainties is also curious, don’t you think? Just a few of the reasons that their figures never seem to make their way into an actual peer-reviewed publication perhaps… – gavin]
– See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/unforced-variations-nov-2015/#sthash.eIH9lMBG.dpuf
(Gavin Schmidt is Climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York).
The travesty is completed by how models are adjusted to keep them in line with observations:
«When initialized with states close to the observations, models ‘drift’ towards their imperfect climatology (an estimate of the mean climate), leading to biases in the simulations that depend on the forecast time. The time scale of the drift in the atmosphere and upper ocean is, in most cases, a few years. Biases can be largely removed using empirical techniques a posteriori. …»
(Ref: Contribution from Working Group I to the fifth assessment report by IPCC; 11.2.3 Prediction Quality; 11.2.3.1 Decadal Prediction Experiments)
And by how the models model parameters seems to be set ref:
Climate forcings in Goddard Institute for Space Studies SI2000 simulations; J. Hansen et al
“The bottom line is that, although there has been some narrowing of the range of climate sensitivities that emerge from realistic models [Del Genio and Wolf, 2000], models still can be made to yield a wide range of sensitivities by altering model parameterizations. We suggest that the best constraint on actual climate sensitivity is provided by paleoclimate data that imply a sensitivity 3 ± 1°C for 2 CO2 [Hansen et al., 1984, 1993, 1997b; Hoffert and Covey, 1992]. It is satisfying that the a priori sensitivity of the SI2000 model comes out near the middle of the empirical range of 2 – 4°C for 2 CO2. However, for the sake of interpreting observed climate change and predicting future change it is appropriate to consider climate sensitivity as an uncertain parameter that may, in fact, be anywhere within that range.”
“Therefore we include the possibility of altering the model’s climate sensitivity. We do this by adjusting an arbitrary cloud feedback as defined in the appendix of Hansen et al. [1997a]. Specifically, the cloud cover is multiplied by the factor 1 + cT , where T, computed every time step, is the deviation of the global mean surface air temperature from the long-term mean in the model control run at the same point in the seasonal cycle and c is an empirical constant. For the SI2000 second-order model we take c = 0.04 and -0.01 to obtain climate sensitivities of 2°C and 4°C for 2 CO2.”
In my view – the idea that the conclusion by IPCC is substantiated by the considerations that IPCC has actually made is falsified – the idea is wrong. Judgement about United Nations climate theory must be suspended.
This cartoon by Josh summarize it all quite well I think. D)
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/josh-knobs.jpg
Funny thing is the only knob that does anything is the CO2 knob, no way we can control any of the other parameters such as the oceans or water vapor.
Bob,
In case you forgot about me, I responded but didn’t hear back.
See below.
“Kobashi 2011 or Kobashi 2013 is not included on various paleo charts because they are local reconstructions. Do you understand now?”
Bob
Thanks.
As I mentioned earlier I’m relatively new to the debate.
I’d appreciate if you can explain what a “local reconstruction” is, how it differs from previous ice core measurements and why they aren’t included.
Links are fine. I’ll read them.
“no way we can control any of the other parameters such as…water vapor.”
Clear blue sky this morning, except for jet contrails that have since multiplied and coalesced into a solid layer of cirrus cloud.
Clear blue sky this morning, except for jet contrails that have since multiplied and coalesced into a solid layer of cirrus cloud.
You must live in the SouthEast US, where I noticed those contrails in the water vapor satellite imagery just now.
Knute, I am not your answer man,
Don’t you know the difference between local and global?
Thanks for your time Bob and I appreciate the input you’ve provided.
It is disappointing to know that you won’t engage further on the issue of reconstructed data and how it should be reflected in paleoclimate charts.
Unfortuantely, your approach is a common one concerning advocates of the AGW theory.
In the future, you may want to reconsider. You never know who your talking too. It very well could be the tipping point of influence that you seek.
Good luck.
“You must live in the SouthEast US…”
Nope. Arizona. And from sat images it looks like the cirrus were replaced by “natural” lower level clouds later in the day.Nevertheless, can there be any doubt that central AZ is the chemtrail crossroads of the world?
https://verdeviews.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/contrails.jpg
“Don’t you know the difference between local and global?”
There are 218,384 weather stations in the GHCN historic record. 74% are in Canada and the U.S.
93,627 of those stations are currently operating. 54% are in Canada and the U.S.
Canada and the U.S. comprise about 12% of global land area.
Could the difference between local and global reconstructions be that global requires a lot more construction?
Knute,
The thing is, I don’t know which charts you think the Kobashi data should be included in, and since you have posted Kobashi charts that have been fraudulently manipulated, I am not sure that I am interacting with an honest broker.
Until you show to me that you are honest and admit your errors, I may or may not continue to interact with you.
Why do think it might be cooling?
Bob
It’s okay. No need to ponder if you have to interact with me. I asked you if you could provide recent data to accurately update paleo charts for Greenland. You sent me to Kobashi after I offered it (which was odd) and I did the reading. Thanks, and I’ve moved on to other less persnickety sources for the discussion.
Good luck in your pursuits.
You mean he is qualified to discuss the most recent reconstruction studies? Isn’t that what really matters now? And if so, why do you think he is qualified to do that? Why not bring someone else who more qualified to discuss reconstruction studies whether it is Mann’s from over a decade ago or the most recent?
Joseph, I usually ignore you. Not this time, as you pose an important question, which actually has two separate parts.
Part 1, Mann 1999, featured by WMO and TAR. Thoroughly discredited by Steve McIntyre (peer reviewed and otherwise). Steyn’s book is a desreved pile on refutation. Perhaps, given yourmphrqsing, you are forced to concede that. Else, check into the nearest mental health facility.
Part 2, PAGES2. Now, admittedly Steyn is not focused on that, since the suit and his book involves only MHB99. BUT, have you noticed that McIntyre has demolished PAGES2 as effectively (not to mention consigning Gergis et. al. to the science rubbish heap)? Upside down Tiljander. Yamal. Bristlecones. And much more, worse. PAGES2 have been publishing piecemeal retractions for years now, without crediting Steve Mc for their corrections.
You continue in this vein, I will send Steyn a compendium of SM irrefutable posts for his promised volume 2, plus a link to you personally. Fair target, no collateral damage. But surely also unnecessary, since Steyn/and or his pro bono lawyers apparently read Climate Audit. Do you?
Joseph, because Mark Steyn has been called as a witness at the Senate hearing, he will be offering his testimony regardless of what qualifications he may or may not possess concerning past or current paleoclimate reconstructions.
The obvious solution to the issue you raise is for Dr. Michael Mann himself to be called as a witness so that he can offer direct and informed rebuttal testimony to whatever claims Mark Steyn might be making.
If Dr. Mann is as effective in rebutting Steyn’s testimony as you yourself might expect him to be, his appearance at the Senate hearing could well become a key turning point which swings the outcome of the hearing decisively in the Democrat’s favor.
BB, you’re kidding………..right?
Mark Silbert, I am totally serious about it. if Mark Steyn is allowed to offer testimony concerning the validity of the paleoclimate reconstruction studies, then Michael Mann is the most logical choice by far to rebut whatever Steyn says.
If one major topic of the Senate hearing is the validity, or the possible lack thereof, of the paleoclimate reconstruction studies; and If the Democrat’s want their position regarding those studies to be vigorously defended in rebuttal testimony, who better than Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University could they get to represent their side of the issue?
BB, sadly I knew you were not kidding.
The day that Michael Mann will face off in public against Mark Steyn or Judith Curry I will eat my hat.
Steyn isn’t qualified to discuss any science. He thinks science is done by counting up opinions. It isn’t. Of course, he only counts them up for one side of the issue….
So what are your qualifications?
You, Scooter Nuccutelli, Greg Laden, Joe Romm (who I at least have respect for), Seth Berenstein (sp?) are among the many who discuss the science of climate on a regular basis. You’re qualified but Steyn is not.
I’d risk some of my wealth betting on Steyn to clean your clock in a discussion on the science.
So what are your qualifications David?
You, Scooter Nuccutelli, Greg Laden, Joe Romm (who I at least have respect for), Seth Berenstein (sp?) are among the many who discuss the science of climate on a regular basis. You’re qualified but Steyn is not.
I’d risk some of my wealth betting on Steyn to clean your clock in a discussion on the science.
Pingback: Mundos con y sin contraste | PlazaMoyua.com
Thank you, Professor Curry, for participating in this Senate Hearing. This letter to US Senator Ted Cruz explains how we know the AGW story is based on DOGMA, rather than DATA !
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Manuel_Letter_to_Senator_Cruz.pdf
The links work better in this unsigned copy of the letter:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Letter_to_Senator_Cruz.pdf
I am getting bored. The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html.
The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended to achieve worldwide disorientation away from the actual IPCC aims of global de-democratization and helotization through monetary and energy politics– and bringing a whole, if not all, of science into disrepute. Even the UK Royal Society has become Lysenkoist.
Knowing that there is no escape from THE FOUR LAWS WITHOUT WHICH NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE UNIVERSE THAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS – and which cannot be overruled by edicts from whoever, be it Dalai Lama, Pope, Obama, Merkel, IMF, UN, EU, IPCC, PIK, the Supreme Court, EPA, or anyone, I suggest a look at some facts I collected on the subject in my IDIOT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/idiot-guide-to-global-warming.html
In 2001 I realized the importance of Congressional hearings when the highlight of a Senate hearing on international trade was the argument between the primary witness and the hearing’s chair over which one of them was poorer growing up. I never attended another hearing. However, sometimes I do enjoy reading the testimony. I suspect, however, the committee members hear the testimony but don’t listen, and I would be shocked if they actually read any of the testimony.
Sad, but true with the exception of Cruz. I expect he’ll come loaded for bear!
Necessary knowledge to realize CO2 has no effect on climate should have been learned before the 12th grade in school. It is a basic understanding of the ramifications of photosynthesis. Google provides a good definition of photosynthesis: “the process by which green plants and some other organisms use sunlight to synthesize foods from carbon dioxide and water. Photosynthesis in plants generally involves the green pigment chlorophyll and generates oxygen as a byproduct.”
The applicable ramification of photosynthesis is that CO2 is necessary for the initial step for all life on the planet and always has been. For life on land as we know it to have evolved there had to have been substantial CO2 in the atmosphere for more than 500 million years. If CO2 made the planet warmer it would have been doing it cumulatively for 500 million years. But average global temperature (AGT) has gone up and down over the eon and most of the time it has been warmer than now. The only way this could consistently result is if CO2 has no effect on temperature and temperature change is caused by something else.
The idea that a threshold level of CO2 might exist, where above the threshold CO2 warms the planet and below the threshold it does not, requires a more complex analysis but the end result is the same: CO2 has no effect on AGT.
Because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere, if CO2 change does not cause temperature change, it cannot cause climate change. Thus the CO2 change from burning fossil fuels has no effect on climate, and ‘climate sensitivity’ (the effect on AGT of doubling CO2) is zero.
The analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com expands on this and identifies the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature change for at least as long as AGT has been accurately measured world wide. An equation there, using only the noted two factors, calculates a 97% match to reported measured temperatures since before 1900 (after calibration to historical AGT, the only inputs to the equation are from the sunspot number data set). Everything not explicitly included (such as aerosols, volcanos, non-condensing ghg, ice changes, uncertainty in measurements, heating from the earth’s core, storing heat in ocean depths, etc.) must find room in the unexplained 3%.
That Dr Curry would stoop to this kind of performance for some one like Cruz speaks volumes about her character and intellect.
Dr. Curry is not doing it for Cruz, you freaking clown. She is doing it for truth, justice and the American way. And that’s what you nasty consensus goons get for taking her chair.
Don
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Dr Curry, you have to be impressed with her courage to pursue those things you mention. She is a leader among her peers and made of the right stuff.
She deserves anything but personal attacks and trite barrages.
Anyone can stand with many, few can stand alone.
You found out they intend to turn the air conditioning way down, didn’t you?
Says the guy who thinks the Jolly Green is his daddy.
Mad CO2 disease
can make yer
prone ter deceive,
promoting recursive
fury in guys like Gleick
and Lewandowski.
that you would stoop to this kind of comment speaks volumes about your character and intellect.
If memory serves, Dr. Curry voted for Obama. This is not about politics.
Greenman, your nothing if not a tree-hugging pusillanimous pipsqueak. You’ll thank her one day for telling the truth and providing for your salvation.
Now Judith is engaged in full censorship.
Why do deniers always retreat to this level? It’s like they’re afraid of other opinions.
Just like Ted Cruz.
If you make a substantive comment, I will let your comments through. Gratuitous, non substantive and unsupported insults are not welcome here (whether you are insulting me or anyone else). Raise the level of your comments, and they will pass moderation.
Judith….just curious, do you read any of dons comments? Your explanation of your moderation policy is hilarious.
Plenty of Don’s comments get deleted
Joshua
You are consistent in your desire to hold both sides to account as can be seen in your comments in the link I gave to Sous piece on Judith/mark Steyn,, so well done for that.
I think that a small number of commentators have phases where they are reasonable and then become unreasonable enough to get deleted.
David Appell had a phase of distinct unpleasantness a year or two ago but then for some reason his comments became much politer and much easier to read. He makes some very good points, but at times they were being lost in the vitriolic flak he put up.
I do not know what has been deleted but hope David reverts back to his readable informative character, rather than the rather unpleasant combative one he sometimes assumes.
tonyb
The issue with David Appell (why he is in moderation), is that when he does show up here, he makes a huge number of comments, dominating the thread. Other times he does a drive by with gratuitous insults. And sometimes he makes substantive comments that contribute to the discussion. So until I see more evidence of the latter behavior, he will stay in moderation and I will manually let through the substantive comments.
My issue is not with moderation of david’s comments, but with the consistency of Judith’s exercise of moderation standards.
Its her blog, she gets to do whatever she wants. But she regularly shit-bins plenty of my comments that don’t meet the criteria she just dascribed, and we can read dozens of comments from folks like Don on practically every thread that do. Mark silbert is another. So is Tim. Fuller Dave E. There is a long list.
Joshua, many of your comments don’t make it through moderation because they are either repetitive or off topic on one of the topical threads. Some others are guilty of the same, but have rarely derailed entire threads such as you often have.
Moderating a blog like this is not an easy job (and I don’t have nearly enough time to spend on this), and most people think the blog is better since i have been moderating more heavily.
Rather typical that you deleted my last comment, Judith. It met none, not a single one, of the criteria that you have outlined. You have to know this, and so the question is why you keep making the statements that you’re making.
Your blog. Your right to moderate however you want. All’s fair in love and blogs. But your statements describing your moderation practice are flat out inaccurate.
Joshua, this is the last time i respond to a comment like this. No one wants to read your whining comments about my moderation.
“Plenty of Don’s comments get deleted”
Some of my best. I am going to start whining about it, like the little Judith hating trolls do.
Joshua, you’ve got 10 comments on this post. Well, one comment repeated 10 times. Not one of them is about the topic.
This is my 5th comment on this post. I also believe it is my 5th this week.
David Appell,
You’re right. Deniers usually resort to censorship. Warmists deny real physics, and deny reality. Folks of all all persuasions deny the Earth has cooled since its creations. Fools deny CO2 is the basis of all human life. Deniers all!
I agree, free speech would be a laudable thing. Unfortunately, there seem to be a large number of “precious petals” who want to deny me the right to say what I wish. They are obviously incapable of declining to take offence, as I do. They are probably socially or emotionally inadequate.
Most Warmists seem to be defective either mentally or emotionally. Living in a fantasy world is wonderful for you, perhaps. Just don’t expect me to fund you.
Cheers.
There yr go, David Appell, a group of Canadian academics
attempting to stifle debate.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/12/3/silencing-dissent.html#comments
Appalling ain’t it?
I don’t mind seeing David Appell’s comments. I sort of enjoy watching him clown himself on such a regular basis. As with his frequent use of “deniers”. (Hey David, still waiting to hear from you on what exactly I am denying. )
As for “The Putz”, he’s grown tired and stale.
It would be funny to see you debate Ted Cruz. You should give it a try. Go on…really.
David Appell bloviated meretriciously: Why do deniers always retreat to this level? It’s like they’re afraid of other opinions. Just like Ted Cruz.
Please refrain from using the term “denier.” I find the term to be offensive. It’s clear to me that you are attempting to associate the positions of skeptics to that of Holocaust deniers. I remember an interview with Scott Pelley (CBS) concerning climate change. Mr. Pelley opined, “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier”? You are incorrect about Ted Cruz. He often engages with others, without a teleprompter, about his positions on climate change. Do a little research, check uTube. I am not afraid of opinions that I disagree with, neither is Ted Cuz. I assert that conservatives are more tolerant than liberals, especially about the topic of climate change.
George Mason University presented the results of a survey last year. The researchers found that intelligent (informed about math and science) conservatives (10%) were not concerned about global warming, while intelligent liberals (10%) were very concerned about global warming. The 80% in the middle did not use motivated reasoning to reach conclusions. This group was influenced by the media or through authority based arguments, bowing to the so-called experts.
Cheers,
JerryG∞
PS Dr. Curry, I wish you much success today. I pray that your prepared statements and answers to questions are focused and persuasive, without distractions. You are a courageous scientist, risking your career because you care more about the science than propagating the politically correct narrative.
Greenman
Bad stuff my friend.
Even your worst enemy who consorts with the most evil sort can
utter facts that can change your life.
While it is hard to do, be above all that noise.
We all fail at it, but it’s worth aspiring to be that person.
While I applaud Cruz for calling the hearing and Dr. Curry for participating, the hearing will have no impact on the “debate” or the direction this country takes on energy policy and climate change. The only way to change course is to elect a president who is not ideologically blinded to actual science and the facts as oppossed to the made up, model based nonsense that is passed off as science by the warmunistas. Regardless, I will definately tune in and set mt dvr to record the hearing. And, I definately like the idea of having Mann participate. That could be a pay per view event!
+10
Judith,
Best of luck with the Senate Hearing. This is a must watch for lovers of science and to a lesser extent we have the politics.
From my perspective, the American System has many positives, the most important being the merit based approach, rather than by accident of birth (the Class System, in its various guises).
The Republican choice is still wide open.Iowa will test the various polls and the character of the participants. Donald Trump still leads and even if he ends up just doing a Moses will have been vital to the process of selection, and, hopefully, the winning of the General Election (US style).
.
This is how Ted Cruz grills an eggplant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKX49_sGrEU
Ted asks the ICE eggplant why the Obama administration is not enforcing our immigration laws. The ICE eggplant, Senora Saldana, says we can’t deport 12 million illegal aliens because it’s too expensive and it ain’t smart. Ted informs her that the Clinton Administration deported twelve million illegal aliens. The ICE eggplant is stumped.
As a layman, Dr. Curry has made two statements that are very important to me:
(1) Dr. Curry has said her “best guess” as to mankind’s contribution to GW is probably about 50%. She’s given additional detail that this means between 25% and 75%.
(2) Dr. Curry continues to speak very favorably about “Fast Mitigation” (i.e., methane, smog, HFCs, black carbon).
Another Scientist that supports “Fast Mitigation” efforts is Dr. Molina, who won the Nobel Prize (ozone depletion). In their meetings with Pope Francis, Dr’s Molina and Ramanathan emphasized this specific mitigation action.
Where Dr. Curry confuses me are her statements that mitigation efforts on CO2 (and I assume equivalents, e.g. methane) wouldn’t do anything meaningful on temperature.
Dr’s Molina and Ramanathan say “Fast Mitigation” is very important in the respect that it could give mankind additional time (e.g., 20 to 30 years) to (1) better understand the science of GW/CC; (2) come up with cost effective engineering solutions.
So what is it? Is “Fast Mitigation” important or not? If Dr. Curry (1) Testifies that CO2 mitigation will not do anything significant on temperature; and (2) Is silent on “Fast Mitigation” — doesn’t this give Senator Cruz a science based justification for a position that no mitigation efforts are warranted?
The climate responses to methane and black carbon are quicker than to CO2, owing to the complexities of the carbon cycle. Further, methane can be reduced more quickly than carbon But the ocean heat storage issue is common to both – there is warming in the pipeline that will continue. I am particularly interested in the fast mitigation as an ‘experiment’, to see if we can detect a discernible response in the climate, against the background natural variability.
Dr. Curry — Thank you. It takes about 7 seconds to say this. I would hope you include this in your Senate testimony. It eliminates any basis to use your testimony that no mitigation efforts are warranted.
If “Fast Mitigation” was important enough for Dr. Molina to emphasize it to the Pope, it just seems like its worthy of at least ~7 seconds to Senator Cruz.
I’m actually avoiding all mentions of policy options in my testimony, other than as related to calculations of how much warming will be prevented by the INDCs, and how that relates to ECS. If I am asked questions about policy options, Fast Mitigation is one that makes sense under the ‘robust policy’ rubric.
Meaning geoengineering? People in spaceships who screw with the air supply tend to end up chewing vacuum.
spaceships don’t have gravity holding the air in place
duh
Other than GHG warming, which is a net benefit to the biosphere when the earth is an ice age (polar ice caps), methane and black carbon are not helpful to the biosphere while CO2 is beneficial in and of itself given its role as the carbon source for the base of the food chain (green plants).
Methane and black carbon are not long-lived in the atmosphere and the sources are more easily stifled without large economic burdens. Anthropogenic BC is generated primarily from (dirty) combustion of coal, diesel, and wood plus scorched earth agriculture. Primary sources of anthropogenic methane are rice farming, cattle farming, poor practices in oil recovery, and leaky natural gas pipelines.
These have a much greater immediate warming effect, pound for pound, than CO2.
The problem is none of the usual suspects really care about global warming and/or discovering through in situ experimental science that negative feedbacks reduce or eliminate the effect of man-made greenhouse gases. They need to be able to tell scary stories. Over-population is their real concern. They hate the hoi polloi who breed like rabbits.
Before we launch into any co2 mitigation efforts, shouldn’t we also carefully examine the known, emperically proven benefits of increased levels of co2 compared to the fully unproven conjecture that increased levels of co2 cause any harm via warming or otherwise?
Go Judith, go,go go!
Best of luck.
The chance for some expression of lukewarmerism or even a hint of skepticism to get out there to the public is badly needed.
This could be the start of a wave of anti McCarthyism around the stadium of the free world.
One small point that would not be right for you to raise [too political] would be a rebuff to President Obama’s Miami flooding quote.
Historically Miami is built on declared flood lands and all buildings there are are unable to attract flood insurance [do not quote me!] as they are 2-3 feet below normal King tide levels.
Hopefully some others here can find the right references or correct me if I am wrong.
Someone like Mark Steyn might be able to incorporate a reference to this if correct without incurring nasty political kickback as he is there to attack the dogma side, not the dubious data use side.
FLOOD INSURANCE
Homeowner’s insurance policies do not cover damages and losses due to flooding. The City of Miami Beach participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that makes flood insurance available to everyone in the City. We strongly urge you to buy flood insurance to protect yourself from a devastating loss.
Information about flood insurance policies should be available to you through your insurance agent. Call your insurance agent now so that you will be prepared for future events. Do not wait for a disaster. Please be advised that there is a standard 30-day waiting period, from the date or purchase, before a new flood policy goes into effect.
Rates are going up.
Thanks JCH, appreciated. this was one of the articles I saw on google but did not retain in my memory, I think it does mention Miami is rather low lying as well
Thanks Judith. When done with your presentation could you please copy and send to this group represented here: http://www.ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Dec.-3-2015-.Application-to-Commissioner-of-Competition-re-Climate-science-misrepresentations.submitted.pdf
“PARTII- THECLIMATECHANGEDENIALSTRATEGY
A. Denier groups use the strategy created by tobacco industry front groups – attack science with misrepresentations to create public doubt about scientific consensus.”
I would say that by the way United Nation distorted the scientific process and endorsed subjective “science”, there are more similarities between the United Nations and the tobacco industry : Comment
Thank-you Professor Curry for your courage and honesty.
My feeling is that a legislator is not a good candidate for the highest executive office. At the very least they should do stint as vp before becoming a serious candidate. The executive branch should primarily be a check on the legislative branch and secondly a guiding influence (by requesting legislation and indicating constraints on what they will or will not approve). I view legislative experience as kind of a taint on a candidate rather than a plus.
Really Steven, are you sure you posted that on the right blog?
I doubt many here can stomach that all the way through, but I did.
I see a lot of posts in this thread that complain about the lack of balance in the hearings.
But I’m wonder where these same people were when Democrats loaded the debate with warmists?
The truth is that both sides need a fair and unbiased hearing. While I think the warmists are wrong, I don’t fear their commentary. But I am puzzled why they fear commentary that is opposed to theirs even when their predictions are based on incomplete and there fore inaccurate computer models that are programmed with their assumptions for the future and have no bases in fact or observations (Satellite data shows no warming but manipulated ground sources show significant warming.
So who are we to believe, the raw data or the manipulated data when the people who manipulated the data refuse to say how or why they manipulated it.
Scientific data is supposed to be available for others to verify the findings. But if raw government data is not available to all scientists, then how can it be verified? Or if manipulated data is not availble to the entire community with how and why the data was manipulated, then how can we trust it.
The fact is that warmist have been in lock step in preventing anyone from evaluating their methodologies or how they arrived at their conclusions, or the raw data they used.
On the other hand, go to any skeptic website and you will find exactly the data and methodology they use.
So why are warmist hiding their data, methodologies, and computer programming assumptions and the skeptics are not?
Do alarmist have something hide and skeptics don’t. Sure seems like it.
What I would like to see happen, and what SHOULD happen, is for Judith to suggest that there be a series (4-6 debates 2 hrs each in length) of Televised debates between a panel of the top Five experts on both sides of the AGW (CAGW) topic. AGW is supposedly critical to the survivability of the human species and YET the cAGW absolutely REFUSES to debate this topic in a public forum. The cAGW side would be screaming bloody murder and protesting profusely…. which is about all one needs to know about their credibility.
I used to think a debate on CAGW theory would be proper.
I now lean towards thinking that the best course of action is a filibuster.
We appear to be leaning more towards cooling than warming.
Let nature do the deciding.
The Pope will say its God’s will.
Will the Senate cancel tomorrow’s hearing on AGW: Data or Dogma?
The EPA Chief, Gina McCarthy, told Congress today that the decision had already been made and was beyond the control of Congress:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/7/global-warming-activists-ask-un-banish-skeptics/
CORRECTION: Here’s a link to the statement by EPA Chief, Gina McCarthy:
http://www.examiner.com/article/epa-chief-says-congress-won-t-win-global-warming-fight-and-should-get-over-it
This link is to AGW believers petition to the UN’s COP-21 Conference in Paris to bar non-believers from the conference.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/7/global-warming-activists-ask-un-banish-skeptics/
No worry about all this as UN NWO have a plan B just load up thousands of air tankers with aluminium , barium, strodium 90 and cover the planet. Go for a 85 percent death rate the rest will soon fall in line. I just traveled 12,000 miles and thats all I see above me.
check http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org
No worry, Gary. Leaders of the UN NWO are delusional, foolishly believing they have power to rule the world. They have absolutely none, as noted in
1. The ancient scripture quoted below, and in
2. Conclusions from precise experimental measurements and observations of the Nuclear and Space Ages: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf
GOOD LUCK, Professor Curry, at tomorrow’s Senate hearing!
Rest assured that once again the final outcome has already been recorded in ancient scriptures of various religions and will once again be confirmed:
“Truth is victorious, never untruth.“
We are blessed to witness the combined powers of world leaders trying to reverse that scripture.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot all crazy but still lots of dead people. But these one percenters are going to try break the record. They have 90 percent of the cash why not 90 percent of the assets. Hey go out look up, how bout a little nicro aluminium up your nose into your brain, It hurts I know, still in it, got a heavy spray today. We are gone unless someone steps in to stop it, and that might Involve really bad big bangs. 2.4 million are in starvation mode in Central America just for starters PLEASE PEOPLE WAKE UP
Pingback: Today’s Climate Change Congressional Hearings – Greg Laden's Blog
Judith,
Have you ever seen a coral reef? Do you know that we are experiencing the 3rd global coral bleaching event due to excessive heat? Are you concerned that hotter oceans are bleaching more corals? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/healthy-dying-dead-this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-a-reef-is-bleached_5660df23e4b08e945feed91a
Tip for Mr. Funderbunk: We don’t look at links to huffpo BS.
Is National Geographic acceptable? http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/03/saving-coral-reefs-requires-halting-climate-change/ http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/29/coral-bleaching-and-the-paris-summit/
Nat Geo is almost as bad. We do still like the pictures. Are you subbing for little yimmy, today? We hope he is OK.
Tripp, have you ever seen a bunch of sunscreen coated tourists on a coral reef? How about a bunch of lobster divers using bleach to poach lobster?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/20/450276158/chemicals-in-sunscreen-are-harming-coral-reefs-says-new-study
Yes, but sunscreen harming corals does not account for global coral bleaching.
Tripp, Sunscreen and physical damage are on going while temperature related bleaching happens in events with strong El Ninos and excess nutrients/bacteria etc. Saharan dust for example had a fungus in it that killed sea urchins that eat the algae that kill the coral back in the late 70s here in the Keys. Once the event is past, new coral grows on the old coral and life goes on. Since the water temperature decreases with depth and larva travel with the currents, there is regeneration of the shallower structures following the events. Pretty remarkable system.
http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/5677/2015/bg-12-5677-2015.pdf
The sea urchins died in 1983 due to a disease that came out of the Panama Canal. Corals don’t just bleach during El Nino, they bleach when the water gets too hot which has happened more and more regularly in recent years due to climate change and increasing ocean temperatures.
Trip, I take it you don’t have time to read my link.
Tripp btw, 1983 was a peak time but there is considerable evidence it started in the 70s. Since I kinda live on the reef, it is a bit of an obsession with me.
https://www.rsmas.miami.edu/users/jprospero/Publications/Shinn-Prospero_dust%20corals_GRL00_2000GL011599.pdf
You are right that Caribbean coral diseases started in the 1970’s and African dust might have played a role, but the sea urchins died in a 1983 epidemic.
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/FieldCourses00/PapersMarineEcologyArticles/MassMortalityinDiademaant.html
Also, I read the report about using boron to reconstruct bleaching events. While interesting, I don’t think it refutes the fact that hotter ocean water in recent decades due to climate change is causing increased levels of coral bleaching, which is a strong signal that climate change is real and damaging.
What do you blame for this, Mr. Tripp?
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/09/massive-starfish-die-off-baffles-scientists/
It looks to be more man made stuff spreading.
I don’t know why the starfish are dying.
Tripp, It peaked in 1983
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Dust/Images/adapted.gif
At least that is what NASA says. Another theory is some unknown pathogen happened to wander on ocean currents. The sea urchin/coral/algae relationship is pretty complex.
Tripp
Here is the original press release.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/100815-noaa-declares-third-ever-global-coral-bleaching-event.html
It is the third in ‘recorded history’. You might like to ask NOAA when that started. I suspect 1998 with satellite tracking. Their email address is in the press release.
tonyb
In 1987, Marine Biologists could not even figure why there was regional bleaching. Now it happens nearly every year, and it is global, not just regional. I wonder why the bleaching is getting worse?
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/15/science/experts-are-puzzled-by-widespread-coral-bleaching-in-caribbean.html
Tripp
So back in 1987 there was regional bleaching. Did they start putting the global position together when satellites started to become generally used for many climate related events? This increasingly sounds as if the ‘recorded history’ is a short one.
Tonyb
There is no record anywhere of regional bleaching or global bleaching in textbooks or media reports from before the 1980’s, but you are arguing that since satellite observations are relatively new, then there must have been a bunch a bleaching back when the earth was 1.8 degrees fahrenheit cooler?
Probably at colder temperatures you still had coral bleaching:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154280/
Seems like lots of assertion regarding coral bleaching.
Temperature is ascribed the ‘leading cause’ but other factors include pollution, low tides, and exposure to sunlight.
Well increased sunlight would seem to coincide with increased temperature.
These things probably aren’t well separated.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralbleaching-large.jpg
Tripp
It’s a great name so I suspect this must be you
http://www.livingstongroupdc.com/bio_funderburk_ml_tripp.php
I don’t think I’ve seen yOu posting here before? If not, welcome.
Tonyb
Tripp
Back when the world was previously around as warm as this, the 1730’s, the 1540’s the 1350’s and much of the period from 850 to 1200AD, as well as the roman and Minoan warm periods, I doubt that anyone much was monitoring coral reefs.
Tonyb
Darwin, writing in 1842, indicated that there were no coral reefs in the Eastern Tropical Pacific.
Researchers started to describe reef-building corals in that region only in the 1870s.
So the reefs must have formed between the 1830s and 1870s. Unless…
Meanwhile, Eddie has been tellin’ ya’ this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35029962
Yes, PA … a fine example.
Skeptics have a ton of solid information to present. They did get caught with their pants down in a blitzkrieg move (Gore movie was the turning point) by the warmists. Too many normally independent thinking people accepted the sales pitch because if a scientists says it, it’s true.
Obviously what they did is not unusual when moving folks in the direction desired.
Taking your example, the patient appears to be stable but the health care system has sunk their teeth into him for numerous investigatory tests and resulting confirmations. Fortunately for the health care system, the patient has a ready source of income where he doesn’t notice how much this is costing. It’s slow, it’s steady but doesn’t currently impact his life. They did find something unusual such as a high pseudomonas count and in an abundance of caution are recommending he alter his lifestyle in a manner that will likely cause instability and yet more loss of wealth … and may or may not diminish hiss common bacteria count. Too busy to be bothered, the patient signs over further permissions to the health care system to manage his life.
There are several paths here :
1. The slow steady drip drip of mind numbing research into deeper and deeper rabbit holes until folks just lose interest.
2. An awakening by the patient that this is costing him an assload of wealth and NOT worth it.
3. Something else occurs that requires a great deal of the nation’s wealth and attention which relegates climate change to a meaningless program.
The larger the group of humans the more likely the path of leat resistance takes over. It’s likely that unless number 3 takes over, mind numbing rabbit hole reach will continue and a slow steady crawl to some type of significantly reduced fossil fuel world will proceed. The art that warmists have to execute is a slow bleed until the shift in energy production has occurred.
Since when it’s not about money and power, it is about money and power it appears to me that the best clues are given by top tier early energy profiteers. Gates et al want to be the packaged nuke plant rulers of the planet. It would cement their position of power much in the same way oil did for the early oil barron’s and saudis.
What do you think ?