Skip to comments.The House Hearing on Global Warming ( Yesterday--Lame Duck Session)
Posted on 11/18/2010 11:32:31 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Global Warming hearing today on C-SPAN included Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr Judth Curry, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Ben Santer, and Dr. Heidi Cullen, among others. Many didnt get a chance to watch (to see if Ben Santer beat the crap out of Pat Michaels) but we have the video here.
C-SPAN: House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment heard from a dozen witnesses about how the public and private sectors are approaching climate change. Washington, DC : 3 hr. 47 min.
It is now online and can be watched in full at this link:
h/t to WUWT reader Rational Debate
Can they be prosecuted for lying to Congress?
He has called the Gorebull warming campaign a crock of B*S*...
Dr. Richard Lindzen gives testimony before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on November 17th, 2010
The House Testimony on global warming yesterday had a number of excellent presentations, and you can watch the entire video here.
Ive have professor Richard Lindzens presentation saved here in PDF form, and some key excerpts below. Part of his presentation looks like WUWT Sea Ice news. It is well worth the read.
The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak and commonly acknowledged as such.
Given that this has become a quasi-religious issue, it is hard to tell. However, my personal hope is that we will return to normative science, and try to understand how the climate actually behaves. Our present approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2levels, for example, clearly limits real understanding; so does the replacement of theory by model simulation. In point of fact, there has been progress along these lines and none of it demonstrates a prominent role for CO2. It has been possible to account for the cycle of ice ages simply with orbital variations (as was thought to be the case before global warming mania); tests of sensitivity independent of the assumption that warming is due to CO2(a circular assumption) show sensitivities lower than models show; the resolution of the early faint sun paradox which could not be resolved by greenhouse gases, is readily resolved by clouds acting as negative feedbacks.
We see that all the models are characterized by positive feedback factors (associated with amplifying the effect of changes in CO2), while the satellite data implies that the feedback should be negative. Similar results are being obtained by Roy Spencer.
This is not simply a technical matter. Without positive feedbacks, doubling CO2only produces 1C warming. Only with positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds does one get the large warmings that are associated with alarm. What the satellite data seems to show is that these positive feedbacks are model artifacts.
This becomes clearer when we relate feedbacks to climate sensitivity (ie the warming associated with a doubling of CO2).
Discussion of other progress in science can also be discussed if there is any interest. Our recent work on the early faint sun may prove particularly important. 2.5 billion years ago, when the sun was 20% less bright (compared to the 2% change in the radiative budget associated with doubling CO2), evidence suggests that the oceans were unfrozen and the temperature was not very different from todays. No greenhouse gas solution has worked, but a negative cloud feedback does.
You now have some idea of why I think that there wont be much warming due to CO2, and without significant global warming, it is impossible to tie catastrophes to such warming. Even with significant warming it would have been extremely difficult to make this connection.
Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, skeptic. Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.
In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.
Entire presentation is available here: Lindzen_Testimony_11-17-2010 (PDF 1.4 MB)
Bump for later read. Thanks for posting the excerpts.
Call the ASPCA, they dragging out the dead horse for another beating.
From the comments
Dave Springer says:
Lindzen speaks the truth. The deniers IMO are the warmists who must deny a compelling list of contrary observations in order to have faith in the model predictions.
Dr. Judith Curry testifies before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Some excerpts below, the entire presentation is available for download after the break.
Climate change can be categorized as a wicked problem.1 Wicked problems are difficult or impossible to solve, there is no opportunity to devise an overall solution by trial and error, and there is no real test of the efficacy of a solution to the wicked problem. Efforts to solve the wicked problem may reveal or create other problems.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have framed the climate change problem (i.e. dangers) and its solution (i.e. international treaty) to be irreducibly global. Based upon the precautionary principle, the UNFCCC s Kyoto Protocol has established an international goal of stabilization of the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. This framing of the problem and its solution has led to the
dilemma of climate response policy that is aptly described by Obersteiner et al.2:
The key issue is whether betting big today with a comprehensive global climate policy
targeted at stabilization will fundamentally reshape our common future on a global scale to our advantage or quickly produce losses that can throw mankind into economic, social, and environmental bankruptcy.
1 Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber; Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, pp. 155169, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Inc., Amsterdam, 1973. http://www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Planning.pdf
Engagement of climate researchers with regional planners, economists, military/intelligence organizations, development banks, energy companies, and governments in the developing world to develop a mutual understanding about what kind of information is needed can promote more fruitful decision outcomes, and define new scientific challenges to be addressed by research. The need for climate researchers to engage with social scientists and engineers has never been more important.
Further, there is an increasing need for social scientists and philosophers of science to scrutinize and analyze our field to prevent dysfunction at the science-policy interface.
And finally, climate scientists and the institutions that support them need to acknowledge and engage with ever-growing groups of citizen scientists, auditors, and extended peer communities that have become increasingly well organized by the blogosphere. The more sophisticated of these groups are challenging our conventional notions of expertise and are bringing much needed scrutiny particularly into issues surrounding historical and paleoclimate data records.
These groups reflect a growing public interest in climate science and a growing concern about possible impacts of climate change and climate change policies. The acrimony that has developed between some climate scientists and blogospheric skeptics was amply evident in the sorry mess that is known as Climategate. Climategate illuminated the fundamental need for improved and transparent historical and paleoclimate data sets and improved information systems so that these data are easily accessed and interpreted.
Blogospheric communities can potentially be important in identifying and securing the common interest at these disparate scales in the solution space of the energy, climate and ocean acidification problems. A diversity of views on interpreting the scientific evidence and a broad range of ideas on how to address these challenges doesnt hinder the implementation of diverse megaton and kiloton solutions at local and regional scales.
Securing the common interest on local and regional scales provides a basis for the successful implementation of climate adaptation strategies. Successes on the
local and regional scale and then national scales make it much more likely that global issues can be confronted in an effective way.
Her testimony is available here: Curry_Testimony_11-17-2010
Lord Monckton considers Lindzen’s work to be definitive and to have buried and exposed the falsehoods of the global warming hype.
Dr. Judith Curry has been attacked by the At for not joining in the propaganda campaign.
LOL, my first question was: "Did Ben punch anybody out?".
This is great testimony. I’ve been waiting a long time for this. Looks like Waxman, Markey, and other climate-change nuts are now in retreat.
Dr. Heidi Cullen testifies before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. The nametag is for the person to her right.
Ive read a number of the testimonies before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment yesterday. It had a number of excellent presentations, and you can watch the entire video here.
One presentation made me chuckle though, and thats the one from Dr. Heidi Cullen.
It was probably the most lightweight presentation of all of them, and was mostly a history lesson combined with overused and well known talking points. It was a bit like watching An Inconvenient Truth. For example, does her Climate Central graphical treatment of the Keeling CO2 curve (at left) make it impart the information to viewer any better than the original?
When I was in TV news, it was called swish. We need more swish on that. i.e. we need to add some bling and sound effects because the viewer has the attention span of a gnat and if we dont make it pretty theyll change the channel. Yeah, in retrospect, maybe that works with Congress too.
One of her statements though, made me bust out laughing. Its a prime candidate for Quote of the Week but Ive already named one this week.
Heres what she had to say:
And the urgency is that the longer we wait, the further down the pipeline climate travels and works its way into weather, and once its in the weather, its there for good.
Is it just me, or do you all get the impression the Dr. Cullen really doesnt understand the differentiations of weather and climate?
Weather has always been in climate, it doesnt suddenly appear in climate based on some imagined metric or maxim. Its always been there, not the inverse.The Merriam Webster dictionary says:
I could forgive her if this was an off the cuff poorly considered ad-libbed remark under pressure before congress, but she wrote this ahead of time. This is just nutty thinking.
We are currently in a race against our own ability to intuitively trust what the science is telling us, assess the risks of global warming, and predict future impacts. So when we look at a climate forecast out to 2100 and see significantly warmer temperatures (both average and extreme) and sea level three feet higher, we need to assess the risk as well as the different solutions necessary to prevent it from happening. The challenge is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, replace our energy infrastructure and adapt to the warming already in the pipeline.
Three feet huh? Okay, lets run the numbers. Heres the satellited measure University of Colorado Sea level graph from our WUWT ENSO/Sea Level/Sea Surface Temperature Page
Lets see, at the current rate of 3.1 mm per year, with 90 years remaining, well have 279 mm (0.91 feet) by the year 2100. And of course, if we get some changes in ocean patterns, AMO, PDO, etc, we might very well see a lower rate. Or, it could be higher, but even being generous, and doubling that rate, gives only 1.82 feet.
Scary huh?If I lived on the coast, Id worry more about hurricanes and strong ocean storms than I would sea level changes. And, what will coastal development look like in 100 years? Who knows? People 100 years ago certainly couldnt predict what our coastal development would look like today. In fact, who could have predicted that Australia might consider banning coastal development due to such overblown fears?
But, it is often unreported that weve had sea level rise all through American history. Of all the talk about sea level rise, it is interesting to point out that at least in Boston, man has easily outraced the sea. The worry about sea level is real, but the ability of man to adapt is clearly illustrated in the comparative maps. See here: The rubbish is coming! One if by land, two if by sea
Not sure what the Pelosi scheme is for this hearing..they probably want to pass a bill in the lameduck session and get it to the President.
But it has to get thru the Senate...that could be a problem.
I would expect a redoing of all of this next year by a Republican chaired committee....
Watch Pelosi to cherry pick from all of the testimony.
The last IPCC-Report 2007 claims that there are important differences between weather and climate, by saying that:
A common confusion between weather and climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks from now. The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days.
___Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue.
___As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75.
The text is from the section FAQ 1.2 : What is the Relationship between Climate Change and Weather?, and obviously intended to create the impression that climate science is more reliable than weather forecasting. Is this impression wrong? More at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/
Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect.
Those four articles each show that Greenhouse Theory has no basis in reality due to a direct conflict with the known laws of physics. No wonder the smoking gun "hotspot" can't be found.
That article pretty much puts the kibosh on any serious trend of planetary warming from any cause. Think about it. If there is absolutely no sign at all of rising sea levels how could the planet be warming? Beyond the centuries long slow warming of the earth and rising of the seas of course. But that is only a few millimeters per century due to the inter-glacial period we are in.
You betcha! You're talking about the Creme de la Sheeple. ;^)
Dr. Heidi Cullen needs to read that and tell us why sea level hasn't risen more than 1.1 millimeters per year in the last 150 years? Perhaps she can demonstrate that her expertise in that area exceeds that of Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.
The U.S. House of Representatives Subcommitee On Energy and Environment Hearing titled
that Judy Curry has posted on; e.g. see
contains statements on climate science that are incomplete and are misleading. These statement can be read in the Hearing Charter where they write [highlighting added]
Climate and Weather
Climate can be defined as the product of several meteorological elements in a given region over a period of time.
In addition, spatial elements such as latitude, terrain, altitude, proximity to water and ocean currents affect the climate. We experience climate on a daily basis through the weather. The difference between weather and climate is a measure of timeweather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Weather is often thought of in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere behaves over relatively long periods of time. In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over a period of years to decades. Generally, climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer in the American Southwest, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.
and [highlighting added]
Climate can be influenced by a variety of factors, including: changes in solar activity, long-period changes in the Earths orbit, natural internal processes of the climate system, and anthropogenic (i.e. human-induced) increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). As described above, climate is the long-term average of a regions weather patterns, and climate change is the term used to describe changes in those patterns. Climate change will not have a uniform effect on all regions and these differing effects may include changes to average temperatures (up or down), changes in season length (e.g. shorter winters), changes in rain and snowfall patterns, and changes in the frequency of intense storms. The scientific community has made tremendous advances in understanding the basic physical processes as well as the primary causes of climate change. And researchers are developing a strong understanding of the current and potential future impacts on people and industries.
The preamble of the Hearing misrepresents the current understanding of the climate system and the role of humans within it. The staff who prepared the Hearing Charter either are unaware of the actual state of the science or have chosen to purposely misrepresent the science.
With respect to weather and climate, the writers of the Charter have chosen to use an old, limited definition of climate. The current definition of climate system, which is the one that appropriately should be used for the Hearing is given, for example, in
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp
where the climate system is defined as
The system consisting of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere, determining the Earths climate as the result of mutual interactions and responses to external influences (forcing). Physical, chemical, and biological processes are involved in interactions among the components of the climate system.
The climate system is shown schematically in the NRC report
The statements in the Hearing Charter
Climate can be defined as the product of several meteorological elements in a given region over a period of time.
Climate can be influenced by a variety of factors, including: changes in solar activity, long-period changes in the Earths orbit, natural internal processes of the climate system, and anthropogenic (i.e. human-induced) increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs).
are misleading policymakers and the public with respect to the real climate system. Not only is their definition of climate archaic, but they left off other important first order human climate forcings, as reported in the 2005 NRC report, and summarized in our article
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union
where we wrote
In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other first-order human climate forcings are important to understanding the future behavior of Earths climate. These forcings are spatially heterogeneous and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and associated precipitation [e.g., Rosenfeld et al., 2008], the influence of aerosol deposition (e.g., black carbon (soot) [Flanner et al. 2007] and reactive nitrogen [Galloway et al., 2004]), and the role of changes in land use/land cover [e.g., Takata et al., 2009]. Among their effects is their role in altering atmospheric and ocean circulation features away from what they would be in the natural climate system [NRC, 2005]. As with CO2, the lengths of time that they affect the climate are estimated to be on multidecadal time scales and longer.
Therefore, the cost-benefit analyses regarding the mitigation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases need to be considered along with the other human climate forcings in a broader environmental context, as well as with respect to their role in the climate system.
When the Republicans take control of this Subcommittee in January, I recommend they correct and broaden the perspective on the climate system from what the November 17 2010 Hearing adopted. The Perpetuation Of Climate Misunderstandings By The U.S. House Of Representatives Subcommitee On Energy and Environment
Important update ping...see Statement just above at post #23.
If you know of some links,...add them to the thread if you please.
See the updates above.
I’ll look for some but my comment was based on personal communications.
You are correct. Climate is an average of weather, taken over, say, 30 years. It has always been there.
This is a last gasp of leftist theatrical bullspit before the adults get back in the driver seat.