UPDATE: Bumped, video of this interview is now available below.
I got late word tonight that Dr. Roger Pielke Senior, of the University of Colorado, will be a guest on the FoxBusiness News Channel Friday morning at 10AM EST (7AM PST).
He’ll be interviewed about current issues in climate science. Here’s channel numbers for cable and satellite services:
Cable Providers
Comcast (Digital) Channel 130
Comcast (Digital) Channel 958
Satellite Providers
DISH Channel 206
DIRECTV Channel 359
Sky Angel Channel 319
For cable TV locations in the USA see this interactive finder:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/channel_finder.html
============================================
here is the video of the interview:
Daniel H (09:48:34) :It’s a pity what you comment. Many people are scared to death of being anathemized by msm, however if one is old enough for not trembling before death…climate change squadrons there is not need to be polite or diplomatic with anyone.
George E. Smith (10:30:24) :
George, check this one:
Ice Extent for Thursday, February 25, 2010
>8/10ths extent = 14,646,864 sq km
Marginal Ice Zone = 833,104 sq km
Total Ice Extent 15,479,968 sq km
http://arcweb.natice.noaa.gov/dailyproduct.web/default.aspx
Using silverlight and assuming the marginal ice is <=2/10ths extent (can't find explicit definition).
OT: This gotta be a joke, right?
“Whaling worsens carbon release, scientists warn”
“Whales, like any animal or plant on the planet, are made out of a lot of carbon,” he said.”
“And when you kill and remove a whale from the ocean, that’s removing carbon from this storage system and possibly sending it into the atmosphere.”
“He suggested that a similar system of carbon credits could be applied to whales in order to protect and rebuild their stocks. ”
“The idea would be to do a full accounting of how much carbon you could store in a fully populated stock of fish or whales, and allow countries to sell their fish quota as carbon credits,” he explained.”
“You could use those credits as an incentive to reduce the fishing pressure or to promote the conservation of some of these species.”
“He said that the marine carbon credit idea could be applied to other very large marine animals, including endangered bluefin tuna and white sharks.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8538033.stm
GES
The ice didn’t melt. They just took down yesterday’s number and reposted 2/23. I’d expect the next update to correct this any time.
Daniel H (09:48:34) :
(…)
But seriously, It was extremely frustrating to watch someone as brilliant as Dr. Pielke completely avoid any substantial criticism of Tom Karl and the Hockey Team when he knows (perhaps better than anyone) how deceptive and corrupt these people are. (…)
You need to consider how things might play out. Now we are getting the investigations, which may be whitewashes. Then following what will be proclaimed as Absolute Vindication and Total Proof There Was Absolutely No Wrongdoing, in order for the Hockey Team and related to maintain professional standing, there will come the lawsuits alleging slander etc. Journalists, commentators, and bloggers have different levels of protection, they are just providing opinions or were working from what may reasonably have been considered solid facts, etc.
But when academics like the Pielke’s say stuff about other academics, well, they are considerably more exposed, and tend to be considerably more reserved in their criticism. For very good reasons.
No impact whatsoever. Wasted air time.
I was delighted to see what Dr Pielke looks like. He spoke very well and in a measured and very reasonable way. Time constraint would have put any further explanations beyond the scope of this slot. It all helps in the business of chipping away at this monster.
The climate is changing very slowly, and perhaps the whole AGW business will melt away like the Luxembourg sized iceberg on its way to New Zealand.
They also have totally ignored one other point regarding the B9B ice berg — its age!
It is clearly an urgent issue, with the B9B iceburg being 18 years old and still unmelted, the ice is obviously melting at a precipitous rate. At this rate it might melt completely in my life time.
Larry
Correction B9B iceberg being 23 years old, and still is a massive block of ice at 97km by 20-35km, might completely melt in my life time.
Larry
kwik (11:11:16) :
Well, here is a UN Scientist saying it a bit more to your face;
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IPCC_carcass.pdf
Imagine wasting all that time studying the effects of manipulated data.
I’d be so pissed off right now.
Re: ChrisP (Feb 26 10:56),
The short answer is “no”.
The “theory” of climate is a cocktail mixture of real physical theories , according to the taste of the climatologist, programmed into large computer programs.
Dr. Pielke is the model of how a scientist should do science. His web site about climate science is awesome.
He thinks that global warming has not been occurring for the last several years because the OHC has not increased for several years and has actually declined in the last couple of years. Pieke recognizes that this falsifies (or at minimum contradicts) Hansen’s 2005 prediction for large, specific OHC gains due to co2 dominated agw.
I don’t understand yet why there is not a huge debate/uproar about this falsification of Hansen’s ohc increase due to co2 dominated agw hypothesis. There is no better measure of global warming or cooling than ohc. I wish that when Pielke is interviewed by the mass media that he would mention the falsification of Hansen’s thesis.
“ChrisP (10:56:02) :
Off subject (sorry)
Can anyone tell me (I’m not a Scientist) Whether there is, such a thing, as a ‘Theory of Global Warming’”
Gerlich and Tscheuschner had the same problem like you – there is no general agreed “consensus theory”, only old papers by Arrhenius and Callendar and others. So in their quest to debunk the theory they had to use those old papers. They have copies of them in their paper:
http://www.schmanck.de/0707.1161v4.pdf
The UNIPCC seems to be very careful to not give a formal definition of the greenhouse theory, probably in order to make it more difficult to falsify the basis of their conjecture.
In just a couple of minutes Dr. Pielke made the essential point that you cannot regulate the Earth’s climate by manipulating CO2.
This point absolutely destroys the basic premise underlying so-called ‘climate’ legislation (and the EPA decision that CO2 is a ‘pollutant’). If it gets through to just one or two wavering Senators, you will never see such legislation. Dr. Pielke should also be called as an expert witness in the Virginia challenge to the EPA.
We should remember that Roger Sowell on this board has frequently made the same point, from a control-systems point of view.
/Mr Lynn
Annabelle 10:59:40 asked:
I would guess his son knows how to pronounce the family name:
From the blog of Dr Pielke, Jr, “Occasionally Asked Questions …”
Q: How do you pronounce your name?
Pell-Key. Though I’ll respond to Peel-Key. And if I am in Germany it is Peel-Ka.
Erik (11:34:06) :
OT: This gotta be a joke, right?
“Whaling worsens carbon release, scientists warn”
Well, it may be a joke, but the BBC certainly is.
Very balanced comment. Karl must not take sides as there is no consensus as to the cause of “Global Warming” or its impact on civilization.
OT, but the Catlin Team are aiming to head out to the Arctic again this year. Pen Hadow isn’t going, he’s just directing, but Ann and Martin are involved with newcomer Charlie Paton. They are going to measure ice thickness and take water samples. Martin is sure “the ice is melting”. (Did they ever publish any results of their jaunt last year?)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/26/catlin-arctic-survey-north-pole
Erik (11:34:06) The trouble is that whales, as us humans, breath oxygen and exhale CO2, so whales like us are damned polluters!
does anyone here know if Tom Karl’s appointment as National Climatic Center Director – is ths subject to senate hearings and/or consent
ChrisP (10:56:02) : “Can anyone tell me (I’m not a Scientist) Whether there is, such a thing, as a ‘Theory of Global Warming’….”
I presume you mean “Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW). One was put forward by the IPCC, but a theory must be tested and verified before it can be accepted as a valid theory. AGW has failed so many tests that it cannot possibly be accepted as a theory in its current form.
Others here can supply you with information on all the tests that AGW failed – there are many – but they include : actual “global” surface temperatures have been nothing like those predicted, the oceans have not warmed as predicted, sea level has not risen as predicted, the warming was supposed to originate in the tropical troposphere yet the tropical troposphere has warmed less than the surface, and clouds have not behaved at all as predicted (clouds were supposed to provide 40% of the warming).
Note : failing one significant test is sufficient for disproof.
So the short answer to your question is: No.
Alarmists are alarming and grab the public interest. Rationalists like Pielke have too soft and balanced a voice to be heard by the masses.
“Science tells us what happened. It is limited in explaining all the causes behind what happened.”
Well, actually science can do more than just tell us what happened and what the cause was… good hard science can actually make accurate predictions… think chemistry… quite successful in chemical processing that brought us the modern age of materials and product manufacturing… newton’s laws of motion and gravity… quite successful engineering… buildings and bridges that generally stay up… all because some aspects of Nature can be predicted with hard science quite well…
Unfortunately for us, not all of Nature can be predicted as Stephen Wolfram has proven mathematically in A New Kind of Science, chapter two. Much of Nature, if not most of Nature, generates it’s own internal randomness as a result of the nature of Nature and as a result it can’t be predicted. Nature is “organic” and non-linear. We were lucky with Newton and Einstein that Gravity is much more linear than the unpredictable fluid systems with internal randomness and chaos aspects.
pwl
http://PathsToKnowledge.net
And, as we’re seeing, we’re not so lucky with Mann, Jones, et. al..
Anthony and SurfaceStations.org make the news too: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/
Hey, ctm – This deserves it’s own thread.