I’ve 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 that’s 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 don’t make it pretty they’ll change the channel”. Yeah, in retrospect, maybe that works with Congress too.
One of her statements though, made me bust out laughing. It’s a prime candidate for Quote of the Week but I’ve already named one this week.
Here’s 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 it’s in the weather, it’s there for good.
Is it just me, or do you all get the impression the Dr. Cullen really doesn’t understand the differentiations of weather and climate?
Weather has always been in climate, it doesn’t suddenly appear “in climate” based on some imagined metric or maxim. It’s 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.
She adds:
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, let’s run the numbers. Here’s the satellited measure University of Colorado Sea level graph from our WUWT ENSO/Sea Level/Sea Surface Temperature Page
Let’s see, at the current rate of 3.1 mm per year, with 90 years remaining, we’ll 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, I’d 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 couldn’t 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 we’ve 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
You can read her entire testimony here: Cullen_Testimony_10-17-2010
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“against our own ability to intuitively trust what the science is telling us,”
Intuitively trust. Translation – Have faith brother. Halleluiah!
Anthony:
I get the impression, in terms of analogy, that she regards weather as a healthy organism, and the climate as a flu virus.
Its like saying that my handkerchief is made of atoms and the handkerchief is the cloth that will work its way into the atoms to change them. For good. (!)
Actually… living organism: My cat is realising its own demise for working its way into its own cells and molecules. Yes. Luxor, my cat is changing his own DNA just by being Luxor
It looks as if any doctorate this person has – is probably an honorary one (?) – because there is no way a basically (graduate?) educated scientist could produce that kind of carefully composed diarrhoea! (unless of course being paid to write it? – but that denounces the possibility of being a real scientist also!)
P Wilson says:
November 18, 2010 at 10:47 am
Yes, they are fraught with tautologies and not afraid to state them!
[snip – off color]
3 mm/yr X 90 yr = 270 mm = 10.6 in… <1 ft
3 ft = 914.4 mm
914.4 mm / 90 yr = 10. 2 mm/yr
When was the last time sea level rose for 90 years at an average rate of at least 10 mm/yr ?
It was back when this was going on.
Bill in Vigo says:
November 18, 2010 at 9:32 am
“assings to herself the roll of biased advocate.”
Best, and most appropos, typo all day!
To be very generous, perhaps she meant to say that climate regimes have some influence or set some bounds on the types of weather that occur within them? For example, you’re unlikely to have many tornado-generating supercell thunderstorms in the Canadian maritime provinces because that climate regime is cool and wet rather than a place where cool/dry air masses collide with warm/moist masses.
Your linear trend estimate of sea level rise assumes the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers are stable. Recent evidence suggests otherwise. But you know that.
REPLY: Which is why I also cited a doubling, and its still not 3 feet whether you believe the Greenland/Antarctic worry or not. -A
I found her appearance and testimony truly inspirational !
After all, if she was able to obtain a PhD, in a scientific field no less, and even be granted an audience before Congress, well . . . why can’t I !!! In fact, I’ll bet anybody can !
I’m sure it’s a lot tougher than growing up to be president too; I mean, Obama did that…………………………
Climate = ∫ weather
After seeing the tortured interrogation of Dr Lindzen I must’ve becoming deaf and must’ve fantasized the beginning because I distinctly heard them say that it was supposed to be about the facts, as in getting down and dirty with the evidence.
All I heard was mostly gibberish and gobbledygook of demagogue based rhetoric, conjecture and even stuff that sounded pretty much made up on the fly or otherwise bad after-the-fact constructions of too hurried defense.
Where was Dr. Meehl’s facts? I heard here saying there was facts, i.e. evidence, she was referencing it in an overly generalized manner like there plenty of evidence. Yes but where? If she knows where it’s at, then why did she forget to bring it with?
The two hippies flanking Dr Lindzen where was their facts and supposed evidence? Did they also forget to bring it with? Even though that’s why they where there in the first place.
If them hobnob climate religious fanatics don’t want to politicize the issue then why on earth do they keep behaving like politician and religious cultists with their generalizing and vague crap?
Kev-in-UK says: “It looks as if any doctorate this person has – is probably an honorary one (?) – because there is no way a basically (graduate?) educated scientist could produce that kind of…”
“…B.S. Engineering/Pperations Research, Columbia University, New York
Doctorate in Climatology and Ocean-atmosphere Dynamics, The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
Interests & Hobbies: I love animals and have 2 dogs and a cat, all rescues. The dogs are a herding breed called Bouviers. My new hobby is sheep-herding! The dogs and I are taking lessons. Someday I’d love to have a big sheep farm and help foster and train rescue dogs….I’ve waited tables in the Poconos (I actually served Regis Philbin a cup of coffee once)…I was a religion minor in college and seriously considered attending Union Theological Seminary…”
I’d love for you to have that sheep farm, too!
http://www.weather.com/tv/personalities/Dr-Heidi-Cullen.html
An “Aha” moment:
Anthony, Charles, Willis, et al, I think the above link is worth pursuing and trumpeting loud and clear!
Actually this doesn’t surprise me at all. For years now I’ve been simply astounded at the lightweights in climate science publishing wildly speculative papers based on the flimsiest of data that would have the toughest time getting to print in most other scientific disciplines. She appears to be pretty standard for climate science, not at all the low end. It must be the easiest branch of science to score a doctorate. You only need to say the “right things” and produce data that can be argued, twisted, bent somehow to support the so-called consensus.
“…climate travels and works its way into weather, and once it’s in the weather, it’s there for good.”
This made me laugh! I keep picturing a climate blob with it’s suitcases packed, taking the train into the weather blog and unpacking.
Was she speaking to Congress or 1st graders? We’re supposed to prevent climate from becoming weather? Huh?
I’m a science lay person but even I could tell she was full of it.
[snip – off color]
“We are currently in a race against our own ability to intuitively trust what the science is telling us,”
They are in a race. A race to get laws and regulations passed before the science proves them wrong.
HEIDI CULLEN:…Laura Devendorf lives on the coast, some 40 miles south of Savannah. She’s starting to see change, too.
==============================================
Wonder if they are both blond
Laura is seeing erosion/weathering, and Heidi is reporting it as global warming
But then, no one would expect Heidi to get her facts straight
Heidi Cullen is a clear-thinking intellectual compared to the UK’s Jo Abbess BSc –
http://www.joabbess.com/
She has even managed to get BBC journalists to change their online articles –
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011363/climate-fear-promoter-jo-abbess-has-a-science-degree-well-done-jo/
and
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/bbc_blog_bully/
What do you expect from The Weather Channel’s big ‘Climate” expert.
I remember her comment that people who didn’t believe in human caused global warming were not scientists. She then noted the support she received from such notable scientist/climatologists as Ted Turner, Richard Branson – I believe there was another, but unfortunately, I can’t recall (or find) the name of the third ‘expert’ she mentioned.
TWC canceled her but not her ‘science’.
ArndB says:
November 18, 2010 at 9:32 am
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/.
The analogy between life expectancy and climate would hold if the people who maintain birth and death certificates were allowed to manipulate the numbers of past births and present deaths to make the trend match their projections.
Oh, my! That is so incredible at so many levels.
“And the urgency is that the longer we wait, the further down the pipeline climate travels and works its way into weather, and once it’s in the weather, it’s there for good.”
Uhhh…ummmm…NO! I can do it! This is too easy. Why do they make it so easy???
ArndB says:
November 18, 2010 at 9:32 am
“The last IPCC-Report 2007 claims that there are important differences between weather and climate…”
The reason the IPCC state misleading analogies here is because they are afraid to actually look at the differential equations their GCMs are actually solving…
Oops…that should be…
“Uhhh…ummmm…NO! I can’t do it! This is too easy. Why do they make it so easy???”
(I still will refrain on commenting about Dr. (!) Heidi Cullen’s inane statement…)