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.
Today it was announced the first case of Cholera in the US……Either it is a case of Global Warming or poverty….
Well Anthony, I would credit Dr Heidi Cullen for coming up with what is perhaps a definitive dictionary definition of Gobbledegook.
She gives dumb blondes a bad name !
Theo Barker says:
November 18, 2010 at 11:15 am
An “Aha” moment:
tarpon says:
November 18, 2010 at 10:41 am
OK, this is just too delicious to not post: http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
=======================================================
It would also fit quite well with Willis’ last couple of posts.
Heidi Cullen said that any meteorologist who is skeptical about CAGW should not be permitted to work as a meteorologist. This should be pointed out in any post about her and she should have been interrogated about that statement when she spoke to congress. Heidi’s statement was profoundly unscientific, totalitarian, and un-American.
I’d much rather get my Weathergirl Bloopers from Accuweather.
At least the Accuweather girls KNOW they’re being silly!
One of the problems of higher education is that by the time one is awarded a doctorate degree any ability one once had to communicate clearly has been badgered to death. A few people survive and a few more manage to unlearn the principles of “piled higher and deeper” (aka Ph. D.).
Let’s look at Dr. Heidi Cullen’s remark:
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.
TRANSLATION:
Earth’s temperature is warming and that will cause serious weather disturbances. Now is the time to prevent this.
“”””” RockyRoad says:
November 18, 2010 at 11:10 am
Climate = ∫ weather “”””
I agree with you Rocky.
And a recommendation to Dr Cullen; why not submit your testimony text for the Bullwer-Lytton Prize; looks like a sure winner to me.
You quoted Heidi Cullen as saying,
“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.”
I notice the reference to “the pipeline” and I am reminded of the “heating in the pipeline” which has been said to be awaiting an auspicious moment to manifest itself, and I wonder if Ms Cullen has made “heat” and “climate” synonymous terms in her own mind, so that what she meant was to propose that heat is working its way down the pipeline and into the weather, where it will remain for good. Of course, using the word heat would have made it obvious that the remaining in the weather for good part of the proposition is highly improbable, while using the word climate allows one to “intuitively trust” that the ensuing badness will be permanent. It’s an exercise in reasoning by connotation rather than denotation.
George E. Smith says:
November 18, 2010 at 11:45 am
She gives dumb blondes a bad name !
====================================
Heidi isn’t a real blond….
,,,that makes it even scarier
Roger Pielke, Sr. does not think the subcommitee understands climate:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-perpetuation-of-climate-misunderstandings-by-the-u-s-house-of-representatives-subcommitee-on-energy-and-environment/
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?
In a sense, it might. The original conveys the information, Dr. Cullen’s version with a yellow line on a black background conveys a warning, like the yellow and black of a hornet or bee. The key is that she is not trying to show the increase as much as she is attempting to make us fear the increase. My old stats prof would call her version “chart junk”
“…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.”
Different pipes go to different places!
There’s a Seinfeld episode for everything. 🙂
Once the atmospheric increase in CO2 is affecting the weather, it is there for good.
“Climate” is not more correct than “weather” in that sentence.
Climate is a average of weather. CO2 affects the climate by affecting the weather.
(As does every other thing that affects the climate)
REPLY:CO2 affects the climate by affecting the weather. Uh no, you have it wrong. It’s about equilibrium. And the CO2 warming effect is not linear, and we have most of it already -A
Her statement doesn’t make me laugh, it just makes me do a squishy face, like receiving some strange, foul tasting meal that you can’t figure out why it is in front of you. Anyway, Cullen was never quite the scientist, she is just a media person.
I follow up any data that I can find relating to sea/ocean levels. Of course, the trends I find are very similar to those that are published by the great and good, and which we’ve seen in diagrams here. Dave Middleton’s post (11.00 today) sets out the simple and obvious arithmetic derived from one example of the AGW community’s projected levels at around 2100, with an annual average sea level rise of about 10mm required to meet their projection. He and others have contrasted it with what has actually been recorded over long time periods (around 3 mm per year).
The questions I would like to put to any alarmists I might meet is “Exactly when do you expect to see a dramatic increase in the rate of sea level rise?” If it isn’t very soon then the catch-up to reach 900mm by 2100 is going to very spectacular indeed. Sadly, I’ll not be around ten years hence, so I’ll miss all the jollity. It would be nice to see a projected plot, drawn by AGWers, of sea levels over the next 10 years. I know it’s much more difficult than projecting for 90 years, but must be worth a try. (Joke?)
Come on AGW enthusiasts, lay some money on the line, and tell us that the rate in 2020 will be 12mm per year (or some such value).
Enneagram says:
November 18, 2010 at 11:42 am
Today it was announced the first case of Cholera in the US……Either it is a case of Global Warming or poverty….
First case since….?
Cholera came to North America, US and Canada, in the early 1830’s. I suppose that since we were coming out of the LIA, cholera could have been blamed on GW.
Has anyone reading this any idea how Dr. Cullen could have gotten through two bouts of Columbia without getting a better grasp?
This kind of thing is to be expected when someone teethes on the “weather isn’t climate” meme for too long. Still, it’s an interesting example of how a questionable argument can induce progressive thought disorder.
Check it for yourself at:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
Ms. Cullen’s authoritative sources must have remarkable vision
In the Marine Corps aviation, we call those “callibrated eyeballs”.
She said, referring to global warming “we need to assess the risk as well as the different solutions necessary to prevent it from happening. She could have just as well replaced the word solutions with models.
It is too bad land elevation data is not available from before and after the last ice age.
j ferguson says:
November 18, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Has anyone reading this any idea how Dr. Cullen could have gotten through two bouts of Columbia without getting a better grasp?
=======================================================
That question is way too loaded!
j ferguson says:
November 18, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Has anyone reading this any idea how Dr. Cullen could have gotten through two bouts of Columbia without getting a better grasp?
Some people who get a PhD are intelligent, others… not so much.
The implication in this statement seems to be that the climate is not chaotic. I find that difficult to believe. Orbital perturbations, changes in the sun’s output, volcanic eruptions, radioactive decay in the earth’s core, cosmic rays, asteroid strikes, cow farts, burning of fuels… Seems pretty chaotic to me, but a much longer time span is needed to detect it.
But can we say with confidence what the average age of death will be 100 years from now? Of course not, and neither can we say with confidence what the climate will be in 100 years.
Time to call in the next witless
As far I am concerned, there is no problem with the difference to make between weather and climate. (Crime is crime rates that are weather events to climate. Crime rates and climate are both statistical concepts.) But it seems to me that there is a real confusion between the concepts of climate and climate system. Here are their respective definitions:
Climate: […] the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation. (Source – tanks to Antony: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate)
Climate system: The system consisting of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere, determining the Earth’s 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.(Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175&page=200 .)
So there is a clear cut distinction between these two concepts. Did Dr. Cullen use the word “climate” to mean “climate system”? If yes, then there is still confusion. What she (probably) meant is that modification in climate system implies modification in climate which implies, on the empirical ground of every day life, concrete and perceptible weather changes on the short to long run (nobody can make precise what this means by operational criteria). On the other hand, there is a similar confusion, I think, in this recent post of Roger Pielke Sr. on his blog: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-perpetuation-of-climate-misunderstandings-by-the-u-s-house-of-representatives-subcommitee-on-energy-and-environment/
P.S.: (1) Excuse my English; (2) I am still trying to understand Climate Science…