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
This is HEIDI CULLEN looking for a pair of alligator shoes:
A young blonde —who used to work at the WEATHER CHANNEL— was on vacation in the depths of Louisiana. She wanted a pair of genuine alligator shoes in the worst way, but was very reluctant to pay the high prices the local vendors were asking.
After becoming very frustrated with the “no haggle” attitude of one of the shopkeepers, the blonde shouted, “Maybe I’ll just go out and catch my own alligator so I can get a pair of shoes at a reasonable price!” The shopkeeper said, “By all means, be my guest. Maybe you’ll luck out and catch yourself a big one!” Determined, the blonde turned and headed for the swamps, set on catching herself an alligator.
Later in the day, the shopkeeper is driving home, when he spots the young WEATHER CHANNEL woman standing waist deep in the water, shotgun in hand. Just then, he sees a huge 9 foot alligator swimming quickly toward her. She takes aim, kills the creature and with a great deal of effort hauls it on to the swamp bank. Lying nearby were several more of the dead creatures. The shopkeeper watches in amazement. Just then the blonde flips the alligator on its back, and frustrated, shouts out, “Sheeit, this one isn’t wearing any shoes either!”
Why didn’t they get John Coleman to testify rather that this kool-aid drinking bimbo?
He would have used provable facts…..
Mike says:
November 18, 2010 at 11:03 am
Your linear trend estimate of sea level rise assumes the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers are stable. Recent evidence suggests otherwise. But you know that.
No. I’m sorry. You made that up. What you are saying is exaggeration from those who run around shouting that the sky is falling. But you know that.
Its a shame because he is an attractive, appealing woman….but the “i likes” end there.
She is an AGW automaton.
Just like the Stormtroopers in Star Wars.
Next!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
ArndB says:
November 18, 2010 at 9:32 am
The reason why weather and climate cannot be functionally different is because they depend on the solutions of the same differential equations.
Weather was the toy example of deterministic chaos, i.e. a system governed by dynamical equations that displayed unpredictable behavior. Climate, as the conglomerate average of weather quantities depends on the same equations, and that is seen in the General Circulation Models which are just the same models for weather and climate as far as mathematical functions go except for more averages in the latter.
A dynamically predictive system cannot arise from an underlying one that displays deterministic chaos without a completely novel set of physical axioms and differential equations.
For example:
Thermodynamics arises out of statistical mechanics with a completely new axiomatic theory and set of variables.
This is not the case between weather and climate which share equations and variables, and any analogies to the contrary are just not valid. Thus, since nobody can dispute that weather displays dynamical chaos, climate is also chaotic. It is only with tools of chaos calculations that any predictability can enter into the system, as with the work of Tsonis et al where predictions are given for the next thirty years using neural nets for simulating chaos and the various ocean currents as inputs .
The Heidi Cullen bird is too stupid to get birdseed off my open birdfeeder. You will notice that I did not specify a species for the Hidei Cullen bird unlike, say, Catlin’s warbler. I do not wish to insult the birds.
“Let’s see, at the current rate of 3.1 mm per year, with 90 years remaining, ”
Is that the current rate?
It’s only 3.1 mm if you combine two different historical measurement methods, TOPEX and Jason.
If you use the current method of measurement (8 1/2 years of Jason data), the rate is about 2.5 mm per year.
If I don’t say this now I’ll regret it later.
I think it is time that some decorum is established in this thread. These “stupid blonde” jokes can be funny only once or twice, not repeatedly. It is a myth that blondes are less intelligent than brunettes or redheads or blue heads. Anyone who disagrees is obliged to produce a study that shows otherwise.
There are many intelligent blondes out there and Heidi Cullen, whatever her failings, is one of them. And she is pretty too. Quite possibly, prettier and more intelligent than the wives and girlfriends of many guys leaning on her in this thread. Is that the reason?
It is time to back off with the ad homs, please.
anna v says: November 18, 2010 at 9:42 pm
“Thermodynamics arises out of statistical mechanics with a completely new axiomatic theory and set of variables.”
A technical tool (statistical mechanics) can hardly become “thermodynamics”. The weather (and average weather = climate) is governed by many dozen. Each can be subject to statistical investigation, but two, ten, or many more parameters do not represent WEATHER. The crux is well demonstrated by the AMS-Glossary, which first refers to weather in the sense every layman understand it:
_____“The state of the atmosphere, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities”
whereon the AMS Glossary brakes the “weather issue” down to:
___The “present weather” table consists of 100 possible conditions,
___with 10 possibilities for “past weather”, while
___Popularly, weather is thought of in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind,
___but is silent on “future weather”.
More at: http://www.whatisclimate.com
What this all means is, that any scientist can choose and combine 2, 5, 10 or dozen “thermodynamics” and other “conditions” as it pleases; even worst if he can choose for “average weather” any period of time span, which covers according IPCC-WGI-2007 any period longer than few weeks:
___”Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.”
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.
——————————
Your assuming that the sea level rise is linear and taking the 20 year average.
Data taken from sediment cores show from 1880 to the early 1900’s, sea level was rising at around 1mm per year. Throughout most of the 20th century, sea levels have been rising at around 2mm per year. In the latter 20th century, it’s reached 3mm per year. The five most recent 20-year trends also happen to be the highest values.
Over the period where the two datasets overlap, there is good agreement between sedimentary records and tidal gauge data so it’s fair to assume that the rate of sea level rise will continue to accelerate.
3 foot might be in the upper limit of what could be predicted, however given the uncertainties associated with how Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will respond to increases in global temperature it is still within the range of possibilities.
I Listened to the bimbo but I don’t recall hearing anything. Why was she there, she was lost? Did she think that Climate Central was a railway station?
It’s not possible, if one follows this blog, to be unaware of Heidi Cullen. I wondered at times where she got some of her wilder apocalyptic ‘facts’ from, but now I know. I watched and listened to her give ‘evidence’ to the subcommittee and came to the conclusion that she has to be a religious visionary, a priestess of the AGW cult, has heavenly voices telling her stuff no other person can hear and she practices speaking in unknown toungues. Either that, or she is a comic genius and was taking the Mickey.
Sea level rise/fall is not linear but cyclic as a study of Sequence Stratigraphy will show.
Dr Cullens needs to review weather and climate and stop trying to spread alarmism.
ArndB says:
November 19, 2010 at 1:43 am
anna v says: November 18, 2010 at 9:42 pm
“Thermodynamics arises out of statistical mechanics with a completely new axiomatic theory and set of variables.”
A technical tool (statistical mechanics) can hardly become “thermodynamics”.
!!!!!
You are maybe confusing statistics with the field of statistical mechanics?
The order of fields of study in Physics at the moment goes as follows, ignoring strings.
quantum mechanics, quantum statistical mechanics, thermodynamics
before the observation of the quantum, classically:
mechanics, statistical mechanic, thermodynamics
Each field has its own axioms and theorems, though they are not unrelated.
Hey you’ve got your climate in my weather!
No you’ve got your weather in my climate!
Two bad things that go worse together so says Miss Heidi.
I watched and winced at her psuedo science approach, noted “hysterical rhetoric” on my assessment of Heidi Cullen’s testimony, and the committee lost even more credibility by fawning over her, much to her delight and self importance.
If that is an ad hominem, I’m sorry. I am just reporting exactly how I felt – sad really that this was supposed to be a serious attempt to explore the depth and breadth of climate science not, what she was pedaling!!
Heidi Cullen giving her doctoral dissertation:
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/8152/pnts.jpg
I’d have given her a passing grade that’s for sure but it would been a grueling interview that made her squirm in her seat for many hours.
_· · anna v says: November 19, 2010 at 3:57 am
__ArndB says:November 19, 2010 at 1:43 am
___anna v says: November 18, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Very interesting! Presumably it would be a great help if you could translate your reasoning into a short text what that means for WEATHER and CLIMATE? A corresponding definition would be a big service for many, including for a revision of Article 1 of the UNFCCC.
@anna v
Chaos is an illusion generated by ignorance. With sufficient information and computational resources everything is predictable backwards and forwards in time.
The problem is that in any complex real-world dynamic system sufficient information and computational resources is practically impossible to attain. In the case of weather and climate it can’t even be approximated very well and small initial errors quickly multiply into huge errors. So we get weather forecasts for a week into the future that are accurate enough to be useful but climate forecasts are only accurate in-as-much as they use observations of the past to predict the future. Anyone familiar with corporate forecasts of financial performance are familiar with the caveat they all include “Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Unforeseen circumstances may materially alter the projections made herein.”
Past performance is no guarantee but on the other hand it’s still, flawed as it may be, usually the best predictor we have.
“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…”
_______________________________________________________
A bit of interesting history about the filling in of the Boston area:
A fellow by the name of Asa Sheldon (1788-1870) literally moved “Pemberton Hill into salt water, north side of Causeway Street” with teams of oxen. The story and many other interesting details of life in the 1800’s is documented in a self-published autobiography called Life of Asa G. Sheldon: Wilmington Farmer published in1862. It was republished as Yankee Drover: being the Unpretending Life of Asa Sheldon, Farmer, Trader, and Working Man 1788-1870
Read the book if you want to know how the CAGW crowd wish us to live (and pointers on how to do so.)
The online version can be found at: http://www.ponyspot.com/asa/asa-sheldon.html
“”””” Dave Springer says:
November 19, 2010 at 6:49 am
Heidi Cullen giving her doctoral dissertation:
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/8152/pnts.jpg
I’d have given her a passing grade that’s for sure but it would been a grueling interview that made her squirm in her seat for many hours. “””””
Well I would fine her for Jury tampering.
Dave Springer says:
November 19, 2010 at 7:30 am
@anna v
Chaos is an illusion generated by ignorance. With sufficient information and computational resources everything is predictable backwards and forwards in time.
I am not sure quantum phsyicists would agree with that statement! as far as I am aware predicting the nature of a photon as a wave or particle still eludes them! and as for ‘where’ the blasted ‘thing’ actually ‘is’ – hmm, I think they long since gave up on that idea years ago and just deal with probabilities of spatial location as actual location is ‘everywhere’ (as I remember?) – surely being everywhere and nowhere at once that counts as pretty darned chaotic?
“”””” sHx says:
November 19, 2010 at 1:42 am
If I don’t say this now I’ll regret it later.
I think it is time that some decorum is established in this thread. These “stupid blonde” jokes can be funny only once or twice, not repeatedly. It is a myth that blondes are less intelligent than brunettes or redheads or blue heads. Anyone who disagrees is obliged to produce a study that shows otherwise. “””””
So you are the official decorum referee ?
If you check with Dr Richard Lederer; the world’s foremost authority on the English language, you will learn that “dumb blondes” , has become a figure of speech; just as “rube Goldberg” and “mickey mouse” have.
If you want to take it as a sexist comment, you can do that, since some dumb blondes are women.
I don’t speak for anyone else but my own comment re Dr Cullen, was entirely directed at her testimony; not at the person who delivered it; about whom, I know absolutely nothing.
I think that Anthony’s moderators are more than capable of maintaining the level of decorum that he wants for this forum; and as I see it; most of the posters here are fairly self regulating.
There’s always c-r, where they simply do not allow any dissension to erupt, and ruffle the decorum.
“”””” anna v says:
November 18, 2010 at 9:42 pm
ArndB says:
November 18, 2010 at 9:32 am
The reason why weather and climate cannot be functionally different is because they depend on the solutions of the same differential equations.
Weather was the toy example of deterministic chaos, i.e. a system governed by dynamical equations that displayed unpredictable behavior. Climate, as the conglomerate average of weather quantities depends on the same equations, and that is seen in the General Circulation Models which are just the same models for weather and climate as far as mathematical functions go except for more averages in the latter.
A dynamically predictive system cannot arise from an underlying one that displays deterministic chaos without a completely novel set of physical axioms and differential equations. “””””
I’m not sure who said what here; BUT , I should point out that differential equations and other mathematical functions describe only the expected behavior of MODELS; which are totally fictional contructs.
They do not describe the behavior of the real universe. Only Mother Gaia knows what the real universe is doing and may do in the future. Heisenberg teaches us that we can’t determine what happened in the case of even a single particle, in the past; so we have insufficient information, despite any level of mathematics to predict what will happen next; let alone what will happen 100 years from now.
But statistical mathematics, and mechanics can give us the probabilities of various outcomes that our models will produce; which can often lead to fairly good agreement with what we observe the real universe to do; well what we think we saw it do.
ArndB says:
The last IPCC-Report 2007 claims that there are important differences between weather and climate, by saying that:
….
“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 life expectancy of the average Japanese before WWII was in the low 40s. By the 1980s, they had the highest life expectancy in the world, into the 80s. If we continue with that trend, the Japanese should have an average life expectancy of 120 by 2030 arithmetically or 160 as a percentage increase. If that sounds believable to you, then you could easily believe we’ll be under 50 feet of water by 2100.