The U.S. House of Representatives Subcommitee On Energy and Environment Hearing titled
A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response
that Judy Curry has posted on; e.g. see
Uncertainty gets a seat at the big table: Part III
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 time—weather 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]
The Science
“Climate can be influenced by a variety of factors, including: changes in solar activity, long-period changes in the Earth’s 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 region’s 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 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.”
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.”
and
“Climate can be influenced by a variety of factors, including: changes in solar activity, long-period changes in the Earth’s 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 Earth’s 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It bugs me that Roger Pielke Sr. enjoys pointing out other peoples alleged misrepresentations, but doesn’t open his own Blog to comments. It is rather pointless to comment here as he may never read it.
A good point was made about the need to consider other climate forcings besides greenhouse gases.
For example, the AGW hysteria led to cutting down 60% of Zimbabwe’s forests as posted here yesterday:
1. Keith Battye says:
November 16, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Here in Zimbabwe our GDP per head is lower than it was in 1951 and our electrical power usage for the entire country of 12 million people is 1500Mw. Consider also that our liquid fuel consumption is around 1m liters a day and you can see how far we have to go to improve lives.
The disastrous corollary to this is that deforestation is massive and accelerating because wood as a fuel is “free”. In the last 10 years approximately 60% of our forests have been burned to cook food and to provide poor light after dark.
Widespread rural electrification coupled with upgraded power generation ( we have billions of tons of coal and huge natural gas fields that have not been exploited) would improve lives and stop deforestation. Instead my government is disinvesting in power and starting to pass laws to combat global warming with particular reference to CO2.
It seems we have chosen poverty over development.
—
Forest cover is known to affect temperatures.
The definition of the National Research Council, 2005 (text in posting) is the same as in the UNFCCC (Art.1), which says that the “climate system” means “the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions”. All that this boils down to is ‘the interactions of the natural system’; and if this system is “determining the Earth’s climate”, it is necessary to say what CLIMATE is. The UNFCCC has none.
This is also a biased statement:
“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.”
“May include…” Shorter winters (Left out longer winters)
“Changes in the frequency of intense storms” (this has been refuted).
At least in the context of the hearings, this language shows presupposition and is trying to lead the reader in a biased direction. It also masks the large uncertainties in Climate Science.
We are living in interesting times…..
Esther Cook, Zimbabwe’s problems have all to do with corrupt & incompetent leadership, and nothing at all to do with AGW alarmism. It is jumping to conclusions like yours without knowing the facts that led to AGW alarmism in the first place.
Scott Finegan,
At least you know where you stand with Pielke Sr. Everyone is treated the same.
Contrast that with RC where you only get to post if you follow the party line.
So which is worse?
To Roger Pielke Sr’s point about the guidelines (for the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommitee On Energy and Environment Hearing) containing statements on climate science that are incomplete and are misleading, it appears Dr. Lindzen addressed a similar concern about the committee guidelines in his verbal testimony before the committee.
Lindzen said, “As a student, ah, I was told something that was rather important that the primary thing in solving a problem is to have the right question. And here I am a little bit concerned about the guidelines for this meeting. I think if we are to properly consider our concern over greenhouse gases, we must separate the basic science, upon which there is great agreement, from the specific basis for our concern.”
The committee did not ask the right questions or address the pertinent topics in their guidelines.
John
Scott Finegan says:
November 18, 2010 at 12:51 pm
“It bugs me that Roger Pielke Sr. enjoys pointing out other peoples alleged misrepresentations…”
Agreed. Weird that he decided to harp on their “archaic” definition of climate, then he proceeded to provide a definition of “climate system” – which isn’t the same as climate. That’s like telling someone they have incorrectly defined “politics” and then giving them a chart of all world governments (the “political system”).
This makes good overview reading — http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
Bet you didn’t know the UN IPCC global warming has morphed into economics conferencing and wealth redistribution, and they make no bones about telling people it’s one world governance — Just like Monckton said it was.
Decloaking the hoaxers.
Mugabe being invited to Copenhagen to speak was the final nail in any credibility the IPCC thught they still had;
“We were assured by what appeared a palpable global realisation that indeed our planet was in great danger because of the planet unfriendly model of development pursued by some of us in the so-called highly-industrialised developed world, all to our collective detriment.
The consequences of that development model on our planet have become all too abundant to be denied or ignored, they become more poignant each day that passes, that includes today.
If we still have any more doubting Thomases, let them visit sinking island member states whose communities today face dim prospects of inexorable collective extinctive drowning.
Let them visit our part of the world where rains fail, where the searing sun scorches everything brown, and lifeless, including our ever diminishing livelihoods. The prospects of meeting our MDGs or other welfare targets agreed to nationally, regionally and internationally grow dimmer everyday.”
The rank hypocrisy of this crazy dictator apes the twisted thinking of the alarmist creed perfectly. Don’t blame the scorching ground on the stunted economic development of a young nation forced to cut down it’s forests by a no good junta which fails to serve it’s population. No! blame it on co2 emitted by the developed economies!
Craziness squared, cubed and multiplied by the number of early graves in Zimbabwe.
Scott Finegan says: “It bugs me that Roger Pielke Sr. enjoys pointing out other peoples alleged misrepresentations, but doesn’t open his own Blog to comments. It is rather pointless to comment here as he may never read it.”
If it’s as pointless as you say, why do you say it? An unproductive ad hominem comment, Scott.
Ray Boorman says: “Esther Cook, Zimbabwe’s problems have all to do with corrupt & incompetent leadership, and nothing at all to do with AGW alarmism. It is jumping to conclusions like yours without knowing the facts that led to AGW alarmism in the first place.”
Uh, so AGW alarmism is all someone else’s fault? Is this to be alarmists’ exit strategy? Blame it all on skeptics? Dissent by others causes insane claims of impending disaster by warmists? And AGW causes cold winters? And Al Gore invented the Internet? Have you any other obvious lies you’d like us to believe?
Hi Esther, I have pointed this very same issue about increased deforestation IF developing countries are restricted by AGWers from exploiting theier oil, coal and gas reserves. They will simply cut the forests down. It’s as simple as that and there will be nothing that the greens can do about it. I know this because I have seen it at first hand. Most people aren’t in the habit of eating raw buffalo, uncooked chicken, uncooked potatoes etc. The greens are simply itching for the Law of Unitended Consequences to take hold. Remember Indonesia’s deforestation and biofuels.
Typo:
exploiting theier [their] oil,
I’m not sure what the ultimate point of this post is. To me is seems that 1) yes, this political report is a bit simplistic and 2) the suggested improvements are fine, but hardly critical enough to make a big deal out of.
For example, the NRC report linked to in the post states. “Climate is conventionally defined as the long-term statistics of the weather (e.g., temperature, cloudiness, precipitation).” That doesn’t seem too different from “Climate can be defined as the product of several meteorological elements in a given region over a period of time.”
The idea of “climate system” seems quite valuable, but this seems to be a slightly different concept than simply “climate”. Look at the “improved” definition — the climate system is “the system consisting of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere, determining the Earth’s climate …” I.e. the climate system determines the climate. Sounds a lot like ““Climate can be influenced by … the climate system…” from the original.
I will agree that the specific mention of CO2 but not land use, aerosols, etc is giving a little much emphasis to the role of CO2. But again, the report lists “a variety of factors, including … CO2” so it is not like they are claiming that CO2 is the only factor, or even the most important factor.
“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.”
I’m not holding my breath. Will they then also demand that the science of evolution and the Big Bang be more accurately portrayed in government policy and government reports? Republican politicians have never positioned themselves as the party of science, and they might alienate a good chunk of their voter base by becoming pro-science. (Not that Democratic lawmakers are scientific geniuses themselves, but they tend to be much more sympathetic to science.)
“The system consisting of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere, determining the Earth’s climate …”
Add, I think, heliosphere…
Weather is what the pretty girl at the end of the TV news tells me. I use it to decide what to wear the next day and whether to bring in the cattle from the creek paddock in case of floods. (And I’ve had a number of them here in Brisbane this year)
Climate is the phenomenon used by UN beurocrats to pry my hard earned cash out of my pocket.
Simple really.
The US House of Representatives will now be controlled by Republicans. Nancy Pelosi as out as Speaker. And there will new members on the Subcommitee On Energy and Environment. I don’t expect a whirlwind of change because Republicans are politicians too. But at least I think I can expect that people like Richard Lindzen won’t be treated so poorly by them.
Good post, as usual,
This statement was made at the hearing by a “well informed” Congressman…
“98 doctors agree on the way to treat the patient is this and 2 disagree”
This statement was made by the “well informed” Congressman to show how silly it is to not conform with the 98% instead of the 2% in acting on scientific issues. Even granting the accuracy, or not, of his example, fast-back to the end of our first president’s life.
He was struck by a severe fever, and as prescribed by at least 98% of his doctor’s “well informed” community of doctors, he was bled at least twice. And died.
It must have been the fever. Maybe they didn’t bleed him enough.
Let’s hear it for the 98% rule of Lemming behavior in support of scientific dogma.
Provided link gives the same basic definition of “climate” as that which is dissected. Pielke attempted to morph “climate” into “climate system.” Different phrases with different intents.
If you say “climate system” and “oh, we didn’t include these factors, or these” then I would call you to task to ensure that ALL factors are represented in your “climate system” or, failing that, such things shouldn’t be presented to politicians as some sort of credible expert information. This is the hawking that got us into this mess in the first place.
@Policyguy
The “well-informed” congresman’s analogy is just as flawed as the “consensus” agument. It’s such a weak argument isn’t it?
If the 2% of doctors are the ones that are right, it doesn’t matter what the 98% say.
If the 98% are basing their judgement on incorrect data and ignoring evidence that contradict their judgement, then I’d much rather listen to the 2%!
I listened to over 3 hours of it and was very disappointed to the point of anger. If that’s where the leading scientists are on the subject of climate change then forget anything meaningful happening.
It was embarrassing.
To further Policyguy’s comment: It must’ve been rather convenient that the witness panels were set up 3:1 as in three irrational religious cultists to everyone of the rational skeptic-defenders.
Why is it that every time the hobnob cultists are involved they never have to defend their reasoning with facts and evidence, but instead it is the one who points out the flaws in their reasoning and logic that has to not just defend his reasoning but his very own person as well, thus averting the focus from the original problem.
And why all the appeal to authority and guilt by association crap from even the committee members? Did they get their own respective phd from discarded cereal boxes perhaps?
The congressman should remember that Ignaz Semmelweis was one of the 2%; the other 98% were instrumental in the death of thousand of women who died of puerperal fever after childbirth.
The consensus here again will increase suffering for the poor by making their food and energy too expensive, closing them inside the poverty trap.