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.
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.
The astounding level of ignorance smacked my gob. Why were they talking about salmon fishing and breeding habits, of walking on Mt Rainier with a whiteout, etc, wasting so much valuable time. At least Judith Curry was on to this, pointing out that factors like global malnutrition should be considered more pressing than speculation and semi-closed arguments about angels on the heads of climate pins.
The real cruncher for an inquiry into whether global warming and its derivatives existed, was the number of speakers who took it as a given and proceeded to expound on how they needed more research funding.
A National Climate Center? Might be a good thing, but why the automatic response that it would be run by governments? I’m sure it could be privatised more efficiently, if one believes in past results of outsourcing in general.
All in all, the hearing was an exercise in “My error bars can be hidden better than your error bars”.
Disgusting. Take me to those 2 doctors out of 100.
Geoff Sherrington says:
November 19, 2010 at 3:02 am
Take me to those 2 doctors out of 100.
Too bad they don’t go to 98 doctors who don’t think there is a problem instead of just going to 2. They could flip those numbers easily if they had wanted to.
After a wake like the House Global Warming Hearing, it’s no wonder that we think of so many things we could have said; or that the speakers should have said. But, really, after the wake what else is there that really needs to be said? It’s time to grow up, put down our toys, forget about all this academic mumbo-jumbo about the weather and what kind of climate our great-grandchildren are going to have in a hundred years. The country is in a mess. The state of education is absolutely pathetic. The economy has colapsed. We import more than we export. We fight wars like we’re at a girl’s tea-party. We listen to idiots tell us we’re too big and fat. We’re too big and fat. And it’s time to cut the crap and rebuild everything worth anything from the bottom up all over again. Right? You bet! What’s on TV? Pass the pop-corn, please.
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. There is 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…
Among the acronyms of communication like ATA,”Appeal to Authority”, courtesy Committee Chairman Baird we can noe add AWEC, for “Appeal to Wide-Eyed Children”. Seems the Rep is keen about telling Boy’s Own stories, hang the time and expense.
Here’s the rebuttal:
US – House Science & Technology Subcommittee Hearing on Climate Change Science
Loads of dross but some good bits.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/11/17/HP/A/40918/House+Science+Technology+Subcommittee+Hearing+on+Climate+Change+Science.aspx
Rep. Bob Inglis at 0h11m says that it is important that this hearing is on record. Quotes Australian Ambassador Kim Beazley who when he runs into a sceptic says make sure to say that very publicly because I want our grandchildren to read what you said and what I said!
At 0h47 Lindzen says that a 2.5C temperature drop is all you would expect if all CO2 was removed from the atmosphere!
At 0h48 Lindzen says there is no doubt that CO2 absorbs more heat than O2
Agrees that Human activity has substantially increased CO2
At 0h49 Lindzen, when responding to increasing max high temperature frequency, says that instrumentation changed dramatically during the [instrument record] period. Modern thermometer response times are infinitesimal compared to earlier in the record.
Baird then says “unless you are suggesting that in the past the measuring devices were erroneous in one direction not another”
Lindzen amazingly say “Absolutely”
Baird ” If you’re suggesting that the thermometers of today are more sensitive to increases than cooling…”
Lindzen “Oh, yuh!. Oh Yuh! that’s pretty much true”
Roscoe Bartlett has more sense than most
Check out 2h30m.
Peak oil. Been and gone in US
Has same outlook on liquid fuels as I do. Using all US production of Corn to produce liquid fuels will provide 2.4% of requirement.
Using biomass will deplete the soil of nutrients. All non starters.
Even Rear Admiral David Titley is preparing for a much changed future with an ice free arctic.
3h13m
Well, now we have strong circumstantial evidence that walt man lives in his mom’s basement rent free, furiously scribbling notes critiquing every inflection of an internationally esteemed climatologist and head of MIT’s Atmospheric Sciences department, who has forgotten more climate basics than walt mann will ever learn, and presuming to understand what is being explained by Dr Lindzen.
Tell us more, walt man! Give us your interpretation of what was said at, say, “oh”59, oh77 and oh91.5. On a date challenged Saturday night, there’s plenty of time to write a detailed analysis.
Or, you could actually get serious, and begin reading some of Prof Lindzen’s 235 peer reviewed publications: click
Smokey says: November 20, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Well, now we have strong circumstantial evidence that walt man lives in his mom’s basement rent free
Well that’s as accurate as the rest of your comments and science!.
Are you suggesting that my very short comment was invalid in some way. perhaps the Video that I saw had been warped?
What was your interpretation of Lindzen’s 2.5C drop with no CO2 and loopy thermometers that react at different rates with decreasing and increasing temperature? Are these valid statements before a House Science & Technology Subcommittee?
You are willing to rip into (and misinterpret) Jones’ comments to a BBC interviewer but unwilling to allow any criticism of Lindzen to Congress.
A bit OT but if keen supporters of AGW like Peter Barrett have to admit there isn’t a good link between CO2 and temperature, then Roger has a very valid point that should be addressed
CO2, TEMPERATURE AND SEA LEVEL OVER THE LAST 65 MILLION YEARS, ICE AGES
AND THE FUTURE
P.J. Barrett and D. Zwartz
Antarctic Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600,
Wellington
Peter.Barrett@vuw.ac.nz
This paper summarises trends in 4 key climate related parameters, atmospheric CO2,
surface temperature, ocean floor temperature and sea level on geological, ice age
and human time scales, with model‐based projections for the next 300 years. The
geological observations come from compilations of geochemical analyses of samples
of known age taken from Ocean Drilling cores, whereas data for the last four glacial
cycles come from both ice cores and ocean drilling. The geological record shows a
much warmer world more than 30 million years ago, with CO2 levels between 2 and
8 times pre‐industrial levels and temperatures 10 to 15ºC warmer than today. CO2
declined gradually but temperature fell sharply 34 million years ago, coincident with
the growth of large dynamic ice sheets on Antarctica. CO2 levels stabilised at around
400 ppm or less around 24 million years ago, whereas the Antarctic ice sheet did not
stabilise until ~10 million years later, and the big Northern Hemisphere ice sheets
formed just 2.6 million years ago with further cooling, leading to the largest glacialinterglacial
sea level swings in Earth’s Cenozoic history. This compilation contrasts
our clear and consistent documentation of the relationship between CO2,
temperature and sea level during the ice ages with the low CO2 world of pre‐
Quaternary times, when climate was 3 to 4°C warmer, and the even more curious
situation where global surface temperature fell 4°C at the Eocene‐Oligocene
boundary but CO2 took several million more years to decline. It will be useful to
understand these basic relationships on a global scale as we consider the
consequences of rising greenhouse levels in the coming decades.
Climate is NOT short term weather cycles like a year or two (as the AGW folks seem to assert in the quotes above). Climate has thousand year time scales. “Tropical Rain Forest” does not change over the course of a decade, nor even a century. The “Mediterranean” climate zone is still Mediterranean just as it was 1000 years ago. The Sahara has been a desert for thousands of years and continues to be one.
The blatant attempt to redefine “climate” as long term weather is just criminal.
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/climate.htm