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.
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