Today is a day I got not one thing done for myself due to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature release sucking all the oxygen out of the climate debate with their pre-peer review release shenanigans. Tonight was no different, as I spent it watching Dr. Ben Santer give a presentation at Chico State University. I had a front row seat, as you can see below:
First I’d like to say that no, he didn’t try to make good on the famous Climategate email line about Pat Michaels. Both he and the host, Jim Pushnik were quite gracious, with both of them talking to me personally. I was prepared to stand up and argue the use of the word “denier” should Dr. Santer have used it, fortunately he did not. I was surprised that Dr. Santer recognized me when I asked a question (I talked with him afterwards), unfortunately, I didn’t phrase the question well enough, and I should have brought a printout of the graph I was thinking of with me. More here.
Here’s the program, video follows.
From CSUC
Dr. Ben Santer Speaks on Climate Change, Oct. 20
Please join us October 20th for an important climate event!
Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will speak on “The causes of recent climate change: Separating fact from fiction”
Date: Thursday, October 20th
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Place: Colusa Hall Conference Center, Room 100
Cost: Free and open to the public, seating may be limited.
Climate scientist Ben Santer is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), shared in the Nobel Prize awarded to the IPCC and has received a Distinguished Fellowship from the American Geophysical Union, and MacArthur Genius Fellowship for his research on human‐induced climate change (read full story).
Dr. Benjamin Santer is currently a atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). His research focuses on such topics as climate model evaluation, the use of statistical methods in climate science, and identification of natural and anthropogenic “fingerprints” in observed climate records. Dr. Santer’s early research on the climatic effects of combined changes in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and sulfate aerosols contributed to the historic “discernible human influence” conclusion of the 1995 Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Santer, is considered an expert in the climate change research community, has worked in the Laboratory’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Inter-comparison (PCMDI) for nearly 20 years, and is a frequent contributor to congressional hearings on the science of climate change. He credits his success to the exceptional scientists he collaborates with at LLNL.
Presented by The Institute for Sustainable Development, the Rawlins Endowed Professorship for Environmental Literacy, and the Gateway Science Museum.
==============================================================
Part 2 – only 3 minutes of Q&A and then my battery died, there was about 5 minutes of questions after that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Flattery will get you far.
Tenney Naumer,
You are just another one who can’t go toe to toe using facts, logic, the null hypothesis, and the scientific method. And as Niccolo Machiavelli urged: beware of flatterers.
An interesting display.
Smokey says:
October 25, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Tenney Naumer,
You are just another one who can’t go toe to toe using facts, logic, the null hypothesis, and the scientific method. And as Niccolo Machiavelli urged: beware of flatterers.
___________________________________________________
Smokey, not totally sure but I think that was in reference to this public display of affection:
Kinda made feel all warm and fuzzy inside 🙂
___________________________________________________
citizenschallenge says:
October 25, 2011 at 6:32 pm
“Thank you Otter17 for turning this into an interesting thread.
You are informative along with being a wonderful example of civility,
as one who allows passions a tad too much sway you are an inspiration worth trying to emulate.”
_____________
Your comment made my day, citizenschallenge. Thank you. I would say that passions are what drive us to do great things, but they must at all times be kept in check by logic and reasoning. I just made that up, but I sound a little like Spock from Star Trek, hahaha.
Smokey says:
October 25, 2011 at 9:19 pm
“Your incessant mindless yammering, threadjacking, and playing kissy-face with your one or two equally pseudo-scientific numpties has not convinced one skeptic to change their minds and start running around screaming, “The sky is falling!” Why not? It’s because the putative ‘facts’ you post are not facts at all, but easily countered misinformation. Every argument you have made has been refuted. Don’t believe me? Post one of your alarmist talking points and I’ll deconstruct it.”
_______________
Ok, try the greenhouse effect. Disprove the following description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>> “The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.”
I think that would be difficult, though, since scientists like Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius did many experiments and a lot of theoretical work in the 1800’s. It has further been confirmed by measurements today that show an increased amount of infrared radiation being reflected back towards the ground.
Oh, and you also mention the null hypothesis. I have heard many times that contrarians demand that the null hypothesis be proven, but there is no way for that to be done in many branches of science such as biology, psychology, medicine, etc. One can provide a substantial amount of evidence and statistically significant data, but never prove 100%. The science will continue to be evolving for many years, just like any other branch of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Must the wheel be reinvented?
otter17
The Wiki definition; “The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.”, offers nothing quantifiable.. It has been over a hundred years since the Arrhenius hypothesis regarding the warming phenomenon of greenhouses was shown to be without merit.
Do you have any understanding whatsoever regarding the physical process you advocate?
Jeff D says:
October 25, 2011 at 10:00 pm
“Smokey, not totally sure but I think that was in reference to this public display of affection:
Kinda made feel all warm and fuzzy inside :)”
_________________
Hey, if you want a piece of the love, too, just say the word, big stuff. =P
BigWaveDave says:
October 25, 2011 at 11:10 pm
“… offers nothing quantifiable.. It has been over a hundred years since the Arrhenius hypothesis regarding the warming phenomenon of greenhouses was shown to be without merit.”
____________
What evidence is there that Arrhenius was shown to be wrong? I would like to see a peer reviewed paper, please.
Oh, and we can quantify a greenhouse forcing in the units of W/m^2 (3 W/m^2 to be more precise). See my reply to you just after your first comment in this thread. I explained more up there and gave you a link to read.
Hugh Pepper said:
“Smokey, you’re so unspeakably cynical. You imagine the whole scientific community is either corrupted by a drive to “get payola” or fulfill some sinister agenda, which you never clearly define. Isn’t it possible that the vast mainstream of scientists are simply trying to uncover the truth about vital natural processes and systems, and to describe their observations and conclusions. Sometimes their language is difficult for us (laymen) to understand, and we often have many questions, but getting the answers to these queries will always be skewed if we are deeply committed to an anti -science agenda.”
Anti-science couldn’t be further from the mark.
What pervades the new field called “Climate Science” is a systemic ignorance of physical laws that apply to atmospheric mechanics,
That there are many who profess faith in the greenhouse gas hypothesis who have been recognized with praise and pay; is a travesty, and a black mark on the institutions that have fallen for it.
Otter17,
“Aside from that, do you have peer reviewed evidence to show that these models do not work for past warming periods?”
Why go to past warming periods where the uncertainty in proxy data provide are less constraining? There is plenty of evidence that the models don’t work for the most recent warming period. For instance, Wentz’s publication in Science reporting that none of the models produce more than one third to one half the increase in precipitation observed in the recent warming. Or Andreas Roesch’s diagnostic subproject showing that all the AR4 models had a correlated positive surface albdeo bias vis’a’vis the observations during the part of the 90s he analyzed. Or Camp and Tung’s result that none of the models reproduced the amplitude of response to the solar cycle they detected in the observations. Lean found similar problems in the model responses to the solar cyle, although at about half the level of Camp and Tung.
There were lots of diagnostic results available to the AR4 Working Group I authors, yet you will find no evidence that the IPCC range of projections include any adjustment for them. Andreas Roesch’s correlated error alone is the equivalent of over 3 W/m^2 globally and annual averaged. That is comparable to the CO2 forcing and about 4 times the size of the energy imbalance that we are attempting to attribute. With an energy imbalance of under 0.8 W/m^2, do you have any peer review evidence that the models are accurate to the approx 0.1W/m^2 necessary to get a rough approximation of the relative attribution?
otter17,
I’ve commmented many times that radiative physics regarding the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ make sense to me, but that it has only a very minor effect. What is ridiculous is the matter of degree claimed. The planet has warmed over the past 150 years, from ≈288K to ≈288.8K. That is truly minuscule, and debunks the wild-eyed notion that more CO2 will cause climate disruption. So that CAGW talking point is deconstructed.
And the null hyporhesis can be very easily falsified. Simply provide evidence showing that the parameters of the Holocene have been exceeded. Since there is no such testable evidence, the null hypothesis remains unfalsified. So that alarmist claim is also deconstructed.
Got more of your CAGW beliefs that need deconstructing? Bring ’em on and I’ll help further your education.
Simply amazing! Deconstruct the thousands of peer-reviewed papers that went into the IPCC and you’ll be the savior of all the world. Well unless there is a conspiracy by all the distinguished scientific bodies in the world to suppress the truth in spite of the major energy companies spending tens of millions of dollars every year to get it out.
REPLY: Tenny would you like a copy of Donna’s new book? I’ll be happy to send it to you for free. If you actually read it (unlike Peter Gleick), there may be a glimmer of understanding about why we have concerns. – Anthony
otter17 said:
“Oh, and we can quantify a greenhouse forcing in the units of W/m^2 (3 W/m^2 to be more precise). ….”
No, you actually can’t.
A greenhouse works by trapping air, not IR. Professor Woods demonstrated this in 1909.
For what it’s worth, someone was asking if anyone would take the time to transcribe Santer’s talk at Chico State. Well, I have. It’s not the full hour talk, only about 4,000 words worth of highlights with time signatures.
“Unauthorized notes of Dr. Ben Santer’s October 21, 2011 Chico State talk to Anthony Watts and friends.”
http://whatsupwithwatts.blogspot.com/2011/10/dr-ben-santer-attempts-explaining.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
PS. Anthony if you cared to offer me Donna Laframboise’s new expose I’d promise to read it?
REPLY: Peter, why would I want to offer you anything when you’ve “had it” with me? From your new website:
Are you sure you’ve been paying attention? You can Pay $5 here and get it yourself. Since you are likely to trash it (based on your past behavior) I see no reason to offer it free. Request denied. – Anthony
Yes, Anthony, I would like to read the book in question. Please contact me at: apaixonada.por.rio@gmail.com for the mailing address when you have time. Thanks, Tenney
Anthony, I was just asking.
I do appreciate your courtesy in not deleting my above post and link.
And I’m sorry that my feelings towards the posts and comments here is so dismal, but, that’s why I’ve started that site to intelligently explain why I feel as I do. Unfortunately, I’m a worker-bee so my time is limited, but I will keep plugging away at it as my free time permits.
CO2 vs water vapor:
The western U.S. deserts, low humidity day 100, night 60
The east U.S. coast, high humidy day 100, night 80
The east U.S. coast, high humidity ,winter, day 30, night 20
The east U.S. coast, low humidity, winter, ‘severe clear’, day 30, night 5
The above is anecdotal evidence but i believe it shows that water vapor has
much more effect than CO2 on earths temperature.