Watts et al gets a mention.
3. NEW INFORMATION ON SURFACE TEMPERATURE PROCESSES
In general, the issue of global warming is dominated by considering the near-surface air
temperature (Tsfc) as if it were a standard by which one might measure the climate
impact of the extra warming due to increases in greenhouse gases. Fundamentally, the
proper variable to measure is heat content, or the amount of heat energy (measured in
joules) in the climate system, mainly in the oceans and atmosphere. Thus the basic
measurement for detecting greenhouse warming is how many more joules of energy are
accumulating in the climate system over that which would have occurred naturally. This
is a truly “wicked” problem (see House Testimony, Dr. Judith Curry, 17 Nov 2010)
because we do not know how much accumulation can occur naturally.
Unfortunately, discussions about global warming focus on Tsfc even though it is affected
by many more processes than the accumulation of heat in the climate system. Much has
been documented on the problems, and is largely focused on changes in the local environment, i.e. buildings, asphalt, etc. This means that using Tsfc, as measured today,
as a proxy for heat content (the real greenhouse variable) can lead to an overstatement of
greenhouse warming if the two are assumed to be too closely related.
A new paper by my UAHuntsville colleague Dr. Richard McNider (McNider et al. 2012)
looked at reasons for the fact daytime high temperatures (TMax) are really not warming
much while nighttime low temperatures (TMin) show significant warming. This has
been known for some time and found in several locations around the world (e.g.
California – Christy et al. 2006, East Africa – Christy et al. 2009, Uganda – just released
data). Without going into much detail, the bottom line of the study is that as humans
disturb the surface (cities, farming, deforestation, etc.) this disrupts the normal formation
of the shallow, surface layer of cooler air during the night when TMin is measured. In a
complicated process, due to these local changes, there is greater mixing of the naturally
warmer air above down to the shallow nighttime cool layer. This makes TMin warmer,
giving the appearance of warmer nights over time. The subtle consequence of this
phenomenon is that TMin temperatures will show warming, but this warming is from a
turbulent process which redistributes heat near the surface not to the accumulation of
heat related to greenhouse warming of the deep atmosphere. The importance of this is
that many of the positive feedbacks that amplify the CO2 effect in climate models depend
on warming of the deep atmosphere not the shallow nighttime layer.
During the day, the sun generally heats up the surface, and so air is mixed through a deep
layer. Thus, the daily high temperature (TMax) is a better proxy of the heat content of
the deep atmosphere since that air is being mixed more thoroughly down to where the
thermometer station is. The relative lack of warming in TMax is an indication that the
rate of warming due to the greenhouse effect is smaller than models project (Section 2).
The problem with the popular surface temperature datasets is they use the average of the
daytime high and nighttime low as their measurement (i.e. (TMax+TMin)/2). But if
TMin is not representative of the greenhouse effect, then the use of TMin with TMax will
be a misleading indicator of the greenhouse effect. TMax should be viewed as a more
reliable proxy for the heat content of the atmosphere and thus a better indicator of the
enhanced greenhouse effect. This exposes a double problem with models. First of all,
they overwarm their surface compared with the popular surface datasets (the non-circle
symbols in Fig. 2.1). Secondly, the popular surface datasets are likely warming too much
to begin with. This is why I include the global satellite datasets of temperature which are
not affected by these surface problems and more directly represent the heat content of the
atmosphere (see Christy et al. 2010, Klotzbach et al. 2010).
Fall et al. 2011 found evidence for spurious surface temperature warming in certain US
stations which were selected by NOAA for their assumed high quality. Fall et al.
categorized stations by an official system based on Leroy 1999 that attempted to
determine the impact of encroaching civilization on the thermometer stations. The result
was not completely clear-cut as Fall et al. showed that disturbance of the surface around a
station was not a big problem, but it was a problem. A new manuscript by Muller et al.
2012, using the old categorizations of Fall et al., found roughly the same thing. Now,
however, Leroy 2010 has revised the categorization technique to include more details of
changes near the stations. This new categorization was applied to the US stations of Fall
et al., and the results, led by Anthony Watts, are much clearer now. Muller et al. 2012
did not use the new categorizations. Watts et al. demonstrate that when humans alter the
immediate landscape around the thermometer stations, there is a clear warming signal
due simply to those alterations, especially at night. An even more worrisome result is
that the adjustment procedure for one of the popular surface temperature datasets actually increases the temperature of the rural (i.e. best) stations to match and even exceed the more urbanized (i.e. poor) stations. This is a case where it appears the adjustment process took the spurious warming of the poorer stations and spread it throughout the entire set of stations and even magnified it. This is ongoing research and bears watching as other factors as still under investigation, such as changes in the time-of-day readings were taken, but at this point it helps explain why the surface measurements appear to be warming more than the deep atmosphere (where the greenhouse effect should appear.)
Full testimony PDF here: christy-testimony-2012
All very reasonable. Too bad Christy doesn’t connect this to Koutsoyiannis’ recent results. Even without the new (and hence perhaps questionable) Leroy methodology and analysis, it is pretty clear statistical evidence of bias problems with the station data due to adjustments. Indeed, Watts et. al. MIGHT actually EXPLAIN the bias K. discovered. A most interesting question is does it explain it quantitatively. If Christy’s mixing, Leroy’s warming/bias, Watts’ station bias, precisely correspond to Koutsoyiannis’ INDEPENDENTLY observed statistical bias in Europe and elsewhere in the world — a completely independent dataset — it would be pretty powerful evidence of problems with the surface data.
rgb
A very clear description. Hopefully, they didn’t sleep though it.
Wow, heady stuff. Probably went right over Boxer’s head.
Is there a recognised figure for global warming in the last few decades if Tmax is used rather than the average of Tmax and Tmin?
I meant to say:
Wow, heady stuff and probably went right over Boxer’s.
Will this work influence the next IPCC report?
Cool.
Very nice Anthony. You know you are making a difference when you are being quoted in Senate hearings. Good stuff. Keep up the great work.
Cheers,
William Mason
Wonderful work, Dr. Christy.
He mentions, once again, an old dinosaur whose very existence should have caused all climate scientists and meteorologists to blush with shame. He writes:
“The problem with the popular surface temperature datasets is they use the average of the
daytime high and nighttime low as their measurement (i.e. (TMax+TMin)/2).”
This “average,” this contrivance, is one of the most bone-headed ideas known to mankind. Why people who call themselves scientists, or even TV weathermen, would “average” crucial pieces of raw data, especially pieces that are qualitatively different in character, and then use that average to create the all important “surface temperature datasets” is a question that should strike terror into everyone interested in the quality of climate science or even TV meteorology. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.
Can we now agree to use the raw data?
It took some time to read it through – but I couldn’t find any fault with the content, logic or presentation at all.
An excellent, well considered and well written piece, with citations and everything! Perfect..
zentgraf2 says:
August 1, 2012 at 10:45 am
Probably not. The IPCC loves to place deadlines, and break them. This testimony is, as elmer says, too heady…and because some of it may challenge the doctrine, it would not be used.
An increase in global windiness especially in the mid latitudes would have the effect of increasing mixing of the surface layers and raising night temperatures whilst having little effect on day temperatures.
It has been observed that higher temperatures occur at times of a more zonal global air circulation i. e. faster west to east wind flow round the entire globe.
In turn that seems to occur at a time of more active sun. When the sun becomes less active the jets become more meridional whilst the speed of the west to east flow declines.
I think that is the more likely explanation for the observations.
I agree with Robert Brown @10.25 am but must say that it was on WUWT that I heard of Koutsoyiannis’ work. On that in his blog of July 20th 2012 Anthony Watts did apologise to and comment on the work of Koutsoyiannis. It does appear that the tide on dodgy surface station data being taken as gospel by governments around the world is turning. The sooner the better especially for Australia where a very high carbon dioxide levy has just been introduced
“The problem with the popular surface temperature datasets is they use the average of the
daytime high and nighttime low as their measurement (i.e. (TMax+TMin)/2).”
I warn my calculus and physics students regularly not to use (max+min)/2 as a proxy for the average value of a function. Now I have a practical example!
Sorry, but way too complicated – impossible for anyone in this audience to understand. Compare the use of the scientific jargon to the simplicity (but incorrect) phrase, “the planet has a fever blister” or the “Greenland is melting”. Which ones will the politicians remember…
Tell them what you’re going to tell them: “The evidence that the earth is catastrophically warming is iffy at best and dangerously incorrect at worst.”
Then tell them:
– Data collection inconsistent
– Data are adjusted in an arbitrary way, possibly to effect the conclusions
– Data that disproves the theory are commonly ignored
– Data indicates that night temps are increasing while day temps are not. This is very likely because the means of measurement of temps is compromised. Thermometers are commonly located in urban areas near sources of heat and a lot of concrete, which retain heat better and results in the increased night temps.
Tell them what you told them:
In summary, as legislators, I encourage you to be very cautious about making policy decisions based upon the evidence that is considered flimsy by many. etc . etc.
I’m afraid that to this audience, to confuse is to lose.
We need Phil Jones to comment on the US station problems wrt Leroy 2012. He seems more amenable to straight scientific reasoning than Hansen or Mann. If he accepts the premise, as he did that global warming has not “statistically” doing much since 1995, he would be exposing the lack of consensus that actually exists.
“the surface measurements appear to be warming more than the deep atmosphere (where the greenhouse effect should appear).
That would appear to indicate that the system is highly efficient at getting rid of more surface energy faster in order to maintain system stability.
A negative system response speeding up energy flow through the system whenever anything tries to raise surface temperature above that permitted by surface atmospheric pressure and top of atmosphere insolation.
One would simply observe a steeper surface to space temperature gradient (or higher tropopause) producing a faster water cycle and / or an increase in global windiness producing more zonal windflows and latitudinal (poleward for warming) shifting of the climate zones.
A faster throughput of energy to compensate for the steeper upward gradient or higher tropopause caused by sun, oceans, GHGs or whatever other factor seeks to disturb the underlying equilibrium thereby maintaining the same system energy content.
But the sun and oceans already naturally cause just such a system response to such an extent that the contribution from human GHGs would be unmeasurable.
Looks like some of the climate science community is finally getting beyond arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin.
I wonder how much these wind farms help to mix the shallow night time layer?
So let’s see, the dinosaurs being cold blooded thrived when the earth was a lot warmer than it is today. At the same time, plants flourished and died to form layers of what we call today coal, after being compacted over millions of years. The sun was younger throwing much warmer heat at the the third planet from our sun. What does it all mean? Greenhouse is still a theory and there is not one iota of evidence, fact or science to prove otherwise.
Cross-posting:
I wonder if they’ll dare take up the challenge to fund Red Teams …
“During the day, the sun generally heats up the surface, and so air is mixed through a deep
layer.”
There seem to be some steps missing in this cause/effect statement. Please clarify to this layman. Is it because the surface, as it becomes warmer than the boundary air, heats it by conduction, initiating convection and thus mixing? Whether by this or another process, I wish it had been more explicitly explained, as I rather doubt many Reps are more tech-savvy than me.
I’m surprised Babs (ma’am) didn’t interrupt Dr Christie and tell him his report would be added to the record. The left doesn’t like it when you confuse or disagree with them.
It was interesting to watch Christe respond to the “Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?” kind of questions from some of the lesser minds. What is even better is what Pielke jr. has to say about the blantant misrepresentations told by Chris Field
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/08/ipcc-lead-author-misleads-us-congress.html
Poorly written report. There are too many awkward (mangled?) sentences like this one:
“Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists are misrepresentative
of climate science, containing overstated confidence in their assertions of high climate
sensitivity. “
Anybody catch Joe Bastaridi’s piece in the USA Today? It’s worth a look
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-07-31/Joe-Bastardi-WeatherBELL-Analytics/56623728/1
Well,they are sneering over at the New York Times that Watts here discovered that the temperature rises and falls within a 24 hour period yet both promoters and dissents in this sordid business do not know the actual dynamics behind those daily temperature fluctuations and especially the modelers who imagine the 24 hour day falls out of step with one rotation of the Earth to the unimaginable tune of 1465 rotations to 1461 days via Ra/Dec reasoning,if it can be called reasoning at all.
I see all these guys who never saw a graph that they didn’t like yet couldn’t interpret the primary fact of of a round and rotating Earth and how temperatures keep in step with that massive temperature fluctuation.
In the end,one side looks the same as the other in the most unfortunate way.
Well. What did I tell you. Keep an eye on maxima and it will tell you almost everything.
Good comment from cbltoo.
I think what we were reading was Dr. Christie’s prepared remarks. Was his verbal testimony closer to his one page summary (see PDF link)
Excuse me for the poor proofreading – the massive daily temperature fluctuations keep in step with one rotation of the Earth,once a day and 1461 times in 1461 days/4 years.Maybe you can all throw a party when this primary fact is discovered because the modelers and their graphs refuse to accept the dynamic behind this most primary of all facts known to man.
Tmin indeed !,what I wouldn’t give to sit down with reasonable men and point of the difficulties at certain junctures and outline a stable and productive perspective for global climate.
I don’t know if anyone heard the Q&A segment of the testimony, but Chairperson Boxer asked about the new Watts et. all paper. Apparently it is a reference in Christy’s written submission to the committee.
Congressmen Boxer specifically asked if it had been peer reviewed – which, of course, it hasn’t yet. Obviously, she was coached to ask that question. Then she dismissed it because it has not.
Don says:
August 1, 2012 at 11:31 am
“During the day, the sun generally heats up the surface, and so air is mixed through a deep
layer.”
There seem to be some steps missing in this cause/effect statement. Please clarify to this layman. Is it because the surface, as it becomes warmer than the boundary air, heats it by conduction, initiating convection and thus mixing?
——————————————
I agree. I think Dr Christy wanted to avoid a hot button topic like convection, so he talked about deep layer mixing instead, which of course is caused by convection. In the daylight hours as soon as rising surface temperatures cause the adiabatic lapse rate to be exceeded convection initiates, the heat load is shifted from radiation to convection, and further temperature rise is limited. At the equator over the oceans it is actually capped at 30 ºC.
I am glad John R. Christy exists. A real scientist with both legs planted on the ground, while measuring the temperature in the athmosphere. Every time I hear him, it gives me a hope that, yes, there is still hope for the Western civilisation.
I agree strongly with cbltoo, up toward the top comments, please read it, it’s excellent.
You have to speak to people using their language. The alarmists are better at convincing the laymen because they can speak succinctly AND in layman’s terms.
Stop speaking to Congress as if they are academics or care about facts. In general, socialists have always been better and convincing and here’s why: They don’t have the facts, so they MUST have THE TALK. If you want to be heard, learn the language of politics.
A politician want you to do one of two things. Either speak in such a way to conform to their agenda, or give them such a start that they are inspired to rethink the whole shebang.
It’s one or the other. One shot.
“So let’s see, the dinosaurs being cold blooded thrived when the earth was a lot warmer than it is today. ”
there is a considerable body of opinion supporting the idea that at least some dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurcontroversies/i/warmblooded_2.htm
@ azleader. 12.07pm Then Congresswoman Boxer is a very silly girl. Sceptic lawmakers can now ask the same question of warmist, “evidence”. If the evidence has not been peer-reviewed she is bound to reject it, or turn the whole proceedings into a farce.
In addition to reporting Tmins and Tmaxs, another way of reporting temperature would be to integrate the temperature over time, and then determine the centroid for 24-hour periods; and/or periods when the sun is up, and when it is not.
Dont want to be a grump, but… We continually win the war with facts, but lose the battles with bad communications. The vast majority of commenters from the alarmist side are social scientists (Mooney at Desmog, etc) even Al Gore who has a theology bachelors who are professional communicators. It’s not about the facts – its about influencing opinion not debating one set of data against another. Desmog is run by David Suzukis PR firm for heavens sake.
Are there no PR advisors who could help the realist scientists convince ordinary people and politicians?
pochas says:
August 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Don says:
August 1, 2012 at 11:31 am
“During the day, the sun generally heats up the surface, and so air is mixed through a deep
layer.”
There seem to be some steps missing in this cause/effect statement. Please clarify to this layman. Is it because the surface, as it becomes warmer than the boundary air, heats it by conduction, initiating convection and thus mixing?
——————————————
I agree. I think Dr Christy wanted to avoid a hot button topic like convection, so he talked about deep layer mixing instead, which of course is caused by convection. In the daylight hours as soon as rising surface temperatures cause the adiabatic lapse rate to be exceeded convection initiates, the heat load is shifted from radiation to convection, and further temperature rise is limited. At the equator over the oceans it is actually capped at 30 ºC.
_________________________
Ah, clarity! Thanks for that!
And I want to express gratitude to Dr. Christy for being willing to step out of the landing craft into the stream of gunfire. I appreciate that many of our Honorable Leaders can’t and won’t learn anything that might contradict their dearly-held mythologies, so instead it seems to me that the good Dr. has tried to get as much good data into the record as possible for those who have not yet become slaves to lucrative ignorance. A worthwhile foray, I think. Like Omaha Beach, the outcome is all but inevitable, but a lot of bloodshed still to come before it is achieved.
@noaaprogrammer,
Yes, that would be better in theory but it would require entirely new instruments and would be imposible to compare with temperature records even a few years old.
Temps can change drastically in just a few minutes when you are right on the edge of a front. Your method would require temp readings at sub hour if not sub minute intervals.
Agree with cbltoo. The term we use is BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front). Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and finally tell them what you just told them.
Robert Brown says: “All very reasonable. Too bad Christy doesn’t connect this to Koutsoyiannis’ recent results….If Christy’s mixing, Leroy’s warming/bias, Watts’ station bias, precisely correspond to Koutsoyiannis’ INDEPENDENTLY observed statistical bias in Europe and elsewhere in the world — a completely independent dataset — it would be pretty powerful evidence of problems with the surface data.”
Excellent comment, as usual.
Very lucid explanation.
Probably only a few members of the committee will understand it though.
For the Sen. Boxer types, in my opinion, the explanation should be of the the “Willis Elevator speech” type. Even then, in Boxer’s case, …doubtful understanding …”Rosemarie Kabibi” syndrome, etc. and she’s the chair!
Theo Goodwin says:
August 1, 2012 at 10:50 am
What do you propose we do with the decades of data that are max/min temperatures recorded by hand from max/min thermometers? Replace it with treering data?
I agree with cbltoo. When talking to Congress or the public, you have to think like advertisers or film makers. You have to use language that will grab the attention immediately and not let go. Use emotive words, words that speak from and to the heart.
Look at what the others side pushes: Distaster, extreme, “getting worse”. It’s like reading the back of an exciting book or movie script. “The End of the Earth is approaching. We’re all going to drown or fry. Will bold strategy Save the Day?” Of course you’re going to read the book or see the movie, it sounds exciting.
We have to sound exciting and more so. What have we got? They’ve got horror-story, we’ve got spy-thriller. Let’s use it. It’s true. People are lying to the government, misleading politicians and the public, stealing billions of dollars with the aim to bankrupt and destroy civilization. Will we get word out to the misinformed public? We have to… but the MSM is corrupt…” The games behind the scenes are all about back-stabbing and subterfuge. Exciting stuff, let’s sell it.
I’m not joking. We have to punch it up and sex it up. That’s what grabs the attention. The truth is the backbone, don’t get me wrong, but with 30 second attention spans, that truth has to look pretty or at least exciting. You want your audience to sit up straighter and focus on what you’re telling them, not slide down in their seats and start daydreaming about something else, or worse, fall asleep. You want them to remember YOU and WHAT YOU SAID not what the other side said, no matter how exciting their horror-story is, you’ve got a spy-thriller.
We have to sell them the spy-thriller.
An increased greenhouse effect, by slowing radiation to space, would be expected to warm Tmin more than Tmax. The argument that Tmax is a better proxy than Tmin for heat content is a bit stretched in my opinion. I am listening and sympathetic but not fully convinced.
With regard to my previous comment, what might convince me is some actual data from pristine stations not subject to changes in mixing of the boundary layers at night showing that in those places Tmin has NOT increased.
Cuts to the crux of Tmin if Senators would ask for math help: “… bottom line … humans disturb …formation of … surface layer of cooler air during the night … greater mixing of …shallow nighttime cool layer … giving the appearance of warmer nights ….”
Joe Prins says:
August 1, 2012 at 11:24 am
Thats been covered here before. In a nushell… yes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/supreme-irony-wind-farms-can-cause-atmosphereic-warming-finds-a-new-study/
I agree the sales pitch is missing – there are no catastrophes on the skeptics side to trot out, only a Tropical Paradise Earth, that isn’t going to scare anyone into action …. Or is there?
How many people will die from burning food for fuel – flour at 17 MJ/kg is the most viable fuel after coal.
How many people will die because of delayed action on cancer and other morbidities due to misdirection of funding to climate change and how many families will vote out the parliaments who misdirected the funds that prevented their cure
How many pensioners will die of hypothermia because Power costs are too high, (and how many family members will vote out the parliaments who made the laws that killed them)
Global warming mitigation – Kills!
Politicians are like the media. If it bleeds it leads. They want sound bites. Catastrophy cake of any kind will get first billing and especially if iced with imitation intelligence (IE peer review). Democrates (the greenies for you in other countries) are about saving the future by killing the present. Conservatives are about growing the present in order to save the future. So. Feed them catastrophy cake iced with artificial intelligence and you will have their ear. Just change the message to match the politician.
Christy’s charts are absolute gold. Bravo.
“I suppose if one wanted to reduce U.S. emissions, one could legislate what the world should and
should not buy. This, of course, is not a serious idea.”
It is if you are a leftist…
Tav = (Tmax + Tmin)/2
sloppy, high-school stuff.
T == Energy
epic fail, not.even.wrong.
(yet somehow the gravvy train rolls along)
Ric Werme says:
August 1, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Theo Goodwin says:
August 1, 2012 at 10:50 am
“The problem with the popular surface temperature datasets is they use the average of the daytime high and nighttime low as their measurement (i.e. (TMax+TMin)/2).”
This “average,” this contrivance, is one of the most bone-headed ideas known to mankind. Why people who call themselves scientists, or even TV weathermen, would “average” crucial pieces of raw data, especially pieces that are qualitatively different in character, and then use that average to create the all important “surface temperature datasets” is a question that should strike terror into everyone interested in the quality of climate science or even TV meteorology. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.
Can we now agree to use the raw data?
“What do you propose we do with the decades of data that are max/min temperatures recorded by hand from max/min thermometers? Replace it with treering data?”
The same thing we always do when we make decisions that hurt ourselves, our colleagues, our employers, and science. Take full responsibility. That means accepting disciplinary action. Throw the trash out and start over. Advertise to the world that it is trash and that it must be thrown out. Then we will have gotten out of the way of science and ended our contribution to the blocking of scientific progress. If we are of Japanese heritage, we also offer to accept a 50 percent permanent reduction in pay.
cbltoo says:
August 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm
…..It’s not about the facts – its about influencing opinion not debating one set of data against another. Desmog is run by David Suzukis PR firm for heavens sake.
Are there no PR advisors who could help the realist scientists convince ordinary people and politicians?
________________________________
I agree that it is about propaganda and the other side has had it nailed since Willi Münzenberg’s, ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ began in the 1920’s.
The problem is “They” can use all the PR advisors they want but if we so much as walk in the door of a PR firm we are dead meat. Just look at Big Oil funding. Big Oil has been behind this and funding it from the get go. Maurice Strong was an Oil Man yet he ran the First Earth Summit and Kyoto. Shell and BP provided the original funding for CRU. Ged Davis a Shell Oil VP and recent head of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Scenario Project team aka Agenda 21, wrote the attachment in ClimateGate (1) email 0889554019 It is a rough draft of Agenda 21/Sustainable development that was sent to climate scientists, government officials and Greenpeace for comments.
Look at the Muller media blitz and Mullers Big Oil connection. If you go to the listing of the TEAM at Muller Assoc. you find. Arthur Rosenfeld, Former California Energy Commissioner among others.
Further down you find Marlan Downey
Click on Marlan Downey, Oil and Gas Executive
and you find
Yet with all the Big Oil connections between government officials, Greenpeace (Check out their standard oil grants aka Rockefeller money) and the CAGW hoax you never ever see a peep about it in the MSM or even on the blogs.
However let Exxon fork over a measly few thousand a year and it is screamed to the rafters. Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998. Max was $90,000 in 2005 and again in 2006.
Greenpeace on the other hand received $1,215,285 since 1996 from just the Rockefellers and Sierra Club received $450,000.00 from the Bush family.
From the PDF of the testimony –
‘The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, “whatever happens is consistent
with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would “falsify” the
hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway
informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is “anything may happen.” In
the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable
hypothesis stands. This is not science.’
I just fancy putting this on a poster outside Hansen office.
Over here in this part of the world we were always taught that the USA 1930’s dustbowl conditions were caused by “overfarming”.
John Christy’s testimony shows that the 1930s was an extreme weather event, of at least a 1-in-100 yr magnitude. It is clearly shown in the mid west graphs as producing the most Tmax daily records and the lowest observed annual rainfall this decade. It is also represented in temperature records from the west coast.
I wonder what the AGW zealots would have said then if they were around at the time?
bali007 says:
T == Energy
epic fail, not.even.wrong.
Since the internal energy of a gas is directly proportional to energy, why is there such a problem with this?
The use and abuse of statistics in climate science by the current U.S. Administration is far from a unique problem. The North American stock market abruptly jumped with gains on the opening of the market upon release of the latest unemployment statistics claiming the number of new jobs created was better than expected while the unemployment rate increased. After untangling this twisted reporting, you find the number of jobs created was extremely low in comparison to the past years for several decades, and the unemployment numbers are a statistical artifact due to “seasonal adjustments.” Yes, arbitrary adjustments are used in a manner which reverses the reality of the raw numbers. Some people might describe such goings on to a Congress critter as something akin to putting lipstick on a pig without using the sow’s ear to make a matching purse.
The details and charts illustrating the problems with political abuse of labor statistics can be seen at: Seasonal And Birth Death Adjustments Add 429,000 Statistical “Jobs”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/seasonal-and-birth-death-adjustments-add-429000-statistical-jobs
The scientific case must be presented to Congress, but the oppositoin to this testimony has demonstrated a will to abuse such science for the same political purposes as the labor statistics and more.
A little late, but a big Thank You. I doubt if the Boxer listened to you (Incovenient Truths for her) but many more heard you. Again, God Bless and Thanks!
DaveR says:
August 2, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Over here in this part of the world we were always taught that the USA 1930′s dustbowl conditions were caused by “overfarming”.
John Christy’s testimony shows that the 1930s was an extreme weather event, of at least a 1-in-100 yr magnitude. It is clearly shown in the mid west graphs as producing the most Tmax daily records and the lowest observed annual rainfall this decade. It is also represented in temperature records from the west coast.
I wonder what the AGW zealots would have said then if they were around at the time?
===========================================================================
“We’re all going to die!” (Unless you give us your money, your choices, let us tell your children Government is the answer …)
John Brookes:
At August 3, 2012 at 5:05 am you ask: