From The Senate EPW Jim Inhofe Press Office, well worth your time to watch.
Dr. John Christy, Alabama’s State Climatologist, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing on global warming and stated:
“During the heat wave of late June and early July, high temperature extremes became newsworthy. Claims that there were thousands of records broken each day and that “this is what global warming looks like” got a lot of attention.
However, these headlines were not based on climate science. As shown in Figure 1.3 of my testimony it is scientifically more accurate to say that this is what Mother Nature looks like, since events even worse than these have happened in the past before greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.
Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.
A climatologist looking at this heat wave would not be alarmed because the number of daily high temperature records set in the most recent decade was only about half the number set in the 1930s as shown in my written testimony. I suppose most people have forgotten that Oklahoma set a new record low temperature just last year of 31 below. And in the past two years, towns from Alaska to my home state of California established records for snowfall. The recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.
See also his written testimony here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fact: the scientific community is represented by real professionals like the 31,000+ scientists and engineers who co-signed the OISM petition, stating clearly that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
A whole 31,000 Scientists, Engineers, Medical Doctors, Vetinarians and Chiropracters signed a petition over a decade?. Out of millions who were eligible? Wooo I am impressed. That must be what – a whole 0.1% of the possible constituency.
I recommend for those who did not read it Shaviv answer : Detailed Response to “Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate ” by Rahmstorf et al.
Cosmic Rays determining low cloud formation is certainly a much more interesting theory than carbon dioxide, the last paper of Svensmark : “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth” is really great.
At least CRF is as legitimate as AGW.
joeldshore says:
August 3, 2012 at 7:24 pm
“Smokey: Mann knew the proxy was corrupted — but he used it anyway, because it gave him the hockey stick shape he craved..”
Simply untrue. Because of potential problems identified with the four Tiljander proxies and 3 other proxies…
It isn’t that there were “potential problems” — the Tiljander series “are uncalibratable due to contamination of the temperature signal by local activities, from the 1700s to the present.”
http://amac1.blogspot.com/2010/03/another-scientist-commends-mann-et-al.html
Now add the fact that Mann inverted *two* of the four proxies — he only inverted two, not all four, so he didn’t do it by mistake.
I can repeat this as long as necessary if you continue to say untrue things.
Repeat away. All you’ll do is destroy what little credibility you have remaining.
Smokey says:
Let’s look at Smokey’s logic here:
(1) Smokey says something incorrect about what Mann et al.’s paper says or doesn’t say.
(2) I show it is incorrect by linked to THE ACTUAL PAPER IS QUESTION!
(3) Smokey responds by saying that he won’t look at the paper because “Mann has zero credibility” and instead he will just blindly believe what McIntyre tells him.
This would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.
Phil Clarke says: August 4, 2012 at 1:18 am
“Fact: the scientific community is represented by real professionals like the 31,000+ scientists and engineers who co-signed the OISM petition, stating clearly that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.”
A whole 31,000 Scientists, Engineers, Medical Doctors, Vetinarians and Chiropracters signed a petition over a decade?. Out of millions who were eligible? Wooo I am impressed. That must be what – a whole 0.1% of the possible constituency.
So that makes the 75 who make up the cabal of the ‘consensus’ about .00024% of your possible constituency?
Phil Clarke,
You know very well why it is important to look at the reconstruction without tree rings. If it wasn’t an issue, why would Mann specifically update his supplementary information to show the effect?
I note you completely ducked my direct question to you – so I’ll repeat it:
I agree completely with you when you say “If you have an a priori expectation that the orientation is the opposite sign, then the proxy cannot be used”. This is the core of the problem. We know the sediment series was corrupted by land usage during the screening period to the extent that the believed a priori physical correlation to temperature was reversed. So the series should never have passed the screening test as described by Mann. Yet it did. Simple question, Phil, how did this happen – how did it pass the screening test?
I eagerly await your response:
It is apparent to anyone with half a bfain that Mann has no credibility and has been exposed as a liar and a fraud continuously. For Joel of course, who’s of the same creed as Mann, Mann’s work is all above board and is supported by his own paper! Now that is the most inane and mindless comment one can ever hear. [SNIP: Sorry, Venter, but this really is a bit over the line. Sorry. -REP]
This is the level of brainless trolling that characterises the alarmists.
This is the core of the problem. We know the sediment series was corrupted by land usage during the screening period to the extent that the believed a priori physical correlation to temperature was reversed. So the series should never have passed the screening test as described by Mann. Yet it did. Simple question, Phil, how did this happen – how did it pass the screening test?
I HAVE answered the point, twice by my count. Firstly there were two methods (as detailed in the book extract I quoted) RegEm is insensitive to the sign, in the composite method the screening is passed if a correlation is found during the training period. I fail to see the relevance of whether ‘the believed a priori physical correlation to temperature was reversed’; whether the various proxies entered the analysis “right side up” or “upside down”, the regression would have forced increasing values (say) to correlate to increasing temperatures. We just know that the series passed the screening (the P value was rather low, at 0.1). Now it may be that this was a ‘spurious’ correlation due to contamination, which would mean the proxy should not have been used- oh hang on, the authors were aware of the recent possible corruption issues and other quality problems with these 4 and 3 other proxies, so they did the reconstruction with and without these and found it made no material difference to the overall conclusion of anomalous modern warmth. This is not that surprising; if you look at the actual curves for the sediment proxies they are pretty much flat over the MWP and earlier; far from being ‘the core of the problem’ in terms of paleoclimatic reconstruction its a non-issue. Anyone who disagrees is free to download the code and data and redo the reconstruction with the proxies in, out, ‘upside down’ or ‘right way up’ and publish their findings. That none of Mann’s critics seem to have done so speaks volumes ……..
So that makes the 75 who make up the cabal of the ‘consensus’ about .00024% of your possible constituency?
Ah, you mean the Doran et al study? Of course the number of ‘actively publishing climate scientists’ is a tiny fraction of ‘all people with a science-related degree’, so what? This just demonstrates the pointlessness of the OISM study. OISM sent out the petition accompanied by a misleading and error-filled article deliberately tricked out to look like a peer-reviewed PNAS paper, prompting the NAS to issue a press release disavowing the petition. The petition was widely spoofed at first (early signatories included the cast of M*A*S*H, pop stars etc) and since 1999 31,000 or so graduates seem to have been taken in (although a probe by Scientific American in 2004 found about 10% of actual scientist signatories they contacted had never heard of the thing, a trifle worrying). Most of the signatories (>15,800) are actually engineers rather than scientists, let alone climate scientists and given that there are around 2 million graduate engineers in the US this gives a positive response rate rather lower than a junk mailshot. Unconvincing.
OTOH 100% of the professional associations of scientists, including the major national scientific academies, with several hundred thousand scientist members between them have issued position statements endorsing the conclusions of the IPCC …..
Phil Clarke,
Earlier you bemoaned those “who continue to drag the issue up”, but the dishonesty in your last response is exactly the reason why we do. And we will continue to do so until you and other warmists accept the obvious, Mann made a mistake in his screening.
You have again claimed that Mann’s critics should download the code and redo the reconstruction without sediments. But as I have stated twice previously, there is no need for us to do so as Mann did this himself in his updated supplementary materials. The version without sediments and tree rings (which should have been in the original paper but for his screening error) shows an elevated MWP and validates for a far shorter period.
Your response above completely fails to explain how the tree rings passed the CPS screening test. You only address RegEm and even this response is bizarre. (You have no issue if the sediment series was used with the inverse correlation to the physical meaning?) But let’s stick with CPS. We know a one-sided screening test was used based on the a priori expected correlation. We know that the sediment series should have failed the test because of the contamination. The only possible way it could have passed the test is if Mann erred and tested the wrong orientation. Why can’t you just admit this?
fedden says:
August 4, 2012 at 7:55 am
Phil Clarke, … “So the series should never have passed the screening test as described by Mann. Yet it did. Simple question, Phil, how did this happen – how did it pass the screening test?”
One more simple question, Phil – why did Mann purposely invert *two* of the four proxies to reverse the direction of their orientation, rather than use all four completely unaltered?
Phil Clarke:
At August 4, 2012 at 9:55 am you say;
Not all those position statements support the IPCC position. For example, the Russian Academy of Sciences is predicting imminent cooling (n.b. cooling and not warming); see e.g.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/21/scientists-of-the-russian-academy-of-sciences-global-warming-is-coming-to-an-end-return-to-early-1980s-level/0/
And those Academies which have provided pro-IPCC position statements did not consult their Members. The statements were issued by Executives of the Academies, and those Executives have been usurped by activists.
Richard Lindzen provides shocking analysis – which names names – of how that usurpation has been achieved. It is a good read and can be accessed at several places including this one
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16330
So, your statement is not true and if it were true then it would be meaningless.
Richard
Phil Clarke,
The boards of professional associations do not speak for their membership’s views. If they wanted the members’ views known, they would go to a professional pollster and do it right. I notice they never do that. And a ‘press release’ changes nothing; it’s just impotent whining by petty tyrants and activists who want to censor the rank-and-file’s opinions, but can’t.
Next, PNAS can ‘disavow’ anything they like — just like anyone can disavow PNAS. What they cannot do is rescind the names of 31,400 co-signers. Neither can you, or anyone else except the co-signers themselves.
Next, the OISM website lists the names of all co-signers. Anyone contesting their name has been removed. That still leaves more than 31,400 valid signatures stating that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. That’s 75 possible alarmists vs 31,400 confirmed skeptics . Suck it up.
Next, you denigrate thousands of professionals with advanced degrees by implying that they were tricked into signing. They are not fools, they can read a simple statement, and sign it if they agree. More than 31,400 agree that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
Next, Phil Clarke says: Most of the signatories (>15,800) are actually engineers rather than scientists, let alone climate scientists and given that there are around 2 million graduate engineers in the US this gives a positive response rate rather lower than a junk mailshot. Unconvincing.
Really, Phil? 31,400+ is an overwhelming sample of U.S. scientists and engineers; a much bigger sample than professional pollsters use. Further, they cannot submit by email, they must sign a hard copy, and either pay the postage and mail it, or hand it in in person. Each co-signer went out of his/her way to express their view. That means more than the handful of board members of an organization, doubled and squared. It is reality vs baseless propaganda. Let’s see you produce even 10% of the number of OISM signatures who claim that CO2=CAGW. The fact is that the alarmist crowd has repeatedly tried, but failed to get even 10% of OISM’s 31,400+ signatures. Obviously, the Consensus is entirely on the side of scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientist]. And only a deluded climate alarmist would denigrate engineers. Engineers and scientists sent men to the moon. But if a group of scientists competed with a group of engineers to do the same thing, there is no doubt that the engineers would win the contest. Further, all engineers are scientists. But not all scientists are engineers.
Face it, Phil, this isn’t a battle you can possibly win. You are simply arguing with bluster. There are far more scientific skeptics than climate alarmists, as the number of OISM co-signers proves.
I challenge you to produce more than 31,400 signatures from professionals in the hard sciences, stating that CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate disruption. Hell, I challenge you to produce 10,000 signatures. Or even 5,000. Put up or shut up, Phil.
joeldshore says:
August 4, 2012 at 7:09 am
Smokey says: “Ah, but absolutely true. And posting a paper by Mann in support of Mann has zero credibility. I get my Tiljander info from someone honest: Steve McIntyre, who is destroying Michael Mann because of Mann’s transparent dishonesty — the only thing that Mann is transparent about.”
Let’s look at Smokey’s logic here:
(1) Smokey says something incorrect about what Mann et al.’s paper says or doesn’t say.
(2) I show it is incorrect by linked to THE ACTUAL PAPER IS QUESTION!
Now let’s look at Joel’s logic.
1. Smokey says that Mann knew about the problems with the post-1700 Tiljander series, that he still used them, and that he used them in a manner inconsistent with Tiljander’s own interpretation.
2. Joel offers proof that Mann *didn’t* do that by saying “Read Mann’s paper.”
*koff*
“Why’d you shoot Bart, Jesse?”
“I didn’t shoot Bart, Sheriff.”
“Ten witnesses say you pulled your six-gun and put three rounds into him.”
“Looky-here, Sheriff! See? I still *have* three bullets in my six-gun!”
richardscourtney says: August 4, 2012 at 10:43 am
For example, the Russian Academy of Sciences is predicting imminent cooling (n.b. cooling and not warming)
Russian Academic Oleg Sorokhtin , for some years now has advised against the warming euphoria.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
Extrapolation of the 350 year CET record supports conjecture of a forthcoming cooling.
Smokey says:
August 4, 2012 at 10:55 am
“I challenge you to produce more than 31,400 signatures from professionals in the hard sciences, stating that CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate disruption. Hell, I challenge you to produce 10,000 signatures. Or even 5,000. Put up or shut up, Phil.”
This is in danger of becoming an “appeal to authority” post, but you did
ask.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
Entropic,
I note that you have failed to produce even my lowest, easiest challenge: produce 5,000 co-signers who believe that CO2=CAGW. Key word: failed.
Either produce signatures of alarmist scientists, or admit that the consensus is not on the side of the alarmist crowd [which is in reality quite small], but that the consensus is on the side of scientific skeptics.
Ball’s in your court. Produce the signatures, or you lose the argument.
Dr. John Christy:
“Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.”
* * *
If we all just say “we do not know” . . .
A starting point on the end. . .
In nature, everything has happened in the past, do not hesitate, but not always for the same reasons.
macnmat:
Dr Christy was presenting scientific information.
Your post at August 5, 2012 at 10:45 am goes to the heart of a difference between science and the Precautionary Principle. It says;
The Null Hypothesis is a basic principle of science. It says that
It must be assumed that a change has not happened unless there is evidence that a change has happened.
In the case of climate behaviour,
the Null Hypothesis decrees that the cause of an observed climate change is the same as the cause of similar previous climate changes unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Dr Christy was pointing out the scientific conclusion that the Null Hypothesis decrees that – at present – there is no evidence that climate behaviour has changed since the industrial revolution: this is because there is no observed climate behaviour since the industrial revolution which did not happen before the industrial revolution.
This conclusion is the only valid scientific conclusion concerning the cause(s) of recent climate changes. And the fact that this is the only valid scientific conclusion on the matter is why Trenberth infamously attempted to reverse the Null Hypothesis as it applies to climate change.
The conclusion informs that we need research intended to determine the cause(s) of climate change because, as Dr Christy says,
“Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.”
The Precautionary Principle says the industrial revolution may have changed climate behaviour so we need to reverse the industrial revolution in case it has. This is the antithesis of science.
Science has given us many benefits. The Precautionary Principle has yet to provide any benefits.
Richard
And, the PP has probably killed a lot of people in the process of blocking the implementation of scientific progress. Not just hundreds or thousands. (I fully expect the anti-nuke crowd to chime in – go live in an electrically-heated dwelling in Germany or Scotland, on a pensioner’s income.)
richardscourtney says:
August 6, 2012 at 2:36 am
Part (I):
Firstly let us see what we have in common:
1. Null hypothesis; thanks for your gentle reminder. Certainly your definition is perfect.
2. Null hypothesis generally has total control over our actions and relationships. By definition, all people are innocent of any charges unless it is proven otherwise.
3. You say; “Science has given us many benefits. The Precautionary Principle has yet to provide any benefits”; yes it’s often true, but not always.
4. Generally I feel positive about comments offered by Dr. Christy.
So, we may have unity in this regard.
Part (II):
What I doubt about:
You say;
“The Precautionary Principle says the industrial revolution may have changed climate behaviour so we need to reverse the industrial revolution in case it has. This is the antithesis of science.”
***
1. I think this is not “Precautionary Principle”, however it can be part of your “understanding and interpretation”.
2. The “Precautionary Principle” is a “Principle” not a “Hypothesis”. By scientific definition “Principle” is “Principle”, it cannot be changed.
2. “The Precautionary Principle” is not necessarily synonymous with “reverse” to the past. I didn’t understand your argument. Logically, this condition is never achievable. So probably your logic is not correct, neither is your understanding of the “Precautionary Principle”.
3. Maybe this simple example can clarify the matter; you may be faced with frost on your winter trips, the tires on your car should be equipped with safety devices. This condition is a wise precaution. Relying on “Null hypothesis” and using the “Precautionary Principle” you start your travel safely.
Part (III):
In the case of climate behaviour,
1. Before the Industrial Revolution, the planet was only influenced by natural factors. For ease of expression, let’s call this era briefly as “cause”.
2. Gradually, after the Industrial Revolution, the human intervention was added to the set of natural factors. This condition did not exist at all in the past. Let’s call this course briefly as “cause+”.
3. The difference between “cause” and “cause+” is the impact of GHGs on the climate, regardless how large the amount may be. As a matter of fact, this cannot be ignored; GHGs including CO2 have an impact on the climate. This has been continually tested and proven through nearly a century of primary research.
4. What can be the meaning of evidence here, industrial revolution or its aftermath? This of course is a long discussion. Both the outcome of this era in terms of GHGs “quantity” and “quality” are quite important. I’d rather make things easier. Industrial revolution means CO2, soot or (BC) Black Carbon. The reason is that MAN makes GHGs as well as nature itself. THIS IS NOT THE MAIN ISSUE; THE REAL QUESTION IS HOW LARGE THE IMPACTS ARE.
5. I read good things about the matter of GHGs especially CO2 somewhere; “we should not be worried about CO2 in the atmosphere imminently leading to an Armageddon Scenario. But that does not mean we should not research the issue at hand, the better to understand any future potential complications at play.”
macnmat.