PRESS RELEASE August 2, 2012
Contact:
Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov
Katie Brown Katie_Brown@epw.senate.gov
Inhofe Exposes Another Epic Fail by Global Warming Alarmists
Photo Posted by KFOR and Think Progress
The dumpster fire that caused the melting lights
Photo Provided by KFOR
Link to Think Progress Blog Post
Link to Watts Up With That: Alarmist fact checking – street lights don’t melt at 115°F
Washington, D.C. – Today the far-left blog Think Progress posted a photo (originally posted on KFOR’s facebook page) of street lights in Oklahoma that had melted, they claimed, because of extreme heat. Global warming alarmist Bill McKibben took to Twitter immediately to publicize what he believed to be proof of global warming, tweeting to Senator James Inhofe (Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Senator Inhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture.”
Not long after the picture surfaced, Oklahomans posted comments on Think Progress’ blog saying that these lights had melted due to a fire – which makes sense considering that the two front lights were melted while the two back lights remained unscathed. Once this news came to light, Think Progress immediately removed the post and provided an update that reads: “After we published this piece, we saw reports from people on the ground in Stillwater that the melting streetlights were due to a nearby fire. The person who took the photo, Patrick Hunter, described the scene: ‘Being the person that actually took this photo, I’d say that this was due to a fire semi-close by coupled with the unbelievable heat we are experiencing.’ Still an amazing photo and not fake as many are saying on here. Enjoy!”
This afternoon, KFOR confirmed that the melted lights in the photo were not caused by hot temperatures but a nearby dumpster fire.
“Poor Bill McKibben – he’s been trying to get something to melt for ages but it keeps backfiring,” Senator Inhofe said. “These alarmists never learn their lesson. Remember Bill McKibben was the one who was going to melt a giant ice sculpture in the shape of the word ‘hoax’ on the national mall, but his group had to cancel because there wasn’t enough interest. Now, after proclaiming that street lights in Oklahoma are melting because of global warming, we have confirmation that a fire caused this scene.
“Amid the resurgence of hysteria from my friends on the left, I appreciated climatologist Dr. John Christy who testified this week before the Environment and Public Works committee saying that instead of proclaiming this summer is ‘what global warming looks like’ 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.’
“This isn’t the first time alarmists have tried these stunts and it certainly won’t be the last – when will they finally realize they’ve lost this debate?”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Eric Grimsrud:
At August 5, 2012 at 6:09 pm you assert:
How? And why?
Also, if your unsubstantiated assertion were right, then so what?
According to the ice core data which you claim to accept, in the past when temperature fell the CO2 continued to rise for centuries, but that CO2 rise did not stop the temperature falling and then dragging the CO2 down.
Please here provide succinct explanation and do not claim the erroneous assertions on your blog explain these matters (they don’t).
Richard
Smokey:
Grimsrud is even more wrong than you say at August 5, 2012 at 8:38 pm where you write to him:
In fact, water vapour absorbs/emits IR much more effectively than CO2 because it absorbs/emits across the entire IR spectrum in the atmosphere but CO2 only absorbs in two narrow wave bands.
Richard
Smokey says:
August 5, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Entropic,
Not just on timescales of Ice Ages. On time scales of a few decades, too.
CO2 is a function of temperature. Is there any doubt?
There is a doubt, or we would not be arguing this point.
At this time we should be seeing temperature and then CO2 driven down by the Milankovich eccentricity changes presaging the next glacial period.
Instead we find ourselves in a new situation. The first intelligent organism on the planet is burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon dioxide in large enough quantities to raise the level way beyond normal interglacial levels.
This has reset our climate to a pattern usually seen early in an interglacial as rising insolation triggers increased CO2. We have restarted the positive feedback loop that stabilised some 6000 years ago, with no clear precedent from paleoclimates to guide our analysis of the result.
Entropic,
The only doubt is in the addled minds of True Believers.
Entropic man:
re. you post at August 6, 2012 at 4:53 am.
Additional unsubstantiated assertions are NOT evidence that an original unsubstantiated assertion is correct.
The evidence which Smokey has provided (and linked to) shows your original assertion is plain wrong. If you wish to dispute his evidence and/or argument then I would be pleased to learn your disputation.
Your addition of more unsubstantiated assertions suggests that you think Smokey is right.
Richard
To All,
Note that Richardscourtney just said:
“For example, you (that’s me) write: “The most abundant permanent, well mixed GHG is CO2…”Co Wrong. Water vapor, which is permanent and well mixed atmospheric component, comprises between 1 – 4% of the atmosphere vs CO2′s 0.039%. And it absorbs/emits IR like CO2”
First, please note that this a direct quote and not something I have implied. So let’s talk about water vapor. Most of what Richardscourtney says that is dead wrong and even childish.
1) First, water vapor is not a “permanent” component of the atmosphere because the amount of water vapor changes rapidly due to its continuous evaporation and condensation. At a given location we might have very humid days and very dry days.
2) Water vapor is not “well-mixed” throughout the atmosphere. Its concentration varies greatly with both changes in location and altitude. As one goes up to the top of the troposphere the temperature decreases and so does the concentration of water vapor. At about 8 miles above me, the T is about –70 degrees F and there is very little water vapor. This T barrier to water vertical water transport is why the stratosphere above is so dry (thankfully for several reasoons).
3) Sure it comprises 1 to 4 % of the atmosphere – but only in the lower regions of the troposphere.
4) Therefore water vapor is considered to be a “feedback” GHG, not a “forcing” GHG and certain not permanent and well mixed GHG
5) In contrast, what we call the ‘permanent” GHG’s stay in the atmosphere for significant periods of time. Methane has a life time of about 10 years. Nitrous oxide about 100 years, the chlorofluorocarbons about 100 years and the excess levels of CO2 many centuries.
Thus, it is the permanent GHGs that initially cause T to increase. As T does increase, more water vapor can then enter the atmosphere and, if so, the T goes even high. Note: If the world had no permanent GHG’s and only had its water¸ the Earth would probably cool to its “snowball” condition of several million years ago.
I have addressed this note to “All” because, with his comments above, it is clear that he does not even know the very simplest and basic aspects of climate science and will only try to fool you into thinking that he does. What I have explained here is essentially “grade school” basics of climate science. Watch his next post. You will not see a simple and direct discussion as I have given here – that is, one that you can understand yourself. Instead, we will try to “snowball” you with a change in subject from this issue of water vapor other people or other “stuff” that you will not understand yourself but might think “sounds good”. I have stated before what I think of this man and need not repeat it here.
And in my last post I should have added:
6) And the permanent GHG’s are “well –mixed”. That is, their concentrations are the same everywhere in background atmosphere. Their relative abundance to not change with changes in temperature or altitude.
ericgrimsrud:
I kindly offered to help you with your much needed education in radiative physics. You have not answered that kind offer but, instead, at August 6, 2012 at 6:57 am you provide another diatribe of erroneous twaddle.
As has become habitual with your diatribes, I will not bother to refute it all but merely point to something outrageous as an example of the diatribe’s content.
In this case, you misquote me, I actually wrote (at August 6, 2012 at 1:25 am):
That is true.
And you then attempt to refute your misquotation of me by providing an illogical argument that water vapour is not a significant greenhouse gas but CO2 is. That illogical argument is based on a series of silly statements which you list: this is the first in that list
But on that basis CO2 is not a “permanent” component of the atmosphere, either. Indeed, atmospheric CO2 varies more than humidity at localities on both daily and annual time scales.
Indeed, this is why Keeling established the Mauna Loa station as the site to measure atmospheric CO2 because he determined that site has the smallest of these variations.
All your other points are equally wrong.
Richard
Eric Grimsrud:
I still await your explanation of your unsubstantiated assertions which I requested at August 6, 2012 at 1:16 am.
Perhaps your subsequent diatribe was an attempt to divert attention from your failure to provide that explanation?
Richard
Reblogged this on Hector Hugo and commented:
I’d heard about this press release but thought that the person telling me had simplified the story. Nope, seems as though it was initially reported as a “climate change” effect – and a very specific, one-side of the lamp post global warming effect at that!
To All:
For the sake of completion, I might have also added the following two points to my recent discussion of the GHG’s
7) So water vapor does indeed provide the greatest amount of total GHG warming – due to its feedback effect. It is not an initial “forcing agent” however, as the permanent GHG’s are. Again without the permament GHG’s, the concentration of water vapor everywhere in the world, even near ground lever would go to near zero.
8) The relative concentrations of all of the permanent well-mixed GHG’s are found to be very constant at all locations in the atmosphere – even well up into the stratosphere – all long as one is not sampling near either a source or sink for that particular GHG. Thus in sampling for CO2, in order to get a “background” air sample one has to sample well away from its sinks (such as trees) and its sources (such as power plants). Thus, for CO2 sampling we use very remote sites all over the world, including mountain tops and the south pole.
All of this (my points 1-8 concerning the GHGs) is exceedingly well known in climate science, and is related in all text books on the subject as it has been, of course, in the initial chapters of both my book and my short course at ericgrmsrud.com.
To All,
For your convenience, I have pulled all of my previous points concerning the GHGs together here for your easier consideration.
1) First, water vapor is not what we call a “permanent” component of the atmosphere because the amount of water vapor changes rapidly and greatly – even at points far away from the sources of water – due to its continuous evaporation and condensation that is affected by temperature differences and changes .
2) Water vapor is not “well-mixed” throughout the atmosphere in that its concentration varies greatly with both changes in location and altitude. As one goes up to the top of the troposphere the temperature decreases and so does the concentration of water vapor. At about 8 miles above me, the T is about –70 degrees F and there is very little water vapor. (This T barrier to water vertical water transport is why the stratosphere above is so dry, thankfully for several reasons).
3) Water comprises 1 to 4 % of the atmosphere – but only in the lower regions of the troposphere. In the upper atmosphere its concentration approachs near zero.
4) Therefore water vapor is considered to be a “feedback” GHG, not a “forcing” GHG and certain not permanent and well mixed GHG. Thus water vapor “amplifies” the warming effect of the permanent and well-mixed GHGs.
5) In contrast, what we call the ‘permanent” GHG’s stay in the atmosphere for significant periods of time. Methane has a life time of about 10 years, for example – after which it is converted to CO2. Nitrous oxide, about 100 years, the chlorofluorocarbons, about 100 years and the excess levels of CO2, many centuries.
6) And the permanent GHG’s are “well –mixed”. That is, their concentrations are the same everywhere in “background” atmosphere. Their relative abundances do not change with changes in temperature or altitude.
7) So water vapor does indeed provide the greatest amount of total GHG warming – due to its feedback effect. It is not an initial “forcing agent” however, as the permanent GHG’s are. Again without the permament GHG’s, the concentration of water vapor everywhere in the world, even near ground lever would go to near zero.
8) The relative concentrations of all of the permanent well-mixed GHG’s are found my direct measurements to be very constant at all locations in the atmosphere – even well up into the stratosphere – as long as one is not sampling near either a “source or sink” for that particular GHG. Thus, in sampling for CO2, in order to get a “background” air sample one has to sample well away from its sinks (such as trees) and its sources (such as power plants). Thus, for CO2 sampling of the “background” atmosphere, we use very remote sites all over the world that are far from sources or sinks, including mountain tops and the south pole.
All of this (my points 1-8 concerning the GHGs) is exceedingly well known in climate science, and is related in all text books on the subject as it has been, of course, in the initial chapters of both my book and my short course at ericgrmsrud.com.
Thanks for your attention to some of these basic points concerning the GH effect. For much more please do consider having a look at my “short course” at ericgrimsrud.com.
ericgrimsrud:
Your post at August 7, 2012 at 7:52 am again fails to provide an explanation of your unsubstantiated assertions which I requested at August 6, 2012 at 1:16 am.
Instead it provides more – and similarly wrong – unfounded assertions.
Can we now agree that you cannot explain your unfounded assertions because you know they are wrong?
Richard
To All: Please reread my post on August 5, 8:54 AM. It included my estimation of a couple of pseudo scientists who have been doing their best here to confuse the general public on the issue of AGW. Subsequently, they have exposed their ignorance of the basics of the science and one of them continues to do so. All I will say in response is: read their and my entries since then and ask yourself who makes sense and who does not. The basics are not all that difficult to understand – a bit of common sense goes a long ways. The argument is not about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, even though such arguments can, indeed, sound very impressive when frequent mindless “put downs” are sprinckled in. As you have noted, I am done with these guys – “when you play with S, all that can happen is that you might get S on you”. As always, I will trust the audience to distinquish real science from quackery.
Eric Grimsrud:
It is clear that you are as ignorant of the natures of science and pseudoscience as you are ignorant of climate science.
Science consists of attempt to achieve the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by attempting to falsify hypotheses and amending them in the light of evidence.
Pseudoscience consists of seeking evidence to ‘prove’ a belief is ‘true’.
Your postings here are – without exception – clear examples of pseudoscience. Hence, it seems that your accusations of others being “pseudoscientists” are psychological projection.
Insults and arrogance are not an adequate substitute for reason, references, and logical explanation.
You have snowed this thread with silly and plain wrong assertions. I am sure that your assertions are not egregious: they are a display of your arrogance, ignorance and self-delusion.
When you can provide justification for your silly assertions then people will start to take you seriously. But until then you are ‘blowing smoke’.
Richard
Friends:
Eric Grimsrud has a method of debate which has been seen before. It is this
http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/10000/2000/600/12611/12611.strip.print.gif
(hat tip to Smokey for the link)
Richard
To keep denying what we can see and feel, and know to be fact is moronic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opid81mxkkI. And http://article.wn.com/view/2012/07/25/97_of_Greenland_ice_sheet_melting/
Inhofe chooses to make big on mistakes that don’t amount to the whole world suffering like his opinion will do as a flunky for the fossil fuel industry. He’s still harping on the email controversy that was resolved long ago. We should be demanding a better explanation as to what he meant by his admission on the Rachel Maddow show that he basically believed global warming to be true until he saw what it would cost to contain CO2. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/16/446008/inhofe-maddow-global-warming/.
Profit before lives as always in the U.S. Inhofe should be removed from the senate environmental committee. He’s dangerous as are all the other deniers because last years U.S. drought cost over $10 billion. And the Fed already released $30 million to farmers for this years drought that will continue to ripple and cost. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/drought/story/2011-11-10/drought-south-midwest/51159668/1.
The logic here is that if we can buy Cheney’s 10% principle to go to war with Iraq over WMD’s than we should surely be employing that principle to global warming. That principle stated that even if there was only a 10% chance Iraq had WMD’s, then it was our responsibility to act to prevent their use. Well ditto for global warming since Mother Nature can be the worst weapon we ever face.
Valeria Rogers:
For sake of argument, let us assume you are right.
In that case the costs of adjusting to the putative man-made global warming would be less that the costs of avoiding it.
So, in the unlikely event that the AGW-hypothesis proves to be right and some unusual climate change occurs, then the cheapest option is to adapt to it.
And in the likely event that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong (so nothing unusual happens to climate), then there is no need to do anything.
A politician who fails to recognise this is failing his/her constituents.
And the costs are horrific.
Please remember that the only way to significantly constrain CO2 emissions is to curtail the use of fossil fuels and – at present – there are no viable alternatives to the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy for large-scale energy supply. People need energy to survive, and the most conservative projections of human population are that the population will increase by 2.6 billion before the middle of this century (when it will start to fall). Those additional people need an increase to energy supply for them to survive. Hence, constraining usage of fossil fuels at their present level of use would kill billions of people (mostly children).
You are arguing for that cost in death and suffering merely because an improbable hypothesis may be observed to provide discernible effects at some future date. Frankly, I am appalled at such an immoral suggestion which – if adopted – would make relatively insignificant the combined activities of Ghengis Khan, Adolf H and Stalin.
Furthermore, your WMD comparison is invalid. A nuclear attack would have large and sudden effects. Any AGW would be a slowly developing effect if it were real
Richard
[Moderator’s Note: Richard, my apologies. Valeria’s screechy little rant should not have been approved because of the egregious policy violations. I’ve snipped it and didn’t save a copy. If Valeria wishes to resubmit her comment without the nastiness and insult she is free to do so. My reading is that attempting to carry on a dialogue with her would be a waste of bandwidth. -REP]