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.
David:
As you say, it is “illuminating”.
Importantly, each model is emulating a different climate system because each model uses a different value of climate sensitivity,. But the Earth only has one climate system. So, all (except at most one) of the models are NOT emulating the climate of the real Earth.
This problem is not overcome by averaging multiple model runs or by averaging outputs of several models: average wrong is wrong.
And add to that the fact that all the models use climate sensitivity values which are in error by an order of magnitude or more.
Simply, the climate models are known to be inappropriate tools for projecting future climate.
And this is known because it is known that they each use a wrong value of climate sensitivity. Hence, I hope you can see why I impudently answered the question which Grimsrud addressed to you.
Richard
To All,
For those of you who do not know much about the literature of the Ice Core Record, you might start at “The Open Atmospheric Science Journal” volume 2, (2008) pages 217-231. This extensive paper is authored by many scientists from many different universities and research institutions. I refer you all to this one because it is free to the public on the internet.
To those of you who have actually looked my web site or my book, my apologies for sending you to that literature again. As you know, all of this with references has been summarized there.
Grimsrud,
The Vostok ice core record shows that rises in CO2 always follow rises in temperature.
That right there debunks your conjecture, my friend.
Tony B:
I write to say that I agree with your suggestion in your post at August 5, 2012 at 11:00 am. It agrees with the physics (theory) and observations(empiricism) of existing climate sensitivity.
While writing, I again ask you to try and get Anthony to post one of your papers on WUWT. Your work on climate history is fascinating and informative. I learned from it and I think others would like to learn from it, too.
Richard
A question for Grimsrud:
Like ice?
How much ‘warming’ is too much warming?
Would it be a good idea to ‘wind’ CO2 levels (and ostensibly the temperature) back to the era (approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago) of the Wisconsin Glacier?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation
.
Grimsrud’s cite turns out to be Hansen et al 2008 which is one of the most debunked papers in history. Yes, that would be the same Hansen that predicted that Manhattan would be under water by 2000. The same Hansen that set out scenarios A, B, and C, which embarrasingly for him, have not only failed to materialize, but we are now at CO2 levels in excess of his worst case scenario and temperatures below his best case scenario. The same Hansen that contrived to shut off the air conditioning in the room prior to his testimony as a psychological tactic. The paper cites a range of claims that anyone with even a limited background in physics and climate science could debunk to the average high school student.
Tonyb;
The logarithmic nature of CO2 is a matter that the warmists studiously ignore, but I am in agreement with you, in fact I will take it a step further.
We are currently at close to 400 ppm of CO2. If the warmists engage on the issue at all, they attempt to couch everything in terms of pre-industrial concentrations of 280 ppm. When you are an alarmist, your goal of coarse is to present everything in the worst possible light. So, 280 plus 100 is a 36% rise in CO2 concentrations, and they predicate all their if-then scenarios on those numbers.
But the truth of the matter is that we are already at about 400 and doing just fine thank you, and we cannot return to 280 ppm, we have what we have. At 400 + 100, we’re talking about only a 25% rise. The law of diminishing returns comes into play.
Further still, I don’t think a lot of people think through the matter of sensitivity in the context of a logarithmic effect. A 40% increase in CO2 implies that we should have already seen something over 50% of the effect of CO2 doubling. If sensitivity were as high as Grimrud’s ridiculous claim of 6.5 degrees, even with a huge lag in the system, we’d have seen several degrees of warming already. The fact that we haven’t, in fact over the last century we are just barely over the warming rate of the previous century by about 0.1 degrees, points to the logical conclusion that sensitivity is low.
The warmists cannot have it both ways. If sensitivity is high, then the effects would be pronounced and measurable. If sensitivity is low, then the discussion doesn’t much matter.
On top of it all, the warmists like Hansen continue to claim that warming from CO2 will increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapour, and that increased water vapour will have a positive feedback on temperature. Unfortunately for Hansen et al, the data from the very institutions they work for shows that water vapour has been falling for several decades, not rising with temperature. They do some hand waving about aerosols from China, but the truth of that matter is that Europe and North America have made massive improvements to air quality over the last 50 years that much more than simply compensate for emissions from China.
The logarithmic nature of CO2 is, as far as I am concerned, the stake in the heart of the warmist meme. It is no wonder that they avoid discussing it like the plague.
That’s right, Smokey. On the timescales of ice ages CO2 does follow temperature. For the last million years changes in orbital eccentricity have varied the amount of heat reaching the Arctic by about 6%. High winter heating goes with interglacials. Low winter heating goes with glaciation.
When Milankovich warming increases the temperature increases. This liberates CO2 from land and ocean sinks. Increased CO2 increases radiative forcing and increases temperature. The process continues in a positive feedback loop until the system stabilises about 5C warmer and 280ppm Co2.
When the insolation reduces again, the cooling effect allows more CO2 to dissolve in the oceans and the reduced CO2 promotes further cooling. This leads to long term cooling of about 0.3C per milennium as a new cold period approaches, culminating in widespread glaciation. This stabilises 5C cooler with about 200ppm CO2.
The graph you linked to shows this very well.
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?
David:
You are in illustrious company when (at August 5, 2012 at 1:39 pm) you say to Tony B:
Richard Lindzen has been making the same point for years. For example, in his article at
http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html
he includes this:
(my emphasis, RSC)
Richard
To DavidMHoffer:
Lets get right to an analysis of your comments about the paper I referred you to.
First, so James Hansen and the 20 other authors of that paper are also idiots, are they? I in excellent company there, those guys probably also have resumes! And you have references, I hope, for your claim that this paper is the ‘most debunked in history!!” Or was that just sort of a “gut feeling” you have (references on that one would help, pleases!)
Concerning why the temperature of the Earth has risen less than 1C so far when the Sensitivity, S, for CO2 is thought to be about 6.5C
1) As you say so far CO2 have risen by 40% and has not yet doubled.
2) The Thermal inertial of the oceans delays warming by couple of decades.
3) The increase in particulate matter during the industrial age causes cooling, the force for which is thought to be about 1/3 as great as that of GHG warming.
4) We are still in the fast feedback era where S is expected to be about 3C.
5) Note that if we let CO2 levels remain high for over a century, the slow feedback effects will gradually kick in, raising S to about 6.5C.
Concerning your misunderstandings of the GHG effect:
The passage of IR radiation differs entirely from the passage of visible light through a sample at near room temperatures. As you say, the former process is described by the Beer- Lambert relationship – that is, an exponential fall off of absorbtion with increased sample concentration. In the passage of IR radiation through a sample or through out atmosphere, however, the IR-active molecules in the sample not only absorb but also emit IR radiation. (see my chapter 2 in my short course for a clear demonstration of this important but commonly misunderstood point) Thus, absorption saturation does not occur in the passage of IR through a planet’s atmosphere and the temperature on the surface of Venus, for example, goes up to 400 C)
For such a system, the increase in temperature is the same for each successive doubling of the CO2 concentration. That is why we use the term, S, as a quantitative measure of CO’s heating affect. If the process were as you thought, Mr. DavidMHoffer, the magnitude of S would indeed be meaningless – as you mistakenly suggested it was.
If you’d like to learn more of the basics concerning the GHG effect please refer to my web site. I added that short course specifically for the benefit of the lay public.
Richardscourtney,
In view of having said:
” I don’t think a lot of people think through the matter of sensitivity in the context of a logarithmic effect”
.
You might consider reading my last post to your friend concerning the passage of IR radiation through an air mass. It differs entirely from the passage of visible light through a sample – which you appear to be thinking of.
So it turn out that it would actually be a better thing if people did NOT think of the matter of sensitivity in the context of the logarithmic – as you recommend.
To Climatereason
Concerning your statment:
“This leads me to wonder therefore if the temperature sensitivity and the co2 logarithmic curve has to all intents and purposes been reached once co2 levels reach somewhere around 280ppm and the co2 we are adding now appears to have a very limited effect”
please read my recent comments to DavidMHoffer concerning the passage of IR radiation through an air mass, On Ch 2 of my short course on my website, ericgrimsrud.com, you will also find direct experimental evidence for the process – often not understood by the even weekend scientist because of their association of this process with the passage of visible light through a sample.
To Entropic Man,
Thanks for explaining the Smokey why CO2 followed T changes during the ice ages. I would only add that today we have quite an additional source of CO2 such the CO2 increase will preceed T rise.
I have just two words for Eric Grimsrud. They are the same two words I use for everyone who takes my words out of context in order to rebutt them. The same words I use for everyone who ignores 95% of my arguments in order to selectively respond to the remaining 5% out of context.
I’ll self snip them in advance to save the mods the trouble.
dropping thread
To Jim who asked me:
Richard
_Jim says:
August 5, 2012 at 11:43 am
“Would it be a good idea to ‘wind’ CO2 levels (and ostensibly the temperature) back to the era (approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago) of the Wisconsin Glacier?”
Don’t think so, unless you like “deep lake’ ice fishing. Don’t worry about that however, it will talk many millennia until CO2 ever returns to those levels. It takes a long time to change biological carbon back to geological carbon.
DavidMHoffer, Please, do not venture further into the science as you suggest you will above. As you do, you just get yourself more exposed and I truly do not enjoy “beating up” on the scienticially illiterate. You are now clearly in the “save face” mode, so why not just stop and start learning instead. A far broader knowledge of one’s field is required than you have for free ranging scientific discussions. I’ve seen this too many time below. So please stop and go home. Eric
Grimsrud says:
“To Entropic Man,
Thanks for explaining the Smokey why CO2 followed T changes during the ice ages. I would only add that today we have quite an additional source of CO2 such the CO2 increase will preceed T rise.”
.
When the planet itself falsifies a belief system, normal folks will accept reality. But not Grimsrud or Entropic.
Real world observations demonstrate conclusively that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, as the chart above shows. Effect cannot precede cause [outside of the lunatic world of CAGW], therefore increasing CO2 is an effect of temperature rise, not a cause.
Smokey, Please. Put a match to some gasoline and ask yourself what’s happening. Geological carbon it converting to biological carbon without requiring an increase in temperature first. Look around you also. There are now almost 7 billion people doing this, while there were essentially none during the glacial/interglacial period. Man has now burned almost 500 Gegatons of carbon over the industrial age and about half of that excess is now in our atmosphere (about 1/4 is in the oceans and about 1/4 in plants and soils) Of course all this is expected to cause a T increase in the future as the thermal inertial of the oceans is overcome. One more thought: there are still much more than 15,000 Gegatons of carbon in our remaining fossil fuel and some think that will be OK to use a large portio of it.
Grimsrud says:
“Man has now burned almost 500 Gegatons of carbon …”
Ooh, Gigatons! I guess we should be impressed. Not really.
I am a rational climate realist who knows that adding CO2 [“carbon” to the scientifically illiterate] to the atmosphere is harmless. It is also very beneficial to the biosphere.
So once again I challenge Mr. Grimsrud to try and falsify this testable hypothesis, per the scientific method:
At current and projected concentrations CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere
If Grimsrud can provide testable, verifiable evidence proving direct harm to the planet from the increase in that beneficial trace gas, which has gone from 0.00028 of the atmosphere to 0.00039, then he will be the first to be able to do so.
Have at it, Grimsrud. And good luck.
Smokey, the critical importance of the small concentrations of the permant GHGs have been known for over 150 years. The major components of the atmoshere do not absorb or emit IR radiation. The most abundant permanent, well mixed GHG is CO2 at 393 ppm today. For more, see Ch 1 of my short course. ERic
Smokey, These low concentration GHG’s are the only molecules in the atmosphere that absorb and emit IR radiation other than water vapor. Nitrogen, oxygen and argon do not and the conc of water vapor changes in response to T change. The warming effect of the low conc GHG’s is therefore amplified by an increase in water vapor as a T rise is caused by the permanent GHGs. As in many other examples, it is the low conc components of the atmosphere that provide important functions. See my Ch 1 in my short course for more. Eric
grimsrud,
I note that you are changing the subject and hiding out from my challenge. That’s OK, no other alarmist will touch it either.
And you won’t mind, will you, if I ignore your propaganda course? I find much more accurate information here, and I can view both sides of the debate.
For example, you write: The most abundant permanent, well mixed GHG is CO2…
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.
[Snip. Ad hom. You were warned about public figures who post here. ~dbs, mod.]
Eric Grimsrud:
At August 5, 2012 at 5:00 pm you write:
Please explain the difference between ” a sample” and “an air mass”. As always, your “last post” (of many) makes assertions that have no basis and which you do not support with evidence, reference, and/or logical argument.
I did not make the quote you imply I did.
And, ONLY refer to what I say and NOT what you mistakenly consider I may “be thinking of”.
I only quoted Richard Lindzen and bolded part of that quote. You are deluded if you think you know more about radiative transfer in the atmosphere than him: he is the emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.
Indeed, I am very able to help you with any difficulties you have in understanding the subject; e.g. I made my own system (hardware and software) for quantitative energy dispersive analysis of X-rays (QEDX) and I consider my algorithm for ZAF correction algorithm for the detector gold layer is superior to any commercially available (of course, this is different wavelengths than IR but the basic physics is the same). Ask and ye shall receive.
Richard