UPDATE: Dr. Judith Curry’s transcript of her verbal testimaony is online here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/25/congressional-hearing-on-policy-relevant-climate-issues-in-context/
Skeptics outnumber alarmists at House of Representatives session today
Subcommittee on Environment Hearing – Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context
Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context
Purpose
On Thursday, April 25, 2013, (10AM ET) the Subcommittee on Environment will hold a hearing entitled Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context. The purpose of the hearing is to provide Members a high level overview of the most important scientific, technical, and economic factors that should guide climate-related decision-making this Congress. Specifically, this hearing will examine the current understanding of key areas of climate science necessary to inform decision-making on potential mitigation options.
Background
Climate science—and climate-related regulatory actions informed by such science—are among the most complex and controversial issues facing policymakers. After several years of relatively quiet legislative and regulatory activity within Congress and the Executive Branch, climate policy is again receiving renewed attention.
Since winning re-election in November, 2012, President Obama has increasingly signaled his intention to propose significant, new executive actions and regulatory measures aimed at addressing climate concerns. At his inaugural address in January, the President stated:
We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.
The President elaborated on this at last month’s State of the Union address, and indicated he would direct his Cabinet to propose specific actions for his consideration. Specifically, he stated:
But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.
The good news is we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.
While it is unclear what specific form the President’s proposals will take, it has been widely reported that new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations restricting greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plant facilities will serve as a centerpiece of the President’s climate efforts. In March 2012, EPA proposed greenhouse gas regulations for new power plants.1 While this rule has yet to be finalized, the Agency’s Regulatory Impact Analysis that accompanied this proposal emphasized some of the key challenges associated with incorporating uncertain scientific, technological, and economic information into such regulatory decisions:
When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious challenges. A recent report from the National Academies of Science (NRC 2009) points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of information about (1) future emissions of greenhouse gases, (2) the effects of past and future emissions on the climate system, (3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical and biological environment, and (4) the translation of these environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise serious questions of science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional.2
This characterization is indicative of the likely challenges associated with future climate-driven regulatory proposals as well. Therefore, it is likely that Congressional review and response of such proposals will be heavily informed by the understanding of a combination of science, technological feasibility, and value judgments such as economic tradeoffs and opportunity costs.
1 http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/79c090e81f0578738525781f0043619b/9b4e8033d7e641d9852579ce005ae957!OpenDocument
2 http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/egughgnspsproposalria0326.pdf
The purpose of this hearing is to examine key factors that will guide these decisions, particularly as they relate to the understanding of climate change-related risks facing the country, associated probabilities and uncertainties, and the costs and benefits of various mitigation proposals.
Witnesses
Dr. Judith Curry, Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Dr. William Chameides, Dean and Professor, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University
Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, President, Copenhagen Consensus Center
==============================================================
LIVE WEBCAST LINK:
http://mfile.akamai.com/65778/live/reflector:39667.asx?bkup=39949&prop=n
Bjorn Lomborg clearly exposed that current greenhouse subsidies are costing at least ten times more than any benefits of reducing greenhouse costs. Better to do nothing than Congress’ current wasteful subsidy policy.
Gregory F. Nemet (2006) found:
The $50 billion on energy R&D that Lomborg advocated would yield very high returns and is still only the average of what the energy industry should be spending on R&D. e.g. UTC’s $1 billion investment into R&D made aircraft propulsion (bypass fans) 15% more efficient and is projected to double Pratt & Whitney’s market to a commanding share.
Dr. Curry just recites standard denialist talking points and pseudo science. I know, because Dr. Mann said so on twitter, and he is a Nobel laureate!
/sarc
Latimer Alder says:
April 25, 2013 at 9:12 am
I thought Chameides was a shifty and untrustworthy sort of cove…..he could barely conceal his conviction that the elected reps. were halfwits.
=====
I’d have a hard time with that if I were in his shoes. In general, they are halfwits. Guam might tip over, you know.
@OldWeirdHarold
You may think the reps. are be halfwits, but they’re the ones the voters elect to decide their policy and distribute their largesse. That’s how democracy works.
The academics can feel intellectually superior to them as much as they like (and many of them take that as an article of faith), but if they make it too obvious they will likely be feeling superior in ‘an impoverished frame of mind’.
In the end..he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Dr. Chameides really showed that he’s in it to advocate for a particular policy direction when it was brought up that the estimated 1% of GDP required to fight climate change would not be insignificant saying “It’s 1%” obviously implying that it’s such small price to pay we shouldn’t even be arguing about it.
Well, Dr. Chameides the estimated increase in down-welling IR heat flux from doubling CO2 is 3.7 W/m2 and the estimated total down-welling IR heat flux from the GHE is about 333 W/m2, so the percentage of greenhouse effect enhancement is about 1.1 %. I guess that 0.1% makes all the difference between something being insignificant or catastrophic.
That last question pertaining to the uncertainty of cAGW and what plan the scientists/politicians had to back out of the economic havoc wreaked by cAGW proponents if they are wrong, resulted in the silence of crickets chirping !!!
After watching Dr. Curry’s testimony, I reiterate that I am all for Doctor Curry replacing Hansen and taking over Hansen’s old helm.
I believe it is also within the director’s purview to move the research center if they so choose; even to Georgia.
You might be a lukewarmer if you believe that man is responsible for at least some measureable amount of the warming last century, without supporting evidence, but that the amount is nothing to worry about. It’s a harmless belief, like believing in ufos.
atheok says:
April 25, 2013 at 10:47 am
“After watching Dr. Curry’s testimony, I reiterate that I am all for Doctor Curry replacing Hansen and taking over Hansen’s old helm.”
I don’t know if I am brave enough to think that thought. My knee jerk reaction is that such a move is impossible for the Obama administration. However, Dr. Curry’s appointment to Hansen’s job would be the best thing that ever happened to climate science.
I used to try to post comments over at Bill Chameides’ blog TheGreenGrok. It was a waste of time. Even though he’s in NC (Duke) he completely misrepresents N.C. lawmakers decision to base policies on actual empirical sea level data rather than wild eyed projections based on busted climate models:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/08/01/2234915/nc-cant-outlaw-global-climate.html
“Dr. Judith Curry’s transcript of her verbal testimaony is online here:”
Technically that is just a prepared statement not a transcript of her verbal testimony. I would consider any Q/A with the committee to be part of her verbal testimony and even just in giving the initial statement, her spoken words can deviate from the prepared statement as written in advance.
I wasn’t terribly impressed with his testimony. I was far from impressed by his answers to the questions at the hearing’s end. Dr. Chameides left some whoppers in the attendee’s ears; especially the 1000’s of years of reconstructed temperatures from ‘many paleo sources’ that show that this warming is higher than it has been for thousands of years.
I wish someone in the audience sneezed with a loud “Hockeystick!” when Chameides said that. He tried to avoid answering that question, but when cornered dropped that sound bite. He was also cornered on exactly how is it proven that we know what the residency time for Man’s CO2 to remain in the atmosphere. Chameides avoided answering but said we know by studying atmospheric CO2 isotopes for fossil fuel signatures.
Dr. Lomberg did not say anything directly untruthful that I heard. He strongly advocated subsidizing research for CO2 remediation science before picking any technology. Dr. Lomberg used ‘fracking’ as an example describing how fracking technology took fifty years of development; but when fulfilled, how the fuel it supplies is far more efficient and cleaner. The key emphasis in that whole description was when the technology developed it was/is sought after with research and industrial development paid for by private firms. (Funny, not one word of free market or capitalism was mentioned.)
Ms. Edwards (I believe I have her name correct, maybe), a bureaucrat was there to obtain that clear scientific conclusion that CO2 action is urgent!. Her ears were open though, and she apparently heard clearly that climate science is not settled though she didn’t like that testimony. I also didn’t get the impression that she is a devoted CAGW alarmist; I did get the sense that she has already received her marching orders and that she is a devoted dedicated employee. As I and a number of other people I’ve worked with believe in, when your boss gives a direct order to march; marching is immediate, details will get worked in over time. As one of my bosses yelled one time, “All I want to see are asses and elbows busy doing their work NOW!, or pick up your pay and pink slip”. With training like that, marching is immediate. Experienced soldiers quickly learn that the order they are following is the last order given, preceding orders are over-ridden.
So, while I was disappointed in some of my impressions of Ms. Edwards; I did think she was a very valuable and intelligent employee. Ms. Edwards looks to have solid potential in any organization. What she needs is a boss who can be coaxed by real information.
testimaony
Don’t like to correct your text, it’s a waste of time if one can read it but testimaony made me chuckle.
Testi (y) = angry Moany = miserable and yes I know the mistype is maony.
Now the testimonies will have no effect at all on oblarny’s aims and objectives. He will ensure that the evidence says what he wants. He is a very ungifted liar but heck, that doesn’t matter when you are talking to idiots.
This is a note to all of the posters here unfamiliar with hydraulic fracturing and the note is especially to Bjorn Lomborg. Mitchell did not invent hydraulic fracturing! His company did not even invent hydraulic fracturing in horizontal well-bores or horizontal drilling. What Mitchell did was understand the potential to hydraulically fracture an organic-rich source-rock shale to make economic natural gas production. Then he took the leasing, drilling and technology/economic risk of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Bjorn was wrong in his testimony. Hydraulic fracturing was patented by my company (Stanolind OIl, which became Standard Oil of Ohio, which became Amoco, which was bought by BP). And, hydraulic fracturing in horizontal wells was being done by large oil companies on a test basis in the 70s and 80s. Mitchell only started hydraulically fracturing horizontal Barnett Shale wells in the late 90s.
http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/archives/2010/12/10Hydraulic.pdf
In my opinion, the service companies like BJ, Haliburton, and Schlumberger and others like them embraced and improved hydraulic fracturing over time, but it ain’t much different than the process first tried in 1949 that was used to develop one of the largest gas fields in the continental US, the Hugoton-Panoma gas field in Kansas. Unbeknownst to Bjorn, hydraulic fracturing was not first used widely starting in the 1970s. Almost every low-porosity/permeability well drilled in the US during the 50s, 60s and 70s was hydraulically fractured in an almost identical way as those wells drilled and hydraulically fractured today.
One other point, the DOE got into researching hydraulica fracturing in a big way during the nineties and beyond. They spent a lot of money, lots of money! Having been a member of of some of the joint ventures with the DOE funded government groups and the consortia universities, I would have to say that these efforts had no impact on the industry or the economics of shale gas production. The government and universities were so far behind the service companies in R&D, that I think the money was more useful in keeping government researchers employed and collage professors in money to support student education. Not saying that this is necessarily bad, but some of the comments I am hearing today about the government having an R&D impact on the shale gas boom in any way is flat out wrong.
What really happened to get the government involved with industry research was that the cold war ended and the government labs were trying to save themselves from extinction, thus needing to find a nice big research efforst to attach themselves to, using the DOE energy initiatives and taxes on the industry to support these fellas. We were barraged by roaming bands of government researchers, trying to “help” using government funds, our funds. Well the joint efforts bore little fruit, so we left them to write mostly anachronistic reports well after we lost interest in a given joint project. However, now that the state and federal governments have woken up politically to the public perception of hydraulic fracturing, that awakening is forcing regulatory change that affects the technology, The service companies again lead these changes in the technology, not government or university research.
Curry and Lomborg are not skeptical of AGW alarmist claims…Really? Such comments give me the creeps. And they give skepticism a bad name. Skepticism is not a dogma but an attitude of inquiry. To call Lomborg out seems rather unfair when the earliest published skepticism of the Hockey Stick that I have come across is in the updated English translation of his Skeptical Environmentalist, published in 2001. The second wave of skepticism (which this blog rides) was founded in the critique of the Hockey Stick, and yet now you renounce one of its boldest pioneers if only because his skepticism has delivered more moderate conclusions to yours.
Agree that Lomberg stole the show and made some very good cases for R&D which I concur with. Too bad LFTR’s aren’t part of the green energy R&D discussion, at least China,India and the UK are working in that vein and I’m sure it will bear fruit sooner than later ; the US and Germany can play catchup
herkimer @ur momisugly April 25, 2013 at 7:10 am
“These events are caused by sudden warming of the stratosphere air which is compressed and sinks down”
It has always been my understanding that as air warms it expands and rises. By what mechanism in this case does it compress and sink down?
herkimer @ur momisugly April 25, 2013 at 7:10 am
“These events are caused by sudden warming of the stratosphere air which is compressed and sinks down”
It has always been my understanding that as air warms it expands and rises. By what mechanism in this case does it compress and sink down?
Stephen: you are, of course, absolutely correct in calling out my mistype (Dyslexia combined with age and clumsiness is always challenging in a literate world. Thank God I can type my mistakes rather than write them. As I’ve frequently admitted over my career, I am a computer typist, backspace is required! So is proofreading which usually fares better; c’est la vie and enough whining…
I greatly enjoy your slightly twisted sense of word play and accept your correction and in preference, your suggested new word as it usually does apply to climatics dogma conferences.
Aye, I’d heartily second your statement if only for Dr. Lomberg’s charts on CO2 remedial and ‘green’ energy cost effectiveness and his firm R&D statement.
I do feel he missed a few chances during the question phase to clarify his CAGW CO2 stance, (some undetermined non catastrophic warming IMO) and whether or not it is important that America spend $Billions$ immediately for green technology. While Dr. Lomberg’s fiscal statement’s about where $37 billion dollars could be cut from government trough’s right now is a wonderful statement, he didn’t back it up with a solid ‘no!’ about spending now for green lunacy, so that the benefits will accrue and we’ll think them worthy in future decades.
Then again, perhaps his look when he answered that question was actually a bit dumbfounded because didn’t he clearly show how inefficient and wasteful America’s throwing money at ‘pork barrel business solutions is? (My words completely, not Dr. Lomberg’s) only to try and force)
That particular question, by the committee’s cochair I believe, had been aimed at the scientists to try and force a ‘consensus’ that global warming was so important that immediate action was required.
atheok says:
April 25, 2013 at 10:47 am
You are forgetting who the current occupant of the White House is.
I think Dr. Curry’s chances of being appointed to Hansen’s post are lower than those of Michael Mann.
In all honesty I will cancel my TV subscription if the USA drags Canada into a cap and trade carbon market.. I will fire the MSM and most of Hollywood out of my house.. Never to return..
I think a little more than 1200 dollars a year will help..
Stick it to them where it hurts.. Their bottom line..
ty
You are partly right . My understanding is that SSW start from very intense storms in the lower atmosphere. They eventually brake through to the lower stratosphere where they cause major sudden warming and pressure increase. The warm air under higher pressure now radiates heat and sinks[under pressure], resulting in a mound of relatively warm air under high pressure to develop around the pole . Existing cold Arctic air is pushed away from the poles . These can be so intensive that they litearlly can split the polar vortex in two causing cold air fronts in Europe and North America and changes in the wind direaction blowing cold air from the north east as we saw in the case of UK.
The Fortune Cookie (1966)
00:47:49 Double talk! $3700 worth of double talk!
Time – Phrase
00:47:42 ..that the evidence is definitely inconclusive.”
00:47:46 “Enclosed is a bill for our services and a list of our expenses.”
00:47:49 Double talk! $3700 worth of double talk!
00:47:53 You know, this case has been getting a lot of publicity.
00:47:56 We could save the insurance company money if we settle.
Sadly, I haven’t forgotten that horrible advocate working on emperorship elected to the oval.
As you and Theo Goodwin point out, and I’m sure others feel, Doctor Curry’s prospects to gain the post are unlikely.
Still the thought of such an unlikely event still plays giddy with daydreams of infamous GISS employees and coordinating organizations when they learn who holds the NOAA/GISS leash and control over myriad troughs of climate funds.
Many thanks for the background and clarification on fracking!