Quite a performance yesterday. Steve Milloy is calling it the “Zapruder film” implying it was the day the AGW agenda got shot down. While that might not be a good choice of words, you have to admit they did a fantastic job of shooting down some of the ridiculous claims made by panelists prior to them. While this may not be a Zapruder moment, I’d say that it represented a major turning point.
Give props to both Roger and Roy.
Marc Morano reported:
‘Senate global warming hearing backfires on Democrats’ — Boxer’s Own Experts Contradict Obama! — ‘Skeptics & Roger Pielke Jr. totally dismantled warmism (scientifically, economically, rhetorically) — Climate Depot Round Up
‘Sen. Boxer’s Own Experts Contradict Obama on Climate Change’ — Warmists Asked: ‘Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?’ For several seconds, nobody said a word. Sitting just a few rows behind the expert witnesses, I thought I might have heard a few crickets chirping’
Video link and links to PDF of testimonies follow.
Here is the video link, in full HD:
http://www.senate.gov/isvp/?type=live&comm=epw&filename=epw071813
Dr. Spencer writes about his experience here and flips the title back at them:
The PDF’s of each person’s testimony can be accessed by click on their names below:
Panel 1
| Dr. Heidi Cullen
Chief Climatologist Climate Central |
| Mr. Frank Nutter
President Reinsurance Association of America |
| Mr. KC Golden
Policy Director Climate Solutions |
| Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Senior Fellow Manhattan Institute for Policy Research |
| Dr. Robert P. Murphy
Senior Economist Institute for Energy Research |
Panel 2
| Dr. Jennifer Francis
Research Professor Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University |
| Dr. Scott Doney
Director, Ocean and Climate Change Institute Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution |
| Dr. Margaret Leinin
Executive Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute Florida Atlantic University |
| Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.
Professor, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research University of Colorado |
| Dr. Roy Spencer
Principal Research Scientist IV University of Alabama, Huntsville |
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 20, 2013 at 5:11 pm
I know what the T in TSI stands for, & that on average about 45% of it arrives at visible wavelengths, ~54% in the IR spectrum & only a little more than one percent at shorter wavelengths (UV & X-solar radiation). However, & please correct me if wrong, my impression is that about 5% of the TSI reaching the surface is UV. Therefore, it seems possible to me that a variation of, say, around three to seven percent UV could make a difference (don’t know the actual fluctuation, but that it’s about a factor of two). That’s a lot of energy, entering water of different depths, temperatures, salinities & optical properties, enough perhaps to affect how it moves around.
Plus, UV is an even bigger chunk of the TSI that actually penetrates seawater in most cases. Some of the surface-incident IR doesn’t even make it into the water, due to spray, foam, what have you, & that which does rarely reaches even a meter in depth. It seems to me that the small amount of UV in TSI must do a disproportionate amount of energy transfer to the oceans.
Just for the record, during the hearing, Dr. Roy Spencer repeated a claim which is factually incorrect. He claims that his “satellite temperature data” measures the temperature of the entire Earth. But, his best data, the MSU/AMSU TLT set, provides values only between 82.5N and 82.5S. Areas nearer the poles are not measured, these grid points calculated by interpolation. Furthermore, the TLT calculation combines data from only 8 scan positions out of the available 11, leaving out the 3 in mid swath, which are the least affected by stratospheric contamination. Also, the outermost 4 positions are used to positions are used to correct the data from the other 4, the stated intent being to remove the stratospheric cooling influence which was the reason that the raw channel 2 data (the Mid Tropospheric or MT set) is useless for climate assessment. (See Spencer and Christy, 1992b)
Of course, Spencer repeats his claim that his data represents a “bulk average temperature of the atmosphere” when the MSU instrument actually measures the integrated microwave energy in a narrow frequency band. This emission is compared to the emission from a known thermal source and from deep space, which was originally called “brightness temperature”, but which Spencer and Christy decided to re-name as simply “temperature”. It’s well known that the measurements include effects from the surface and from the stratosphere, but S & C have ignored those effects. I showed that there was a large error in the data when compared to balloon data over the Antarctic, which caused RSS to exclude high altitude areas from their data, especially poleward of 70S. (doi:10.1029/2003GL017938, 2003)
Furthermore, S & C have never publicly presented the method which they used to produce their TLT algorithm. And, they have not offered any analysis of which I am aware which validates that algorithm, especially at high latitudes where the tropopause varies in height during the year. Until such time as this method is provided, Spencer’s claim to scientific rigor is lacking to my mind.
milodonharlani says:
July 20, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Not to mention that UV naturally penetrates ice & snow better, as well.
If nothing else this charade should make skeptics even more sure of themselves. To hear the warmists running from the “settled science” of atmospheric warming to the oceans means the skeptics were right. We said their claims were bogus and now they are basically admitting it.
It is also important to witness the outright lies and attempts at misinformation by the Heidi and her fellow warmists. They are running scared. I mean come on, the changes in rain fall over New England is the best evidence they can muster? Or, talking about the Arctic while ignoring the Antarctic? These are all easily shown to be worthless arguments.
And then they bring in an Insurance guy yet harp on the funding of the Energy Institute? How ridiculous is that. The Insurance industry benefits greatly from spreading climate fears.
Of everything I saw I believe the shredding of the extreme weather lie will turn out to be the most important. Any congressman that starts spewing that nonsense can be pointed to “the record” where the unrefuted scientific position is there have been no increases.
E. Swanson … ignore UAH. Use RSS if you don’t like Spencer. The answer is the same.
@Leif
Sorry this is so far down, Anthony gets a lot of comments between the time I go to sleep and wake UP – The whole other side of the world gets to comment.
Doesn’t the magnitude 0.1% or maybe 0.5% even using TSI depend on earth’s response to different wavelengths. So for example could not the change in the UV result in upper atmosphere heating, which by virtue of the laws of thermodynamics, slow down the rate of conduction/Convection from the surface by creating an inversion (Anthony, you’re the Meterologist?) In this sort of case we might have a situation where amplification could occur, by heating a small layer of atmosphere we could markedly change the rate of conduction/convection loss from a lower layer. Has the warming effect of every wavelength been investigated in detail for different mechanisms of interaction? UV ionizes particles, does this have an effect, say on cloud formation , or albedo (yes via Hydroxyl radicals) or even smog (though these are likely cooling effects of increased UV). Even ozone itself has temperature effects since its a greenhouse gas, increased UV means increased ozone, does it not?
Also, I already pointed out that the Solar and Luna perigee do correspond strikingly to the occurrence of floods in Queensland Australia. Clearly the climate minimums do correlate broadly to solar events, the prima-facie evidence is that the Sun does control earth’s climate. We know the gravitational effect changes the air pressure which controls wind (not much but hey, we aren’t talking about much) and it changes ocean distribution. I think therefore it is very premature to say, there are NO mechanisms other than TSI where the sun can affect the earths climate. Is it not prudent at this point to say we don’t know enough yet about the interactions, rather than boldly “It is not the sun” ?
Leif, the math says it’s clearly not GHGs, so if it’s not the sun then what is it?
Richard M says:
July 20, 2013 at 6:52 pm
I would like to see hearings in the House that reverse the ratio of alarmists to skeptics. And put the skeptics on first, so that the Members & cameras are still there when they testify.
Oh, & could the committee please grill taxpayer-ripoff artists Trenberth & Schmidt?
milodonharlani says:
July 20, 2013 at 5:55 pm
my impression is that about 5% of the TSI reaching the surface is UV. Therefore, it seems possible to me that a variation of, say, around three to seven percent UV could make a difference
TSI varies 0.1%, 5% of that is 0.005%. A variation of that 0.005% between 0.003 and 0.007% is a variation of total energy from 0.098% and 0.102%, hardly anything to write home about…
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 20, 2013 at 7:03 pm
The proportion of UV to longer wavelengths varies by a factor of two. It’s not the variation in TSI that might matter, but the fluctuation in UV. Call TSI invariable for sake of simplicity. IMO, climatically significant differences are plausible at 2% UV, 53% IR & 46% visible vs. 1% UV, 54% IR & 46% visible, translating into at the sea surface, say, 7% UV, 50% IR & 43% visible vs. 3% UV, 52% IR & 45% visible, but more importantly at a meter to 40 meters depth, double the amount of incoming UV (with no IR & hugely reduced visible).
With ice cover, again the UV component will have most of the energy. Visible light can penetrate clear blue ice surprisingly far, but even more so the higher energy short wavelengths.
Maybe this has been studied, but I’ve not found it. Experimental climatology has been torpedoed by GIGO modeling. Freeman Dyson is eloquent on this point.
What is frustrating to me is that we have no one in the Senate that can put sentences together that that appears they understand the science. I know that Whitehouse is only regurgitating what he is told, but Sessions looks like he is ready to gaff into a soundbite that would kill the effort. Seeing him quote a Kingston Trio song during testimony makes me hope his family doctor was watching and scheduled a cat scan.
@ur momisugly milodonharlani
Excellent point perhaps Leif can enlighten us.
While UV represents a small part of the insolation, is this in fact the Number of photons or the “Total Energy”. What are the impacts of say X-Ray or Gamma ray photons from a raw energy point of view since they can penetrate as far as the stratosphere. What weather effects do these high energy particles cause? Can they cause inversions suppressing convection?
george,
Negative cloud feedback is an interesting proposition, but no more interesting then any other potential albedo related negative feedback arising from dust, ice sheets, snow, vegetation, etc.
Co2 impacts long wave radiation, and so does water vapor. The question is why the two are in the atmosphere at all (i.e. why is it ocean warm enough to emit the two?). Without an alternative explanation, one is restricted to pulling apart the AGW assumptions such as:
1) The ocean and it’s enormous heat capacity simply has no consequence besides hiding Trenberths heat and causing 15 years pauses in global temperature!
2) Without Co2 there is no water vapor because the surface is frozen because there is no GH effect without Co2!
Yes, it’s all very likely ridiculous bullshit. Problem is no one can show it to be so.
milodonharlani says:
July 20, 2013 at 7:16 pm
It’s not the variation in TSI that might matter, but the fluctuation in UV.
Since percentages may be confusing to some folks let us use energy in W/m2 instead.
7% UV, 50% IR & 43% visible vs. 3% UV, 52% IR & 45% visible
Since all of TSI varies 1.5 W/m2 over the cycle, UV will [with your numbers which are not correct to begin with] vary between 7% of 1.5 W/m2 or 0.105 W/m2 and 3% of 1.5 or 0.045 W/m2. Compared to total TSI of 1361 W/m2 that is between 0.000077 and 0.000033 of the whole. Still nothing to write about.
On the bright side, no one was actually watching this, which basically means that there isn’t much likely hood of any ground breaking, us destroying new laws going to be created anytime soon. If the CAGW crowd can’t generate any media enthusiasm there it is less likely that any senator is going to waste his/her time creating a new law that wont pass anyhow. Having the voice of reason there in the form of Pielke and Spencer put a serious dent in the “show” as far as new law being generated. The idea in something like this is not to debunk the CAGW crowd but to demonstrate that we aren’t going to die tomorrow and keep things on an even keel. Governments rarely look farther out than 10 years, with most folks sticking to the next election. The best win for a debate like this isn’t that we change someone’s viewpoint but that we rob them of the momentum to get some useless and dangerous laws passed. So BRAVO to Pielke and Spencer for a job well done!
By the way, hasn’t ocean acidification been fully debunked ad nauseum? Seeing it brought up again seems simple alarmist.
Alvin says:
> By the way, hasn’t ocean acidification been fully debunked ad nauseum? Seeing it brought up again seems simple alarmist.
It has. But being debunked does not seem to cause nausea to anybody at the source of its funding:
http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk
See, it’s a new field of research. It is getting some traction among policy makers. But there is still much to be understood. Please send more money.
bobl says:
July 20, 2013 at 7:33 pm
I always look forward to Dr. Svalgaard’s comments. As a true man of science, he does my alma mater credit, of which service it is in sore need.
I like your inversion hypothesis. There is so much to learn about the earth, yet so much time & money has been worse than squandered on GIGO computer models.
When considering UV, of course that old bugaboo from the ’70s, the ozone hole, rears again its ugly head. Another reason why science cannot truly even assess what is the sign of human effects on climate, if any, net.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 20, 2013 at 7:39 pm
I know the numbers aren’t precisely correct. They were meant to be illustrative. My point is that solar energy effectively delivered to the upper 50 m, let’s say, of the ocean will roughly double from the high to low of UV share of TSI.
PS: Energy in W/m2 is IMO the right way to consider the fluctuation in order to assess whatever its climatic effects might be.
bobl says:
July 20, 2013 at 7:33 pm
What are the impacts of say X-Ray or Gamma ray photons from a raw energy point of view since they can penetrate as far as the stratosphere.
Apart from the fact that they don’t penetrate to the stratosphere, their total energy is minuscule, about one millionth of TSI.
PPS: I don’t need to be highly precise anyway, since the blog is blessed to have Dr. S. here to tell us what the range of observed percentages actually is. Thanks! But mine were close enough for IPCC work.
BTW, I have a good reason for commenting here on a northwestern quarter hemisphere summer Saturday night. No doubt so does everyone else.
I mean half hemisphere.
milodonharlani says:
July 20, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 20, 2013 at 5:11 pm
I know what the T in TSI stands for, & that on average about 45% of it arrives at visible wavelengths, ~54% in the IR spectrum & only a little more than one percent at shorter wavelengths (UV & X-solar radiation). However, & please correct me if wrong, my impression is that about 5% of the TSI reaching the surface is UV. Therefore, it seems possible to me that a variation of, say, around three to seven percent UV could make a difference (don’t know the actual fluctuation, but that it’s about a factor of two). That’s a lot of energy, entering water of different depths, temperatures, salinities & optical properties, enough perhaps to affect how it moves around.
The variability in UV is between 200-300nm which is blocked by the atmosphere and therefore doesn’t reach the surface, so there is no variation in the UV energy entering the ocean.
milodonharlani says:
July 20, 2013 at 7:46 pm
My point is that solar energy effectively delivered to the upper 50 m, let’s say, of the ocean will roughly double from the high to low of UV share of TSI.
No, the UV variation will cause TSI to vary between 1361.045 and 1361.105 [using your numbers] assuming that UV was to only things that varied. Then you have to subtract because of albedo and divide by 4 because the Earth is round, so the numbers become from 238.183 W/m2 [min UV] and 238.193 W/m2 [max UV]. Still nothing to write home about.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 20, 2013 at 8:14 pm
As you must know, albedo of UV-A & UV-B is very low. High energy means high penetration.
Indeed, the Earth is round, but 70% of its surface is saltwater, which UV penetrates farther than visible light & IR. I’d like to see these physical facts studied.
Also, it’s possible that energetic effects that seem nothing to write home about could have out-sized climatic effects.
Or it could just be the Margaritas talking.