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 |
Just for the record, I am an optimist but also a realist. You can make the best performance of your life but in a company of cheats and liars with no serious audience attending you could just the same make your performance at the moon.
E. Swanson says:
July 21, 2013 at 2:31 am
“Over many years, Spencer, like most successful salesmen, has overstated the utility of his product. Only this time, he did it before Congress and making false statements in testimony is against the law. I think he could be charged with perjury, the result of which might be that his funding would be eliminated.”
Well it’s the Obama administration, they don’t need any reason to do anything. So that’s a pretty moot point. When you wake up in the morning you know you haven’t been droned in the night.
[snip – as warned upthread, argue the science, not the man – Anthony]
Since we got into solar variation a few things come to mind.
1) If one assumes the peak temperatures of the Holocene are the real solar based equilibrium then the periods below that point would have some other cause. Oceans, clouds, volcanoes, etc. So, if we accept this assumption that means the cooler periods like the LIA were due to losses of energy into the planet from these Earth based factors. And, once these systems stop their cooling mechanism the Earth should return to the equilibrium condition. Hence, it is not necessary to invoke changes in the Sun at all. The normal unimpeded energy from the Sun will warm the planet back to the equilibrium temperature whenever cooling mechanisms stop.
So, the Sun can be the reason we are warming and could account for the warming from the LIA without needing any variations in UV or any other solar mechanism.
2) While discussing the small amount of UV it got me wondering what the percentage of surface LWIR is available in the frequencies where CO2 absorbs energy. Does anyone have a number? Also, what percentage of that overlaps with water vapor and/or other GHGs?
E. Swanson, why do you care about the polar temperatures? No one lives in the areas that are not monitored. So, even if there are changes it hasn’t impacted the rest of the planet or it would show up in the readings for the rest of the planet. In fact, if the Arctic permanently warmed without affecting other areas why would you care? Wouldn’t that actually be good?
Just another example of placebo politics. The decisions have already been made. The Committee meetings are simply window dressing. w
milodonharlani says:
July 20, 2013 at 11:19 pm
Still, at the height of the UV ratio v. IR ratio, the oceans are penetrated more deeply by twice as much shortwave radiation.
When I said that your numbers were not right in the first place, I was referring to your factor of two. The variation of UV that reaches the surface is not a factor of two, but only a couple of percent.
bobl says:
July 21, 2013 at 1:56 am
and thus the best statement that can ever be made in science is “To the best of our current knowledge,…”.
This is trivially true for every scientific statement, so is usually simply understood without having to be tediously repeated after every statement made,
If the solar mechanism acts partially through UV it is not likely to be doing so at the surface of the Earth.
===============
R. de Haan
The impression I got wasn’t that they were looking to understand or learn anything. My impression was that they were just they looking for ammunition to justify their policies. Of course I could be wrong, of course I hope I am wrong.
Richard M wrote July 21, 2013 at 6:32 am:
E. Swanson, why do you care about the polar temperatures? No one lives in the areas that are not monitored. So, even if there are changes it hasn’t impacted the rest of the planet or it would show up in the readings for the rest of the planet.
—
Well, the people who have built all those GCMs have been saying for decades that the polar regions will warm faster than the rest of the Earth. Therefore, it makes sense to look to the polar regions for the strongest evidence of climate change. The fact that the sea-ice extent has declined the past 15 years and that the resulting area of multi-year ice has crashed is such evidence and this means that the Earth is entering a new climate phase.
The fresh water released each year by the extensive melt is expected to have a major impact on the global ocean, such as the sinking of waters to the deepest parts of the Atlantic, known as the Thermohaline Circulation. A weakening or shutdown of the THC would tend to cool Northern Europe and change the patterns of atmospheric flows, such as the positions of the Jet Streams. And, a warmer, ice free Arctic Ocean would be expected to become a source of increased atmospheric moisture in winter, leading to increased snowfall over high latitude lands which now experiences little snow in Winter. The Arctic might begin to experience snows like that around the Great Lakes, which produce “lake effect” snow falls that can paralyze transportation in the surrounding cities. I think we may see climate conditions similar to those at the end of the Eemian interglacial, which appears to have been warmer than now, but which then ended with a return to Ice Age conditions. Tell us, what triggered the transition to the last period of Ice Ages, some 120,000 years ago?
On a philosophical note: let us try PD for a change – playful design. Partially good designing, partially bad designing, and a lot of chance and chaos left to happen. Like in climate 😉
Not much is happening. The facts must not get in the way of the elitists’ global warming agenda. More taxes, more government regulation and control with no real impact on the climate. Who benefits? Who loses?
“””””…..lgl says:
July 21, 2013 at 1:55 am
george
http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/segelstein81.gif…….”””””
Now did I, or did I not, describe that graph, almost exactly ?? My graph which dates much earlier, does not have the 10nm to 150 nm region, but it has the rest.
And I read the pertinent point values, almost to a tee.
Thanks for that reference
PS My graph has the 100nm to 10 micron region, on one graph, and a second one for the low frequency stuff, so I have better resolution. It would be nice to have the numericals.
“””””…..milodonharlani says:
July 20, 2013 at 10:55 pm
george e. smith says:
July 20, 2013 at 9:15 pm
Sir, I would draw your attention to the study linked below, which analyzed IR & UV penetration of a comprehensive sampling of oceanic water conditions:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16613490
The observed findings are that in open ocean UV penetrates deeply, as one would rationally expect. Also in a wide variety of other seawater conditions. Other studies have found the same, as indeed would be intuitively obvious……”””””
Well, so I checked YOUR reference, just as you posted it. I found not a word about any penetration depth; in particular the word “deeply” occurred nowhere.
Come to think of it, exactly no penetration depth numbers were there; as in no numbers at all.
BUT !!
I’m far more intrigued by your assertions: “””…as one would rationally expect….”””
“””…as indeed would be intuitively obvious….”””
So I’m denser than most folks here; so humor me, and explain in simple terms I can understand, WHY one would rationally expect your belief, make it intuitively obvious for one who doesn’t seem to grasp how any physical data, seldom measured can be intuitively obvious.
Just offhand, what do you expect (rationally) would be the intuitively obvious UV penetration depth, in say Arabian crude petroleum; just in case anyone wanted to know.
The actual data numbers I presented from the 1960s, are exactly duplicated in a Masters thesis from 1981, and you now have BOTH of those citations posted here, to compare with your intuitively obvious data, which somehow presents NO numbers at all.
Well, after slogging through this thread, I can only conclude that to many scientists it matters not what your level of knowledge or expertise may be regarding your discipline. Only how you answer the question “are you now, or have you ever been, a Christian?”.
Where is the heat going?
So what about biomass?
There was a study done which suggested that 60% of atmospheric water vapour comes from plant transpiration and only 40% from evaporation (www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/full/nature11983.html). And given that atmospheric humidity levels have declined despite increasing CO2 levels (http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/01/atmosphere-humidity-noaa-scientists-determine-reality-opposite-of-climate-model-prediction.html) and given that most plants respond to increases in the air’s CO2 content by displaying reduced stomatal conductances, which typically leads to reduced rates of transpirational water loss (http://www.co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/transpiration.php),
Isn’t it then possible that the expected temperature increase due to the modeled CO2/H20 feedback did not occur because the biomass has decreased the output of water vapor. This may also be related to a solar influence, but what do I know…
======================================================================
So if he said your baby was cuter than his we should assume he was wrong? Have you scientifically examined evidence concerning CAGW or ID regardless of “the consensus” as honestly as he has?
Don’t bother to answer. We already know.
Again, what does it matter what he believes about the origins of the natural laws that surround us as long as he understands them and is honest with them as they relate to his field of expertise?
Question for Dr. Svalgaard
In may of 2012 it was activated IHY aerial system instilled in Barajevo near Belgrade, Serbia, which apparently was part of the High-frequence Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), operated by Dr. Morris Cohen from Stanford University. .
In subsequent months there was lot of speculation of all kinds in the local press.
Now it was reported, just over a year later that system is switched off, buildings are locked up and deserted, and electricity supplies disconnected.
Dr. Svalgaard do you know if this could be a setback to the Auroral Research, assuming such research is important for understanding of interactions between solar and geomagnetic fields ?
Roy Spencer is both a scientist and a gentleman. It is a fundamental principal of what gentleman believe in, that a gentleman shall search for the truth, shall at all times attempt to be honest in discourse with friends, colleges, and with the public.
Spencer’s presentation, based on my understanding of science and life, to congress was factually correct. Spencer spoke of observations and analysis that supported the lukewarm CO2 forcing hypothesis. In addition Spencer made a couple of comments concerning the origin of life and of ‘god’.
All of the current planetary temperature observations support the lukewarm CO2 hypothesis. There has been a 16 year period when there has been no warming. The regions of the planet that warmed in the last 70 years are the same regions of the planet (high Northern latitude regions and the Greenland Ice sheet) that warmed in the past when there was a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum. There are 23 warming cycles in the paleorecord with a variable occurrence of 1000 years, 1350 years, and 2000 years between cycles. The 23 warming cycles were all followed by a cooling phase during which time there was a Maunder minimum of solar magnetic cycle activity. The sun has entered into an unexplained drop in solar magnetic activity. Based on observations the sun will be spotless by the end of this year.
What is currently happening to the sun is related to what causes spiral galaxies to evolve, the spiral galaxy rotational anomaly, and the expansion of the universe.
Comments:
There are a set of puzzling connected non random anomalies in astronomy. As I am interested, passionate about anomalies, I have read everything written in the public domain concerning anomalies from all sides of the scientific discussion at great detail. There are an interesting set of observations that have been interpreted to support the hypothesis that the universe formed from a big bang roughly 14 billion years ago. The alternative hypothesis is that the universe is infinite. The infinite universe hypothesis has ‘theological’ implications. If life has had an infinite amount of time super advance life forms will have time to evolve. Super advance life forms are scientific as opposed to an old guy with a beard. What is currently happening to the sun will support/explain how the infinite universe hypothesis is possible.
Lots of discussion of Roy Spencer’s religious beliefs, but those of Jennifer Francis seem more relevant for climate and weather. As stated on Judith Curry’s blog, she opened her remarks at the senate committee hearing “It seems the weather gods have recently gone berserk….”. I’m assuming she is referring to Zeus, the chief weather god I am familiar with (Fantasia movie, throwing lightning bolts), and his minions. Good for her!! A scientist can have religious convictions and do excellent scientific research, too. My take-away from her opening remark is that we can make all the measurements, modeling, and theories we can come up with for climate and weather, still in her belief system, the climate and weather we get in the real world ultimately depends on the mood of the weather gods. As for myself, I am pleased that my planet is recognized as a high ranking member of the heavenly host.
“”Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.””
Before Googling, guess.
So if CO2 is a trace gas in a vast vast sea of GHG, invisible, odorless, tasteless w/zero signal above natural variability, perhaps “they” do have a God? Just saying. And thanks to the good Dr’s. It takes courage to stick your chin out there w/such religious zealots pressuring them to toe the line (hide the decline). And let’s hope the decline means we can cancel project sackcloth (volcanic winter) plans? You know the brainiacs had to be planning some crazy bs like that?
george e. smith says:
July 21, 2013 at 11:28 am
I posted a link to the paper’s abstract. You can access the whole article in .pdf format. Search for its title: Penetration of Ultraviolet Radiation in the Marine Environment. A Review
When you do so you’ll find many tables showing the penetration of UV-A & UV-B in different bodies & types of water, in great detail.
For instance, in the Western Pacific at 30S, you’ll see that UV-A penetrates 25 meters, at the 10% level, just as I said.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 21, 2013 at 6:58 am
Re. variation in UV flux at the surface.
In that case, never mind.
vukcevic says:
July 21, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Dr. Svalgaard do you know if this could be a setback to the Auroral Research, assuming such research is important for understanding of interactions between solar and geomagnetic fields ?
This is an unfortunate thing and will impede progress, although not be a setback to research.
William Astley says:
July 21, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Based on observations the sun will be spotless by the end of this year.
And if it is not, you ideas are clearly wrong.
What is currently happening to the sun is related to what causes spiral galaxies to evolve, the spiral galaxy rotational anomaly, and the expansion of the universe.
Now you are venturing into nonsense-land. I’ll do you one better. It all begins with the 33th prime number: 137. The inverse of the ‘fine structure constant’ is 137/COS(pi/137) = 137.036… The fine structure constant is the Coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interactions [something here for Vuk, even]. Or the ratio of the orbital velocity of the inner-most electron in the Bohr model of the atom to the speed of light and it is also the ratio of the maximum angular momentum allowed by relativity for a closed orbit and the minimum angular momentum allowed by quantum mechanics [something for the Angular Momentum freaks]. Now there are [itself a magic] seven ‘magic numbers’ in the Universe all controlled by this constant. Peter Sturrock of Stanford University observes that the inner core of the Sun rotates 12.85 times in a year. This rotational period and the inverse fine structure constant are the keys to the Universe via the relation Value = Core period * alpha ^ n [where alpha is 137.036] and n runs from 0 by 1 to 6: http://www.leif.org/research/Nonsense-Numerology.png The R^2 coefficient of determination is 0.999995 so the correspondence with observations is as good as it gets. Everything is laid bare and explained. Don’t you agree?