Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels writes:
In his introductory remarks, Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant. As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers”.
Judging from his reaction at the end of the hearing, it really got to him.
UPDATE: The entire session is here:
http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=399064
Click on:
•Watch the Archived Hearing Webcast
Dr. Michael’s written statement is here;
Click to access michaelstestimony.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just been watching the full video, how disappointing that most of the US elected leaders seem to be as stupid as my lot over here in the UK.
I’ll bet you our US elected leaders could out do your elected leaders on stupid by a mile or 1.609344 kilometers.
Keep pushing back against the hysteria and extremism with rationality and facts.
Thank you, Dr. Michaels.
“The social cost of carbon” is of course pure fantasy; it’s a fairy tale being sold as “science”. However, the Social Cost of CO2 Mania” is very real, and very damaging.
I have never met anyone who denied that there is a climate.
one more very important benefit of the burned coal: it made electricity that drove the entire world economy!
====================
I’m also surprised that this never gets included as a social benefit. if you want to know if coal is a cost or a benefit, the quickest and surest test is to do without.
stop using coal in the US. stop today and you will quickly know if it is a cost or a benefit. you cannot argue that this is impossible. Obama could sign an executive degree making the possession or burning of coal a federal offence.
the US could then overnight replace coal via energy rationing and fuel substitution. this would yield the sort of CO2 reduction the government is planning and answer the question of whether coal is a social cost or a social benefit.
Well the test you suggest would certainly benefit the undertakers because within a few days without electricity we would be killing each other. I have witnessed the halt of traffic flow in California within a few minutes of a large area blackout because of the loss of traffic lights. Within minutes there were several accidents at intersections which then caused gridlock on a large area. Just imagine what that does for police and emergency vehicle movement. It really goes down hill from there.
Or just plain dying. I live in NC, which is actually one of the top three hurricane states (Florida, and maybe Texas, beat us out). The last category three that hit NC squarely was Fran. I spent a week in Durham without electricity, as it uprooted pin oaks over a meter thick, lifted them into the air, and twisted the power lines around them before dropping them down across the roads. They had to virtually rebuild the electrical grid from scratch down any semi-rural road. This was early fall, and it was still hot out — no air conditioning. No refrigeration — we had to throw out all of our perishable food (including from the freezers) within a day. We had hot water then (gas with a pilot light) and could cook on a gas grill outside (bic lighter) or on our gas stove ditto — but now we wouldn’t have that, because our tankless hot water heater requires electricity. I couldn’t even use my oven now — my gas stove requires electrical power to operate the oven. No lights but candles or oil lamps (we keep a few of the latter just in case). A few years later we had an ice storm in mid-winter that knocked out the power grid for five days. This time it was actively dangerous. No heat! No light at night, and early dusk and late dawn. No hot water. Almost impossible to cook (bless you gas stove!). Refrigeration still an issue, but less so because it was so cold outside.
In both cases, it wasn’t just us — food stores had no refrigeration, no lights. Deliveries were delayed and the stores ran out of key staples (and had a lot of difficulty taking money even then — now it would be impossible because money itself relies on electricity these days. The entire social fabric of most of NC dropped back to the early 19th century almost overnight. 19th century supply lines are literally incapable of supporting 21st century urbanization. If the outages had lasted more than a week, people would have actually gone hungry (and may have in some cases even in a week, but relief workers tried pretty hard to rescue the elderly and poor).
Sometime — this year, next year, in ten years, in 100 years — we will have another Coronal Mass Ejection like the solar storm of 1859:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
This “Carrington Event” was the largest geomagnetic storm ever observed, to this date. There was so much magnetic energy that:
That was low voltage telegraphs with comparatively short runs. This event lasted over 24 hours, long enough for the entire world to experience incredible auroras to the equator, electrical shocks, and a night that never properly got dark.
If this event were to occur today — and it lasted 24 hours — it would blow every electrical grid on the planet. Every single major transformer would be fried, most of them irreversibly broken. It would shut down the electrical energy delivery system worldwide. Microelectronics are very susceptible to overvoltage — every cell phone, every tower, every radio, every TV — it it was plugged in, it would be toast. Think electromagnetic pulse (like the one produced by a nuclear bomb) that does not end powered by the big bomb that is the sun.
We would wake up with the world dropped back to the mid-19th century overnight, but with the needs for food production and distribution associated with huge 21st century urban enclaves. Nothing would move — it is possible that the CME would even fry the alternator of cars and trucks, although the engine compartments might be an adequate faraday cage so maybe not — but either way gas pumps are electric so within a day or two there would be no more gasoline. There would be no money — only cash would work and who carries much of that any more?
Within hours, people would start to die who would not have died otherwise. Hospitals are not equipped with operating rooms and anesthesia delivery systems that can function without electricity. People, especially the poor, would run out of food and local stores would be stripped and not resupplied. There would be looting, martial law, and a general breakdown of social order. And it would not stop! It might take a year or even longer to rebuild the entire distribution system, longer if the CME blew out the actual generator coils themselves. Every major generator or transformer coil might need to be remanufactured as the CME pulse would cause an inductive surge that shorted out the coils internally and fused the shorts. The industrial infrastructure that makes those coils would itself be affected and would have to be bootstrapped, perhaps using military-grade, EMP hardened portable power.
That’s what life without the grid would be like. One single event like this and people would lynch anybody that threatened their electrical supply, because I’m guessing at least a billion people would die before it was over, of starvation, sudden war, breakdown of medical services, violent crime, and social unrest (read — rioting and looting). Most of this would happen in the cities, with the worst of it in the biggest cities. We survived a week of it, because we had plenty of food, working cars, because there was still electricity in some parts of town, because the stores worked hard to remain open and because there was still a cash economy. A month of it? A year? Without any outside of the affected area that continued to function normally to provide emergency relief and replacement parts for the destroyed infrastructure — I dunno. One is back to Alas! Babylon! nuclear war scenarios without the radioactive cities — the complete breakdown of social and economic order.
Me, I like my electricity, and don’t have a survivalist retreat where I can easily regress to Walden Pond and shoot my own deer and raise my own hogs and get by. But one of many, many things to worry about is that our entire electrical supply is not only vulnerable to political predation and global warming hysteria, it is vulnerable to a number of extrinsic risks that could take down all of it (CMEs!) or part of it (EMP bombs, nuclear war, very directed terrorism, economic collapse in general). And the one thing that separates us from kerosene lamps and cooking our beans and rice over a wood fire if at all is electricity!
rgb
So has anybody calculated the induced EMFs and resultant currents one can get in typical closed circuits due to say a massive lightning strike close by. The coupling is rather puny.
So the likelihood of inducing damaging levels of power in circuits from sun events is rather remote, I would say.
Now if such a surge were to scramble some ones and zeros is a controlling computer that then switched short circuits onto the grid, that could do damage; so the problem is not the energy of such events, but the poor fail safe design of grid control systems.
When Monsanto’s chemical process control systems were all hydraulic or pneumatic they just shut down safely in the event of power failures. Now if you brush your hair near the system control computer all hell breaks loose.
It’s not the grid that is vulnerable; it’s the control systems. Trains don’t bash into each other because lightning strikes the track. But a controller malfunction can crash trains.
Hey RGB,
Hurricane Ivan in 2004 brought tropical storm warnings to western North Carolina. More people were killed here in NC than in Florida where the storm made landfall. There was widespread flooding,even in downtown Asheville. Many NC mountain counties received 12-18 inches of rain and big wind. But we are likely more hardy than some folks, say those poor lambs in New Orleans with Katrina.
I’ve seen 5 feet of snow on the blue ridge parkway in March! Asheville, NC power was out in spots for 10 days. My wife’s grandmother refused to leave her home. She boiled eggs and coffee over a candle. No FEMA, national guard, nada – just friends and family. Folks could have used a hand. Without power those most vulnerable are in real trouble real fast.
OK men, let’s determinate social price of carbon.
the unit must be “ton”. Gallon or pound are too small.
Now the price.
* high enough to mean something and justify action. But not too high (to begin with ; it will be raised later) lest it be fearful
* The price must begin with 3. 3 is magic, everyone knows that.
* 300 is too high. 3 is too low. so it must be thirty.
* 30 is round number. That may be fair for many thing, but here it would smell amateurism. no zero.
* 35 and more would be understood as into 40. no way. It must less than 35.
* 33 has too many 3. a 3 is good, two are too much.
conclusion : Social cost must be 31 32 or 34 $/ton.
Plenty of choice …
Now you can run your simulations, guys.
Thank you Dr Michaels;
The real deniers you expose,
But will they ever admit
That the Emperor’s not wearing clothes?
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/they-call-me-a-denier/
Just watched Lowenthal’s questioning period. He is a hack of the worst order. Pathetic that his constituents are fooled into believing that he is a man of substance. His attempt to discredit based on association cannot be refuted by those that testify as the clock runs out. Of course, his donor list is not in question.
Who could have faith in government after watching such a display?
I half-expected someone to point at him when he made accusations of climate denial and yell, “LOOK! SQUIRREL!”
“Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant”
Warmists resort to name calling, the lowest form of argument, because that’s all they can do.
Sadly, Dr. Dorsey has apparently not researched his claim that Alaskan villages are being relocated due to rising sea levels.
From “CLIMATE CHANGE: REALITIES OF RELOCATION FOR ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES:
The problems are softening permafrost and increased coastal erosion due to recent ice loss, not rising sea level (relative sea level is falling as much as −17.59 mm along the AK west coast). And the permafrost melt that exacerbates erosion is not due entirely to warmer temperatures. Early residents did not live in blocks of heated homes separated by dirt roadways.
Is it any wonder permafrost melts and doesn’t refreeze on Kivalina, one of 31 villages cited for relocation?
http://climatechange.alaska.gov/images/cc-dec-kiv1.jpg
Interesting factoids: The President has the authority to force relocation whether or not the inhabitants desire it. The Inupiaq were relocated to Kivalina in 1905, after which more than 70% of the tribe died of disease and starvation. (source)
“…relative sea level is falling as much as −17.59 mm per year along the AK west coast”
verdeviewer
Blast! That implies the pacific plates are shoving under the main AK plate, thus increasing volcano/earthquake activity all along the Aleutian/Alaskan/Canadian coasts …
Well done! Real science pushing back. Thank you!
Thank You Dr. Michaels!
Dr. Michael’s, I liked how you threw the denier label back at them. Well done!
In order for the Earth’s temperature to be stable incoming radiation must balance outgoing radiation, period.
And just when, exactly, was the Earth’s temperature EVER stable? And no computers model’s “proof”, please.
There must have been a big imbalance when the earth became an ice ball 716 million years ago. Does anyone think that was caused by too little CO2?
So what if its specific heat keeps changing all the time ??
Why not calculate sensitivity based on man’s period of civilisation – the past 10,000 years, during which temperatures have been falling.
Tony:
You ask
There are no direct measurements of temperature or atmospheric CO2 concentration over “the past 10,000 years”. We only have proxy indications of those parameters over that time and those indications are not sufficiently accurate or reliable for them to be used as indicators of climate sensitivity (CS).
However, if you are interested in direct measurements of CS then I commend Idso’s eight natural experiments reported in his paper that is written in plain English.
Also, you may want to read the determinations of CS by Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data.
These three papers each find climate sensitivity to be less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent which is so small that it is physically impossible for the postulated man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected.
Richard
Thankyou Dr Michaels. A Churchillian effort, that is, superb. We all appreciate your hard work and courage.
RGB – I wish you weren’t too well educated to remember that gases in an atmospheric situation react not by specie, but as a unit, to energy inputs. Physics works not by radiation ultimately, nor prolixity, but by simple mechanics. Brett
Patrick J. Michaels – Bravo!
Hans
excerpt:
Civil courage – definition of Civil courage by The Free Dictionary
The state or quality of mind or
spirit that enables one to face
danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, …
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Civil %2Bc…
___
And yes,
Patrick J. Michaels – Bravo!
Thanks – Hans
The good Doctor is correct. There is no “social cost of carbon.”
In Re “The good Doctor is correct. There is no “social cost of carbon.” ”
The troposphere’s temperature is not significantly effected by human emitted trace gas CO2, but more by natural cycles, sun, oceans, etc, 20 years now no warming despite CO2. Even if global warming was occurring, scratch overtly biased GISS and NOAA data for more accurate RSS satellite data, a degree or so global warming would be beneficial to planet, longer growing seasons, more green plants, less energy to heat houses, how many people vacation to Caribbean for warmer weather?, grape vines in London during Medieval Warming was bad? IPCC idiots attribute economic costs to BS like ski resorts not having enough snow by a degree C rise over a decade forecasted which is statistically insignificant and by their own words unnoticeable by humans.
Even if admitting a AGW, would be beneficial, versus opposite and colder.
How much propaganda and lies are into this is unfathomable, solar energy subsidies and electric cars dependent on gov. subsidies, follow money, not just climate alarmists seeking research funding, big corporations making money off this, gov in hands to keep scientific fraud going,
In any case, social benefit, not cost, if admit CO2 has any significant impact..