By Ross McKitrick, opinion contributor – 07/27/17 07:20 AM EDT 814
© Victoria Sarno Jordan
Policy makers and the public need to understand the extent to which major scientific institutions like the American Meteorological Society have become biased and politicized on the climate issue. Convincing them of this becomes much easier when the organizations themselves supply the evidence.
This happened recently in response to a CNBC interview with Energy Secretary Rick Perry. He was asked “Do you believe CO2 [carbon dioxide] is the primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and for climate?”
It was an ambiguous question that defies a simple yes or no answer. Perry thought for moment then said, “No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment we live in.” He then went on to acknowledge the climate is changing and CO2 is having a role, but the issue is how much, and being skeptical about some of these things is “quite all right.”
Perry’s response prompted a letter of protest from Keith Seitter, executive director of the American Meteorological Society. The letter admonished him for supposedly contradicting “indisputable findings” that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause of recent global warming, a topic for which Seitter insists there is no room for debate.
It is noteworthy that the meteorological society remained completely silent over the years when senior Democratic administration officials made multiple exaggerated and untrue statements in service of global warming alarmism.
When Secretary of State John Kerry falsely claimed in 2016 that “storms that used to happen once every 500 years are becoming relatively normal,” or when Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy claimed in 2015 that green house gases are behind upward trends in “extreme heat, cold, storms, fires and floods,” the meteorological society said nothing, even though the evidence clearly contradicts these positions.
When President Obama tweeted in 2013 that “97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” the meteorological society said nothing, even though no such survey existed and the meteorological society’s own membership survey the next year showed nearly half of its members doubted either that climate change was even happening or that CO2 played a dominant role.
But the meteorological society leapt to condemn Perry for a cautious response to an awkward question. Perry could not reasonably have agreed with the interviewer since the concept of a “control knob” for the Earth’s temperature wasn’t defined. Doubling CO2 might, according to models, cause a few degrees of warming. Doubling the size of the sun would burn up the planet. Doubling cloud cover might trigger an ice age. So which is the “primary control knob”? The meteorological society letter ignored the odd wording of the question, misrepresented Perry’s response and then summarily declared their position on climate “indisputable.” Perry’s cautious answer, by contrast, was perfectly reasonable in the context of a confusing question in a fast-moving TV interview.
Furthermore, Seitter’s letter invites skepticism. It pronounces confidently on causes of global warming “in recent decades” even though this is where the literature is most disputed and uncertain. Climate models have overestimated warming in recent decades for reasons that are not yet known. Key mechanisms of natural variability are not well understood, and measured climate sensitivity to CO2 appears to be lower than modelers assumed. Climate models tweaked to get recent Arctic sea ice changes right get overall warming even more wrong, adding to the list of puzzles. But to the meteorological society, the fact that these and many other questions are unresolved does not prevent them from insisting on uniformity of opinion.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
About the only things that has been warming this century is the heat generated by cities due to growth of population and consumption of vast amounts of energy, that heat energy sometimes gets trapped as increasing cloud forms over those cities. Then you get the Nick Stokes who must know all this, trumpeting tenths of a degree warming (in an adulterated temperature record) as some sort of evidence, when using common sense, simple UHI for cities is up 3 degree C, so any recorded high SHOULD be at least that PLUS the tenths of a degree that his lot and the Bureau Of Meteorology claim. IT is just not there! And when you factor in the algorithms that LOWER past historical record temperatures, The only man made record is in his convenient adjustments.
Berkely Earth examined whether the UHI was distorting surface temp records… and found it wasn’t. go look it up…
Berkley Earth got just about everything wrong.
Look it up …
Berkley Earth = Climate Fascists wearing climate skeptic costumes.
Griff, as usual you are wrong and probably lying since it is really easy to find published science papers showing that UHI effect is real.
Here is a what I found when looking it up………,
From No Tricks Zone,
4 New Papers: Modern Warming Is Substantially Artificial, Traced To Urbanization, Bias
“Scientists: Temperature Data Contamination
Accounts For 33% – 75% Of Modern Warming
Urban heat from paved roads, buildings, and machinery can artificially inflate temperatures substantially above measured temperatures from non-urban areas. This introduces a significant non-climatic warming bias into long-term records.
Heat from an urban (or highly populated) environment can artificially raise temperatures by as much as 3°C to 10°C relative to nearby rural locations. This is true even for villages in the Arctic.”
http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/24/modern-warming-is-substantially-artificial-traced-to-urbanization-bias/#sthash.iT55DES2.dpbs
There are a lot of science based comments in the thread, but here is one of mine in reply to the resident warmist loon who never answer it:
sunsettommy 26. July 2017 at 9:20 PM
“Sebastian writes,
“It is impressive how easily you get triggered and need to present your beliefs about manipulated data and El Nino as the master of temperature increase as a response.”
It is impressive that you keep ignoring that obvious reality since it warms ONLY when El-Nino’s come along,otherwise flat to a cooling trend comes after it fades away.
From Bob Tisdale,where he shows using the data that yes “global warming” are caused by ENSO events:
Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-1/
Seb,
“Should stop commenting again so you can all calm down and reassure yourselves of your strange beliefs.”
When are you going to stop ignoring the failed PER DECADE projections from the IPCC reports?
How much longer are you going to ignore well documented temperature data tampering?
How much longer are you going to avoid Kenneth’s well documented massive station drop outs?
How much longer are you going to ignore the Satellite data showing the failure of the Tropical Hot Spot and the less than 50% per decade warming as per the Satellite data rate of the IPCC projected rates?
Seb ends with this childlike prose,
“Keep repeating your mantras, but don’t act surprised if you get called what you are.”
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
You ignore most of the official evidence right off the bat,then the occasional time you make a sourced reply,it gets a detailed reply, you quickly drop it,to go to a corner of the room and curl up into a fetal ball.
Your whine about Dr. Lindzen,is a classic example of your low level behavior,who can’t provide a credible counterpoint to what he wrote,instead of the name calling you several times foisted on Dr. Lindzen. He has since been joined by many scientists who also show low to near zero CO2 sensitivity effect. You are indeed a cad!
Many here long know that you are a glassy eyed,slack jawed warmist troll. You bring very little to the debate,ignore the many failed IPCC projections,ignore the obvious El-Nino effect on global temperature,ignore the hundreds of published science papers in recent years,that shoots holes in the absurd AGW conjecture.
Why not surprise us with honest rational replies instead?
http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/24/modern-warming-is-substantially-artificial-traced-to-urbanization-bias/#comment-1223412
Massive Rural Station drop outs is a red flag that warmists ignore,since it would greatly damage their AGW religion.
Yep, removing temp monitor stations that were NOT located in the middle of pavement/concrete parking lots or large, black commercial building roofs was a definite give away on what the enviroloons agenda actually is about.
Not only in that paper but in all the subsequent work I’ve done.
Think Population matters? Easy, divide the stations into those with rural type populations ( even ZERO)
and those with non rural populations: Answer, no difference.
Think Human changes to the surface matter? Easy divide the stations that are located in areas where we
pave the surface versus those were we do not: Answer, No difference.
In BE we used 500 meter data from Modis.
I’ve repeated that with 300 meter data, 250 meter data and 30 meter data.
No difference.
Think being at an airport makes a difference? Nope.
How about just being CLOSE to an urban area? Tested that. NOPE.
What if we look at stations at very remote locations.. small islands, Atols, national parks..
No differrence.
The skeptical theory is busted
That is just so precious! Clearly you have not stood on any pavement in the summer or spent the day on a flat, black roof. Get back to me when you have.
That dry part of the beach.
Doing that this week on Cape Cod. Kickin’ it wid da Kennedys, yo!
“Griff, as usual you are wrong and probably lying “
Absolutely no “probably” about it.
Only doing his job, of course.
“Think being at an airport makes a difference? Nope.”
You really can’t possibly believe that.
Or perhaps you can…
Tragic if so.
There is even a House Climate Solutions Caucus –
that is bipartisan – that is composed of US politicians who agree that climate change is real, it is happening right now and time is running out to act to mitigate its effects [https://curbelo.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1487/]. Articles like this only serve to delay this action. An individual like Rick Perry is not qualified to give an opinion on the causes and effects of climate change. For more information visit: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/
“climate change is real, it is happening right now”
Yes, trivially true.
“time is running out”
No, time isn’t running out. There are no facts in form of measurements (data) from qualified scientists on that web site you refer that show anything harmful. It’s all religion.
“climate change is real, it is happening right now” Yes indeed! As it has been happening right now for several billion years.
Look, man, you probably think I am a waffly airy fair Democrat and I probably think you are an ‘alt-right’ republican whereas in fact it should be a NON-PARTISAN issue. Did you take a look at these? If not, they are just examples of what is happening on this planet. Man has been burning since the industrial revolution and where do you think all that CO2 goes – it just disappears into the atmosphere or is soaked up by the oceans and end of story. I don’t think so my friend:
– Summary: Extreme weather hits Europe – scientists blame climate change [article and video] (07.2017)
From intense heat waves to severe flooding, Europe is a continent of extremes at the moment. Severe weather conditions have caused mayhem and destruction in many countries.
Link: http://www.euronews.com/video/2017/07/29/extreme-weather-hits-europe—scientists-blame-climate-change
–
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/climate-change-consensus-the-97/
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu6SE5TYrCM
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu6SE5TYrCM
Humans are not causing climate change and humans can not stop climate change. Period. Full stop. Destroying human energy production, manufacturing and agriculture because of a lie propagated by the political left is stupid.
Thank you ivan for proving the conservatives correct.
“Europe is a continent of extremes at the moment.”
No. The weather is pretty normal. We had floods and drier times as long as I can think back. And before that…
“scientists blame climate change”
They can blame it on everything they like. They have to prove what they pretend but they don’t do that.
“Severe weather conditions have caused mayhem and destruction in many countries.”
yes, since the earth has formed.
“Extreme weather hits Europe”
I’ve been travelling round Europe for nearly seven decades and I can assure you that it is most definitely not doing anything of the kind, the weather in Europe is pretty much the same as it was half a century and more ago.
You are either totally credulous and very deluded or totally mendacious and have very sinister agenda, YOU choose.
Who needs facts when you have ‘faith’
Mr. Seitter,
Don’t bother Sec. Perry with your ridiculous letter. He’s a busy man. Why don’t you instead debate your own Fellow of the AMS, Prof. Roger Pielke? I’m sure he disagrees with your letter. You cannot speak for AMS because many of your members don’t believe you.
Hey I guessed right! It turns out Pielke really opposed Seitter’s letter.
Professor Roger Pielke Sr. sent the House committee a response to Dr. Seitter’s letter, looking at key excerpts.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/04/06/climate-scientists-discuss-the-house-hearing/
Not an awkward question at all. Biased, though. As in, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
How can you claim that? Wife (Spouse. Women DO beat men too) beating does happen. Climate change driven by emissions of CO2 from human activity, not so much.
The only thing alarmists have in their arsenal is ad hominem attacks.
Facts are clear, man’s manipulation of them is clear as fog?
That just confirms for me that AMS is a fully compromised organization at the top. Perry is right to express doubt and uncertainty in the obvious cesspool of biased pseudoscience and advocacy-compromised professional organizations.
>”Doubling cloud cover might trigger an ice age.”
That would be impossible as we are now living in an “ice age” that began 2.58 million years ago. It is just wrong to imply that we are not currently living through an “ice age”.
We are now enjoying an interglacial period, a respite from the last glacial period. An “ice age” has two aspects: 1) ice covers large portions of the earth the enter year (think Antarctica, think now) and 2) “age” is a very long geologic time, on the order of million(s) of years.
Why is it import to use proper scientific terms? Because, we confuse the public when we are sloppy with them.
I think Perry should have replied with his own question, like “what do you believe the “correct” earth temperature and CO2 concentration should be, and why?”
The AMS should be discredited as a reputable organization in any way possible until it changes. Members should resign
The absolute certainty ought to be a huge red flag for any Scientist or Engineer, if not they’re either incompetent or dishonest.
Perry is spot on. It is time to move on. The hockey stick controversy, “The Inconvenient Truth” and melting ice bergs are old thinking and irrelevancies. Rational thinking and climate science facts are rapidly overshadowing the thirty plus year false narrative of climate change alarmists. Developments over the last two years have significantly redirected the climate science narrative.
1) On February 2,2016, John Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville, testified to the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology that out of 102 simulations of global temperature from 32 climate models, only the Russian model was close to actual temperatures but still too high. 2) John Fyfe, a climate modeler in Victoria, British Columbia was quoted on February 24, 2016 on the Nature website that “There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing, We can’t ignore it.” 3) In a November 2016 address, President Rosenbaum at Caltech posited that nature cannot be modeled with classical physics but theoretically might be modeled with quantum physics (http://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-next-125-years-53702). 4) On the November 11, 2016, the Cerncourier announced that “Early this year, CLOUD reported in Nature the discovery that aerosol particles can form in the atmosphere purely from organic vapours produced naturally by the biosphere. In a separate modelling paper published recently in PNAS, CLOUD shows that such pure biogenic nucleation was the dominant source of particles in the pristine pre-industrial atmosphere.” 5) My analysis of the HadCRUT4 time-temperature data indicates a high likelihood of the beginning of an absolute decline in the global mean surface temperature trend line within the next decade. The rate of increase of the temperature trend line is positive but has decreased in value every month for the past 20 years. The rate is likely to become negative in the mid-2020s and increase in negative value well into the 2030s, i.e., the mean global surface temperature will decline.
The implications from these recent developments are that CO2 does not play a significant role in global warming, climate models used by the United Nations Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to estimate future temperatures are too high, and the models should be redone. Climate science is far from settled. Solving the climate change conundrum before the world wastes 100 trillion dollars chasing rabbits is the major problem for climate science. Ill-advised environmental regulations must be rolled back before they destroy the U.S. economy. A rational environmental protection program and a vibrant economy can co-exist.
This sounds silly. That is not what is wrong with the models.
There are 2 fundamental problems:
The models fixed their failure to march warming by allowing either supersaturation of water vapor or they do mass conservation of water vapor at the water air boundary. Both allow them to put a dial on the amount of water vapor that escapes bulk water vs temp and radiation I would presume. So they fixed the low heating problem with an overheating problem, which they backcasted by adjusting aerosols.
Second, is the inherent difficulty in projecting the future location of all sorts of atm and oceanic features and parameters, the butterfly effect. QM simulations for protein was one of the science at home screensavers, because of how computationally expensive they are. Not way they are doing the atm. Might be a great advertisements for a new supercomputers though.
We need to model situations. The daily clear sky solar cycle. For an entire year, including water vapor. Thus would show that over most of the year in the mid latitudes water vapor acts as a heat pump, stores 4.21J/g during the day evaporating water into vapor, and the releases it at night reducing the amount of cooling at the surface.
Remember also that much water vapor created in the tropics are distributed to higher latitudes where it too has to release this stored energy to cool.
These kinds of analysis can be done, and would define how the atm works radiatively, the only way Earth sheds heat.
I appreciate the thoughtful comments, but model simulations are not useful if real data are not available to test the models. Without data, the models cannot be tested within the lifetimes of the prognosticators. Check out the CERN CLOUD experiment reference and their comments on the fundamental problems of models without real world data. They address exactly the issues you raise.
To use cost as an argument for not getting the science right does not work for me. If the science is wrong, all the work is just wheel-spinning.
There is data available or it could be taken. I have a lot of data on clear calm sky cooling.
Fact: there is not one single hard-data-based study in the peer-reviewed climate literature that actually confirms the link between an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide content and global warming. So much for “indisputable science!”