It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Experts called by Sen. Barbara Boxer to testify during Senate Environment and Public Works hearings yesterday contradicted ... President Barack Obama on climate change.
Boxer may have envisioned her high-profile global warming hearings as an opportunity to build momentum for congressional or EPA action to restrict CO2 emissions. Instead, the very global warming activists she called to serve as expert witnesses delivered a crushing blow to President Obama's new restrictions on CO2 emissions.
Coverage of the science and technology committee taking evidence on the public's understanding of climate policy from broadcasters and expert journalists.
Originally posted by jdub297
Unfortunately for the Dems and Obama, the chief economist and scientists were in agreement that man-made global warming is not a threat and that "projected" threats and "economic models" used to support carbon taxes and "the Social Cost of Carbon," were unfounded, skewed to one side, and politically motivated.
Here in the United States average temperatures have increased by roughly 1.5°F since record keeping began in 1895. More than 80 percent of this temperature increase has occurred since 1980. The most recent decade was the nation’s warmest on record.
Humans influence the climate system in profound ways, including through the emission of carbon dioxide via the combustion of fossil fuels.
Researchers have detected and (in some cases) attributed a human influence in other measures of climate extremes beyond those discussed in this testimony, including surface temperatures and precipitation.
A considerable body of research projects that various extremes may become more frequent and/or intense in the future as a direct consequence of the human emission of carbon dioxide.
Over the past two centuries, human activities have resulted in dramatic and well documented increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and acidification of the upper ocean. Today the surface ocean is almost 30% more acidic than it was in pre-industrial times, and over the next few decades, the level of acidity of the surface ocean will continue to rise without deliberate action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
...human contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations has resulted in an estimated 1% reduction in the Earth’s ability to cool to outer space, and so some level of warming can be expected to occur from that change.
However, climate scientists including United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Hans von Storch report temperatures have remained essentially flat for the past 10 years, and indeed for the past 15 years. Storch told Der Spiegel that 98 percent of IPCC climate models cannot replicate the prolonged pause in global warming, and IPCC may need to revise its computer models to correct their apparent warming bias.
During yesterday’s Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by Boxer, “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, but I couldn’t tell for sure. We’ll give Obama the benefit of the doubt and count the crickets in the “maybe” camp.
After several seconds of deafening silence, global warming activist Heidi Cullen, who formerly served as a meteorologist for the Weather Channel, attempted to change the subject. Cullen said our focus should be on longer time periods rather than the 10-year period mentioned by Obama. When pressed, however, she contradicted Obama’s central assertion and said warming has slowed, not accelerated.
These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increased acceleration of the climate change phenomenon.
Storch: ...Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared.
Originally posted by links234
That's not what they said at all!
Heidi Cullen, PhD.:
The Weather Channel’s climatologist, Dr. Heidi Cullen who hosts the program “The Climate Code”, is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be denied certification (or re-certification) if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade global warming. She posted this revelation in the blog she runs on the Weather Channel website and you can read it here: climate.weather.com...
Originally posted by links234
Here in the United States average temperatures have increased by roughly 1.5°F since record keeping began in 1895. More than 80 percent of this temperature increase has occurred since 1980. The most recent decade was the nation’s warmest on record.
Emphasis added.
2012 Didn’t Crack The Top Ten For Record Maximums: ‘NOAA has inflated 2012 record maximum number by adding new stations which didn’t exist during the hot years of 1930s” — ‘That is a completely illegitimate approach. An apples to apples comparison uses only the same stations. When that is done, 2012 doesn’t even crack the ten hottest years’
Feds caught altering past temperature data: NOAA claims 1998 was previous ‘hottest on record’ on record — But in 1999, the same year was only the 5th warmest before ‘adjustments’ — ‘In an article which NASA published in 1999, Hansen showed that 1998 was only the fifth warmest year, after 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1953. In fact, 1998 was 0.6C cooler than 1934′ — ‘Over the past decade, NASA and NOAA have continuously altered the temperature record to cool the past and warm the present. Their claims are straight out Orwell’s 1984, and have nothing to do with science’
...
Originally posted by links234
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.:
We Lost the Original Data
Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.
...
Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.
Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."
I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):
We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues.[b/ We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.
Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
...
[UPDATE 2 11/30: Here are several remarkable statements from climate scientists, one from the emails showing Kevin Trenberth calling for Chris Landsea to be fired for holding the wrong views and and a comment today from Gavin Schmidt justifying gatekeeping in climate science on political grounds. With comments like that, who needs emails?;-)]
Originally posted by links234
Scott Doney, PhD.:
Over the past two centuries, human activities have resulted in dramatic and well documented increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and acidification of the upper ocean. Today the surface ocean is almost 30% more acidic than it was in pre-industrial times, and over the next few decades, the level of acidity of the surface ocean will continue to rise without deliberate action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
"They begin by noting that "several studies document acidification hot spots, patches of ocean water with significantly depressed pH levels relative to historical baselines occurring at spatial scales of tens to hundreds of square kilometers...illustrate that freshwater inputs, pollutants, and soil erosion can acidify coastal waters at substantially higher rates than atmospheric CO2 alone." And they add that "additional local phenomena -- such as sulfur dioxide precipitation, hypoxia, eutrophication, and both emissions and runoff from acidic fertilizers -- can intensify these localized hot spots,"...Some of the remedial measures that they list in this category are "stormwater surge prevention (e.g., holding tanks), coastal and riparian buffers (areas of vegetation near land-water intersections), intact wetlands, and improved onsite water treatment facilities," which they describe as "effective measures to address watershed runoff and associated pollutants."" [Kelly, R.P., Foley, M.M., Fisher, W.S., Feely, R.A., Halpern, B.S., Waldbusser, G.G. and Caldwell, M.R. 2011: Science]
Originally posted by links234
Roy Spencer, PhD.:
...human contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations has resulted in an estimated 1% reduction in the Earth’s ability to cool to outer space, and so some level of warming can be expected to occur from that change.
It sounded like measured, reasoned statements on the fact that global warming is occurring and at least some portion of it is a result of humans.
Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before”
July 19th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
OK, so yesterday’s hearing really was entitled, “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now”. I like my title better.
In this exceedingly rare photo of me actually cracking a smile, note my subliminal shout out to the “Coke” brothers (whom I’ve never met, btw…I don’t even know what they do):
From the opening remarks made by the Democrats on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, apparently you can see climate change yourself just by looking in your backyard, or seeing how far from shore fishermen must go now to catch fish, or even (help me with the logic on this one) the fact that smoking causes cancer.
I just submitted my updated written testimony (Spencer_EPW_Written_Testimony_7_18_2013_updated) to include the following chart (Click for full size):
This chart illustrates that, yes, we are currently warm, but not significantly warmer than the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or the Roman Warm Period (RWP). So how is it we know today’s warmth is human-caused, when the last two warm periods couldn’t have been caused by humans? Hmmm?
And if you want to hit me with a Hockey Stick, might I remind you that there are many more papers supporting the MWP and RWP than there are supporting the Hockey Stick’s slick revision of history?
Or does “consensus” only count when it supports your side?
What’s that you say? The hockey stick is now the “new consensus”? So a scientific consensus can be wrong, after all? Hmmm.
...
Originally posted by links234
Thanks for the link to the senate statements, you should've read them yourself before posting.
IEA: Hadley Center “probably tampered with Russian climate data”
...
An email from Jones to Mann in March 2004 stated:
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Yesterday’s report (RIA Novosti) from Russia said:
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.
...
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.
According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
.........
A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.
An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.
Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.
Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.
The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
..............
....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."
Originally posted by Kali74
Lmao why is it that the publications that support contrarians can't ever at least report honestly about what scientists actually say? Nor consider the possibility that the control they fear will come from lack of action?edit on 20-7-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
So you're accepting that climate change is real and that we should do something about it?
Glad to see we're eye to eye on at least one thing.
...
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.
Originally posted by links234
I don't know how to make my posts any shorter so they're easier for you to understand.
Originally posted by links234
Moving on; what the OP suggested and what really happened aren't the same.
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
So you're accepting that climate change is real and that we should do something about it?
Glad to see we're eye to eye on at least one thing.
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
I just have one question.
When was this debate that we are being told is over?
The AGW crowd flat out refuse to engage in open academic debate, and they have taken this stand since day one.
If Mann and Gore agreed to a debate, and supplied the sources of their data, I'd be a lot more comfortable and open to the idea.
If you read Paul Watson's (Sea Shepard) book he tells activists that it is perfectly ok to lie, just sound convincing. That's what we're seeing here, the playbook is being used.edit on 20-7-2013 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)