House Climate Science Hearing: Liveblog ...
 
Tuesday March 8, 2011
9:47
Eli Kintisch: 
Welcome everyone to live coverage of the House Energy and Commerce’s hearing on climate science and the EPA. Eli Kintisch of Science here, and we’ll be joined in a second by NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt for color commentary on the hearing, which is being held by the Power subcommittee, chaired by Ed Whitfield.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:47 Eli Kintisch
9:48
Eli Kintisch: 
Ostensibly the panel is holding the hearing to discuss HR 910, a law introduced by the Energy and Commerce Committee chair Fred Upton of Ohio. HR 910 would basically neuter the EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases by directly invalidating a number of agency steps towards doing that. (For the bill text, go to thomas.loc.gov and search for “hr 910” – direct links annoyingly unavailable)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:48 Eli Kintisch
9:48
Gavin Schmidt: 
Hi Eli, Looking forward to this...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:48 Gavin Schmidt
9:49
Eli Kintisch: 
Quotes from a National Journal story on Whitfield here http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/25/ed-whitfield-house-gop-polluted-air-clean-energy/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:49 Eli Kintisch
9:50
Eli Kintisch: 
The alleged link for the hearing live feed:

http://energycommerce.edgeboss.net/wmedia-live/energycommerce/11990/100_energycommerce-2123_060901.asx
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:50 Eli Kintisch
9:50
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Eli, try http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-910
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:50 thingsbreak
9:50
Eli Kintisch: 
Many thanks!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:50 Eli Kintisch
9:52
Eli Kintisch: 
A key step in the EPA climate process that 910 would declare null and void: the so-called “endangerment finding”, filed by the agency in December of 2009. That was a scientific determination, guided by and required by the wording of the Clean Air Act, that emissions of greenhouse gases “endanger public health or welfare”.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:52 Eli Kintisch
9:52
Eli Kintisch: 
That document, which had been finalized by the Bush EPA but never acted upon by the Bush White House, cited a wide array of climate science studies and concluded that greenhouse gas emissions would in fact endanger the US; the legal definition of endangerment includes impacts on wildlife.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:52 Eli Kintisch
9:53
Eli Kintisch: 
Today's hearing is a bit of an odd bird. Original hearing on the bill was on Feb 9:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=8179
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:53 Eli Kintisch
9:54
Gavin Schmidt: 
The EPA endangerment finding, and the voluminous petitions, and responses to petitions (all of which needed to survive judicial review) are available here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:54 Gavin Schmidt
9:56
Gavin Schmidt: 
A much shorter summary of the Endangerment findings and issues is in the FAQ (pdf): http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/EndangermentFinding_FAQs.pdf
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:56 Gavin Schmidt
9:56
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
So this isn't on any of the C-SPAN channels that I just checked...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:56 thingsbreak
9:57
Eli Kintisch: 
But Democrats on the hearing wanted to have their own hearing on the bill, to discuss the science, and Republicans agreed.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 9:57 Eli Kintisch
10:00
[Comment From Sam Sam : ] 
Is this endangerment finding about all GHGs or just CO2?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:00 Sam
10:00
Eli Kintisch: 
Nope; all 6 GHG's under the normal definition...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:00 Eli Kintisch
10:02
Eli Kintisch: 
Weird that this hearing is happening, I think, because the minority often wants things it doesn't get; in this case the GOPers who run the committee are agreeing to a hearing that might slow down the push to stop the EPA. Then again, perhaps they feel sufficiently confident that their witnesses will effectively counter scientists called by the Democrats who will no doubt describe plenty of "endangerment"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:02 Eli Kintisch
10:02
Gavin Schmidt: 
The "normal" definition isn't really normal ;) They are the well-mixed GHGs covered by the Kyoto Protocol. Well-mixed means that they have lifetimes in the atmosphere longer than the time scales of atmospheric circulation (ie. longer than a couple of years).
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:02 Gavin Schmidt
10:03
[Comment From Jan Rooth Jan Rooth : ] 
Thank you for doing this, Eli and Gavin. I can't have video going at work, but a liveblog lets me check in on the action from time to time ...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:03 Jan Rooth
10:04
Eli Kintisch: 
Along those lines: one of the democrats (inslee has put on his desk, to the right of Whitfield, a giant stack of booksmaybe 3 feet tall.

"We've decided today to focus on the science", says Whitfield, adding that "24" previous hearings have touched on the science of climate change
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:04 Eli Kintisch
10:04
Eli Kintisch: 
Whitfield says the hearing will touch on "both sides" of the issue.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:04 Eli Kintisch
10:05
Eli Kintisch: 
Whitfield, the chair, is giving his opening statement. "wise solution to the problem". One "need not be a skeptic of g warming to be a skeptic of EPA's regulatory agenda."
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:05 Eli Kintisch
10:05
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:05 thingsbreak
10:05
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Ah, sound is up.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:05 thingsbreak
10:06
Eli Kintisch: 
Whitfield quoting Jackson on concerns about China... "The White House is insisting the sky is falling"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:06 Eli Kintisch
10:07
Eli Kintisch: 
Greenhouse gas regulations will have a devastating "effect on the economy"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:07 Eli Kintisch
10:08
Eli Kintisch: 
Whitfield warns that "these scary global warming scenarios" won't be alleviated by EPA rules; they're unfair, he says, because China, others, have advantages...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:08 Eli Kintisch
10:09
Eli Kintisch: 
Whitfield: EPA rules on GHG's "a bypass" of Congress's power. The law is not "about global warming science, it is about stopping regulations certain to do more harm than good."
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:09 Eli Kintisch
10:09
Gavin Schmidt: 
One theme that will be constant is that unilateral action by the US is meaningless if everyone else continues with business as usual. However, this is not a ethical argument for not doing anything. Edward Burke (an original conservative) rightly said: “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/the-tragedy-of-climate-commons/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:09 Gavin Schmidt
10:10
Eli Kintisch: 
Bobby Rush is next, the ranking Dem. Hard to understand him (and I'm in the room...) :/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:10 Eli Kintisch
10:11
Eli Kintisch: 
"There really is no widespread debate among the scientific community that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change" says Rush, rattling off the familiar bevy of top scientific groups that believe CO2 leads to possibly dangerous global warming
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:11 Eli Kintisch
10:11
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Doesn't mention that the House (this Chamber) passed a cap and trade bill...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:11 thingsbreak
10:13
Eli Kintisch: 
"The cost of doing nothing outweighs the cost of action," says Rush, adding that regulating GHG's would "create new jobs"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:13 Eli Kintisch
10:13
[Comment From Chip Knappenberger Chip Knappenberger : ] 
Gavin, I think the issue is more complicated than an ethical argument about doing something. The issue should be about doing something effective effectively.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:13 Chip Knappenberger
10:13
[Comment From hannejakobsen hannejakobsen : ] 
is it coincidental that this hearing comes right after the crash of the satellite glory?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:13 hannejakobsen
10:13
Eli Kintisch: 
@hannej: yes, coincidence
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:13 Eli Kintisch
10:16
Eli Kintisch: 
Rush is enthusiastic about a carbon sequestration project in Illinois. "Listen to what the science is telling us," he says as he ends his statement. Then he shows a giant cartoon that makes the "no-regrets" argument... "Even if its a big hoax, its a hoax that will provide" much good (green jobs, cleaner air etc)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:16 Eli Kintisch
10:17
Eli Kintisch: 
Burress, Texas is next. "Science by consensus is fraught...this panel of experts will disagree with each other...indicative" of a serious disagreement on the issue
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:17 Eli Kintisch
10:17
Gavin Schmidt: 
Chip: Of course, but action by others is predicated on action by the developed world and historically largest emitters. The important context is that CO2 stabilisation requires cuts of 60-70% in emissions at some point in the next few decades (and the sooner it occurs the lower the stabilised value will be). That *will* require concerted international action, which is made up of national actions. The only ethical response is to work towards building the conditions for international action.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:17 Gavin Schmidt
10:18
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Public health impacts in Illinois?!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:18 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:18
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Gavin, an ethicist now too? ;-)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:18 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:18
Gavin Schmidt: 
Rep: Whitfield's "Science by consensus" is a strawman. Consensus is what is left when the science is done.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:18 Gavin Schmidt
10:18
Eli Kintisch: 
Rep Burress: Brings up supposed "consensus" of scientists in 70's that "earth was cooling."
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:18 Eli Kintisch
10:19
Eli Kintisch: 
This has been shown to be misleading...someone have the paper?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:19 Eli Kintisch
10:19
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Rush held up this cartoon: http://greenupgrader.com/files/2009/12/climate_denier_cartoon.jpg
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:19 thingsbreak
10:19
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Oh, that's precious- deliberately invite some of the handful of contrarians and pit them against the overwhelmingly mainstream and claim this means the science isn't settled. By that measure, evolution will never be "settled".
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:19 thingsbreak
10:20
Gavin Schmidt: 
Petersen, Connolley and Fleck: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:20 Gavin Schmidt
10:21
Eli Kintisch: 
Meanwhile, Insless's giant stack of books/reports -- no doubt a visual appeal to authority -- looms over him and Rep. Waxman, who's sitting as a subcommittee member. If that thing falls over the metaphors will surely fly...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:21 Eli Kintisch
10:21
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
There was no formal consensus on cooling in the 1970s, though some scientists held that view
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:21 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:21
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Burress falsely repeated the "cooling consensus" myth. @Eli, paper here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:21 thingsbreak
10:21
[Comment From ejgertz ejgertz : ] 
"Study debunks global cooling consensus of 1970s" http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:21 ejgertz
10:21
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
I hope that Gavin and Jon will help us to evaluate the scientific claims, rather than engage in partisan cheerleading for their side
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:21 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:21
Eli Kintisch: 
Jon who?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:21 Eli Kintisch
10:22
Eli Kintisch: 
Waxman: Upton/Inhofe bill would overturn EPA's scientific finding. The bill "would legislate a scientific finding out of existence"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:22 Eli Kintisch
10:23
Eli Kintisch: 
Waxman sponsored the first bill to cap greenhouse gases to pass out of the House, in 2009
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:23 Eli Kintisch
10:23
[Comment From Chip Knappenberger Chip Knappenberger : ] 
@Gavin: I agree with you that international action is required to stabilize atmospheric GHG levels. But whether this is ethically required, I am not sure of. Perhaps our ethics are different, or perhaps it is just are interpretation of how climate change is going to play out.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:23 Chip Knappenberger
10:23
Gavin Schmidt: 
This is not about sides. Bad arguments from any point of view devalue any discussion
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:23 Gavin Schmidt
10:24
Eli Kintisch: 
If my doctor told me I had cancer, says Waxman, "I wouldn't scour the country to find someone who said I didn't need [treatment]"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:24 Eli Kintisch
10:24
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Upton-Inhofe Bill is nonsense, But that is not a scientific issue, but rather legislative.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:24 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:25
Eli Kintisch: 
Roger, why do you say the bill this hearing is dealing with is nonsense?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:25 Eli Kintisch
10:25
[Comment From Sam Sam : ] 
Politicians on both sides are rehashing arguments and using examples which are already outdated online.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:25 Sam
10:25
Eli Kintisch: 
Sam: what do you mean?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:25 Eli Kintisch
10:26
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Because Congress has granted EPA authority to regulate, and the agency has followed its legislative mandate. If Congress wants to change how EPA operates, fine, but it must do it comprehensively, not by seeking to overturn the endangerment finding via fiat.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:26 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:27
[Comment From Sam Sam : ] 
You've already pointed out some Rep errors, and Rush showed that old cartoon, and Waxman used the cancer example. We've heard all that, it isn't really an argument it's just rhetoric.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:27 Sam
10:27
Gavin Schmidt: 
"Must"?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:27 Gavin Schmidt
10:27
Eli Kintisch: 
Somerville leads off the witnesses; he's a climate scientist from Scripps.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:27 Eli Kintisch
10:28
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Whitfield can't even get the witnesses name right -- "Roger" not "Richard" ;-)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:28 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:29
[Comment From Steven Leibo Ph.D. Steven Leibo Ph.D. : ] 
Thanks for doing this
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:29 Steven Leibo Ph.D.
10:30
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Gavin, yes if Congress wants to change how EPA works then it must do so via changing the EPA organic act. I am unaware of another approach to changing how EPA implements regulation, given that its current approach has been frequently upheld by the courts.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:30 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:30
Eli Kintisch: 
Somerville reviews some well known arguments: impacts becoming clear and happening now; leading sci groups have evaluated climate sci findings; arguments against the consensus have been shown to be wrong...models' forecasts coming true.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:30 Eli Kintisch
10:31
Gavin Schmidt: 
It's worth pointing out that all of the climate scientists on the panel agree on many issues: that CO2 is increasing rapidly due to human influences, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the net human impact on climate (including the other GHGs, aerosols, land use etc.) have very likely driven warming over the last few decades.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:31 Gavin Schmidt
10:31
[Comment From Brad Johnson Brad Johnson : ] 
The Washington Times thinks that climate science is "carbon mysticism" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/3/close-the-epa/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:31 Brad Johnson
10:31
Eli Kintisch: 
"The more we reduce emissions the less we will suffer" -- Somerville
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:31 Eli Kintisch
10:31
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Somerville - "We have the technology" -- Wrong.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:31 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:31
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Gavin, Right, and that agreemen is plenty sufficient a basis for regulation
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:31 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:32
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Somerville vs. Pielke Sr. on science in politics: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/03/two-view-on-science-and-politics.html
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:32 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:33
Eli Kintisch: 
Somerville is endorsing a policy position; I trust Roger P, on the comments will opine; fyi his dad is testifying in a second...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:33 Eli Kintisch
10:34
Gavin Schmidt: 
Christy's point on extremes is a strawman. No-one disputes that extreme events occur without human intervention.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:34 Gavin Schmidt
10:35
[Comment From Alex Witze Alex Witze : ] 
Thanks for doing this liveblog, Eli. Between this, webcast, and tweets from @ejgertz and others it's like MST3K for climate.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:35 Alex Witze
10:35
Eli Kintisch: 
next up, Christy, of Alabama, who brings up extreme events, saying they are unrelated to climate warming; no member or scientist at this hearing has yet brough this up
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:35 Eli Kintisch
10:35
[Comment From Thomas Lee Elifritz Thomas Lee Elifritz : ] 
'Their side is the science side of things, Roger, they're climate scientists. Your side is partisan politics, because your a 'political scientist', whatever that is. Get your sides straight.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:35 Thomas Lee Elifritz
10:35
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Christy' s discussion of extremes in his written testimony is sound. But irrelevant to regulatory decisions.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:35 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:35
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Christy flogs Spencer's fatally flawed "analyses" purporting to show negative feedback/low sensitivity.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:35 thingsbreak
10:36
Eli Kintisch: 
Christy: climate models, among other flaws, fail to replicate moderating/cooling trends which the planet exhibits...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:36 Eli Kintisch
10:37
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Citing Spencer on Climate sensitivity is ridiculous-- see Barry Bickmore's recent devastating refutation of Spencer's work. Spencer has no credibility.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:37 MapleLeaf
10:37
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Thomas Lee Elfritz -- I am for action on mitigation and adaptation, just wrote a book calling for a carbon tax, have a look! I just don't think that the science theater does mush to advance the case for action.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:37 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:37
Eli Kintisch: 
Following Christy it's Chris Field, the US's top scientist on the IPCC; he's an ecologist at Stanford U/Carnegie...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:37 Eli Kintisch
10:38
Gavin Schmidt: 
Christy's '0.09' deg C/dec in the atmosphere is a little sneaky. It is clear in his written testimony that he has subtracted the trend associated with tropical SST (which have also been warming). It is therefore not a statement about the long term trend in the atmosphere. For reference, the 95% range in SAT of IPCC AR4 models simulations for this period is 0.21 +/- 0.16 deg C/dec so the observed trend (around 0.16 deg C/dec - depending on datasets) is not outside the envelope of expectation.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:38 Gavin Schmidt
10:38
[Comment From Joseph Romm Joseph Romm : ] 
Roger has consistently called for a tiny carbon tax that would have no significant impact on emissions.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:38 Joseph Romm
10:39
Eli Kintisch: 
Field, like others, begins by referencing several "consortia" that have made consensus statements on climate/energy
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:39 Eli Kintisch
10:39
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Joe, lets focus on the hearing today, you can make up stuff about me on your own blog later;-)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:39 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:40
Eli Kintisch: 
Gentlemen, let's keep it on the hearing; Pielke Jr's book, if I'm not mistaken, advocates the carbon tax to raise money for R&D, not to slow emissions, am I right RP Jr?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:40 Eli Kintisch
10:41
Gavin Schmidt: 
It would be good to know what Christy actually thinks climate sensitivity is, what his range of uncertainty is and what this is based on. Spencer and Braswell (2010) do not give a number, nor a range.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:41 Gavin Schmidt
10:41
Eli Kintisch: 
Field mentions data on the sensitivity of US crops to temperature: "We see a very steep drop in productivity" as temperature rises. From his printed testimony:
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:41 Eli Kintisch
10:41
[Comment From Alex Witze Alex Witze : ] 
Useful background reading to this kind of discussion, no matter where you stand, is Mike Hulme's book "Why We Disagree about Climate Change" (Cambridge Univ. Press).
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:41 Alex Witze
10:42
Gavin Schmidt: 
Wolfram Schenker is at Columbia who has worked on looking at very detailed temperature/yield patterns in US crops.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:42 Gavin Schmidt
10:42
Eli Kintisch: 
"modest warming" (per the IPCC) means yield losses of 30 to 46%...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:42 Eli Kintisch
10:43
Gavin Schmidt: 
Sorry Schlenker! http://www.columbia.edu/~ws2162/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:43 Gavin Schmidt
10:43
[Comment From Chrissy Chrissy : ] 
If the US gov't is worried about GHG's,why don't we follow Germany's lead, and start plastering roof tops and other available areas with solar panels?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:43 Chrissy
10:44
Eli Kintisch: 
Pielke Sr is next. Among his points: that IPCC/govt reports on climate "are complete by a small subset of climate scientists" . He and his son have both clashed over IPCC inclusion of their data/findings or analysis... a link or two Roger Jr.?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:44 Eli Kintisch
10:44
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Gavin you are right, they just keep suggesting that there is some magical strong, long-tern negative feedback that will save us. If only....
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:44 MapleLeaf
10:45
Gavin Schmidt: 
Roger Pielke Sr. is pushing at an open door when discussing the multiple drivers of climate change. This has long been acknowledged by IPCC, the modelling groups, and most recently in assessements such as the UNEP report on black carbon and ozone.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:45 Gavin Schmidt
10:45
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2005/08/22/comment-on-my-resignation-from-the-ccsp-committee-temperature-trends-in-the-lower-atmosphere-steps-for-understanding-and-reconciling-differences/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:45 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:45
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Pielke Sr. needs to slow waaaaaay down if he wants people to hear and understand him speaking live.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:45 thingsbreak
10:45
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
More than anyone would wnat on Pielke Sr.'s experiences with CCSP:
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:45 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:46
Eli Kintisch: 
Oops, Pielke Jr's link and its description were flipped...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:46 Eli Kintisch
10:47
Eli Kintisch: 
Pielke Sr. mentions a 2009 paper in EOS he published with 18 fellows of the AGU...link someone?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:47 Eli Kintisch
10:47
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Field contradicts IPCC AR4, which says that modest warming (what we've experienced now) enhances crop yields
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:47 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:48
Eli Kintisch: 
Sorry I'm releasing the comments a bit slowly/out of order; i'll improve...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:48 Eli Kintisch
10:48
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
EOS paper: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/r-354.pdf
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:48 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:48
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Roger, how are food prices globally these days?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:48 MapleLeaf
10:48
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
Pielke seams to be of on expert opinion on climate change... http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:48 Magnus Westerstrand
10:48
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@MapleLeaf, very high
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:48 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:49
Gavin Schmidt: 
I think it is completely legitimate to take into account multiple forcings, and natural variability, yet still think that CO2, as the fastest growing forcing, and the one with the longest timescale, is still the dominant issue. But as the UNEP report showed, there are many actions that can be taken to reduce forcings from BC and ozone with current technology.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:49 Gavin Schmidt
10:49
Eli Kintisch: 
Now Francis Zwiers, of Univ of Victoria
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:49 Eli Kintisch
10:50
[Comment From Joseph Romm Joseph Romm : ] 
Pielke Sr.'s rapid delivery has rendered his take on things nearly indecipherable.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:50 Joseph Romm
10:50
[Comment From Nick Nick : ] 
How could this Pielke sr testimony possibly lead to the conclusion that EPA should have no right to regulate GHGs?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:50 Nick
10:50
Gavin Schmidt: 
Zwiers was an author on the Min et al paper in Nature last month on the detection and attribution of increases in precipitation intensity
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:50 Gavin Schmidt
10:51
Eli Kintisch: 
Gavin, link? Zwiers: "extreme warm temperatures" are more likely recently than "extreme cold temperatures"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:51 Eli Kintisch
10:52
Gavin Schmidt: 
Zwiers is referring to Alexander et al (2006), and to Meehl et al (2009)...links coming
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:52 Gavin Schmidt
10:52
Eli Kintisch: 
While he's got history with both Pielkes, Romm's right, though the written testimony from the senior Pielke is clear...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:52 Eli Kintisch
10:53
Eli Kintisch: 
Zwiers: "human influence from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations has influenced temperature extremes on a large scales"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:53 Eli Kintisch
10:53
Gavin Schmidt: 
Min et al: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html
Alexander et al: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006290.shtml
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:53 Gavin Schmidt
10:53
Eli Kintisch: 
Zwiers: "the odds of extreme events has generally increased"...human emissions have "tilted the odds" of extreme events but hard to quantify.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:53 Eli Kintisch
10:54
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Nick, Pielke Sr. did not say anything opposing regulation (trust me, I can decipher his high baud rate)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:54 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:54
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
@Nick, it cannot, he's just there as one of the non-cranks who will predictably say "not IPCC". If you expected the GOp witness list to be coherent, you haven't been following this long!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:54 thingsbreak
10:54
Gavin Schmidt: 
Meehl et al: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030948.shtml
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:54 Gavin Schmidt
10:55
Eli Kintisch: 
Zwiers says heat wave in europe, which killed 40,000, was in part affected by human influence, but extent of that influence, again, not quantifiable.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:55 Eli Kintisch
10:55
[Comment From Erik Erik : ] 
You know that according to CET all winters in England have been colder than the winter of 1990?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:55 Erik
10:56
[Comment From David Rosnick David Rosnick : ] 
The price of food at home has gone up 0.1 percent in the last 24 months (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:56 David Rosnick
10:56
Gavin Schmidt: 
Zwiers is discussing fractional attribution of events i.e. how much more likely an event has become due to human influences.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:56 Gavin Schmidt
10:56
[Comment From Joseph Romm Joseph Romm : ] 
Nice testimony, well delivered by Zwiers. A star is born.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:56 Joseph Romm
10:56
Eli Kintisch: 
@Erik: citation? @David: link?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:56 Eli Kintisch
10:57
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@thingsbreak, if either side wanted to discuss regulation, they should have regulation experts, not climate scientists, both sides are complicit in this charade
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:57 Roger Pielke, Jr.
10:57
Eli Kintisch: 
Bad news -- I'm told the video feed hasn't been working; told by multiple sources :(

one staffer for the committee didn't know; but another staffer was aware of the problem.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:57 Eli Kintisch
10:59
Eli Kintisch: 
Knute Nadelhoffer: Summer ice cover has decreased by 30% since '78 in arctic..."this has huge implications for global climate" Great lakes warming since 1978: 4 degrees C. Lake Superior: "Warming at a rate no one thought it would."
Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:59 Eli Kintisch
11:00
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Working OK for me
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:00 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:00
Gavin Schmidt: 
NSIDC trends in sea ice: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:00 Gavin Schmidt
11:00
[Comment From Erik Erik : ] 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/ssn_HadCET_mean.txt
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:00 Erik
11:00
[Comment From David Rosnick David Rosnick : ] 
Sorry I can't give a better link, apart from going through the data here: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cu (Seasonally adjusted, city average, current base, SAF11 Food at home, monthly)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:00 David Rosnick
11:00
[Comment From Chip Knappenberger Chip Knappenberger : ] 
Eli, the 2003 European heat wave did take a large number of lives, primarily because the region was not prepared for (or used to) such extremes. However, it serve as a warming. Another heat wave, in 2006, took far fewer lives than expected, indicating that already the region was adapting to extreme heat (Fouillet et al., 2008). As such events become more common, the better people become at dealing with them, and the mortality rate declines.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:00 Chip Knappenberger
11:00
[Comment From Joseph Romm Joseph Romm : ] 
Not sure why a hearing on science is a charade. The science is the basis for the EPA finding.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:00 Joseph Romm
11:00
[Comment From Steven Leibo Ph.D. Steven Leibo Ph.D. : ] 
If republicans thought this hearing would be helpful for their cause it was surely a big mistake..that from a non scientist
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:00 Steven Leibo Ph.D.
11:01
[Comment From Erik Erik : ] 
you can also see that according to CET there has been no significant warming since 1989/1990 in England: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:01 Erik
11:01
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Eli, please permit me to try again to address Roger's comment about food production. Globally food prices are high, we are already seeing the negative impacts of a disrupted climate system on food production. The IPCC has been too conservative on this file, just as it was on Arctic ice for example.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:01 MapleLeaf
11:01
Eli Kintisch: 
Nadelhoffer, from Michigan, probably an effort to speak to Upton, chair of this committee, who's from that state...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:01 Eli Kintisch
11:01
Eli Kintisch: 
A pielke jr comment that weirdly won't publish: 10:53 [Roger Pielke, Jr.]
IPCC on crop yields: "these summaries indicate that in mid- to high-latitude regions, moderate to medium local increases in temperature (1ºC to 3ºC), across a range of CO2 concentrations and rainfall changes, can have small beneficial impacts on the main cereal crops." and "These results, on the whole, project the potential for global food production to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1 to 3ºC" http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-4-2-2.html
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:01 Eli Kintisch
11:02
Eli Kintisch: 
Bethesda, MD doctor Donald Roberts is next
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:02 Eli Kintisch
11:03
Eli Kintisch: 
Roberts begins by blasting EPA decision on DDT 40 years ago.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:03 Eli Kintisch
11:03
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
A new study also out on possibly bad effects on water supply by the now ongoing global warming: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/2011/110308/full/nclimate1063.html
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:03 Magnus Westerstrand
11:03
Gavin Schmidt: 
Roberts is arguing by analogy, but using false data and unsupportable claims.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:03 Gavin Schmidt
11:03
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
DDT? @Joe --> Charade
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:03 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:03
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Joe, the science of the endangerment finding is handled in the agency process, not in Congress
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:03 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:03
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Erik, CET is not representative of global temperatures-- the planet is warming
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:03 MapleLeaf
11:04
Gavin Schmidt: 
EPA banned *agricultural* use in the US, there was no worldwide ban on DDT.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:04 Gavin Schmidt
11:04
Eli Kintisch: 
Roberts on diseases/climate link: "link those diseases to climate change have been vigorously rebutted"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:04 Eli Kintisch
11:05
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
This Roberts stuff is straight out of the Merchants of Doubt playbook: http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:05 thingsbreak
11:05
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
DDT is not relevant to this, it is a strawman
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:05 MapleLeaf
11:05
Gavin Schmidt: 
Roberts previous testimony and poor scholarship is outlined here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/donald_roberts_false_testimony.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/donald_roberts_scientific_frau.php
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:05 Gavin Schmidt
11:05
[Comment From Kevin Kevin : ] 
EPA can't GLOBALLY ban DDT, right?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:05 Kevin
11:06
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
"No link between climate and public health?" Surely he is not being serious?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:06 MapleLeaf
11:06
Eli Kintisch: 
Eli taking v quick break, Dan stepping in for a minute to take over...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:06 Eli Kintisch
11:06
Eli Kintisch: 
@MapleLeaf, who are you quoting?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:06 Eli Kintisch
11:07
Gavin Schmidt: 
Many disease vectors depend on temperature, rainfall and other weather related issues. But as in any very complex issues, many other factors also impact outcomes.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:07 Gavin Schmidt
11:07
[Comment From Nick Nick : ] 
@ Pielke Jr. This is ABSOLUTELY a charade - remind me who invited this guy?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:07 Nick
11:08
Eli Kintisch: 
Eli's back.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:08 Eli Kintisch
11:08
Eli Kintisch: 
From @Erik: "The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the[...] 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades. Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century B. M. Vinther,1 K. K. Andersen,1 P. D. Jones,2 K. R. Briffa,2 and J. Cappelen (2006)"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:08 Eli Kintisch
11:09
Eli Kintisch: 
Roberts, asked by Whitfield, says "climate change as a negative force on human health is flatly wrong"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:09 Eli Kintisch
11:09
[Comment From OxfordKevin OxfordKevin : ] 
Erik, and MapleLeaf. Not only a small area, but one season of four.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:09 OxfordKevin
11:09
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Coal-fired plants are not good for asthma either Dr.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:09 MapleLeaf
11:09
[Comment From Chip Knappenberger Chip Knappenberger : ] 
Michigan's general climate history is available at NCDC, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/mi.html
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:09 Chip Knappenberger
11:09
Gavin Schmidt: 
Robert's testimony is indeed irrelevant - whether it was true or not.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:09 Gavin Schmidt
11:10
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Dr Roberts is who I quoted
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:10 MapleLeaf
11:10
[Comment From Chrissy Chrissy : ] 
There are people that try their best to reduce their emissions, using compact flouresent bulbs, raising thermostats in summer, and lowering in winter. A lot of the problem is where the energy comes from, the energy used to operate low energy lights, and other appliances is still dirty. More of our natural resources need to be used, Ie: solar power, wind, water.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:10 Chrissy
11:10
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Gavin and thingsbreak, why attack the man when the best argument here surely is that his testimony is irrelevant and a distraction. By questioning it as you have you imply that it might be relevant if only accurate. It is a distraction and should be ignored not debated.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:10 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:10
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
That the US would be acting in isolation is a complete and utter strawman. This cannot be emphasized enough.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:10 thingsbreak
11:10
[Comment From charles charles : ] 
Who's the expert on diseases? Donald Robert or Gavin Schmidt?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:10 charles
11:10
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Nick, DOn't know but surely a staffer not doing a good job for his boss!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:10 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:10
[Comment From Guest Guest : ] 
In a news briefing last week hosted by The American Public Health Association (APHA) and the American Medical Association(AMA), the APHA and AMA called climate change "one of the greatest public health challenges we face."
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:10 Guest
11:11
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
The magnitude of CO2 impact is not a determining factor in the endangerment finding,
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:11 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:11
[Comment From Kevin Kevin : ] 
Robert's testimony may be irrelevant, but is music to Whitfield's ears --
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:11 Kevin
11:11
[Comment From David Rosnick David Rosnick : ] 
YES in the last 12 mos of food imports have gone up by 17 percent, but that is measured in dollars. The real dollar has fallen more than 12 percent in the last two years. It's not that "food prices" are skyrocketing.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:11 David Rosnick
11:12
Gavin Schmidt: 
The IPCC has never claimed that "more hurricanes are directly related to climate change". The statements in the TAR and AR4 are far more nuanced.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:12 Gavin Schmidt
11:13
[Comment From Erik Erik : ] 
Oxford Kevin
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:13 Erik
11:13
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
University of East Anglia. Drink! Himalayan glaciers. Drink!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:13 thingsbreak
11:13
[Comment From David Rosnick David Rosnick : ] 
Link on dollar indices: (nominal broad... http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/Summary/indexb_m.txt)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:13 David Rosnick
11:13
[Comment From Steven Leibo Steven Leibo : ] 
If body language tells us anything it looks like Whitfield is not happy with how this is going.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:13 Steven Leibo
11:14
Eli Kintisch: 
Whitfield brings up the 2035 error in the IPCC report (one error in 3000 pages) and then he quizzes the panel on their "confidence" in the IPCC. The GOP witnesses say they don't have any; the dem ones say they do. Somerville says IPCC errors are "very isolated"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:14 Eli Kintisch
11:14
[Comment From Joseph Romm Joseph Romm : ] 
Food prices globally are at a 20 year high. http://climateprogress.org/category/food-insecurity/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:14 Joseph Romm
11:15
[Comment From Guest Guest : ] 
Gavin Schmidt: The IPCC has never claimed that "more hurricanes are directly related to climate change". The statements in the TAR and AR4 are far more nuanced.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:15 Guest
11:15
[Comment From Nick Nick : ] 
@ Pielke Sr. Most of observed warming in arctic (heat island myth part 2)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:15 Nick
11:15
[Comment From Anthony David Anthony David : ] 
The conservative opposition party in Australia is arguing the same line that Australia would be "alone" if it adopted climate change measures. They point to what is happening in the US.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:15 Anthony David
11:16
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
Climate change definitely could make growing crops for big parts of the world a problem http://www.nature.com/nclimate/2011/110208/full/nclimate1042.html
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:16 Magnus Westerstrand
11:16
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Eli, IPCC issues are far more nuanced than a yes/no question, see http://e360.yale.edu/feature/major_change_is_needed_if_the_ipcc_hopes_to_survive/2244/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:16 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:16
Eli Kintisch: 
Pielke Sr. mentioned a paper he has in process that shows the surface temperature record in the US is biased to be warmer (he didn't say by how much) than it actually is because of the placement of measuring stations.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:16 Eli Kintisch
11:16
[Comment From J Bowers J Bowers : ] 
There are no car parks or air conditioners in space.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:16 J Bowers
11:16
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Gavin, I belief that was a mangled reference to Landsea vs. Trenberth circa 2005
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:16 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:16
[Comment From Brad Johnson Brad Johnson : ] 
I love Whitfield's rhetorical technique: he admits that argument by anecdote doesn't prove anything, but then cites "disturbing" anecdotes about IPCC
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:16 Brad Johnson
11:16
[Comment From ejgertz ejgertz : ] 
Aren't global food prices as much about distribution inequities as about enviro factors?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:16 ejgertz
11:16
Gavin Schmidt: 
There are many reasons why IPCC AR4 concluded that evidence for warming was unequivocal - ice melt, snow cover decreases, phenology changes (earlier blooming, poleward and upward migration of species), ocean warming, etc.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:16 Gavin Schmidt
11:17
[Comment From John P. Reisman John P. Reisman : ] 
Roger Piekle Jr. : pointing out straw man arguments is important in order to illustrate the problem of distraction taking away focus on the science and potential ramifications.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:17 John P. Reisman
11:17
[Comment From ejgertz ejgertz : ] 
It's not "more" warming in Arctic -- it's that warming trend is most intense in Arctic.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:17 ejgertz
11:17
[Comment From Chip Knappenberger Chip Knappenberger : ] 
Illinois' crop yields have been steadily improving--despite whatever has been going on with the climate.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:17 Chip Knappenberger
11:17
Eli Kintisch: 
Chip, reference?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:17 Eli Kintisch
11:17
[Comment From Erik Erik : ] 
see also: http://met.no/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=881 and http://met.no/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=881 (north Norway and Iceland)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:17 Erik
11:17
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
Climate change expected by 2050 will trim precipitation in many parts of Europe, forcing farmers to mitigate the loss of rainfall or risk crop failures
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:17 Magnus Westerstrand
11:17
Eli Kintisch: 
Magnus, link?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:17 Eli Kintisch
11:18
Gavin Schmidt: 
Chip's point is not relevant - since yield increases over the last 50 years are due to strain improvements, fertiliser use, etc. That does not speak to the sensitivity to temperature/drought at all.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:18 Gavin Schmidt
11:19
Eli Kintisch: 
Somerville: "The US and China together contribute more than half" of carbon emissions...together they could "take a huge step forward"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:19 Eli Kintisch
11:20
Eli Kintisch: 
Rep Burress (R-Tx) asks Somerville about Waxman Markey bill : "Far better than doing nothing"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:20 Eli Kintisch
11:21
[Comment From John P. Reisman John P. Reisman : ] 
Eli, if I had a nickel for every time I heard in a testimony, someone saying a new paper is coming out that overturns...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:21 John P. Reisman
11:21
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
the like was the one in the former post...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:21 Magnus Westerstrand
11:21
[Comment From Chip Knappenberger Chip Knappenberger : ] 
Crop statistics are available from the National Agricultural Statistic Service, http://www.nass.usda.gov/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:21 Chip Knappenberger
11:22
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
First time point explicitly made that you have to compare costs of action directly to costs of inaction?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:22 thingsbreak
11:22
[Comment From Brad Johnson Brad Johnson : ] 
Burgess wins the prize for the most leading question
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:22 Brad Johnson
11:22
[Comment From Chip Knappenberger Chip Knappenberger : ] 
Gavin, Sure it does. It shows that crop yields improve irrespective of the climate...for many of the reasons that Gavin lists.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:22 Chip Knappenberger
11:22
[Comment From Guest Guest : ] 
See http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:22 Guest
11:23
Eli Kintisch: 
Burress: US had popular "revulsion" against the Waxman Markey bill. "Voting no was not enough...people wanted us to stop that thing dead in its tracks" No action by India and China...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:23 Eli Kintisch
11:23
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
This India and China bashing is perverse, from an emissions "pie slicing" perspective.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:23 thingsbreak
11:23
[Comment From Joseph Romm Joseph Romm : ] 
The Economist has a long piece noting that a great many crop yield curves have flattened. Lester Brown has a long presentation on the same point.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:23 Joseph Romm
11:23
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Somerville being asked about policy, not fair. After writing extensively now about policy in his testimony, he now claims to want to stick to the science. These guys need better tutoring.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:23 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:23
[Comment From Chrissy Chrissy : ] 
We need cleaner fuel for transportation. Just because you increase the mpg of a vehicle by adding a bigger battery to do more bulk of the driving, doesn't mean it's emissions aren't any less dirty than a car designed in the 1950's
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:23 Chrissy
11:23
[Comment From John Cook John Cook : ] 
Cost of inaction vs cost of action: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=11
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:23 John Cook
11:23
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
We have had high taxes on petrol for a long time in Sweden and it still works...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:23 Magnus Westerstrand
11:24
Gavin Schmidt: 
Christy: Any attribution statement is model-based. Of course.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:24 Gavin Schmidt
11:24
Eli Kintisch: 
Hilariously (at least to me) Inslee leaves, but his climate books tower remains...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:24 Eli Kintisch
11:25
[Comment From Robert Hudson Robert Hudson : ] 
Anyone know of a study allocating China's industrial emissions to the countries that buy its exports?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:25 Robert Hudson
11:25
[Comment From John Mashey John Mashey : ] 
See http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts, I woudl suggest that picking Illinois right now is like picking Stockholm for sea level rise: no problem.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:25 John Mashey
11:25
[Comment From Nick Nick : ] 
Christy "fact of warming"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:25 Nick
11:25
[Comment From Brad Johnson Brad Johnson : ] 
I think Christy just argued that the only climate science that can be trusted is thermometers. Don't trust those laws of physics!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:25 Brad Johnson
11:25
Eli Kintisch: 
(Christy's comment was that thermometers can't say what fraction of warming is due to gh gasses.)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:25 Eli Kintisch
11:25
[Comment From Jason Jason : ] 
@Chip you have to realize, though, that not everyone has the same access to or money for ag tech (both seed and equip) outside US. Furthermore, temperature changes in Corn Belt have been mostly in min temps, not max temps.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:25 Jason
11:26
[Comment From John P. Reisman John P. Reisman : ] 
Roger, the point is we need policy based on science, not opinion or special interest favor, you could use a little tutoring yourself.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:26 John P. Reisman
11:26
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Waxman's attribution analysis not too good, not based on models??
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:26 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:26
Gavin Schmidt: 
Somerville is using a conscilience of evidence argument. Quite right.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:26 Gavin Schmidt
11:26
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Somerville is very good
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:26 MapleLeaf
11:26
Eli Kintisch: 
Somerville: science not reliant on a "thin strand" of evidnece...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:26 Eli Kintisch
11:28
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
More frequent and longer-lasting heat waves may be a future health risk for residents in major cities, shows one of the first studies to quantify heat-wave-related mortality risk http://www.nature.com/nclimate/2011/110125/full/nclimate1034.html
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:28 Magnus Westerstrand
11:29
Eli Kintisch: 
Waxman points out that House zeroed out IPCC funding 2 weeks ago; mentions Christy's suggestion that scientists at odds with the consensus should be supported by research dollars; Somerville says that IPCC considers outliers well...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:29 Eli Kintisch
11:30
[Comment From JayK JayK : ] 
There is no standard for determining what is "a different point of view" to fund. Plain objection to the majority should not be a viable method to obtain funding.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:30 JayK
11:30
Gavin Schmidt: 
Waxman's point about peer-review of funding decisions being vital is very good.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:30 Gavin Schmidt
11:30
[Comment From Ian Ian : ] 
Robert, here's one article in PNAS about accounting for CO2 based on consumption
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:30 Ian
11:30
[Comment From Al Al : ] 
Mac Viewers need to download Flip for Mac or other Windows Media Viewer
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:30 Al
11:30
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
more on food, climate change will start to negatively affect crop production by 2050. In southern Africa, for example, maize yields are predicted to fall by as much as 30 per cent if temperatures rise 1 °C (Science 319, 607–610; 2008)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:30 Magnus Westerstrand
11:30
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
@RPJr. It sounded to me like he was emphasizing that observational data, not just modeling in and of itself, was important. Which is completely true.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:30 thingsbreak
11:32
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
I don't want Congress deciding who gets funded or how IPCC does its assessments.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:32 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:33
[Comment From Kevin Kevin : ] 
Why are they asking scientists about economic impacts and technology?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:33 Kevin
11:33
Eli Kintisch: 
McKinley (R-WV) : 15 million unemployed in WV...no cost effective way to deal with emissions...would EPA

McKinley "would a war on coal" have an adverse impact on economy? Roberts, a doctor, says "it will be a disaster."

Pielke Sr. says not my area of expertise. "I came to talk about the science."

Christy: "As someone who lived in Africa, I can tell you a life without energy is brutal and short" [not really the question, but fair enough]
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:33 Eli Kintisch
11:33
[Comment From Nick Nick : ] 
Roberts "it will be a disaster" - thats a scientific response. Thanks mr roberts
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:33 Nick
11:34
[Comment From J Bowers J Bowers : ] 
On economic costs - Coal's hidden costs top $345 billion in U.S.: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/us-usa-coal-study-idUSTRE71F4X820110216
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:34 J Bowers
11:34
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Dr. Christy, no one is talking about having NO energy in the USA for goodness' sakes.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:34 MapleLeaf
11:36
Gavin Schmidt: 
I can't my book in Inslee's pile :-(
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:36 Gavin Schmidt
11:36
Eli Kintisch: 
Inslee: "embarassment" that "chronic anti-science" syndrome by Republicans. Colleagues in GOP won't believe, he says, "until the entire antarctic ice sheet has melted or hell has frozen over"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:36 Eli Kintisch
11:37
[Comment From Chip Knappenberger Chip Knappenberger : ] 
Here is link to mortality rate declines across the U.S.,
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:37 Chip Knappenberger
11:37
[Comment From Chip Knappenberger Chip Knappenberger : ] 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f383117230427m87/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:37 Chip Knappenberger
11:37
[Comment From Brad Johnson Brad Johnson : ] 
Pielke Sr: "We know that CO2 is increasing because of human activities." He then misrepresents IPCC work on other forcings.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:37 Brad Johnson
11:38
Eli Kintisch: 
@Roberts: explain/link please?

Inslee submits various letters with thousands of scientists saying that GH gases are dangerous, should be regulated
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:38 Eli Kintisch
11:39
[Comment From JayK JayK : ] 
Can someone tell my why Clinton-era regulations of coal - energy production where maintenance cycles require updates to scrubbers and cleaning technology are not being mentioned or talked about at this time?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:39 JayK
11:39
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Inslee slams GOP for being "anti-science". Says we're the country that put a man on the moon, have greatest software companies in the world.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:39 thingsbreak
11:39
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Inslee cites letter from physicians, statement by CDC, saying GHGs threaten health.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:39 thingsbreak
11:39
[Comment From John P. Reisman John P. Reisman : ] 
Roger, if the funding is coming from American taxpayers, who do you think should decide who gets funding?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:39 John P. Reisman
11:40
[Comment From Vicky Vicky : ] 
Having watched the 3hr committee hearing questioning Prof.Jones over that scandal, I'm finding this far more educating. The Westminster committee also questioned the science and the IPCC, but had deniers on the committee so it was far more attacking. Is this so balanced because of the Representatives on the committee? Could we get these scientists to come over to the UK please?!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:40 Vicky
11:40
Eli Kintisch: 
Field: Water availability in West, melting in Arctic, loss of coral reefs "happening more rapidly" than expected. Somerville: IPCC, if anything, has been "cautious" in making

Inslee: Oyster growers are having problems growing oysters in Puget sound because of acidification of the water...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:40 Eli Kintisch
11:41
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Inslee has Vaclav Smil's "Energy at the Crossroads" book in his pile. He should read it.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:41 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:41
[Comment From Robert Hudson Robert Hudson : ] 
Thanks, Ian. I found the article: S. Davis and K. Caldeira, “Consumption-Based Accounting of CO2 Emissions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107 no. 12 (2010): 5687–5692
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:41 Robert Hudson
11:41
Eli Kintisch: 
Pielke Sr: Impacts are real, question is whether this is simply GHG theory or another explanation.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:41 Eli Kintisch
11:42
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
I wish Richard Alley was a witness. :(
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:42 thingsbreak
11:42
[Comment From John P. Reisman John P. Reisman : ] 
Roger, in addition, I'd like to see funding based on relevant priority too, but someone has to make a decision. I also don't think congress necessarily is the best choice for actually understanding things. So I'm open to a better way.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:42 John P. Reisman
11:42
[Comment From Chrissy Chrissy : ] 
If it is obvious that changes are occuring fast, then whhy is there a need to sit and argue about it, instead of getting the lead out and doing something?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:42 Chrissy
11:42
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Did Pielke Sr. just endorse Christy's "minority IPCC"?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:42 thingsbreak
11:42
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
More on Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet decay: http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheet-decay-update/
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:42 thingsbreak
11:42
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
there are lots of studies discussing eradication rates and the now ongoing global warming and what how much wors it will be in the future here are some: http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0712/full/climate.2007.70.html
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:42 Magnus Westerstrand
11:42
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Pielke Snr needs to read Polyak et al. (2010)-- natural variability cannot explain the current warming or ice loss in the Arctic
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:42 MapleLeaf
11:42
[Comment From Chip Knappenberger Chip Knappenberger : ] 
Coral reefs expanding their range northward as ocean warm (at least in Japan), http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046474.shtml
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:42 Chip Knappenberger
11:42
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Inslee asks if anything else can explain rapid change in Arctic other than CO2, Gavin?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:42 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:43
Eli Kintisch: 
@Roger Jr: Black carbon falling on snow in himalayas speeds melting there...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:43 Eli Kintisch
11:44
Eli Kintisch: 
Rep Griffith (R-Va): Asks about melting ice caps on Mars. Is sun getting brighter, he asks?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:44 Eli Kintisch
11:44
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Mars ice caps melting. Drink!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:44 thingsbreak
11:45
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Mars ice caps, snore!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:45 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:46
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
the answer to mars: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:46 Magnus Westerstrand
11:46
[Comment From MarkS MarkS : ] 
Griffith is just slinging now...warm temps give rise to the great civilizations of the past, what is the ideal temp for the earth, etc
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:46 MarkS
11:46
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
Annswers to is it the sun: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:46 Magnus Westerstrand
11:47
Eli Kintisch: 
In general I would say this hearing is a disappointment: the issue of whether congress can/should have a close control on EPA decisions is at least an interesting one that different people who are reasonable can disagree about.

So far little discussion of that issue at all. :(

Maybe because these are scientists the real issue is just not coming up. Weird hearing.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:47 Eli Kintisch
11:48
[Comment From Brad Johnson Brad Johnson : ] 
If you're playing the skeptic drinking game, Griffith is committed to getting you drunk. Vikings, Mars, global cooling...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:48 Brad Johnson
11:49
[Comment From Joseph Romm Joseph Romm : ] 
He lays awake at night worrying about Martian warming? His constituents were taught that carbon dioxide leads to global cooling? He studied it himself!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:49 Joseph Romm
11:49
Eli Kintisch: 
Rep Gardner (R-CO): "Farmers would be on front lines" to call for controls on GH gasses if it was a threat to their livelihood. "Is the cure worse than the disease"?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:49 Eli Kintisch
11:50
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
Christy shaking his head about global cooling being a myth... why?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:50 Magnus Westerstrand
11:50
[Comment From John Cook John Cook : ] 
BTW, Magnus, easier links now :-) http://sks.to/sun http://sks.to/mars
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:50 John Cook
11:50
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Christy is not testifying as a scientist IMHO. Very disappointing.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:50 MapleLeaf
11:50
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Is he claiming that farmers are a better source of crop yield impacts than the actual scientific evidence?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:50 thingsbreak
11:51
Eli Kintisch: 
Comments refer to a point Christy made that corn grows from the north to the deep south of the US, so small temp changes will be adaptable.

(Gavin has stepped out, by the way -- hopefully he'll return...)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:51 Eli Kintisch
11:51
[Comment From Kevin Kevin : ] 
Next time they talk science, the proponents should invite at least one economist who has been working this issue to respond to these econ impact questions. It is clear that a science committee hearing isn't just about science.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:51 Kevin
11:51
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
There are always going to be excuses not to take action. Again cheap energy is not a right. Why can;t people understand that?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:51 MapleLeaf
11:52
[Comment From Robert Hudson Robert Hudson : ] 
Using consumption-based accounting for CO2 emissions, U.S. still leads China 6497 to 3953 Mt CO2/y (Davis and Caldeira, 2010, PNAS 107: 5687). Wish people would realize this. This seemed more topical earlier in the hour, but the fact is still relevant.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:52 Robert Hudson
11:52
[Comment From Chrissy Chrissy : ] 
Small temp changes yes, but not drought
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:52 Chrissy
11:52
[Comment From Brad Johnson Brad Johnson : ] 
I wonder if Scalise is going to repeat his charge that the EPA is the Gestapo.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:52 Brad Johnson
11:52
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
yes I am disappointed...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:52 Magnus Westerstrand
11:53
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Christy' nuclear math was 1000 4GW plants = 10% co2? (maybe I missed it). This is incorrect.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:53 Roger Pielke, Jr.
11:55
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
GOP are directing heir questions to Pielke and Christy, that is ridiculous...they need to let everyone respond if qualified to do so. Talk about shutting down opposing views. The irony.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:55 MapleLeaf
11:55
[Comment From Jason Jason : ] 
Farmers in Corn Belt have already adapted by planting earlier w/ longer season hybrids.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:55 Jason
11:55
[Comment From Joseph Romm Joseph Romm : ] 
GOP was not strategic about this hearing at all. They didn't want it, but I still haven't heard a good explanation for why they agreed to it and gave the Democrats so many witnesses
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:55 Joseph Romm
11:56
Eli Kintisch: 
Christy: Disagrees with Somerville's statement that multiple studies "exonerated" IPCC malfeasance; there wasn't due process/ cross examination etc
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:56 Eli Kintisch
11:57
[Comment From rustneversleeps rustneversleeps : ] 
@ Roger jr, Christy said 1,000 1.4 GW nuclear plants. That is ballpark correct for 10% CO2 emissions.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:57 rustneversleeps
11:57
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
This is fun, well Sweden have much higher CO2 tax then the US still low unemployment rates and last year a GDP growth about 7 % if i remember correctly...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:57 Magnus Westerstrand
11:57
[Comment From Thomas Lee Elifritz Thomas Lee Elifritz : ] 
The hearing has now degenerated into farce and outright lies.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:57 Thomas Lee Elifritz
11:58
[Comment From Nick Nick : ] 
"what really happened in climate gate" "they used a trick to hide the decline" "this is something that really happened" -Scalise
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:58 Nick
11:58
[Comment From Jason Jason : ] 
Temperature changes not as much a big hurt for growing corn as precip changes (unless we want to commit ourselves to even more irrigation). Less precip during height of growing season can lead to large yield impact
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:58 Jason
11:58
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
I give up, going by the dogma of the GOP candidates, we had better start praying that equilibrium climate sensitivity is less than 2 K. The level of ignorance demonstrated by the GOP is overwhelming.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:58 MapleLeaf
12:01
Eli Kintisch: 
@MapleLeaf: If you are unhappy about GOP views on climate science, that is significant because this hearing is of the "Energy and Power" subcommittee -- that is, if any representatives should know about the issue, it's these guys...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:01 Eli Kintisch
12:01
[Comment From Hank Roberts Hank Roberts : ] 
"the more we learn about this the more uncertain it becomes, and to try to factor out the CO2 contribution ... becomes increasingly a problem" -- Pielke Sr.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:01 Hank Roberts
12:01
[Comment From Brad Johnson Brad Johnson : ] 
Why is Pielke Sr repeatedly claiming that CO2 is the only thing addressed by IPCC? It's just false.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:01 Brad Johnson
12:01
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Again Roger Pilke Snr-- scientists do consider natural variability. He is misrepresenting the body of scientific understanding on climate drivers.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:01 MapleLeaf
12:02
[Comment From John Mashey John Mashey : ] 
Speaking as an ok'd farmboy, one can adapt to Warner temperatures, but either too little water or floods put you put of business, and it depends where you are as to which is the problem. Many people seem to talk about agriculture without seeming to know much about it. the 2009 USGCRP is very useful because it offers regional assessments. Ag in AZ and in IL face opposite problems.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:02 John Mashey
12:03
Eli Kintisch: 
Whitfield just asked the members of the committee if they want to do "another round" of questions...yes, everyone said..eyerolls all over the press table...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:03 Eli Kintisch
12:04
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Eli I am not so much unhappy about their views, but their ignorance of the science.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:04 MapleLeaf
12:04
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Brad Johnson, listen to Somerville's response
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:04 Roger Pielke, Jr.
12:04
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Minoan warm period. Roman warm period. Medieval warm period. Chug!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:04 thingsbreak
12:04
[Comment From Chip Knappenberger Chip Knappenberger : ] 
Major food crop yields are increasing across the country. Visit NASS, http://www.nass.usda.gov/, and see for yourself.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:04 Chip Knappenberger
12:05
Eli Kintisch: 
Six members remain in the committee room. Each will have five minutes of questions...wish more was about EPA and the effects on science if congress were to, by "fiat" as Pielke Jr put it, to erase a legally required scientific assessment because it didn't like its finding...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:05 Eli Kintisch
12:06
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
The idea that the US would be acting unilaterally is simply, unequivocally false. See: every other developed nation (minus Oz, and Canada).
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:06 thingsbreak
12:06
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
The Antarctic sea ice is irrelevant to GSL, at least directly (it does buttress glaciers), either way it is not increasing at a stat. sig. rate. Globally sea ice is decreasing.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:06 MapleLeaf
12:08
[Comment From Bhagwad Bhagwad : ] 
Can I watch the entire hearing after it's over? I'm working right now and can't spare the time
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:08 Bhagwad
12:08
Eli Kintisch: 
Should be...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:08 Eli Kintisch
12:09
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Eli, that is a different panel, and probably one that neither side wants to hear from
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:09 Roger Pielke, Jr.
12:10
Eli Kintisch: 
Field: In warmer period,ag yields go down. A single day of 104 def F vs 84 deg F can cut yield by 7% ...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:10 Eli Kintisch
12:11
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Joe, I agree, waste of a hearing, but politics in all its glory.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:11 Roger Pielke, Jr.
12:11
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
It's rather the world waiting for US to get up and start doing something...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:11 Magnus Westerstrand
12:11
[Comment From Hank Roberts Hank Roberts : ] 
That's the "advocacy science" PR side that's succeeding, the bogus claims are every one being brought up and stated for the cameras and the record over and over.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:11 Hank Roberts
12:12
[Comment From Dan Olner Dan Olner : ] 
"Connie Hedegaard wins battle for 25% carbon emissions cut. EU climate change commissioner – with help from Chris Huhne – sees off lobbyists who opposed raising target from 20%." [EK: in Denmark. link Dan?]
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:12 Dan Olner
12:13
Eli Kintisch: 
Christy claims that consensus view is that warming is .26 deg C...did I hear that right? That isn't correct...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:13 Eli Kintisch
12:15
[Comment From Brad Johnson Brad Johnson : ] 
Christy falsely claims temperature data not in sync with theory/models.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:15 Brad Johnson
12:17
Eli Kintisch: 
From 12:13 [Hank Roberts]

"the history and hype surrounding corn yields has one staggering asterisk: The very best farms, blessed with the best weather and land, have posted the same yields for at least 20 years -- suggesting they have reached the limit of what the corn plant can produce." http://www.startribune.com/business/46495542.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUHPYDiaK7DUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUr "Agriculture: Will the yield keep growing? Corn yields seem to rise every year, along with demand. But the question is whether, even with genetic tinkering, the yields will continue to increase. By MATT McKINNEY, Star Tribune June 3, 2009 - 10:44 AM"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:17 Eli Kintisch
12:17
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
The idea that ACES went late into the night on June 26th is completely false.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:17 thingsbreak
12:18
Eli Kintisch: 
[ACES was Waxman Markey bill: several times Reps have said the bill was passed late at night] - @thingsbreak have a ref/link?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:18 Eli Kintisch
12:19
Eli Kintisch: 
Field: length of fire season, severity of fires, and annual fire area are all skyrocketing in US west; three fold increase could come with modest 1.8 deg F warming.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:19 Eli Kintisch
12:20
[Comment From Dan Olner Dan Olner : ] 
Gah: posting re. "unilateral" claims. Link: http://bit.ly/fuz8WJ
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:20 Dan Olner
12:20
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
@Eli, I think he was saying that climate modeling was ostensibly showing 0.26°C/decade, which sounds a tad high, but close to the ~0.20°C/decade I've seen elsewhere.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:20 thingsbreak
12:21
[Comment From JT JT : ] 
@Magnus, the world is no longer waiting...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:21 JT
12:21
[Comment From Chip Knappenberger Chip Knappenberger : ] 
Eli, .26degC/dec is the model average warming rate for the lower troposphere (MSU 2LT).
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:21 Chip Knappenberger
12:21
[Comment From Jim Bouldin Jim Bouldin : ] 
No Eli, he said "current climate theory" (or something like that) gave .26C per decade. But he did say that climate sensitivity was about 1/3 of the consensus view
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:21 Jim Bouldin
12:21
[Comment From ejgertz ejgertz : ] 
Eli, the vote took place around 7-8pm after a full day of floor statements.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:21 ejgertz
12:23
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Chip, for what period, and citation please.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:23 MapleLeaf
12:23
[Comment From ejgertz ejgertz : ] 
Eli: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-477
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:23 ejgertz
12:24
[Comment From Nick Nick : ] 
Christy thinks CO2 regulation will take us to the 18th century or Africa. Reasoned, measured statements.....
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:24 Nick
12:24
[Comment From JayK JayK : ] 
Is Pielke, Sr. talking about albedo changes or heat island effects or a combination? He might as well have just mentioned Anthony Watts as his source.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:24 JayK
12:24
[Comment From Chris Colose Chris Colose : ] 
Christy, for a while has been pushing results of older UAH data that was found to be erroneous (and needed other people to clean up his mess); he is still not right about the surface record, and he is still not right about theory. He's making half this testimony up
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:24 Chris Colose
12:25
Eli Kintisch: 
A very prominent reporter I won't name is playing Hearts in the press table...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:25 Eli Kintisch
12:26
[Comment From Brad Johnson Brad Johnson : ] 
Funny, when Christy is peer-reviewed he admits discrepancy between models and his data probably the fault of bad data. "This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open." http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-intermediate.htm
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:26 Brad Johnson
12:26
Gavin Schmidt: 
I'm back.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:26 Gavin Schmidt
12:26
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Again, the SRES scenarios will not reduce temps or CO2 levels to those of the pre-industrial era. We are talking about limiting the warming to around + 2 K over pre-industrial.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:26 MapleLeaf
12:26
[Comment From Hank Roberts Hank Roberts : ] 
Field: there are already decreases ... wheat maize corn and barley ... we're already in the responsive part of the system. Griffith is misunderstanding or misstating what Field says over and over, trying to say there's no information.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:26 Hank Roberts
12:27
[Comment From Magnus Westerstrand Magnus Westerstrand : ] 
@ chris, yes Chrisy's testimony answers should be written down... I just cant take the man serious any more... hope the journalists will report on this.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:27 Magnus Westerstrand
12:30
[Comment From John Mashey John Mashey : ] 
Ag yields in US depend on oil for mechanized farming, especially on those 500-acre farms in Midwest. They also depend on natural gas fior fertilizer. Peak oil: guess world production @ 50% by 2050, 10% by 2100. That won't bother places where farmers are 60-80% of population, as they are using manual labor and manure.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:30 John Mashey
12:30
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@JayK http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-321.pdf
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:30 Roger Pielke, Jr.
12:30
Gavin Schmidt: 
The 0.26 deg C/dec from Christy might be an estimate of the mean model trend in the TLT (which is roughly 1.2 times the SAT). The SAT trend in the models is 0.21 +/- 0.16 deg C/dec (from 1984 to 2010), so multiply by 1.2, to get 0.25 +/- 0.2 deg C/dec, compared to 0.14 from UAH, or slightly larger in RSS. The point being that relatively short trends are not useful to be able to determine sensitivity.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:30 Gavin Schmidt
12:31
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
I hope Revkin and others calls Christy and the GOP guys on their misinformation and misguided ideas. IMHO, this is a huge story
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:31 MapleLeaf
12:32
Eli Kintisch: 
Inslee is pressing Christy on testimony he delivered at a Vermont trial: does he agree that human emissions are "mostly" responsible for melting in Arctic? He says he says that he believes "some" of the melting may be connected to human emissions...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:32 Eli Kintisch
12:32
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Inslee still not right on CO2 as only effect on Arctic
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:32 Roger Pielke, Jr.
12:32
Gavin Schmidt: 
Pielke Sr. is half right, black carbon and ozone are related to Arctic warming, but the dominant issue is GHGs.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:32 Gavin Schmidt
12:33
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Inslee seems unaware that EPA said that it could not regulate black carbon because the science was too uncertain
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:33 Roger Pielke, Jr.
12:34
Eli Kintisch: 
Inslee had been asking about whether there is a "single peer reviewed paper" that suggests a reason for arctic melting apart from human emissions of gh gases...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:34 Eli Kintisch
12:35
Eli Kintisch: 
Pielke Sr is asked about a Bush-era climate science report he resigned from because of "serious issues" in terms of temperature record...link was pasted earlier.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:35 Eli Kintisch
12:35
Gavin Schmidt: 
There are many reasons to regulate BC - not simply because of climate. The problem is that many regulations would also affect reflective organic carbon (OC) aerosols as well, the net effect on climate is more uncertain. But BC impact on snow and ice albedo is clearly a warming effect. These issues are dealt with very well in the new UNEP report.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:35 Gavin Schmidt
12:35
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
Christy claiming that Arctic sea ice was seasonally gone a few thousand years ago?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:35 thingsbreak
12:36
[Comment From Chris Colose Chris Colose : ] 
The peer-reviewed article is much more nuanced than Inslee
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:36 Chris Colose
12:36
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
The same smoke stacks which release GHGs also release black carbon..no?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:36 MapleLeaf
12:36
[Comment From Nick Nick : ] 
@ Pielke Jr - do you feel the EPA should be stripped of its abilities to regulate GHGs based on the clean air act?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:36 Nick
12:36
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
CCSP story re: Pielke Sr. is a sordid tale and not a bright moment for climate science, but has nothing to do with EPA and regulation
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:36 Roger Pielke, Jr.
12:36
[Comment From ejgertz ejgertz : ] 
Saying "there's not one single peer-reviewed paper" is just asking to be debunked.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:36 ejgertz
12:37
Eli Kintisch: 
@ejgertz's comment was about Inslee's q...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:37 Eli Kintisch
12:37
[Comment From Rob Honeycutt Rob Honeycutt : ] 
This may be a silly question but wouldn't regulation of CO2 effectively also regulate black carbon?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:37 Rob Honeycutt
12:37
Gavin Schmidt: 
Mid-Holocene summer ice does seem to be have been less than present - but this is related to increased summer insolation due to orbital forcing. There are some beach relics in areas of North Greenland that are now completely ice-bound that date to the Early Holocene.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:37 Gavin Schmidt
12:38
Eli Kintisch: 
@rob: diesel fuels burning, and burning of biomass fuels in developing world are main sources; untouched by EPA proposed rules...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:38 Eli Kintisch
12:38
[Comment From Brad Johnson Brad Johnson : ] 
Inslee didn't say CO2 only effect -- he said that no-one can explain arctic melting w/o human emissions. Which is accurate.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:38 Brad Johnson
12:39
[Comment From John P. Reisman John P. Reisman : ] 
CO2 from human emissions is absolutely a pollutant. Definition - 1: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste ; also : the condition of being polluted http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/co2-is-not-a-pollutant
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:39 John P. Reisman
12:39
Gavin Schmidt: 
BC sources in some places are associated with incomplete coal combustion, diesel or biomass burning. More efficient burning would decrease CO2 emissions with respect to energy output.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:39 Gavin Schmidt
12:39
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Eli, here is one http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n4/full/ngeo156.html
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:39 Roger Pielke, Jr.
12:39
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Black list? How about Inhofe's list of 17? This is now a circus.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:39 MapleLeaf
12:39
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
@Rob, regulate CO2 = regulation of BC, no
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:39 Roger Pielke, Jr.
12:39
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Inslee is saying how it is, he is not mincing his words. Good.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:39 MapleLeaf
12:40
[Comment From Brian Angliss Brian Angliss : ] 
Rob - Not necessarily. Particulates come from coal, but also from inefficient cook stoves, for one.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:40 Brian Angliss
12:40
Gavin Schmidt: 
As one of the Inhofe 17, I can attest to the fun of being on a such a list. ;)
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:40 Gavin Schmidt
12:42
Gavin Schmidt: 
UNEP executive summary: www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/Black_Carbon.pdf
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:42 Gavin Schmidt
12:42
[Comment From Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger Pielke, Jr. : ] 
Summary - Those fighting for one side or another in the climate wars got to cheer or razz the two teams. Anyone interested in climate policy and the role of science in it should be disappointed. Thanks Eli and Gavin for hosting!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:42 Roger Pielke, Jr.
12:43
Eli Kintisch: 
Waxman: I would hate to see Congress take a position "that the science was false" by passing/marking up HR 910; wants to slow mark up on tuesday. But Whitfield disagrees; says that markup on thursday will proceed and debate will go on then...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:43 Eli Kintisch
12:44
Eli Kintisch: 
Rush (who is the ranking member on this subcommittee) also asks Whitfield to delay the thursday markup. "Force.. the American people...we should be more deliberative"
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:44 Eli Kintisch
12:44
[Comment From Salamano Salamano : ] 
@ Brad Johnson 12:38 -- You forgot a 'magic wand' or 'mystery' ... that also could explain arctic melting w/o human emissions.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:44 Salamano
12:44
[Comment From dana1981 dana1981 : ] 
@Rob - I think it's fair to say that reducing CO2 emissions will also reduce BC emissions (and other co-pollutants), but the more effective way to reduce BC emissions would be to regulate them directly
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:44 dana1981
12:45
[Comment From Robert Brulle Robert Brulle : ] 
Does anybody know where a video of these hearings will be posted? I want to require my grad class to watch this.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:45 Robert Brulle
12:45
Eli Kintisch: 
@RB: I think they do archive these at the committee site...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:45 Eli Kintisch
12:45
[Comment From thingsbreak thingsbreak : ] 
So the GOP is planning on dictating science to the EPA on Thursday?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:45 thingsbreak
12:45
[Comment From Chris Colose Chris Colose : ] 
Agree with Roger...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:45 Chris Colose
12:46
[Comment From ejgertz ejgertz : ] 
One of the major tragedies of US energy/climate policy stagnation is that lots of old, inefficient coal power plants stay online. Nation ought to upgrade them, as part of a rational path toward less coal use.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:46 ejgertz
12:46
[Comment From MapleLeaf MapleLeaf : ] 
Roger, I fight for science.....simple
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:46 MapleLeaf
12:46
[Comment From thingsbreakthingsbreak: ] 
@Robert Brulle You should be able to get a video of it after a few days on the subcommittee website.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:46 thingsbreak
12:47
Gavin Schmidt: 
So that's that. I can't say I was particularly surprised at how it went. Far too much cherry-picking, strawmen arguments and posturing. Is it possible to have susbtantive discussion in public on these issues?
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:47 Gavin Schmidt
12:47
Gavin Schmidt: 
Thanks to Eli for inviting me to contribute!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:47 Gavin Schmidt
12:48
[Comment From thingsbreakthingsbreak: ] 
Again, the House (this chamber) said "Yes" to legislating GHGs.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:48 thingsbreak
12:48
[Comment From william yeatmanwilliam yeatman: ] 
re: ACES and the middle of the night vote...it wasn't passed in the middle of the night. What they are referring to is the 300 page amendment (mostly perks to buy support) that Waxman introduced at 3 am June 26 2009, six hours before floor debate began. When the vote took place, the majority party didn't even have a collated copy of the legislation, a surefire indication that no one had read the full text. Such was the most open Congress in history.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:48 william yeatman
12:48
[Comment From Chip KnappenbergerChip Knappenberger: ] 
Eli, Gavin, thanks for taking my comments. Much appreciated.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:48 Chip Knappenberger
12:48
[Comment From MapleLeafMapleLeaf: ] 
Gavin, alas no.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:48 MapleLeaf
12:48
[Comment From MapleLeafMapleLeaf: ] 
Thanks for this Eli.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:48 MapleLeaf
12:48
[Comment From ejgertzejgertz: ] 
Nice discussion, Eli, Gavin and Roger. Thanks for taking the time; very helpful for me as a journalist.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:48 ejgertz
12:48
[Comment From Stephan HarrisonStephan Harrison: ] 
Robert Brulle, you will probably be able to find this hearing on c-span shortly. It will probably look something like this: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Science2 You can search for specific individuals and dates there.
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:48 Stephan Harrison
12:48
Eli Kintisch: 
Interesting event...though not that much substantive grappling with the fundamental question. Thanks all for participating; comment below if you have any suggestions on how to improvie future such liveblogs...
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:48 Eli Kintisch
12:49
Eli Kintisch: 
Seeya, everyone. Happy Fat tuesday!
Tuesday March 8, 2011 12:49 Eli Kintisch
12:50
 

 
 
Powered by google translate
English  English
简体中文  简体中文
Dansk  Dansk
Deutsch  Deutsch
Español  Español
Français  Français
Italiano  Italiano
日本語  日本語
日本語  한국어
Nederlands  Nederlands
Norsk  Norsk
Português  Português
Русский  Русский
Svenska  Svenska
Close