I tried to record this, but only got last half hour, since I was trying to get stream-recorder working while listening to the first two hours.

Some thoughts. Hirsch's point about RISK is very important. Thank God there is one rep, Bartlett who has a clue. The Chairman, Barton(?) seems clueless. Esser from CERA seems to concur that, yes, we have a problem. Esser says CERA doesn't bet at all on Saudi above 14mbpd. Excellent stuff from the Swedish guy. This was really some excellent public discussion at a very high level.

If anybody can find a link to the whole thing in Realplayer/WMA, please post. And a super thank you to whovever put the original post on yesterday. I think that was you, step back, wasn't it?


I was listening at the end after the hearing had adjourned.  The CERA guy was talking to someone else next to an open mike, and was talking about having worked at Mobil (or was it Exxon) prior to the merger with Exxon, and then having gone on to CERA.  I think he said he started out as a geologist.  It was hard to tell - they weren't standing close enough to the mike.

In the past Barton has made particularly inane comments regarding global warming.  I cannot find a quote online, but it was to the effect that he would fight with every means available any attempt to treat carbon as a pollutant.

Barton also was trying to intimidate scientists studying global warming with an anal-probe type of financial investigation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071701056.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102186.html

Barton's letters to the scientists had a peremptory, when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife tone. Mann was told that within less than three weeks, he must list "all financial support you have received related to your research," provide "the location of all data archives relating to each published study for which you were an author," "provide all agreements relating to . . . underlying grants or funding," and deliver similarly detailed information in five other categories.

The scientists' offense was that they had authored a controversial study that reported a sharp rise in global temperatures during the 20th century, based on an analysis of tree rings, glacial ice and coral layers. The study was an important source for a 2001 report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that argued the 1990s had been the hottest decade in 1,000 years. A graph summarizing the sharp upturn last century after hundreds of years of flat temperatures became known as the "hockey stick," and it has been derided ever since by skeptics.


    This is a very important issue. The work of Mann et al on the so-called hockey stick (a diagram which showed a fairly flat temperature for the Earth from about 1000 AD to the end of the 19th century and a strong increase in the 20th century) was publicised very strongly by the IPCC. It's a very convincing diagram with the only problem (for the IPCC) being that it is wrong. Two Canadian researchers, McIntyre & McKitrick pointed to flaws in it in a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, a prestigious journal. The AGU, published of GRL, termed critical this paper as a Journal Highlght. Other scientists have supported the Canadians.  The basic point of the Canadians is that Mann's computer programs will always find a hockey stick, even if the data are random noise.
    When the Canadians asked Mann et al for for the computer programs and data he used for the paper, he refused to give it to them. This is against scientific ethics, particularly in view of the enormous amount of money being spent on "global warming". Because Mann et al's research funds came from the Federal Government and because Congressman Bartlett chairs an energy subcommittee,  the Congressman requested that Mann and some other researchers supply their data to people who asked for it. Details of this can be found on the web site climateaudit.org. I believe that Mann et al have supplied some of their data but not all.
    The Mann data look strange to me because they do not show the Medieval warm period (a time when the Vikings lived on Greenland for many years) and the Little Ice Age, a period when extreme cold in Englad, Europe and North America meant that crop yields were very poor. It is indisputable that these unusual events occurred.
   There are also problems with the warming of the earth's atmosphere due to CO2 emissions. The bulk of the warming is caused by water vapor and, at the present time, not all of the details of the spectrum of water vapor have been calculated.

   

Actually, the climate scientist consensus is that McIntyre & McKitrick's "rebuttal" paper was itself flawed, at least in the way it stated its conclusions. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121 for instance.  The infamous "hockey stick" paper is by no means a conclusive bit of data on its own, but it was certainly not substantially weakened by McIntyre & Moore.

More importantly, the IPCC report of course doesn't rely on one little paper to make its point.  Like any heavily studied scientific problem it's a tapestry of many, many independent arguments and contributions, just one of which is the Mann et al paper (whose results have of course been improved upon, but little changed in character, in the 7 years since then).

In that sense the whole hockey stick argument is really a tempest in a teapot.  and the congressional probe of Mann really was silly and pointless (if symbolic) political grandstanding.

The climate change analog of TOD is realclimate.org. It's easier to keep on top of compared to TOD, so I'd recommend it to anybody interested in the topic.

650 thousand years of data shows a pretty strong correlation between CO2 and climate. I'm not saying that water vapour isn't important, but it could be a symptom rather than a problem.

You won't get much argument from me about Mann et al's work, but it isn't exactly standing in a corner all by itself. There is an already large and quickly growing body of peer-reviewed literature that supports human-compounded climate change.

There's been some pretty serious criticism of McIntyre & McKitrick's work as well.  This debate has been going back and forth for quite some time now. But it's important to put it in context: These guys are arguing about details of their simulations while Siberia is melting.  Faced with that fact, I don't much care about the details of the effect of different PC normalizations used in the simulations.

If you don't like the temperature "hockey stick", what do you think of the CO2 "hockey stick"?

Personally, I find it alarming! We have already passed 380 ppm, rising by nearly 2 ppm/year. Looking back as long as the ice-cores go (800.000 years?), the CO2 concentration has never before been above 300 ppm.
 

This is largely flat wrong, or true-but-misleading. If you are actually interested in the truth, rather than just propagating industry disinformation without regard for the facts, please read the thorough discussion of the Hockey Stick here and here. At this point, it's extremely well established science that recent decades are the warmest in a very long time. If in the slightest doubt, visit your nearest glacier. Check here for some comparative pictures.
    As a professional scientist, I am interested in the truth, which is why I posted my comments. I have not read any industry web sites on the issue of global warming. Staniford, why do you say that I am propagating industry disinformation?
    How can you possibly believe the hockey stick when:
(a) Mann refuses to supply all of the "data" and programs he used;
(b) The hockey stick does not show that the climate was warmer when the Vikings were living in Greenland? Do you think they were never there?;
(c) the hockey stick does not show the very cold period in the Middle Ages, when crops were failing in Europe and North America.
    The Web site realclimate.org does not post the arguments of its critics. Climateaudit.org does. You will learn much more from the latter site than the former.
    Two distinguished econcomists, Ian Castles and David Henderson have made strong criticisms of the IPCC's economic arguments. If you Google Ian Castles you can, and should, read these arguments. Or you can read them at climateaudit.
     Fred Singer is a good scientist with strong views on "global warming". Read his site. sepp.org, and you'll learn that Blair has stopped Britain's "global warming" initiatives.
As for Singer, he has been unable to publish anything in the peer-reviewed literature in the laqst 20 years except for one technical comment.

Singer's recklessness transcends his deeply flawed scientific pronouncements. It involves at least one public lie about his own funding. In early 2001, Singer was accused of having his work funded by the oil industry. In response, Singer wrote a letter to the Washington Post that he had not received any oil industry money for at least twenty years - when he had done a consulting job for the industry.

In fact, Singer received at least $10,000 and as much as $75,000 from ExxonMobil in 1998 alone, according to information on the oil giant's own website. (Shortly after that information was published in the Nation, ExxonMobil withdrew the page from its website.)

-Ross Gelbspan, Boiling Point, 2004, page 53


(more on Fred Singer on pgs 51 and 52.)
Gelbspan is a Pulitzer Prize winner.
The burning of fossil fuels releases fossil hydrogen as well as fossil carbon. Hydrogen combines with oxygen to make water while carbon combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide. Is there any way of knowing how much water vapor existed thousands of years ago. BTW 50% humidity at 20C is only 10ppm.