Announcement

**John Reece** · 05-30-2014, 04:53 PM

Continued from post #28 above ↑

This is my second installment of excerpts from Daniel B. Botkin's written testimony before the House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology. MAY 29, 2014 [emphases added -JR]

13. If the meaning is taken to be human-caused, then in spite of the assertions in the report, the available data do not support the statements.

Some of the reports conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions.Some conclusions contradict and are ignorant of the best statistically valid observations.The results reported by IPCC overestimate carbon storage and uptake by as much as 300 percent.

16. Overwhelming evidence contradicts this assertion. And it has been clearly shown that models used to make these forecasts, such as climate envelope models and species-area curve models, make incorrect assumptions that lead to erroneous conclusions, over-estimating extinction risks.THE REPORT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT LIVING THINGS ARE FRAGILE AND RIGID, unable to deal with change. The opposite is to case. Life is persistent, adaptable, adjustable.

18. STEADY-STATE ASSUMPTION: There is an overall assumption in the IPCC 2014 report and the Climate Change Assessment that all change is negative and undesirable; that it is ecologically and evolutionarily unnatural, bad for populations, species, ecosystems, for all life on planet Earth, including people. This is the opposite of the reality: The environment has always changed and is always changing, and living things have had to adapt to these changes. Interestingly, many, if not most, species that I have worked on or otherwise know about require environmental change.

19. Glaciers have come and gone repeatedly. The Northwest Passage of North America has gone and come again. The average temperature has greatly exceeded the present and forecasted and has declined only to rise again.

This is obviously false from many lines of evidence, including the simple experience of all people who have lived before the scientific-industrial age and those who live now and so do such work as farm, manage rivers, wildlife and forests.

**John Reece** · 05-31-2014, 04:18 AM

Continued from last post above ↑

This is the third post of excerpts from Daniel B. Botkin's written testimony before the House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology. MAY 29, 2014 [emphases added -JR]

The concerns I have mentioned with the IPCC apply as well to the White House's National Climate Assessment. I reviewed and provided comments on the draft White House's National Climate assessment and, unfortunately, it appears that these issues have not been addressed in the final assessment. For example, I stated:

"The executive summary is a political statement, not a scientific statement. It is filled with misstatements contradicted by well-established and well-known scientific papers."

"Climate has always affected people and all life on Earth, so it isn't new to say it is 'already affecting the American people.' This is just a political statement."

"It is inappropriate to use short-term changes in weather as an indication one way or another about persistent climate change."

WHAT HAS GONE WRONG, AND HOW TO FIX IT

1. Rather than focus on key, specific and tractable aspects of  climate-change science, the long-term approach throughout the 20th  century was to try to create de nova a complete model of the climate.

2. This approach has been taken despite a lack of focus on monitoring key  variables over time in statistically and scientifically valid ways, e. g. carbon sequestering by forests; polar bear population counts. As a result, there is an odd disconnect between theory and observation. The attempt to create complete models of every aspect of climate has meant that many factors had to be guessed at, rather than using the best scientific methods. Too many guesses, too little checking against real, observed effects.

3. The IPCC reports are the result of a very large number of people doing long reviews of the scientific literature. This easily leads to people being so  overburdened that they misinterpret specific papers, fail to understand where the major observational gaps are, and have trouble making an accurate list of citations and all sources of information. The fundamental IPCC and White House Climate Change Assessment approach has been to gather a huge number of scientists from a large number of disciplines, on the assumption that a kind of crowd approach to what can be agreed on is the same as true scientific advance. While this might seem a reasonable and effective approach,

4. What a scientist discovers is different from what a scientist says. The first is science, the second is opinion. Have small groups of scientists work on this problem, no more than can easily argue with one another, that is less than 20 and preferably even smaller, representing the primary disciplines. Divide the problem into areas, rather than try to answer all questions in one analysis. I have used this approach in my own work and found it to be successful.

5. The desire to do good has ironically overridden the desire to do the best science.

6. Under the weight of this kind of crowd rule and approach, some specific alternative approaches to the science of climate change, have not been allowed to rise to the surface.

7. Among the approaches that would improve climate science:

a. Return to the former reliance on science done by individuals and small groups with a common specific interest and focus.

 b. Change the approach from trying to make a complete, definitive model of every aspect of climate to a different level. See kinds of models that explore specific possibilities and phenomena.

 c. Get out of the blame game. None of the above suggestions can work as long as global warming remains a moral, political, ideologically dominated topic, with scientists pushed into, or at least viewed as, being either for or against a single point of view.

9. We need to focus again on major environmental Issues that need our attention now (see the list above).

10. ARE THERE EXAMPLES OF THE KIND OF RESEARCH I BELIEVE WE NEED MORE OF? YES.

a. NASA Carbon Monitoring System (CMS)
b. Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study
c. Whooping Crane monitoring, e.g. of an endangered species
d. In-place monitoring on carbon flux, being done by the USGS in the  Great Cypress Swamp, Florida.
e. Many others.

To be continued...

**John Reece** · 05-31-2014, 05:17 PM

Continued from last post above ↑

This is the first of a number of excerpts from the NOTES section of Daniel B. Botkin's written testimony before the House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology. MAY 29, 2014 [emphases added -JR]

REVIEW OF Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program , Jerry M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds. 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

By Daniel B. Botkin: May 29, 2014

[Note regarding my connections with Jerry M. Melillo, one of the three primary editors of this report: When I was on the faculty of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Jerry Melillo was a graduate student working on his doctorate and we interacted frequently. Beginning in 1975, Jerry Melillo and I worked at the Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA, and we published four scientific papers together, listed at the end of this document.]

COMMENTS ON THE ASSESSMENT GENERAL COMMENTS:

To be continued...

**John Reece** · 06-01-2014, 08:14 AM

Continued from last post above ↑

This is the second of a number of excerpts from the NOTES section of Daniel B. Botkin's written testimony before the House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology. MAY 29, 2014 [emphases added -JR]

Nota Bene: There are references to many illustrations, graphs, etc. in the written testimony and notes; however, none of such was reproduced in the text that I copied from the PDF file, so we can only imagine them by virtue of what Daniel B. Botkin has written about them in the printed text of his testimony. Ditto re Botkin's reference to his having underlined certain texts below; there is no underling in what has survived in the text I now have in my iMac Pages. -JR]

In the 1980s, I worked closely with climatologist Stephen Schneider and we often gave talks at the same events. Steve, one of the leaders of the modern concern about a possible human-induced global warming, also said that you should never use short-term weather events to infer climate change. I agreed with these experts, and therefore was taken aback by the overall tone of the new White House Climate Change Assessment, which begins:

Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present. Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State, and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience. So, too, are coastal planners in Florida, water managers in the arid Southwest, city dwellers from Phoenix to New York, and Native Peoples on tribal lands from Louisiana to Alaska. This National Climate Assessment concludes that the evidence of human-induced climate change continues to strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the country.

The Assessment concludes that opening paragraph by stating:

This National Climate Assessment concludes that the evidence of human-induced climate change continues to strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the country. Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours. People are seeing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies, the plant varieties that thrive in their gardens, and the kinds of birds they see in any particular month in their neighborhoods.

These opening paragraphs and several that follow directly communicate to the reader, both lay and professional, that human-induced global warming in an immediate disaster. For example:

To be scientifically accurate, these paragraphs should instead have been written (my changes noted by underlining [see above NB note at top of this post -JR]):

Other weather changes are even more dramatic. Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snowmelt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, and autumn storms now cause more erosion, threatening many communities with relocation.

Scientists who study weather and climate change point out that short-term, including several decades and longer, changes in weather do not confirm that these observations are consistent with significant changes in Earth's climatic trends.

These opening statements are directly followed by:

Many lines of independent evidence demonstrate that the rapid warming of the past half-century is due primarily to human activities. The observed warming and other climatic changes are triggering wide-ranging impacts in every region of our country and throughout our economy. Some of these changes can be beneficial over the short run, such as a longer growing season in some regions and a longer shipping season on the Great Lakes. But many more are detrimental, largely because our society and its infrastructure were designed for the climate that we have had, not the rapidly changing climate we now have and can expect in the future. In addition, climate change does not occur in isolation. Rather, it is superimposed on other stresses, which combine to create new challenges.

The assertions in this paragraph are based on the forecasts from climate models and from temperature records. However, Figure 1 shows that the climate models greatly exaggerate the rate and amount of temperature change and are not making forecasts that come even close to fitting the data.

Furthermore, Figure 1 also shows that the average Earth temperature in the past 30 years has changed very little if at all, contradicting the assertions on the first page of the Assessment.

Figure 1: Climate model forecasts compared to real world temperature observations (From John Christy, University of Alabama and Alabama State Climatologist. Reproduced with permission from him.)[/i]

The Assessment further attributes the supposed climatic warming to human activities that are releasing greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Therefore the claimed disaster is our fault. But recent evidence shows that temperature change is not tracking the increase in carbon dioxide.

The gas has increased from 370 ppm to just over 400ppm, 8 percent, between year 2000 and year 2014 (Figure 2), while the temperature has changed either only slightly or not at all, depending on how one does the analysis (Figure 3). Instead, temperature change tracks closely changes in the energy output from the sun (Figure 4).

Figure 2. Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 measurements

Figure 3. Earth Surface Temperature Departure from 1950-1980 Average

Figure 4. Correlation Between Solar Irradiance and Poleward flux of energy. 

To be continued...

**John Reece** · 06-01-2014, 07:11 PM

I am going to abort my tedious and amateurish efforts to present Daniel B. Botkin's WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY. MAY 29, 2014, because it is all presented complete with illustrations here.

**Epoetker** · 06-02-2014, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by lao tzu

I let them speak with their full authority, which is far more substantial absent the debilitation occasioned by delusions of divine inspiration. I understand there's an essential religious component attached to the high view, one that I would never ask you to reject.

And I understand that there's an essentially religious component to the global warmist view:

It's a religion of paycheck and precedent, and the solemn duty of never having to have been seen a fool, nor to be asked to think too hard, nor to have to fight hard for anything true. I'm going to have to emphatically ask you to reject before I accept you as someone I shouldn't send to jail, much less accept as a Christian. Repentance needs to be more serious and comprehensive for me to take it seriously after this level of commitment to sin.

But that wasn't the tenor of my comment.

Here we're speaking of empirical data, data that can be checked, cross-checked via re-measurement and analyzed directly and independently.

I've pulled GISS data and done the latter myself. I've investigated the correction factors and separate climate forcing factors in order to judge the papers that I've read, gleaned from the academic literature. There is no substitute for this hard science to be found trolling through political blogs and partisan think tanks.

Have you ever heard of Climate Audit?

Originally posted by Climate Audit

As the table shows, while GISS says 2007 was the hottest year on record, it was also the second highest year with estimated and/or unavailable temperature data.

To summarize what I am seeing from the GHCN data: (1) the number of stations / records has been dropping dramatically in recent years and (2) with that drop the quality of the record-keeping has also dropped dramatically because we are seeing a corresponding rise in estimated annual temperatures and/or insufficient data to calculate an annual temperature. Using this data, GISS is showing that the temperature anomaly in recent years is the highest recorded in the historical record.

So, your precious, cross-checkable GISS data is....useless, and probably tainted. Do you count that site as partisan or political?

Geologists do not so much dismiss young earthers as ignore them, because their output is not merely insignificant, but recognizably intended as a distraction.

Just as most people who've been around the globe a few times will similarly ignore any 'climate scientist' that isn't an actual weatherman.

the vast majority of climate skeptics, including all of those you've cited, at the expense of a reputation in your own field you've spent most of your lifetime developing.

That is why I've spoken up now, because you're embarrassing yourself in a way we all know is an occupational hazard for academics when we speak outside our specialties, and I'd rather you didn't. I enjoy reading your analyses of Biblical issues, even when you're investigating unusual hypotheses. I remember fondly the help you've given me finding sources in the past. And even if you decide to continue with this quixotic quest, I'll continue to do so.

Being a willing shill for a movement that habitually presents lies and gross exaggerations as serious research in a public forum needs something a little more substantial than concern trolling before I'll even consider taking you seriously, or not throwing you in jail with the Michael Milkens and Bernie Madoffs of the world once our side comes to power.

**JonathanL** · 06-02-2014, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Epoetker View Post

And I understand that there's an essentially religious component to the global warmist view:

It's a religion of paycheck and precedent, and the solemn duty of never having to have been seen a fool, nor to be asked to think too hard, nor to have to fight hard for anything true. I'm going to have to emphatically ask you to reject before I accept you as someone I shouldn't send to jail, much less accept as a Christian. Repentance needs to be more serious and comprehensive for me to take it seriously after this level of commitment to sin.

Since when has Lao been a Christian?

**Pinoy** · 06-02-2014, 03:38 AM

This was interesting to read. (I have reservations to people who start the selling of the carbon credits).

If you have a lot of money you can buy a lot of carbon credits - have more right to waste.

**Juvenal** · 06-02-2014, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by John Reece View Post

Thanks for your response, lao tzu; you have prompted me to broaden my sources of information.

John

Dear John,

That's quite heartening. I could ask for nothing more.

I should point out that one should begin with the technical reports published by the IPCC. The Fifth Assessment Report is currently underway. There is no better source for summaries of the scientific data. The Physical Science Basis contains exactly the information you say you haven't seen:

I have seen no evidence that said [carbon emissions] effect is more than negligible.

Republican witness admits the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is real

Tol, in particular, has been repeatedly debunked.

These comments are consistent with Tol's own admission that he took a "destructive" approach toward our paper rather than try and replicate our results. We even went as far as to create a public webpage where anybody can review and rate the same abstracts as we did to make replication as easy as possible.

In fact, the Environmental Research Letters reviews included 24 critiques and suggestions regarding how Tol could improve his paper. Tol reports that after two additional rejections, he finally found a journal to publish his paper. It will be interesting to see if he addressed the 24 Environmental Research Letters reviewer critiques, or if he simply shopped a flawed paper around until finding a publisher willing to overlook its shortcomings.

As ever, Jesse

**John Reece** · 06-02-2014, 11:35 AM

Note: the following was written before I saw the latest lao tzu post above↑

Dear Jesse,

I have been pondering how to respond to your last letter to me. I was awake half the past night and am nearly a basket case now given my many infirmities; however, your missives are on my mind so I will try to express what I think.