Katharine Hayhoe: "..Much of This is Intended to Intimidate."

I had the privilege to interview Dr. Hayhoe this past weekend at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business, where the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise
was conducting a workshop and Town Hall meeting entitled "Cures for Climate Confusion".

I wish to thank the organizers, Andy Hoffman of the Erb Institute, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, for - inexplicably - not throwing me out when I arrived uninvited to the gathering.

Erb Institute/University of Michigan
http://erb.umich.edu/

Erb Institute/Climate Town Hall
http://erb.umich.edu/blog/2011/11/17/climate-risks-and-choices-full

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• katharine hay hoe
• climate
• climate change
• newt gingrich
• greenhouse
• global warming
• drought
• flood
• threats
• Morano
• climate depot
• intimidation
• climate scientists
• greenman3610
• environment
• texas tech Climate Flood

[RealOldOne2]

@robhoneycutt "Just start reading random papers on climate change" Despite your baseless claims to the contrary, I have done this. Google 'et al medieval warm period little ice age'- 1st random hit- Cronin etal 2002:

- "evidence for rapid (<100 years) shiftS of ~ 2-4°C"

- Evidence for LIA & MWP found despite Mann's attempt to disappear them

- Current temps near mean of last 2000 yrs.

- No CO2 hokey stick

- just natural climate variability doing its thing

See, random paper, natural variability

[RealOldOne2]

@Ahuc899 "ones which, today, right now, are causing this warming"

Sorry, you can't change the null hypothesis. I don't have to know which ones caused the recent warming. YOU are the one claiming that it's NOT natural climate variables any longer but is now driven by CO2. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that is the case. You can only do that by ruling out the natural factors so that CO2 is the only factor remaining. So far, you & the rest of you Gleickers have failed to do that.

[RealOldOne2]

@Ahuc899 "CO2 must therefore mean nothing"

There you go again w/your misrepresentation & strawman arguments. I've never said "nothing". I've said it's a bit player. That means it's in the script, but it has only a MINOR role.

1940-1970 - Sources please.

How about the last 10-15 yrs? No volcanic influence, aerosols at minimum. The empirical temp data has shown your theory that CO2 is dominant factor to be wrong.

Hint: use empirical data, you know, the stuff of REAL science; NOT your MAGICC models

[RealOldOne2]

@Ahuc899 "scientists aren't accounting for these things"

I've merely asked you & rob to answer the question of how the climate models account for those natural variables that can influence climate.

Your silence is deafening. That's b/c the models don't even include most of them & the others are not well enough understood to be accounted for accurately. Yet you cling to the myth that they've been dismissed.

You just make the unsupported allegation that the "scientists account for theses things".

[Ahuc899]

@RealOldOne2 So what, do I need to provide evidence that every single thing you can think of isn't causing climate change? Instead of listing off natural forces, how about you limit to the ones which, today, right now, are causing this warming. Not could be causing if they were happening, but are happening, and causing it. It's irrelevant if solar activity increased so would global temps because SOLAR ACTIVITY HASN'T INCREASED FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS.

[Ahuc899]

@RealOldOne2 You know what I love about your argument? You think that just because other forces affect the Earth's climate that CO2 must therefore mean nothing.

1940-1970 the current school of thought (assuming you don't get your info from random denier (aka nonscience) sources, is that this cooling was brought on by a mix of volcano activity, solar activity, and long-term cycle of pacific weather, but that rising CO2 would continue the trend (which happened).

Hint: get science from scientists

[Ahuc899]

@RealOldOne2 I don't know what's funnier, the fact that you think that listing off all these things constitutes an argument, or that scientists aren't accounting for these things...

Off the top of my head,

1) Spencer's paper on cloud cover being the main driving force behind global warming has been largely debunked and dismissed through peer review.

2) Sunspot activity has been decreasing for the last ~40 years, so not that.

What evidence do you have that these things are being ignored?

[RealOldOne2]

@robhoneycutt "Note that Humlum 2011 actually makes the statement that climate change cycles are the result of the lunar cycle"

Yet another example of your obsessive, single-minded focus on CO2. You think it is a facepalm to suggest that lunar cycles could influence the climate? You probably deny that the moon causes the tides to change too, because it's GOT to be CO2 that causes tide changes, since CO2 causes everything.

[RealOldOne2]

@robhoneycutt "He claims that climate sensitivity is ~0.5C for 2XCO2, and yet we've already seen 0.8C of warming over preindustrial levels with only a 40% in CO2."

Rob, this is a perfect illustration of your obsessive focus on CO2. Take off your blinders which prevent you from looking at things other than CO2. There are a myriad of other natural climate variables that influence temp while CO2 has gone up 40%. Why do you deny that those natural climate variables can also cause temp increases?

[RealOldOne2]

@Ahuc899 "what natural force is causing it?"

Changes in TSI; clouds; sunspots; geomagnetic field changes; AO; NAO; PDO; SOI; El Niño; La Niña; cosmic rays; oceanic circulations; volcanos; atmospheric convections(heat transport); radiation(GHGs- H2O vapor, CO2, CH4, etc.); AND the VARIABILITY(periodicity & intensity) in each of those; AND the simultaneous interactions of ALL those variables.

"Give me one" YOU have the burden of proof to show the above factors are no longer causing climate change.