Hansen: “not interested”

I was stunned by Dr. James Hansen’s response in this article in the Virgina Informer

Excerpt:

“For this fall,” the organizer wrote in his e-mail to Mr. Hansen, “we are hoping to host a debate on global climate change and its implications. Patrick Michaels has agreed to come, and my organization would like you to come and debate Dr. Michaels in Williamsburg. The date is very flexible, and we can tailor the day of the debate completely to your schedule. We will be able to pay for your travel expenses and offer you an honorarium for your time. Please let me know if you would be interested.”

Mr. Hansen’s response was, simply, “not interested.”

His reply — devoid of any salutation, punctuation, capitalization or signature — came an hour after Mr. Katz sent his original e-mail.

I suppose for Dr. Hansen, debating and defending your work is “futile“?

In my opinion, demonstrating arrogance in correspondence and ignoring reasonable debate doesn’t do much to bolster confidence in the man’s work.

About these ads

327 thoughts on “Hansen: “not interested”

  1. It is obvious then that Mr Hansen knows that he is discredited and in no position to add to the debate….. Sometimes it is good to allow people to save face and bow out gracefully…. ; )

    The Debate will continue without him.

  2. It seems like I remember Gavin Schmidt engaging in a climate debate and getting trounced. I’m sure that James (Captain Ahab) Hansen is well aware of the problems that Michaels could give him. Suddenly a very wide audience, possibly including many legislators, would be aware of no decadal warming, halted ocean warming, halted sea level rise, record levels of Antarctic sea ice, recovering Arctic Sea Ice, poor correlation between GCMs and real temperature records, etc. He knows that he cannot answer those questions other than with a lot of embarrassed hand waving. It could only be a losing experience for the captain. Better to continue with his hundreds of interviews about how the government is trying to shut him up.

  3. Dr. Hansen’s patterns of behavior seem rather above average on the narcissism scale. I suspect to even entertain the thought that there would be anything at all worth debating would be seen as a “failure” in his view. I believe he is afraid. But that’s okay, it isn’t going to come undone by anything he does or doesn’t do. It will come undone on its own because it will become increasingly obvious that the climate simply isn’t warming they way he has been saying it would, if at all.

    At that point, nobody is really going to care what Dr. Hansen chooses to say or not to say. He will simply fade into obscurity. What disappoints me most is that I have always had great respect for science and actors like him raise my cynicism level considerably.

  4. I compared Dr. Hansen’s 1988 testimony before the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to his 20th anniversary comments, particularly the part about (and I quote vertabim) “Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99%,” then added the GISS data over the same period. For those of you who have done like wise, can anyone tell me what’s going on with this man? Has he abandoned all reasonable sense of science?

    For those who have not made the comparison, he predicted a temperature anomaly of a bit more than 1°C higher than the 1951-1980 mean by 2008 (Scenario A, i.e. continued emissions at the 1988 rate). However the GISS data is showing essentially little or no anomaly in 2008, yet he says in his 2008 statement that (and I quote verbatim again) “Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land.”

    What am I missing? How can the director of NASA’s GISS say something so contrary to his own underlying data set?

  5. Re “What am I missing? How can the director of NASA’s GISS say something so contrary to his own underlying data set?”

    You forgot to add “… and get away with it?”.

  6. Sounds like Hansen’s hedge was the ‘over land’ qualifier. That is how he is getting away with it.

    Exclude the ocean cooling and mis-lead everyone.

  7. I’d be happy to provide $10K in prize money for a 1 hr. network television debate, equal time, only unadjusted machine taken data may be used, call / text in voting, winner take all – Dr. Hansen v. Watt’s Up

    Debate Topics
    A. The Quality of Dr. Hansen’s Temperature Network vs. UAH data?
    B. Global Warming from 1998 to 2008?
    C. Explaination and Root cause of the great 2008 cooling event?
    D. Predict a Global Temperature record for the next 20 years by year – so we can do this again in 2018 –

    REPLY: Here’s Dr. Hansen’s contact info –

    Dr. James E. Hansen

    Columbia University
    750 Armstrong Hall
    2880 Broadway
    New York, NY 10025 USA
    Phone: (212) 678-5500

    If you can get him to agree then you have a starting point. Please share whatever letter you might send him.

  8. I think Mr Hansen’s apparent terseness is entirely understandable…

    Can you imagine the pressure he’s under, what with changing the temperature record, attempting to justify changing the temperature record, inventing impossibly convoluted codes as a smokescreen for what us unscientific types call “cooking the books”, all the time looking nervously over his shoulder at the steadily cooling climate and wondering what new and more fantastical equations can he invent to somehow fend off the impending collapse of his ivory tower.

    Frankly, it’s a wonder the poor chap’s got the time to reply at all!
    I bet he needs a cup of tea and a lie down.

  9. ‘Over land’ currently is the only place Dr. Hansen can guarantee global warming with his global warming data & personal income adjuster algorithm > watch out if he ever starts proposing ocean-going temp stations cause they will be way to close to the docks, in shallow water, hooked to the back of freighters, over-represented in the tropics and spitting out data optimized for Dr. Hansen’s income.

    JH$(t) = AGW(t)*Tadjust(JH)

  10. Hansen did the only possible option open to him.

    First thing first: Hansen can be either one of two things: either he’s stupid or he’s intellectually dishonest/politically corrupt.

    To get where he is at, he could not have been stupid, thus, he is politically corrupt and dishonest. For him, the ends justify the means, including bad science, disregarding evidence. The end might be financial or political glamour, but it does not matter…

    In that context, the answer he gave is the only one his guru persona could possibly give. He knows that he will get professionally killed if he goes out in public.

    For any guru to survive scrutiny and reach his political goals in such a situation, he has to bluff to the very end.

    It is imperative for him that he keeps fooling his blind followers and maintain the trust that his corrupt puppetmasters have vested in him. The consequences he faces if he fails either of them would be devastating to him.

    The blind followers will keep their faith in him simply because he will claim moral high ground, providing the worshiping crowd with the confirmation bias it craves.

    The blind followers provide the plebian moral sanction that the puppetmasters need to justify their plans. What are these? I have no idea, but money is involved in it, as it the the motor of all wars. And probably much ideology too, for it never hurts.

  11. “not interested”

    Surely Mr Katz’s response to this should have been:

    “My apologies, the invitation was sent to you by mistake. I had intended to invite Jim Henson, the creator of the Muppets, not James Hansen, the creator of Global Warming. It is very easy to get the two of you mixed up, although I suspect that Jim Henson’s input (despite being dead) would be of more value (and hole more truth).”

    Hansen is sounding more and more unpleasant as time goes by. Does anyone have a link to that recent picture from this site showing his outstretched claw reaching for the planet Earth (looking much like the evil Emperor from Return of the Jedi?). The picture is not appearing on this computer at the moment.

  12. Perhaps Hansen is so muzzled by the government and NASA, that those were the only two words allowed to sneak through NASA’s draconian email monitoring software?

    Or perhaps he wrote a lengthy eloquent response, but his temperature-record algorithm ‘corrected’ it?

  13. To be honest, it is not surprising that Dr. Hansen would decline. He is far more influential and well known then Dr. Michaels so it would only diminish Dr. Hansen to engage in this debate.

    A debate between the two would be a public relations coup for Dr. Michaels regardless of the outcome while providing zero upside for Dr. Hansen. Remember, this is a man who will likely have the ear of the next President, be he Democrat or Republican.

  14. Some context here.

    Hansen and others thought CO2 driven global warming was a slamdunk. Therefore, questionable practices in relation to past data didn’t matter, because future data would prove them right.

    Their problem is future data didn’t prove them right and they are circling the waggons to defend their position in the hope data from here on in does prove them right.

  15. Hansen equates the debating forum to a test-stand. Put a defective product on a test-stand, and it’ll fail. Same is true for his crackpot predictions. He knows it.
    I do hope Hansen’s cowardly response will be circulated to the other sceptic blogs.

  16. Apparently, debate is avoided by those who do not like having their science questioned, or do not wish to have their beliefs undermined. Joe Romm over at ClimateProgress accepted a technical comment I made on a recent thread, posted it, then a few hours later returned it to awaiting-moderation limbo. The next day he deleted it.

    I wasn’t rude. I wasn’t spouting skeptic dogma. I simply noted a few of his misunderstandings, errors, and omissions and backed it up with graphs. More here.

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/07/climate-progress-posts-my-comment.html

  17. They all won’t debate, because they all know that they are wrong.
    They would rather save their pride than save the planet.
    With that sort of attitude, when Hansen asks for funding/assistance from any organisation in the future he will be surprised to find their reply to be “not interested”

  18. With slightly rearranged lyrics from the famous Radiohead band, Hansen thoughts could be :

    I’ll take a quiet life
    A handshake of carbon dioxide
    With no alarms and no surprises
    No alarms and no surprises
    No alarms and no
    Surprises please…

    All the best from France
    Emmanuel

  19. Every effort to effort should be made by readers of this blog to pass this information on to their elected officials. Hansen is nothing more than a coward who has no problem going to Washington to participate in a forum where his lies will not face scrutiny. I have had enough of this snake oil salesman. It is time he is exposed and discarded.

  20. In my personal experience “big science” is less about science and more about influencing the public (politics), money, fame, etcetera.

    Actually, though I could be wrong, I don’t think Hansen is concerned about the “peanut gallery”. His snowball is large and rolling downhill at high speed. He probably feels skepticism has no chance to stop it. Only public relations mistakes could stop it now. And, his faction is totally in control of public relations (e.g. news media, etcetera).

  21. Anthony,

    I’m stunned that you are stunned. After his “I don’t joust with jesters” statement last year it comes as no surprise to me that he refuses debate.

    I liken him to a political candidate who has a substantial lead in the polls during an election. He would not want to debate either as debating his opponent is a no win proposition for him. If he does debate, he risks not only looking bad in front his opponent, he also provides his opponents views far more exposure than they would be getting, and, lastly, agreeing to debate implies an equality of position between the two.

    Dr. Hansen (since he used an outrageous 99+% certainty claim – a claim I don’t think a reasonable scientist – or a professional one – would make about any theoretical work) apparently feels that the act of debating would provide credibility to his opponents views.

    Dr Hansen is no longer a scientist, he has proved this by his refusal to consider criticisms of his work. A true scientist welcomes criticism, in fact expects it. He should be continually defending his conclusions, methods, etc. That is real science.

    REPLY: Mostly it was lack of any decorum.

  22. If Dr. Michaels is so insignifgant, then Dr. Hansen should be able to stomp him like a bug. That’s the upside. Not all fights are title fights.

  23. Hansen’s reply was boorish, but only a fool would enter opposition territory to battle in a lopsided p.r. contest. Hansen knows how to do p.r. and this ain’t it. What is needed is not “debate” but a definitive public examination of the accuracy and precision of the facts related to AWG. But the public doesn’t want lectures, they want fireworks, so it won’t happen.

  24. Being vested in the tatters of an education in English language and literature, I offer an historical figure from the Elizabethan Era (the first and glorious one) as a counterpart to James Hansen. The man was John Dee; he was the P.T. Barnum of his time, a dabbler in Hermetic magic, astrology and other razmataz. He was also an accomplished courtier, and eventually became Court Astrologer to Her Majesty.

    Of course in a democracy, we don’t have courtiers…. Say that until you truly believe it.

    But can’t you picture Hansen in a conical cap with suns and moons embossed on it? Or hurricanes and tornados.

  25. mr. Katz,

    i do not engage in “intellectual relations” with deniers

    jim hansen
    director
    al gore institute for pontification of Global Hysterics

  26. Such public debates on complex science does not show anything, other than who is more eloquent and who can make it appealing and how good they are with stage theatrics. I have seen many debates on creation vs. evolution, and the creationists win in almost all those debates – but I doubt whether that shows anything in one way or other. Scientific debates are carried out in a different venue – in journals and other publications; not in front of general public with each group cheering one side or the other. Just my opinion.

  27. Have you all seen this?

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm

    David Hathaway seems pretty cavalier about the change in behavior of the sun, putting the current length of the solar minimum in a historical perspective going back centuries. This is accurate in that the sun seems to be reverting to a solar cycle that preceded the current late 20th century warm period. It really boggles my mind that such esteemed minds at NASA can’t make the connection between solar cycle and global temperatures, despite all of the historical data to support this, not to mention the mounting evidence of a physical explanation for this relationship between the solar magnetic field and cloud formation which affects global temperatures. It really does put into question whether higher ups at NASA are choosing to cling to dogma over pursuit of science and the truth.

  28. Alex says, “They all won’t debate, because they all know that they are wrong” and other posters here repeat similar sentiments. If this sort of logic were correct, then I guess we would also have to conclude that evolutionary theory is also wrong. (Try typing “evolutionists refuse to debate” into google.)

    The appropriate forum to debate science is the peer-reviewed literature. Usually it is the losing side in the debate in this venue that then asks for debates in the public sphere instead. This is because debates of science in the public sphere tend to favor not the better science but the better presenter.

    It is also intrinsically much easier to defend a negative position of “We don’t know much because therea re too many uncertainties” than a positive one of “We know enough to be able to say certain things with confidence”. This is because the public expects science to have “smoking gun” evidence and no uncertainties or apparent contradictions. In reality, science in complicated fields is often built on the preponderance of evidence, none which taken alone is without uncertainty or deficiency.

    There are very good reasons why policymakers have decided to use organizations like the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences to inform them on the state of the science in a given area rather than trying to glean it from debates or other such forums.

  29. Hansen is like a politician way ahead in the polls. He has no need to debate because the draconian solutions he and others have proposed are making their way through the legislative process as planned. Once in place and as the climate cools (as predicted by the solar scientists), the GHG alarmists will take credit for the cooling — “See! You did what we told you to do and the climate cooled.” The only problem with that is: will they take responsibility for the effects of the cooling such as reduced growing seasons leading to food shortages, increased demand on fuels to keep warm, and so on?

  30. Real headline, then:

    James Hansen; “not interested” in global climate change and its implications.

    Was he not interested in the debate, or not interested in the subject?

  31. Sometimes it is good to allow people to save face and bow out gracefully…

    And we’re still waiting . . .

  32. Is there actually anything that bolsters confidence in Hansen’s work?

    The New York Times.

  33. A decade ago Hansen was hot for any microphone time. This latest response is decidedly cool. Correlation or causation?

    What we need from him is a definitive answer as to how much money it would take to get him to defend his positions. From there we can get lots of “evil” companies to pony up and thereby put him in their pay. Win-win.

  34. A debate with Jim Henson (Muppet Master) would be far more interesting, He passed away in 1990, after making a huge contribution to society (Rowlf is my favorite). Hanson’s theories passed away as well, he just refuses to admit it. His ‘contributions’ are much harder to find.

    Not really surprising: The true fanatic doesn’t need to debate, they know the truth, anything or anyone who does not agree is blasphemy. The science is settled, the debate is over. If you do not agree, you are doomed.

  35. OT: Check out the Cryosphere Today website. The oft quoted story of decline in multi-year ice has been moved to the bottom of the page. With the ice in the NH not disappearing as expected this summer, this whole canard of multiyear ice isn’t proving to be useful information. I predict the story will be gone once NH ice starts accumulating again.

  36. Pieter Folkens, my reading of Hansen’s 1988 testimony is that the 99% certainty he spoke about referred to the first five months of 1988 being on average 0.4 degrees above the 1950 to 1980 average. He worked out that without any long term warming trend at all the chances of five months with an average anomaly of 0.4 is less than 1%. I am no expert on statistics, but it seems that he was saying that he had disproved at the 99% level the null hypothesis that the trend was equal to zero.

    Obviously he was making a lot out of, what was at the time, just a smoothed warming trend of a little over a decade.

  37. To Joel Shore and Jody First, it’s funny that you bring up evolutionary arguments in connection to Hansen and AGW. Evolutionary theory is being questioned because the geologic record, as we expand investigation around the globe, is not showing the type of gradual speciation that the theory stipulates. Rather, the incidence of catastrophism, with sharp breaks between species, seems to be more the norm. Hard science investigation of the past is contradicting a theory that was embraced thanks more to popular demagoguery than any preponderance of evidence. Ironically, the same thing is happening to Hansen and AGW.

    Punctuated equilibrium, as opposed to gradualism as a perspective on evolution, has been around for decades. Nothing to see here~Charles the Moderator.

  38. Al Gore claims the debate is over, but when did it happen? When was there an open and public debate between climate scientists over AGW? It seems to me that this never happened. But before we spend billions, if not trillions, of dollars trying to reduce CO2 emissions, shouldn’t there be such a debate?

    Two of the leading proponents of AGW theory, Al Gore and now Jim Hansen, have both refused to debate the subject. Isn’t that a bit disturbing? This should be a very newsworthy item. We should make a big deal out of this, because it is a big deal.

    I e-mailed the local paper with a link to this story and my suggestion that a public debate between climate experts should take place. This is a very reasonable thing to do before before we make a huge commitment to reducing CO2 emissions.

  39. One can understand Dr. Hansen’s viewpoint.

    A large portion of the man’s life has been devoted to expressing his beliefs in regards to the climate’s dangerous potential.

    He’s got WAY too much invested in this to let it go. In a sense, it might be what drives him to the core.

    And having reasonable requests to talk about the validity of AGW/CC denied, tells a lot.

    Either He is so convinced that He refuses to acknowledge anything other than His faith. As a scientist, it is unheard of to refuse debate, to discuss, and to share ideas.

    Only one whom is afraid or overly attached does not welcome communication.

    It is too bad, but it speaks to human nature. We can’t be perfect, but we can at least admit it.

  40. Hansen is quite the jerk. I’m sure some of the crazies at DotEarth are cheering him on though.

    Wish he’d just go away.

  41. Science is about uncertainty, distinguishing shades of gray. Politicians and journalists don’t tolerate these uncertainties, they want issues distilled down to black and white, yes and no. To them debates are settled and consensus is defined, uncertainty doesn’t exist. This is what you get when science and politics merge.

  42. tjlyerly,

    “It really boggles my mind that such esteemed minds at NASA can’t make the connection between solar cycle and global temperatures”

    I think this is because they have convinced themselves that because (they believe) solar irradiance isn’t a factor in the warming/cooling and, not considering another mechanism (such as Dr Svensmark’s GCR theory), they discount the solar cycle influence entirely.

  43. Can’t say I blame him. He’s probably not interested because he knows there’s no point in holding a debate when everyone in the room has already made up their mind. Would this be anything more than another occasion for personal attacks like the ones on this blog? Sounds about as interesting as a debate between Rosie O’Donnell and Donald Trump.

  44. I have long since considered hypocrites like Hansen “not interesting”.

    Since he is “not interested” in debating what he and the rest of his co-religionists call the greatest crisis of our times, I wonder what would motivate him.

    They can run, but they can’t hide.

    Their emperor is butt naked and it is an ugly picture.

  45. “There are very good reasons why policymakers have decided to use organizations like the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences to inform them on the state of the science in a given area rather than trying to glean it from debates or other such forums.”

    There are also very good reasons for those groups to openly convey the uncertainties in the science. The subject of evolution has cropped up here, and no one seems to have remembered that many very BAD decisions were made by policymakers based on an incomplete understanding of that science. Have you forgotten that evolution was twisted by Hitler to justify his “Master race” ideal? Similar reasoning was advocated by certain policymakers in our own country. There were papers in scientific journals that gave “evidence” for the intellectual inferiority of certain races, based on the evolutionary principles of the time. Fortunately, that science has advanced, though I’m sure there were those who argued “the science is settled” 70 years ago.

    When any government or academic body creates a policy which will have far-reaching impacts on the populace, it is the right and obligation of the populace to examine the veracity of that body’s evidence through any available forum. This elitist attitude that Hansen is too great a personage for debate, or that only a select few “climate experts” have the right to examine and comment on the data does nothing to advance understanding or increase the well-being of humanity. What special skill or talent does Hansen have that other scientists do not possess? He has access to data. He interprets data. He has access to really big NASA computers.

  46. Why would he debate? Clearly this topic is much like evolution v creationists, as in two entrenched sides.

    The debate is over. Either you believe the evidence or you don’t.

    I am not going to be able to persuade you to accept the science any more than I can persuade a creationist to accept the science behind evolution.

    And whether or not Hansen accepts a debate has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the matter or the situation at hand. It is telling that global warming deniers pounce on this non event as some kind of confirmation for their side.

    Seriously, is that the best you got?

    PS – I challenge everyone on the internet to debate me on the existence and interactions of aliens. I am very flexible on the date, but it needs to be by my residence in Washington, DC. If you do not accept then clearly aliens are among us!

  47. joel shore,

    We’ve already been given the “smoking gun” by Hansen himself in his own words. This was “proof” of AGW. This was the basis for IPCC AR4 and is directly referenced.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Imbalance_20050415.pdf

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

    “This energy imbalance is the ‘smoking gun’ that we have been looking for”

    and

    Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse
    gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing
    0.85 T 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it
    is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of
    increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the
    expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6-C without further change
    of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system’s lag
    in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid
    any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of
    ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

    Now Hansen and IPCC must account for why Earth is NOT “absorbing 0.85 T 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space.”

    The reason Hansen and other CO2 AGW demagogues will not publicly debate this issue is because observational evidence, the bane of “consensus”, disagrees with their conclusions.

    It doesn’t matter how many “peer reviewed” articles exist for either side. If the hypothesis cannot be supported by experimentation and/or observational evidence, it is just that, a hypothesis. Many of the pro-AGW “peer reviewed” articles use climate models as evidence for which they themselves are a hypothesis.

    Is using a hypothesis to form a hypothesis part of the scientific method? I think not.

  48. The appropriate forum to debate science is the peer-reviewed literature. That old canard? Give us a break, Joel. The peer-review system has become nothing more than a system of “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine”. The AGW hypothesis became “fact” because it was convenient for it to be for certain politicians and so-called scientists like Hansen, who were intrigued by it. The IPCC’s entire existence is based on the fraudulent claim that man’s C02 is driving climate change.
    The reason why debate is needed is because the fraud has to be exposed. AGWers like you know this, which is why debate frightens people like you, and especially Hansen and Gore.

  49. I have several thoughts running around in the unscientific head of mine.

    One is that Dr. Hansen is very rude to some one that has bent over backwards to attempt to accommodate him.

    Dr. Hansen has been for years and still is attempting to conceal his methodology. (Yes he did produce some codes after waiting several weeks to make them more “readable to the public”) So far they have been unreplicable.

    Dr. Hansen is a government employee spending government taxpayer funds and must be accountable for them. I expect that when the accounting comes there will be some short falls.

    If the raw data is no longer available for the historical record where did it go. Was it destroyed by convoluted algorithmic corrections? Why were no data sets archived? GISS or NOAA

    Why should I trust the peer reviewed process when I have read the Wegman report.

    I can understand Why Dr. Hansen doesnt want to debate. He hasn’t had to answer any serious scientific questions thus far why start now. I believe that our government has let us down by not demanding that all the science be put on the table. There are other scientists that have views that do not agree with Dr. Hansen and in his public funded role he is responsible to look at all the science and he refused to at least publicly acknowledge that there is any. Dr Hansen should be directed to by his employers while he is supposed to be in the public trust to defend his conclusions against all questions leveled by other scientists. This hasn’t been done. It has been to long since this department has been audited. It is time that this director and his department should have to defend their position. Let the audit begin.

    You never know he may be correct but let’s be sure.

    Bill Derryberry

  50. Hopefully the spambot will let it through this time.

    joel shore,

    We’ve already been given the “smoking gun” by Hansen himself in his own words. This was “proof” of AGW. This was the basis for IPCC AR4 and is directly referenced.
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Imbalance_20050415.pdf
    pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
    “This energy imbalance is the ‘smoking gun’ that we have been looking for”

    and

    Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse
    gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing
    0.85 T 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it
    is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of
    increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the
    expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6-C without further change
    of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system’s lag
    in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid
    any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of
    ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

    Now Hansen and IPCC must account for why Earth is NOT “absorbing 0.85 T 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space.”

    The reason Hansen and other CO2 AGW demagogues will not publicly debate this issue is because observational evidence, the bane of “consensus”, disagrees with their conclusions.

    It doesn’t matter how many “peer reviewed” articles exist for either side. If the hypothesis cannot be supported by experimentation and/or observational evidence, it is just that, a hypothesis. Many of the pro-AGW “peer reviewed” articles use climate models as evidence for which they themselves are a hypothesis.

    Is using a hypothesis to form a hypothesis part of the scientific method? I think not.

  51. “PS – I challenge everyone on the internet to debate me on the existence and interactions of aliens. I am very flexible on the date, but it needs to be by my residence in Washington, DC. If you do not accept then clearly aliens are among us!”

    In order for this to be a valid point, you must clearly be a world-reknowned expert in alien research at NASA, with numerous essays, papers, and reports in the peer-reviewed and popular literature. You must also have received large monetary awards from politicians and benefactors for your work in alien culture and communication. And I’m sure you have been warning us for over 20 years about the “alien tipping points”, and have recently excoriated public officials and private citizens for ignoring the alien problem. And you certainly have had a major role in popularizing your alien theories with you starring role in oscar winning documentaries (like, say, “The Inconvenient Truth … Is Out There!”).

  52. Sorry, thirdrobot, but most of us here recognise who are the ‘creationists’ in this argument. And I’m afraid it’s your side.

    The sceptics would love nothing more than to debate the science with the true believers, but are never given the opportunity. Hansen’s attitude is typical of the whole AGW camp from Gore down. Thank God for the internet though – out in cyberworld the science is still being argued. Gore may think he ‘invented’ the internet but it’s the one media outlet he and his fellow-travellers can’t control.

  53. I find it ironic that the similarities between the debate about AGW and the debate between materialistic evolutionary theories vs. design is lost on most people here.

    Keith posted above about lack of evidence of gradualism, and was promptly put in his place by a moderator claiming punctuated equilibrium – as if the problem isn’t real. The crux of the debate though is about mechanism. What is causally adequate to produce the engineering marvels we see in the biological world (especially sub-celluar). In my opinion (and that of many others), material evolutionary processes are completely impotent to account for novelty and innovation.

    However, there is such a strong Darwinian orthodoxy supported by political, cultural, academic and financial pillars that a defense of data is practically unnecessary. As in the AGW debate, it’s settled. Don’t tell that to the heretics in Altenberg this month…

    Point taken~Charles the moderator, however, gradualism is a straw man and that’s all I pointed out. On another note, I’m guessing Anthony will prohibit a debate on evolution at this site.

    REPLY: That’s correct, evolution and climate science are separate topics, and I have no interest in evolutionary debate here. – Anthony

  54. Leon Brozyna (22:53:47) :

    Guess he doesn’t want to happen to him what happened in Spain where Chris Horner was to debate one of the lead IPCC authors. It seems she hadn’t a clue as to what the PDO is:

    http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWE0NTNlMmI4Mjg0OGRlMmI5MjAxMDM0ZjRkOTdhYjE=

    Horner’s “debate” partner is an economist based at Columbia, but her debate was after Hansen turned down his offer. While there’s no cause and effect there at the moment, I suspect the debate climate may be chilling faster than the Earth.

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/economics/faculty/current/gc9.html

    A Google search makes me reluctant to post her name.

  55. “The appropriate forum to debate science is the peer-reviewed literature”

    So what happens when one gathers a group of a dozen or so like-minded cronies who “peer review” each other’s work? We all give each other glowing praise and maybe point out an error in grammar or punctuation here. Any criticism from someone outside the group would be ignored or rejected outright. Oh, and we can forget about enforcing any data archival requirements by the core group, but anyone challenging our conclusions must abide by the rules to the letter and any failure to do so means the complete rejection of any points they might raise.

    Now, how is that for “peer review” … it is fine as long as they get to select the reviewing peers.

  56. I don’t know what you all are talking about. Thirdrobot (ie, obviously well programmed!) is correct. We all know the debate is over! Why would Hansen desire for others to point out the flaws in data, misuse of statistics, and computer models that don’t track reality. No, now is the time for action! On to glorious socialism! Long live the revolution!

    Comrades! Eliminate the evil specters of energy and false freedom that these “automobiles” and “power plugs” give you. Live with us using local hend hewed junk, er, I mean authentic wood stools and tables, and eat your gruel, given unto you by our glorious revolution!

    [audio src="http://www.soviet-empire.com/audio/ussr_national_anthem_1944_english.mp3" /]

    [audio src="http://folk.ntnu.no/makarov/temporary_url_20070929kldcg/internationale-ru.mp3" /]

  57. Crosspatch is correct. The NAS chief statistician examined the inter-relationships of all the GW types involved in the hockeystick debacle, and guess what! In exceedingly non-scientific terms, it was a giant circle jerk! All the published papers were basically reviewed by others who then would go on to co-author papers with those whom they reviewed, who in turn would be reviewed by their former co-author! What a great racket!

  58. I am not going to be able to persuade you to accept the science any more than I can persuade a creationist to accept the science behind evolution.
    No, trollbot, you can’t persuade us to accept your AGW religion for the simple reason that it doesn’t hold up to scientific scrutiny. Now, run back to your troll cave. There you go.

  59. PS – Given the same terms that Dr. Hansen was offered, I would be happy to debate thirdrobot on the existance and interaction of aliens. I’m guessing thirdrobot actually believes in aliens – after all, he’w willing to believe falsified data in support of agw…. But hey! Free trip, honorarium! Let me know thirdrobot – or doesn’t that fit into your programming?

  60. “This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of
    increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years….”

    The only problem with the above statement is that the ocean heat content has been on the way down since 2003. The JPL published thier study earlier this year.

  61. Perhaps it’s simply that Dr. Hansen is not solely motivated by money, and therefore how much is offered is irrelevant; and doesn’t care to debate with “a vocal global warming skeptic” anymore than he cares to debate the sphericity of the planet with the Flat Earth Society?

  62. Bill Marsh:

    It’s interesting that the AGW crowd, by deduction, claim CO2 is the cause of global warming since they’ve “eliminated” every other factor. Yet, when all the causations are still in play and the sunspot count goes down and the so do the temperatures the AGW crowd can’t accept there’s a connection.

  63. Hansen is willing to go to some events. Here’s one, not one I was looking for, but he seems interested in talking to young’uns, just not interested in debating anyone.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042002266_pf.html

    He’s also willing to share a piece of his mind with the G8 leaders, I hadn’t heard this before:

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080708-147233/Top-climate-scientist-blasts-G8-climate-pledge

    http://inel.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/hansens-email-to-afp-on-g8s-50-by-2050-pledge/

    The only way to avoid climate catastrophe, argued Hansen, was to halt the emissions of coal, the most abundant and highly polluting of all fossil fuels.

    India and China are not G8 members, perhaps he can talk to them too.

  64. Wait, remember there is a consensus, so he doesn’t need to debate the issue. HA! Next time I make some outlandish point and someone challenges me on it I plan on looking them in the eyes and saying, “Consensus.”

    On a serious note, I would love to say Dr. Lindzen (sp?) lay the smack down on Hansen.

  65. Stan Jones says: “Sorry, thirdrobot, but most of us here recognise who are the ‘creationists’ in this argument. And I’m afraid it’s your side.” This is a strange claim given that the only people in this thread who have defended the creationist / intelligent design argument are clearly on “your side” on AGW. And, one of the most respectable scientists who is a skeptic (one of the few skeptics in fact with a respectable publication record in the field), Roy Spencer, has made it very clear that he believes in intelligent design over evolution (see http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I ).

    Furthermore, in regards to the analogy between the two, might we ask which side of the AGW debate organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society, … (which are all on the evolution side of the evolution/creation debate) are on?

  66. One minor point. Intelligent Design is not Creationism. Two entirely different theories.

    Creationists believe that the earth was created a few thousand years ago with the world, animals, and plants, pretty much as is.

    Evolution: The world was created around 4 billion years ago. Life started out as simple, single celled creatures, which through random mutation, evolved into the animals and plants we know today.

    Intelligent Design: Take the definition of Evolution, replace the word random, with the word guided.

    Personally I have never been able to understand why certain people get so upset over this issue.

    The differences between standard evolution and intelligent design are pretty minor, and utterly unproveable one way or the other.

    REPLY: No more discussion of evolution, intelligent design or creationism please. – Anthony

  67. The debate is over.

    He is now busy focusing on his primary NASA job description of “prosecuting oil execs” and “targeting” members of Congress in the next election. The very core of climate science.

  68. This is an amusing story. I don’t think too many people will be worrying about global warming or Hansen once the economy disintegrates due to lack of energy.

  69. Joel Shore: You seem to want to talk about evolution vs creationism. No one else is interested in that discussion, nor is that even close to the topic at hand. It’s a red herring, and a typical tactic AGWers use when they feel outmanned and outgunned.
    It is hilarious how, whenever the AGWers gods, Hansen and Gore come under attack, they rush in full of spit and venom. Pathetic, really.

  70. Perhaps the primary difference between AGW and many other theories is that within ten years we will know whether it is correct or not. If it is substantially warmer, or colder, all will be revealed.

  71. Here are some interesting points in English from the above German website:

    http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/?WCMSGroup_4_3=6&WCMSGroup_6_3=1247&WCMSArticle_3_1247=388

    According to Russian scientist Chabibullo Abdussamatow, Director of Pulkowo:
    1. Over the last 12 years, the Earth has experienced a lack of solar radiation, equaling on average 18 million nuclear power plants.
    2. Solar energy reaching the earth has had a downward trend since the beginning of the 1990s.
    3. Every sq. m. of the earth’s upper atmosphere gets on average 0.16 watts less solar radiation than during the last “short” solar cycle.
    4. Before industrialisation there were regular climate changes, caused by the solar cycles.
    5. Based on solar measurements since 1979, the scientists have come to the conclusion that solar intensity will continue to sink, in sync with the 200-year and 11-year cycles.
    6. According to Abdussamatow’s projections, solar radiation will reach its minimum at about the year 2041.
    7. The 200-year decline in solar intensity according to Abdussamatow will trigger a gloabl climate minimum, which because of the ocean’s thermal inertia will take effect in about 15 to 20 years.
    8. According Abdussamatow’s projections, the temperatures will bottom out sometime around 2055 to 2060.
    9. Abdussamatow disagrees with scientists who claim the anthropogenic greenhouse effect significantly influences the global temperature of the earth.
    10. According to Abdussamatow projections, the cooling will lead to a significant increase in ice worldwide.
    11. According to Abdussamatow the earth’s climate changes every 200 years. “It is not man’s fault, rather it is due to the 200-year cyclic changes in solar intensity.”

    So there you have it, from Abdussamatow the Terrible, Russian denier, enfant terrible. Got to be a stooge of Gazprom or Lukoil.

    It’s late here, so if you’d like, I could translate the entire report, but not before tomorrow. Maybe there’s an English version already available someplace else.

  72. evilanemone believes (11:21:34) :

    “Perhaps it’s simply that Dr. Hansen is not solely motivated by money…”

    For someone who’s not motivated by money, Hansen certainly gets a lot shoveled his way. Read here about the $720,000 that Hansen received from George Soros.

    And here you can read about another $250,000 given to Hansen — plus another $1,000,000 Hansen shared with one other individual. That’s a lot of money being given to a government employee by outside interests.

    Next, for those in need of peer reviewed papers falsifying the CO2/AGW hypothesis, here is a good [and unrefuted] one to start with: click

    Finally, I will pledge to add another $10,000 to John McDonald’s debate challenge. I suggest that the prize money go to a national charity, so that Hansen will be in the position of denying charity if he hides out from the debate.

    If Hansen continues to put his tail between his legs and run away from any debate, then I challenge as his alternate Gavin Schmidt, [AKA: Hansen's Poodle] to debate in Hansen’s place under the same terms and conditions; plus I get to choose the skeptical debater. The format to be in a top-tier, national university venue, under standard debate rules.

    The ante is now upped to $20,000. The ball is in Hansen’s court. Will he support charity? Or will he hide out?

  73. Once upon a time, God used to talk to quite a few people, quite often, so the scriptures told us. Then he stopped. Immanence, I think, is the term.
    Now, apparently, he only talks to people who have some mental imbalance, readily maintained with careful administration of pharmaceutical preparations, and support from highly trained professionals.
    However, I cannot recall any reference to God saying anything like: “Not interested”, except in a certain novel by Kurt Vonnegut – “The Sirens of Titan”.
    I believed in “God the Utterly Indifferent” inasmuch as if I could believe in any god, that was the type of god that fits the world as I see it.
    Why then, do I still have difficulty with Dr Hansen?

  74. The Russian report was back on June 25, 2008. I don’t recall any blogs mentioning it. Used to be every time Abdussamatow opened his mouth, the blogs would be a humming.
    The German title:
    Russlands Wissenschaftler wollen These der anthropogenen Klimaerwärmung widerlegen
    In English:
    Russian scientists wish to refute the subject of anthropogenic climate warming.

    Has anyone heard of this Russian June 25 report?

  75. No big surprise that he doesn’t want to debate. Does he ever? What a joke.

    Don’t feel guilty about living life. Help the earth. Be GreenHG.

  76. Perhaps it’s simply that Dr. Hansen …doesn’t care to debate with “a vocal global warming skeptic” anymore than he cares to debate the sphericity of the planet with the Flat Earth Society?
    Nice try, evilanemone. That may be what he wants those who are gullible enough to believe. Apparently you bought it. LOL.
    The truth is, Hansen’s nothing but a huge fraud, just like Al is. He knows the science doesn’t support his AGW claims. Plus, he’s just plain chicken.

  77. It is an strange world when “computer model simulations” are mistaken for “science” and when one is supposed to “believe in” the computer model simulations or one becomes a flat-earth denier type.

  78. I’ve been aware for some time that the Russians are concerned about a climate minimum coming. It doesn’t fit in with the “give up your carbon-based fuel and receive environmental salvation” meme, though, so no press for them.

  79. “If it is substantially warmer, or colder, all will be revealed.”

    That’s what they were saying ten years ago. And according to NCDC, temperatures in the United States have dropped with a trend of -0.63 degrees over that time period, or a rate of -6 degrees per century if extrapolated over 100 years. So in the past ten years we have seen cooling at a rate of about 3 times faster than they were predicting the climate would warm. And yet they still claim it is warming. I suppose the cooling is evidence of the warming … or something.

  80. Hmm what part of the CO2 drives the climate theory could Hansen defend?
    CO2 leads temperature— no, CO2 lag temperature-observed data
    Upper troposphere warming faster than the surface— no, not happening-observed data
    Oceans are warming— no, oceans cooling as CO2 increased- observed data
    Water vaper positive feedback — no, darn that Spencer–observed data

  81. Joel Shore:
    “…The appropriate forum to debate science is the peer-reviewed literature.”

    The problem is the peer-reviewed literature has been heavily steered through the grant stream toward *validating* AGW since the early 1990’s, but not establishing a solid foundation for all the various subfields supporting the overarching theory.

    Only recently is field data being acquired via in situ equipment like the Argo floats, or V. Ramanathan’s brown cloud robotic airplanes, etc., but there are continued efforts to use computer models in lieu of collecting field data or worse – to even to supersede existing, actual field data (like using calculated wind speed temperatures to supersede balloon sonde data).

    The level of scientific understanding of internal cloud dynamics is largely unchartered territory, and yet instead of putting more money & effort into developing & gathering basic data to address this large discrepancy in climate knowledge, the money has been poured into making computer models.

    So guess which has generated a mountain of peer-reviewed data? Cloud dynamics or computer models? And what are the skeptics complaining about outside of the peer review system? The lack of data on cloud dynamics!!!

    The same goes for deeper heliophysics, aerosol and continued hurricane research – neither have been as well-funded as the AGW computer time of the 1990’s and they are just as important – and more fundamental to a full understanding of climate sensitivity – as sitting around in front of computer models proving something we already know: That warmer air can be more humid and humid air can get warmer than drier air.

  82. I agree with Bruce Cobb. Joel how can you bring religion into this? This is about CLIMATIC FACT, THEORY AND OBSERVATION, not fossil record or faith. It is absolutely ridiculous to bring up creationism vs evolution as these are personal beliefs which go beyond science! That is a completely different case.

    And anyway this debate is about theories, measurement and concrete evidence of climatic trends/patterns, causes and implications.
    Hansen screams on television to the gullible masses: “CO2 causes global warming!!”
    When in fact the Vostok Ice Core Data screams in a cold dark filing cabinet (or climate realism blog/site): “CO2 lags global warming!!”.
    Hansen knows full well about this and so refuses to debate because he knows that the damn facts will destroy his entire argument!

    As Old Construction Worker has shown us : all parts of the CO2 driving climate theory can be disproven by cold, solid, hard data evidence!
    Hansen knows this therefore instead of commiting “scientific suicide” he cowers away because he knows that he is wrong. Simple, thats what common sense dictates. There is no hidden agenda or hidden thought process.
    It just boils down to “Look Hansen, your predictions and theories are downright rubbish and if you go out there in public you will be obliterated! Run. Now!”

  83. Old Construction Worker:

    I think yours is one of the most succinct posts I’ve ever seen! Thank you!

    “Hmm what part of the CO2 drives the climate theory could Hansen defend?
    CO2 leads temperature— no, CO2 lag temperature-observed data
    Upper troposphere warming faster than the surface— no, not happening-observed data
    Oceans are warming— no, oceans cooling as CO2 increased- observed data
    Water vaper positive feedback — no, darn that Spencer–observed data”

    If I may… it seems that the myriad of AGW “supporting” science does not pertain the the general hypothesis, but to the effects of the warming (as in showing how the rocky mountain turtle population is affected by “Climate Change” – yes made up) other than showing a a causal link that CO2 is the culprit. 2 cents. Back to lurking.

    And thank you Pierre for the translation. MSM… only crickets…

  84. What are we all worried about? As Hathaway says about the lack of sunspots to date; ‘We have already observed a few sunspots from the next solar cycle,” he says. (See Solar Cycle 24 Begins.) “This suggests the solar cycle is progressing normally.”

  85. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D. has already put a big hole in the data that has been used by the IPCC from Ice Core samples relating to CO2 (essentially around cherry picking 53% of the readings for the “early” CO2 levels) and I’m sure Hansen will know this too. It’s hard to debate against the correct analysis of the facts.

  86. thirdrobot if you want to believe in space aliens it is of no concern to me. No debate is necessary. Its a free country and you can believe whatever you want. However if you start convincing congress to extract trillions of dollars from taxpayers for an alien defence system, well then we need to have the debate.

  87. Perhaps science should be debated primarily in journals and conferences, but climate science has unquestionably been dragged into the public/political/policy realm. Hansen himself is partly responsible, if only by calling for prosecution of oil execs. It’s only fitting that he defend his views in a public forum.

  88. “Has anyone heard of a guy called Lyndon LaRouche?”

    Isn’t he Ron Paul’s twin that was separated at birth?

    REPLY: Ok let’s leave all the political folks out of this thread please

  89. Hansen spoke at a small private college in my town earlier this year. I’m not sure what he was paid, but I’m sure it was more than a thousand dollars. I did not attend as I knew he would not take questions.

  90. @Pierre

    Funny how we keep coming back to Theodor Landscheidt and the approaching solar minimum.

    Landscheidt predicted minimum solar output for 2030 with 2045-2050 as the global temperature bottom as the oceans lose their thermal inertia.

    Both Abdussamatow and Landscheidt are in the same ballpark.

    Worrisome.

  91. As a tax payer, I just got ripped off again…..Dear Mr. President, fire Jim Hansen on Monday morning.

  92. Leebert,

    You make a good point about pooring (sic) the money into computer simulations rather than data collection and analysis.

    It’s so much easier to surf at a desktop than do real work. And, the bureaucrats forking out the monies get computer proof that things were done. Imagine these scenarios:

    1. EPA bureaucrat to GISS guy: “What do I have to show for that $25 million? GISS guy: “Here’s the code, it’s yours. Also, look at these curves (hmmmm, nice, shuffles papers) no, these curves. See how they show …

    2. EPA bureaucrat to field geologist: “What do I have to show for that $25 million? Field geologist “I don’t know, it doesn’t make sense. Theory sez but I’m puzzled…Perhaps I should have gone a couple of miles South

    3. Oceanographer to EPA bureaucrat: “Here’s my application for the Rachel Carson scholarship to study nematodes EPA guy: “Do they cause global warming?”

  93. Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  94. Joel Shore: “The appropriate forum to debate science is the peer-reviewed literature. Usually it is the losing side in the debate in this venue that then asks for debates in the public sphere instead.”

    Very true. I have no particular problem with public debates about scientific subjects as long as they are not confused with the actual practice of science. In this regard, sceptics who demand debate typically claim a desire for the public audience to hear ‘both sides’ but fail to mention the aim of such an exercise.

    Since the science is not going to be decided by public debate, the aim must be to demonstrate to onlookers that there are dissenting views and to gain support for those views. In other words, such demands are a political exercise, and not a desire to clarify the science.

    Other evidence that scepticism is on a losing streak scientifically are hoax claims, when no sceptic has any intention of following through these claims, and revenge fantasies, which offer a type of comfort to losers as they imagine all the bad stuff that could happen to their enemies.

    (As an aside, it’s interesting that Hansen is the climate scientist who most resembles the sceptics’ paragon of the scientific method: Galileo. Both men offer a positive, counter-intuitive theory, both are certain of their position, somewhat acerbic and dogmatic, and ready to mix it in non-scientific fields — religion for Galileo and politics for Hansen. Hansen should make sure he has friends in high places in case the political tide turns against him.)

  95. There is nothing wrong with models, IF you treat them as models and not oracles. Economic models are useful but you’ll probably lose your shirt if you use them to bet on the stock market. Climate and weather models have too many ill defined parameters to make the kinds of predictions that Hansen is espousing.

    And why would anyone with total faith in their belief (Hansen) debate? Someone with that kind of faith accepts only facts that support their beliefs and anything that does not is either wrong or irrelevant, so how can there be a debate? Hansen’s only interest is be in proselytizing not discussion.

  96. Sorry, I was trying stay in my old thread, but I could not resist- just one post here.

    From what one can find from William and Mary and other sources, Mr. Katz is a student, not a staff person (to graduate in 09). I cannot find a society named “Academic Freedom and Diversity” in their web; it could be an unofficial society established by a few students (which of course anyone can do). The title “Director of the WM Society for Academic Freedom and Diversity” seems highly misleading to me – usually those titles are for paid staff, not for students. I have a fear that there is more here than what we know.

    I strongly advise caution (like requiring pdf letter with appropriate letterhead), before the AGW skeptics in this forum to give their support on this issue. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don’t like to see the potential to diminish your cause by being in the wrong side with an issues unrelated to the main scientific theme.

    In any case, if Hansen accepts every invitation from informal student organizations for debates (if that is what this is), he will not have any time to do anything else.

  97. Way off the topic (or maybe on the metatopic)….

    There were 114 comments when I started this one. That seems a lot.

    Anthony, do you know off the top of your head what the biggest attractor was? What the topic was?

    Seems like you are being quoted around in a number of places.

    Good stuff. (Too bad it won’t buy groceries.)

    REPLY: I’m not sure I understand your question.

  98. Gore is already considered a laughing stock for his comments about inventing the Internet. Once the full gravity of the failure of Global Warming is widely understood, Gore will be remembered by history as nothing more than a joke. And with him, Jim Hansen.

  99. Brendan H,

    The trouble is that Galileo has been empirically shown to be right. Whereas Hansen has been empirically shown to be wrong.

  100. ” if Hansen accepts every invitation from informal student organizations for debates (if that is what this is), he will not have any time to do anything else.”

    Eureka! Problem solved.

  101. I lost respect for Jim Hansen when I discovered that he mischaracterized portions of an earlier paper of his (circa 1988) presenting model scenarios of future tempeartire changes, so as to make it appear that the model was more accurate than it was. Specifically, in the late 1980s, Hansen published a paper presenting the results of three model runs, each run assuming a particular forcing scenario. Going from memory here, the first, scenario A, assumed continued CO2 growth at the then exponential rate along with no major volcanic eruptions. Scenario B assumed a couple volcanic eruptions and modest CO2 curtailment efforts. Scenario C assumed serious CO2 curtailment efforts. Hansen also testified before Congress that scenario A was the “business as usual” scenario.

    Michael Crichton wrote a book about 15 years later comparing scenario A in the model study to what actually occured and said that Hansen was 600% off and inquired why anyone would continue to give him any credence.

    In response to Crichton’s book, Hansen published a paper accusing Crichton of taking his model results out of context. Hansen claimed that in his original paper, he specifically characterized scenario A as being “on the high side of reality” and that scenario B was the “most realistic.” Hansen then compared actual temperature data to the predicted scenarios and found a good fit with scenario B.

    I actually went on line and got a hold of the original 1980s paper that presented the three scenarios. What it ACTUALLY said with respect to scenario A was that it “must EVENTUALLY be on the high side of reality DUE TO RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS.” In other words, and particularly taken in conjuntion with Hansen’s contemporaneous Congressional testimony about scenario A being the “business as usual scenario”, Hansen was saying that scenario A was the projected path of current emissions but that at some distant point in the future, as we run out of oil and other fossil fuels, the temperatures of emissions scenario A would be higher than what the real temperatures would be. But Crichton was evaluating the first 15 years of the model run when we certainly weren’t facing any resource scarcities. His comparison of actual temperatures to those of scenario A was therefore quite rational.

    Aside from Hansen’s deceptiveness in characterizing his earlier study, what also struck me was that he didn’t dig up the model, plug in the actual emissions, the actual number of volcanic emissions, etc., so as to see how well the 1988 model correctly simulated the climate response to the forcings that actually occurred. In other words, he didn’t really test the capabilities of the model. Instead, he just plotted the actual temperatures as an overlay on the model projections and asserted that it was consistent with scenario B, without first establishing that the assumptions built into scenario B actually occurred. This omission spoke volumes about Hans’s confidence in the accuracy of the model itself. I also noticed that the actual temperatures were just as consistent with scenario C (drastic emissions cuts) as it was scenario B.

    I left the experience with the impresison that Hansen was behaving, not like a scientist, but instead like a lawyer (and I would know, I am one).

  102. Smokey, you say: “Next, for those in need of peer reviewed papers falsifying the CO2/AGW hypothesis, here is a good [and unrefuted] one to start with: click”. Wow! Talk about confirmation bias in action. There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers each year that support AGW but because you find one that doesn’t, you think this falsifies AGW? And, it is particularly strange how, amongst a group of people who are so suspicious of models, there would be so little questioning of a particularly simplistic one when it happens to give the result that you desire. As for Schwartz’s paper being unrefuted, it was only published last year, but here is a comment on it, apparently now in press (according to Annan’s website) that pretty much tears it to pieces: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/comment_on_schwartz.pdf

  103. Brendan H:

    You’re just arguing. Where’s the science?

    Here’s some pretty definitive scientific proof that Hansen is flat wrong: click

    And here: click

    And here: click

    And here: click

    Hansen is absolutely terrified of engaging in a real one-on-one debate because he would be publicly discredited; the empirical [real world] results directly contradict his falsified CO2 hypothesis. Yours too, by the way… unless you can demonstrate that the global temperature is rising with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Good luck with that.

  104. Oh…And, I just discovered that a preprint of Schwartz’s response to the various comments on his paper is available here: http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapCommentResponse.pdf

    In it, he revises upward his estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity from the 1.1 +- 0.5 C to 1.9 +- 1.0 C, so while the central value is still on the low side of most estimates, it now overlaps significantly the IPCC range of 2 to 4.5 C. (My guess is that most of his critics would argue that Schwartz’s time constant for the system…and thus his climate sensitivity…still seems to be on the low side of what seems most realistic from other considerations.)

  105. it’s interesting that Hansen is the climate scientist who most resembles the sceptics’ paragon of the scientific method: Galileo. Both men offer a positive, counter-intuitive theory, both are certain of their position, somewhat acerbic and dogmatic, and ready to mix it in non-scientific field

    Except that Galileo’s theories are holding up, and Hansen’s are collapsing badly, after a mere 2 decades. Hansen is a pop tart going down for the last time.

  106. When an honest man has it pointed out to him that he is wrong about something, he has a choice to make:

    He can continue to be an honest man
    or
    He can continue to be wrong.

  107. because he knows there’s no point in holding a debate when everyone in the room has already made up their mind.

    Seems to me there are a LOT of “undecideds” and these debates can change a LOT of minds.

    Sorry. The AGW side had a great spring training and on that basis is trying to claim the pennant.

    No.

    Now the real season begins.

  108. John McLondon: “In any case, if Hansen accepts every invitation from informal student organizations for debates (if that is what this is), he will not have any time to do anything else.”

    Irrelevant. His response was extremely unprofessional. That’s the bottom line. He doesn’t want to debate, that’s fine. As a representative of NASA, is that how you answer a request from a college or college student?

  109. @Brendan H

    Hansen is not trained as a Climate Scientist. He is an astronomer according to his CV posted earlier.

    On the other hand, I was trained in Atmospheric Sciences, I don’t engage in revenge fantasies and have proudly been a global warming skeptic since 1997.

    Appeals to Authority mean nothing. What counts is ground truths. And the ground truths against man-influence global climate change are piling up faster and faster.

    I am frequently disappointed that many of the people passionate about climate change are not equally passionate about knowing all the data involved.

    Best of Luck to you Brendan. I hope you expand your horizons from tricks of logic to winning your debates to a wider understanding of the science behind climate change.

    I am sure that if you spell out why you believe in man-made climate change, any number of people here will point you to the current science so that you can directly make up your own mind rather than be molded from predigested propaganda.

    If you are not a scientist, I recommend you start with http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html

  110. Yes he did produce some codes after waiting several weeks to make them more “readable to the public” ;) So far they have been unreplicable.

    Read: Binary dump. Digital caltrops.

    “The appropriate forum to debate science is the peer-reviewed literature”

    Peer review won’t do. Independent review is urgently required.

    Has anyone heard of a guy called Lyndon LaRouche?

    Unfortunately. (Let’s just say, “not mainstream”.)

    Perhaps science should be debated primarily in journals and conferences, but climate science has unquestionably been dragged into the public/political/policy realm.

    Too late. As you say, it’s down to public policy now. Who decides? YOU do.

  111. Joel Shore: “The appropriate forum to debate science is the peer-reviewed literature. Usually it is the losing side in the debate in this venue that then asks for debates in the public sphere instead.”

    This is nonsense. Many scientists, politicians, journalists etc. are arguing that policy should be made based upon their assertions of what the “science” tells us, and significant policy at that. To suggest that there is no place for public debate about the certainty of that science, outside of published, peer reviewed articles is just an astoundingly silly thing to assert. By this logic, debate over tax and economic policy should be limted to peer reviewed economic journals; debate over the wisdom of subsidies for medical research/drugs should only be discussed in medical journals. Need I go on?

    For that matter, I am not aware of a climate change “debate” taking place in peer reviewed literature, as such. The debate takes place outside of the literature, e.g. Hansen publishing data on calculations of heat content in oceans, but saving his “smoking gun” comments for reporters. To follow that example, see if you can find anything approximating the phrase “smoking gun” in the article itself. If scientists like Hansen can publicly characterize the certainty of published research in stronger terms than the papers that present that research, if the IPCC can “review” the research so as to attach 90% confidence intervals to AGW, even though (to my knowledge anyway) no published peer reviewed paper says anything so bold, what kind of arrogance does it take to criticize people for giving their own assesments of the certainty of the science behind AGW, simply because it isn’t in a peer-reviewed journal?

    On this last matter, let me say one more thing. The IPCC bases their condfidence assesments in results or in the state of scientific knowlege on what is essentially a poll, i.e. the authors say “We believe that the likelihood that human CO2 emmissions caused most of the warming over the last decade is 90% or greater.” The report is clear on this – these assesments are based on “expert judgment.” The opinion of a scientist is not science. If there is no data from which these confidence measures can be calculated, then the science falls short on what is essentially the heart of the AGW debate.

    Neither are scientists, per se, experts on the subjects they study, but on the procedure by which those subjects are studied. If that procedure itself can’t produce the numbers that are relevant, i.e. the likehood of “x” amount of CO2 causing at least “y” temperature increase, and the likelihood of “y” temperature increase cauzing “z” catastrophe, then there is nothing magical about being a scientist that gives a person the ability to simply divine the results anyway (or more coarsly, to pull it out of their rear end) If someone wants the public to pay any heed to their “expert judgment” they had better first demonstrate that their judgment is actually worth something.

  112. Anthony: to avoid those annoying accidental “smileys” which appear in posts from time to time, you can un-check the auto-change box here on your WordPress dashboard:

    Far right are “Settings” and “Users”

    Go to: Settings /Writing/Formatting/check-box: Convert emoticons like :-) (etc) to graphics on display. UN-CHECK

  113. Joel Shore (19:38:28) :

    “Smokey, you say: ‘Next, for those in need of peer reviewed papers falsifying the CO2/AGW hypothesis, here is a good [and unrefuted] one to start with: click’. Wow! Talk about confirmation bias in action. There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers each year that support AGW but because you find one that doesn’t, you think this falsifies AGW?”

    In a word, yes.

    When one hundred eminent scientists wrote an open letter to Albert Einstein stating that his Theory of Relativity was wrong, Einstein wrote back: ”To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”

    The AGW/CO2/disaster hypothesis that Hansen hides out from debating has been falsified repeatedly. Even the empirical evidence, as cited in my 19:46:55 post above, repeatedly falsifies Hansen’s computer model-based prognostications.

    Climate deceivers like Hansen seem to forget that the Scientific Method requires that those putting forth a new hypothesis are the ones required to justify it. Skeptics know that the status quo is the status quo; if there is a brand new hypothesis, which claims that CO2 causes runaway global warming, then it is up to them to prove it — not the skeptics. I am not sure you understand this.

    So far, the proof is entirely on the side of the empirical evidence: the Earth is cooling. There is no “runaway global warming” despite the steady rise of beneficial carbon dioxide.

    As Einstein pointed out, all it takes is one fact to disprove a hypothesis. Below are more than fifty [50+] papers falsifying the failed catastrophic global warming hypothesis.

    I have more when you’re finished with these. Keep in mind that only one refuting fact is necessary to discredit Hansen’s entire CO2/climate disaster scenario. So read, and learn:

    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
    (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
    – Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
    (Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
    – Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

    Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
    (Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
    – C. R. de Freitas

    Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
    (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
    (arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
    – J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves

    Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
    (AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
    – Lee C. Gerhard

    – Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
    (AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
    – Lee C. Gerhard

    Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
    – V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos

    Climate Change Re-examined
    (Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
    – Joel M. Kauffman

    CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
    (Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 199
    – Sherwood B. Idso

    Crystal balls, virtual realities and ’storylines’
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
    – R.S. Courtney

    Dangerous global warming remains unproven
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
    – R.M. Carter

    Does CO2 really drive global warming?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
    – R.H. Essenhigh

    Does human activity widen the tropics?
    (arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 200
    – Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov

    Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
    – C.D. Idso

    Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 200
    – Patrick J. Michaels

    Global Warming
    (Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
    – W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas

    Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
    – Dennis Ambler

    Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
    (Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
    – Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman

    Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
    – Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong

    Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
    – M. Leroux

    Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
    (arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 200
    – Serge Galam

    Global warming: What does the data tell us?
    (arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
    – E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen

    Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
    (Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
    – S. Fred Singer

    Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
    – A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

    Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    (Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
    – Soon, Willie

    Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
    – Indur M. Goklany

    Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
    (Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
    – Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

    Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
    (Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
    – Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    – Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
    (Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
    – Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    – Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
    (Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
    – Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
    (Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
    – L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

    On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
    (Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
    – Olavi Kamer

    Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
    (Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
    – A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

    Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
    – Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
    (arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
    – Soon, Willie

    Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 200
    – Klaus-Martin Schulte

    Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
    (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
    (Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
    – Olavi Kärner

    Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
    – S. Fred Singer

    Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
    – Vincent Gray

    Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
    – Olavi Kärner

    The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
    – N. Calder

    The Cause of Global Warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
    – Vincent Gray

    The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
    – Douglas J. Keenan

    The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
    – David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

    The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
    – H. Jelbring

    The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
    – A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes

    The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
    (Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 199
    – Vincent Gray

    The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
    – William J.R. Alexander

    The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
    – Wojick D. E.

    “The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
    (Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
    – Lee C. Gerhard

    Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
    – Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)

    – Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

  114. Gavin is apparently not interested either. I was engaged in a discussion over at RC the last couple of days, and was asked by other writers some very specific questions today about the Arctic and global warming in general. I responded with several messages about different topics, all of which Gavin completely censored.

    It is very difficult to have a debate with someone who is insecure about their position and won’t let the other side speak.

    For the record, this is what Gavin chose to censor –

    # Steven Goddard Says:
    11 July 2008 at 18:45

    Ray, thanks for the questions.

    – 1)Do you dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

    No

    – 2)Do you dispute that it’s responsible for about 20-25% of the greenhouse effect?

    Yes. That number is probably too large. Water vapor is about 10X as common as CO2 and absorbs a wider spectrum of IR.

    – 3)Do you dispute that human activities have been responsible for increasing CO2 from roughly 280 ppmv ot 385 ppmv?

    No

    – 4)Do you dispute that the climate is warming?

    No. it has been warming for at least 15,000 years and has warmed considerably over the last 300 years.

    Here is a cdc animation showing persistent cold in central and southern portions of the Greenland ice sheet this summer.

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01a_30frames.fnl.anim.html

    Obviously the thickness of the ice at the North Pole various from year to year, depending largely on Trans-Polar drift. In 1987 the ice was very thin, as seen in this picture taken very early in the season.

    # Steven Goddard Says:
    11 July 2008 at 18:56

    More from Hansen-Nazarenko

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Hansen_Nazarenko.pdf

    “The climate forcing due to snow/ice albedo change is of the order of 1W/m2 at middle- and high-latitude land areas in the Northern Hemisphere …. This compares with a global mean forcing by present anthropogenic CO2 (compared to preindustrial times) of 1.5W/m2, which is relatively uniform over the globe.”

    then

    “Soot snow/ice albedo climate forcing is not included in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change evaluations. This forcing is unusually effective, causing twice as much global warming as a CO2 forcing of the same magnitude.”

    The 2X greater efficacy makes the temperature effect of soot greater than CO2 in the Arctic, as can also be seen in figure 1 and figure 3. Most of the overall rise in Arctic temperature seen in figure 3 is accounted for by soot as seen in figure 1.

  115. Ya know, the interesting part of this debate has some historical analogies. The Titanic, Challenger, and Discovery among others. In each case, a major death event was sparked by people working in a vacuum who thought they knew more than anyone else. Titanic was designed essentially by one man, who designed the rudder too small for the ship. It handled like a pig. The Discovery was launched despite cries to the contrary, by people looking at the “political” fall out. (cold, “O” rings, and burn through were known at the time). The Discovery was downed by someone with a flawed computer model “proved” that the hole wasn’t important if there was one.

    The cause of these, and other examples was a failure to face facts. I think the AGW crowd and Hanson are in that mode now. I just hope my taxes don’t go up too much before the truth is known.

    There are some good things going on though. Some of the solar, wind and biological technologies are getting dollars to improve. That can’t be all bad. We have to start somewhere for alternative energy because fossel fuels are finite and will run out sometime.

    Just thought a blast of sunshine (pun intended) would help the debate….

  116. Jeff Alberts: “Irrelevant. His response was extremely unprofessional. That’s the bottom line. He doesn’t want to debate, that’s fine. As a representative of NASA, is that how you answer a request from a college or college student?”

    Don’t know. Sometimes busy colleagues use very short communications like this. His answer was to the point – he is not interested. He could have chosen to ignore the email, without giving any response.

    Please note that an invitation for such a one on one debate, or invitation for a seminar, is usually made through a phone call, not by an email. Also, I find it rather strange for a student go public with an email reply he received, to somehow show that either Hansen has the obligation to accept the invitation or the answer is not polite enough. Seems too silly to me.

  117. Is there a bit of el nino developing?

    but temps still going down… I thought AGW’s maintained current drop due to La Nina?

  118. Joel: These comments are most welcome from an AGW believer and is the type of debate that backs up your position Schwartz paper etc. I wish more of the AGW would engage in the debate in that way. (ie am 100% skeptical BTW)

  119. As Steven Goddard (22:26:20) makes clear, the climate deceivers are extremely insecure. They understand that their hypothesis will not stand up to scientific scrutiny, as Gavin Schmidt makes very clear every day on his RealClimate blog.

    A few days ago I attempted to make my very first post on the NY Times’ website, responding to a global warming article. The very same thing occurred; I simply stated that according to these four agencies, the globe was cooling, not warming. I was unfailingly polite, suspecting that they would use any excuse to delete my post.

    It didn’t matter. The result was exactly the same as Mr. Goddard’s. Out of literally hundreds of pro-AGW comments, mine was deleted.

    They’re running scared.

  120. . According to Abdussamatow’s projections, solar radiation will reach its minimum at about the year 2041.
    7. The 200-year decline in solar intensity according to Abdussamatow will trigger a gloabl climate minimum, which because of the ocean’s thermal inertia will take effect in about 15 to 20 years.
    8. According Abdussamatow’s projections, the temperatures will bottom out sometime around 2055 to 2060.

    I have to say, that is a lot more concerning to me than another .5C warming. Warming I can work with. Ice and show is a different matter.

  121. John McLondon (22:31:40) wrote: “Don’t know. Sometimes busy colleagues use very short communications like this. … Etc..

    I tend to go along with your opinion here, John. Nicely balanced reason in your words.

  122. Jeff B: “The trouble is that Galileo has been empirically shown to be right. Whereas Hansen has been empirically shown to be wrong.”

    My essential point was that both Galileo and Hansen are offering a case in the affirmative, whereas their opponents are the naysayers. Of course, this doesn’t demonstrate that Hansen or AGW is correct, but it does establish an equal footing in terms of their position vis a vis the respective issues.

    Smokey: “Here’s some pretty definitive scientific proof that Hansen is flat wrong…”

    I know the source of the data for these graphs. But who created the graphs?

    “…unless you can demonstrate that the global temperature is rising with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Good luck with that.”

    I will repeat comments made by a couple of the official agencies.

    UK Met Office: “…temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade.”

    NASA: “Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century…The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.”

    “…the empirical [real world] results directly contradict his falsified CO2 hypothesis.”

    If that is the case, then pretty soon Hansen and his AGW theory will be history. But the IPCC and official climate sites say otherwise.

    Dee Norris: “…current science so that you can directly make up your own mind rather than be molded from predigested propaganda.”

    “Why is the information you present “current science”, and why is the information from the AGW side “propaganda”?

    “BTW, one might consider calling for the jailing of oil execs a revenge fantasy.”

    Perhaps. Or a threat. Hansen’s comment was very intemperate and he should be slapped down for it. In his defence, he has been called a liar and a scientific cheat, so I imagine he doesn’t view sceptics with much fondness.

  123. Potential debate scenarios like this are ridiculous and prove little more than who’s good at debating. Furthermore, Dr. Hansen knows this and fires back the only possible sane answer, and, may I add, with the respect that it deserved.

    The readership here slams the idea of consensus science and then embraces debate? The irony is palpable.

    (Consensus and debate are the stuff of politics. Not science.)

    This thread is making me re-examine what I think about my fellow skeptics.

  124. @Brendan H
    “UK Met Office: “…temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade.”

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

    That is typical of statements which are only partially correct.
    The graph is using a smoothed curve using a 21 point binomial filter from here (top graph) http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
    but the unsmoothed version does show cooling from 1998 to 2007. This link gives a better picture http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/smoothing.html
    The problem with the original “fact” is that the smoothed temperature for 1998 is about 0.2 deg C lower than the actual.

  125. @Brendan H

    Good science (and the scientists behind it) should be agnostic. The moment that science is used by a party to sway other people to that party’s point of view, it becomes propaganda.

    If one seeks the truth, one needs to go beyond the science presented by one party and seek enlightenment through immersion in all the science.

    Too many only know the information promoted by the party sponsoring the cause. And far too often, they only get the watered down version of the actual science stripped of any doubts or hedges that might throw an unfavorable light on the cause.

    A perfect example of this is Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. When one knows the science or double checks Gore’s ‘facts’ the nature of the movie as propaganda become clear.

  126. Every time I show anyone data which disproves the CO2 driving theory my responses are ” How do you know this isn’t some fake data? “, “This is obviously doctored data.”
    Well the truth is I don’t but then surely the same could be said for contrary AGW data?

    Like Einstein said: one fact is enough to discredit a hypothesis.
    Well to be fair I will use Al Gore’s own data, (the AGW supporter’s own data).
    The exact same data I will use, the Vostok Ice Core. Except CO2 and Temperature will be superimposed as to not give any illusion and be split apart like what Gore did.
    Superimposed, this “universal” evidence shows

    ***Fact: Carbon dioxide rise lags temperature rise by 800 to1000 years.***
    This fact destroys the FUNDAMENTAL base of the AGW theory.

    So Brendan H, there it is. One fact destroys a hypothesis and with it, an empire.

  127. Brendan H. “In this regard, sceptics who demand debate typically claim a desire for the public audience to hear ‘both sides’ but fail to mention the aim of such an exercise.
    Since the science is not going to be decided by public debate, the aim must be to demonstrate to onlookers that there are dissenting views and to gain support for those views. In other words, such demands are a political exercise, and not a desire to clarify the science. ”

    Well no the science won’t be decided by public debate but instead we might get past the ‘smothering’ , and bias of the media. In general the public simply accept the ‘facts’ as they are told.

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequencies of the lie.” Goebbels

    Perhaps as the horrendous cost of ‘tackling climate change’ becomes apparent to the people, the whole scam will be exposed.
    Falling temperatures will help in this respect (though of course be a disaster in other respects.) Nature will win.

    “Oh, what fools those mortals be” Puck, Midsummer Nights’ Dream, Shakespear.

  128. randomengineer
    “Dr. Hansen knows this and fires back the only possible sane answer, and, may I add, with the respect that it deserved.”

    In this age of cut and paste it would have cost nothing to insert a stock reply. ‘Pressure of time, blah, blah, blah. Thanks for your invite, blah, blah. Unable to attend.’

    Instead this ‘sane’ man insulted the institution, the host and gave the sceptics something to laugh at. So, not very good at debating or even simple manners. It gives credence to the suggestions that there are other areas where he fails to apply basic common sense or caution.

  129. Evan Jones (21:33:03) :
    Has anyone heard of a guy called Lyndon LaRouche?
    Unfortunately. (Let’s just say, “not mainstream”.)

    Many thanks. just what I needed to know.

  130. Oldjim:

    I like the 3rd order you offer; some pros recommended it for non-linear repetitive phenomena on an earlier thread, Anthony’s July 4 post.
    My surmise is the Southern Ocean is the heat sink and NH the radiator fin. The heat capacity of the SO relative to NH is larger, but emissivity smaller.

  131. vincent: “Do we have El Nino developing?”

    Last 3 month index, MJJ (-0.5), still a La Nina. Current conditions above that, and need to remain so thru October (5 consecutive indicies) before La Nina officially a Neutral as I am given to understand. Kristen Byrnes said this was a seasonal remix following SO summer and will again cool in NH fall.

  132. Brendan H: “My essential point was that both Galileo and Hansen are offering a case in the affirmative, whereas their opponents are the naysayers”

    I think you have that backwards. Galileo was the skeptic in regards to the beliefs of the time and was placed under house arrest for offering a different view from the “known” doctrine. Hansen is part of the current “known” doctrine crowd and doesn’t want to hear from skeptics. Perhaps he would like to see some house arrests for his opponents also.

  133. The readership here slams the idea of consensus science and then embraces debate? The irony is palpable.
    (Consensus and debate are the stuff of politics. Not science.)

    randomengineer , don’t you find it just a bit too convenient that the “the debate is over, there is an overwhelming consensus” crowd now not only refuses to debate, but tries to squelch it whenever and wherever it occurs, and hypocritically cries “I thought you said that debates and consensus don’t matter in science”, conveniently ignoring the fact that normally, if science is allowed to progress without the injection of politics into it, that would be true. Like it or not, this is now in the public sphere and the stakes are enormous. The normal scientific process has been subverted by those who have a self-interest in AGW. Those interests are many and varied, but boil down to politics and money. Hansen’s entire career is invested in AGW, so do you really think he is interested in the truth? Most people believe the AGW lie because that is all they hear, and indeed it is everywhere – in the news, in the schools, and in politics. Many more believe it because they want to, as it seems to offer them some sort of religious or psychological void.
    The fact is, the AGW hypothesis does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. People need to see that, but how? Well, a public debate is one possible way, but Hansen and his cronies don’t want that, of course. No, what they want to do is throw people in jail for even questioning the AGW dogma. Think about it.

  134. Smokey: You seem to have missed Einstein’s basic point that a lot of garbage does not a refutation make. The most popular journal in your list of papers is “Energy and Environment” which is not considered a reputable journal whatsoever, see here: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html

    Then, you have a paper published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons…Get real! And, you include both Gerlich & Tscheuschner (unpublished pseudoscience) and Khilyuk & Chilingar (a complete embarrassment…They don’t even understand what the greenhouse effect is). You also include a paper by James Annan, which is completely legitimate but doesn’t support your point as Annan argues strongly for the IPCC’s central range of climate sensitivity…In fact, Annan’s basic claim is that we know the climate sensitivity with less uncertainty than many seem to think.

  135. One reader here mentioned Michaels isn’t the ideal debater. I agree.
    I’d like to see Richard Lindzen, or Phillip Stott.
    Or what about Lindzen-Stott against Hansen-Gavin?

    Come to think of it, there was a similar event not long ago:

    http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12

    Listen to it and you’ll know why Hansen is running and hiding. He knows full well he aint got a snowball’s chance in climate hell in a debate.

    REPLY: Put all those folkjs together and a hiockey game will break out.

  136. Having gotten burned big time once already, you can be sure the poor bloke Gavin is advsing him against it.

  137. Steven Goddard
    Censorship is done because of MISBEHAVIOUR. The big problem at RC is that facts and tough questions are precisely that: misbehaviour. Amazing huh?

    The RC folks are into defending fantasy, and not advancing science.
    It’s Lucy-In-The-Sky science and nothing else. They’re on climate-crack or something. To me it seems mentally ill.

  138. Smokey,

    Andy Revkin is actually quite good about posting all points of view, but the spam filters at Dot Earth eat a lot of posts.

  139. Oops, I meant “offers a way to fill” some sort of religious or psychological void. That’ll teach me (I hope) to always proofread before hitting the submit button.

  140. To Smokey and Steven Goddard

    You guys are right on.

    That is why a free press and open debate is so important. Let the readers decide what is truth and what is fiction.

    How do you think the Nazi’s, during WWII, got away with committing mass murder? Suppressing information, controlling the media, propaganda.

    That is exactly what the AGW Alarmist are doing. You make a good observation then you are deleted and banned from posting.

    Hansen and his crowd is in this mind set. They know that temperatures are not increasing. They know that temperatures might not increase over the next 10 years. They are messing in their diapers and need to circle the wagons.

    There will be no attempt to discuss GW and whether CO2 is doing it or just the sun, the wobble, the orbit by these chuckleheads. They have said too much for too long to back down now.

    They are “all in” so to speak. And as long as the current media has their back then they will push their agenda.

    Serenity now………..

  141. Steve, your message is Registering. Hansen flounders in a net of contradictions.
    =====================

  142. I am a non-scientist but read this site almost daily.

    Reading any article the attitude of the writer is often clear from the choice of words and use of language. Hansen’s intemperate language toward oil executives speaks volumes and for me cancels out any accreditation from the “peer review” system he parades as evidence.

    I would imagine that “Peer review” is an important but crude tool to sweep out chaff that is probably not worth reading, it is unlikely to tell me if the conclusions of the article is right. That can only be done through open and wider scrutiny and further investigation, which is how I imagine science to work.

    But to the public at large Peer Review has a different meaning. The public see Peer Review as meaning the conclusions have been checked and verified by the scientific community and have been established as factually true.

    Isn’t it ironic that Public Relations and Peer Review share the same initials: PR

  143. The reason I invited Michaels is, simply put, most students are unfamiliar with work of his sort. I invited Hansen in order for students to have a high profile response to Michaels assertions.
    I would go ahead and have Dr. Michaels give a talk anyway, since he has already agreed to come, and since the goal was primarily to hear a side of the debate they never hear. They would already be well aware of the claims of Hansens’.

  144. The topic of debate has occured several times in this thread.
    I suggest that there is no doubt that between scientists informal debate (discussion) is both common and useful. However I agree that on scientific matters public debate is probably irrelevant.
    Two thoughts:-
    1) Those advocating debate – the sceptics- see it as a means of exposing to the public what they see as the false science being pushed by the AGWers.
    2) In science a theory can be falsified (Karl Popper) or a paradigm overturned (Thomas Kuhn). However the whole matter of ‘climate change’ has entered the political arena and so the science becomes only the background with the result that falsification and paradigm shift are no longer relevant. The sceptics want to see the science moved back into the foreground and see debate as a way of achieving this. (By debate I would really hope for open discussion in the media).
    I am a ‘sceptic’ and for the above reasons support debate.

  145. The academic peer review system has some severe flaws. The first is that no one wants to offend because they will need the favor returned later, and the second is that they all feed from the same funding trough.

    This is in sharp contrast to industry where companies absoulutely have to get it right. In industry the process is called “product verification” and most companies have engineers whose sole purpose is to find flaws in the design. Their pay and stature is enhanced by finding errors, and they go about it enthusiastically.

    If it were up to Government researchers to design your car or computer, it would probably never work and would cost 10 times as much. Many government researchers spend their life struggling to find a way out and get a real job in industry. Many government researchers are not good enough to get a job in industry.

  146. Seems like you are being quoted around in a number of places.

    Rev: I have a friend in high-level marketing and I was talking with him just yesterday. He said, “You know that Anthony Watts guy I hear you mention? Do you realize his blog is one of the top blogs in the entire world?”

  147. John: “Don’t know. Sometimes busy colleagues use very short communications like this. His answer was to the point – he is not interested. He could have chosen to ignore the email, without giving any response.”

    And it would have killed him to take 30 seconds to write a friendlier response? Even a canned response would have been better. He certainly seems to have time to decry deniers every 5 minutes. Anyway, a college student is not a colleague of his. Ignoring the email would have been better, IMHO.

    Of course we can discuss this till we’re blue in the face, and no one will change their positions…

  148. Water vapor is about 10X as common as CO2 and absorbs a wider spectrum of IR.

    You can go further than that. Water vapor varies between 1 – 5% of atmosphere, while CO2 is c. 1/25 of 1%. Yes, CO2 does have more bang for the buck, but many, many fewer bucks.

    UK Met Office: “…temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade.”

    No doubt. And 1998 – 2008 shows a “continued cooling”. It would seem that UK Met prefers include the recent (post 2002) triple-El Ninos IN and the recent La Nina OUT.

    That can only be done through open and wider scrutiny and further investigation, which is how I imagine science to work.

    “Independent Review”. Without that, it’s not science, it’s alchemy.

  149. To Jeff Alberts

    This has nothing to do with Mr. Katz or his organization or even politeness. It has everything to do with the concept if you have the truth use it, if you don’t then run.

    Tricky Jim Hansen has a chance to put Dr. Michaels in is place by debating him on the merits of CO2 induced GW. Tricky Jimmy got the facts, right! Tricky Jimmy got the models and simulations, right! Tricky Jimmy got consensus, right! Tricky Jimmy believes in what he is preaching, right!

    Why won’t Tricky Jimmy put Dr. Michaels in is place? Tricky Jimmy can’t because his “FACTS” are a house of cards. Tricky Jimmy only goes in front of a group of people if he is going to lecture them. One way dialog! That is his M.O.

    “Not Interested” is short for “Not interested in embarassing myself debating Dr. Michaels”.

    Serenity now….

  150. Jeff Alberts: “Of course we can discuss this till we’re blue in the face, and no one will change their positions…”

    Well you are right, which is the main problem. We have stopped to be reasonable.

    But I think we all agree (although many of us, including me, do not want to admit it) that to be nice, especially to a student, Hansen should have thanked for the invitation. But I suspect he is probably suspicious of such invitations and very sensitive of all the criticism, this is probably a natural reaction than a thoughtful response.

  151. Re: Joel Shore (05:52:49)

    Knew it, knew it, KNEW IT!!

    I knew it would happen: Joel Shore picks a small handful out of the 50+ papers I posted — then uses ad hominems to try and refute even that handful [with unsupported labels like "psuedoscience", etc.]. And the one link that Mr. Shore cites is from an old environmentalist blog that still posts Michael Mann’s thoroughly discredited “hockey stick” chart! C’mon, Mr. Shore, you can do better than that …or can you?

    The point Einstein made was that unless a hypothesis can withstand rigorous scrutiny, it is falsified. By failing to refute all of the posted links that falsify the AGW/CO2/runaway global warming hypothesis, you may not realize it, but you are inadvertently admitting that Hansen’s global warming/AGW/planetary catastrophe hypothesis has been falsified by his peers.

    But thanx anyway for that ancient blog link. I didn’t think anyone was still posting that completely discredited “hockey stick” chart any more. Even Hansen and the UN/IPCC steers well clear of it now. So should you.

  152. Hi Smokey,

    I do not want to get into this (since I may not be able to get out) but the ACS news magazine that was cited (if that is what you mean) is not a blog. American Chemical Society is one of the most credible societies, their journals are the top journals, so are their other publications.

  153. Wow, I am really excited to be commenting on the world’s largest blog. Anthony, your hard work, persistence, integrity, common sense and easy going nature are helping people come together. Thanks.

  154. Thanks for the invitation. Regrettably, my schedule doesn’t allow time for this type of meeting, however here is a list of a few people that would be delighted to throw some light on the science of climate change:

  155. John McLondon:

    I do not want to get into this…

    Sure you do, John. That’s why you commented. And I welcome your opinion.

    American Chemical Society NASA/GISS/UN-IPCC is one of the most credible societies, their journals are the top journals, so are their other publications.

    See? The AGW/CO2/planetary disaster meme has infected many formerly credible organizations. Outside of the CO2/AGW hypothesis, those organizations may still be credible. But in the specific case of the American Chemical Society, they are not credible when they continue to publish the discredited “hockey stick” chart. This chart is bogus, in addition to being completely inaccurate regarding temperatures over the past decade.

    The Wegman Report to Congress indicated that any random numbers plugged into Michael Mann’s computer model would result in a similar “hockey stick” with an upward-sloping curve.

    When that became apparent, the truly frightening representation of sharply rising temperatures, which the UN/IPCC had previously used to raise the AGW alarm, was quietly deleted. Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” invention has been discredited.

    As we have seen, organizations with an agenda still publish it in order to further their agenda. But it is not science; it could not withstand peer review, and it has been withdrawn.

    I recommend that you read the Wegman Report. It is very professional and low-key. But it could open your eyes to what goes on behind the scenes when large amounts of taxpayer money are at stake.

  156. Discredited yes, withdrawn no. It is defended vigorously by the social network identified by Wegman.

  157. Smokey

    It may have been a problem with your links that swallowed your message to dotEarth. Many many skeptic opinions are posted without trouble in the comments. Andy Revkin is no Gavin and allows the free exchange of both ideas–and insults. :-) At RC the groupies have a monopoly on both.

    re the Schwarz paper and rebuttal, I read both and found the claim that the rebuttal decimated Schwartz was overblown. The statistical arguments can be addressed by others, but using climate models to show that Schwarz estimate of the time constant is biased on the low side is really really funny.

    au contraire, using climate models shows that climate models are biased on the high side!

    Anyway, between Schwarz and the recent (Holy Grail) paper by Spencer I’m getting a picture that says that the time constant may not be so constant afterall…at the very least it’s being masked by processes that are neither uniform nor consistent.

    In any case, Hansen (and the models) depend on heat deep in the ocean yet have given us no real mechanism for how it gets way down there where we conveniently can’t measure it. And if it’s there why has the ocean slowed its rate of rise? Warm water expands, not contracts. That to me would be a smoking gun of a sort.

    But Hansen demands an army of 12,000 smoking guns it seems.

  158. OldJim: “…but the unsmoothed version does show cooling from 1998 to 2007.”

    As the first link explains: “Data for 2008 were being used in the smoothing process as if they represented an accurate estimate of the year as a whole.” Since the data only covered the first two months of 2008, and that data was abnormally low, the earlier graph gave a misleading impression of a precipitous drop in the trend. The same of course can happen the other way, that is, a couple of data points of abnormally high temperatures can skew the trend upwards, as also explained in the first link.

    Therefore, it is valid to identify a “continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade” for 1998-2007, since that is an accurate description of the trend, and it’s the long-term trend that counts.

  159. Dee Norris: ““Too many only know the information promoted by the party sponsoring the cause.”

    Agreed. That’s one reason why I read sceptic literature, to the extent of my ability. As for Gore’s movie, I can’t comment because I haven’t seen it, although I have seen “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. I agree with your comments about movies as propaganda.

  160. Alex: “How do you know this isn’t some fake data…Well the truth is I don’t but then surely the same could be said for contrary AGW data?”

    I wasn’t implying the data was faked, rather that blog graphs in particular involve an interpretation of the data. The IPCC process involves peer review of the original studies, and the reports are open to comment by independent reviewers, many of them sceptics. Blog presentations — from whichever party — are another matter, and should be viewed with correspondingly greater caution.

    “***Fact: Carbon dioxide rise lags temperature rise by 800 to1000 years.***
    This fact destroys the FUNDAMENTAL base of the AGW theory.

    No need to shout. You’re assuming that the chicken always precedes the egg. The explanation you mention refers warming periods that follow ice ages. These periods are probably precipitated by changes in the earth’s orbit, and the resulting warming flushes out CO2 from the oceans.

    These warming periods lasted around 5,000 years, and it’s likely that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were part of a feedback system, amplifying the warming that was already underway.

    Currently, we are not emerging from an ice age, and global CO2 levels – mostly from human sources — have risen sharply in the space of a hundred or so years, along with rising global warming.

    Keep in mind that AGW theory is a specific claim. In the words of one eminent climate scientist: “Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.”

    We should certainly use past data to inform our understanding the earth’s climate, but relying on one-to-one correspondences can be misleading, as it is in this case.

  161. Tom in Florida: “I think you have that backwards. Galileo was the skeptic in regards to the beliefs of the time…”

    Both Galileo and Hansen are offering new explanations for the way the world works; for Galileo, the heliocentric view of the solar system versus the traditional earth-centred view; for Hansen, the AGW thesis versus the traditional natural variation view.

    Their scepticism for earlier views is informed by their commitment to the new explanation. And they are not merely sceptical; both men are passionately committed to their new, positive explanation, and regard the traditional view as false.

    Contrast this with AGW sceptics, who may be performing valuable work, but who are essentially naysayers, since they are opposing a new, positive explanation of the way the world works in favour of the traditional view of natural variation. AGWC sceptics are in the position of those who opposed Galileo, not those who supported him.

  162. Smokey,

    I have read parts of the Wegman report. But the latest one is the National Academy report of 2006, which pretty much agreed with Mann but then criticized the way it was used. If you can, see a summary of it in Nature 441, 1032-1033 (29 June 2006) | doi:10.1038/4411032a; Published online 28 June 2006, Academy affirms hockey-stick graph: couple of lines to quote: “the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain.” and again ” ” NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics (OF MANN). But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding..”

    The National Academy’s statement to the U.S. Congress is here: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Surface_Temperature_Reconstructions.asp (which says among others “In fact, man-made climate change is quite real. “) and the whole report is here: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

    I think overall this report endorses the hockey stick graph, but leaves a large part, from AD 900 to 1600, open to further debate, which probably could help AGW critics.

  163. Brendan H:

    Both Galileo and Hansen are offering new explanations for the way the world works…

    Yep, and Galileo was right, but Hansen is wrong.

    So, who are you gonna believe? Hansen? Or your lying eyes?

    I can’t seem to find your “continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade for 1998-2007.” But there certainly has been cooling.

  164. Alex: “When in fact the Vostok Ice Core Data screams in a cold dark filing cabinet (or climate realism blog/site): “CO2 lags global warming!!”. Hansen knows full well about this and so refuses to debate because he knows that the damn facts will destroy his entire argument!”

    Not really. Nicholas Caillon and others who wrote the article about time lag (Science 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 – 1731; title: Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III” ) said the following: “… This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (~5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation…”

  165. Brendan H

    “Currently, we are not emerging from an ice age, and global CO2 levels – mostly from human sources — have risen sharply in the space of a hundred or so years, along with rising global warming.”

    Well, actually, that’s the conventional wisdom brought to you by the IPCC, the Siple curve, and somebody named Callendar. It’s kind of a hockey stick redux.

    During the 19th century the average PPM was 335, not the 280-290 most people think (I did too).

    In 1890 it was about 328. And Mauna Loa actually shows that level as late as 1973.

    So CO2 levels haven’t risen so ‘sharply’ after all. And whether you wish to believe it or not we are currently cooling. For how long we don’t know but Keenlyside, one of you, and others think we’re in for at least a decade of cooling if not more.

    http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

    Oh, and before you pooh pooh Jawarowski, think it through.

  166. All I know about it is that any metric that shows CO2 output (as does the IPCC) to have been flat during WWII must have something very seriously the matter with it.

  167. I wasn’t shouting, merely highlighting… I was refering to the people I have asked personally who use that as an argument (laymen), I was not replying to your comments and I’m sure you wouldn’t say such things anyways.

    Actually , we are emerging from an ice age and we have been doing so for quite some time. Sallie Baliunas, who herself deals with climatology has pointed out this lag, so then, John, there is clearly scientific disagreement among parties with regards to its relevance.
    I see how John has given an interesting explanation which i will look into but, the point is that the lag occurred. The lag is clearly visible when the earth was exiting the ice ages into a “warmer” period.
    At the beginning of the Silurian Era the average global temperature was 12deg C. Whilst the CO2 concentration was 4500ppm, this doesn’t hold up with the theory.
    John there are other factors which affect deglaciation, CO2 cannot be accounted as the main factor.
    However short the lag may be there is a lag.
    Our current increase started around the 19th century, man’s addition to the CO2 content only really began takin effect circa 1950, 800 years ago we saw the Medieval Warm Period. So it is likely that the current increase is the natural lag occuring after the increase in temperature circa 1180s and would occur even if humanity didn’t release CO2 (although , yes at a smaller rate)

    CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas in comparison with H2O (95%) and Methane (+-2%), and 2% of CO2 is from human origin (ie: 2% of 380ppm)
    CO2 displays a lag throughout the data, not merely during deglaciation.
    It is important to note that yes CO2 has small warming capacity, but that the data does not show a “temperature caused by CO2″ effect. Currently since 1998 we have seen no increase in temperature (now since October 2007 a decrease). Whilst CO2 has gone up 4%. Yes i agree 10 years is much too short a timespan but according to the theory the increase which we see since the beginning of the 20th century should be taking effect by now…which it has not.

    Your earlier argument about 1998 and 2007 being the warmest years etc etc…that is not a valid argument because it depends on the baseline and what we classify as warm. Historically there have been much warmer periods and using a timeframe of 120 years of dodgy land-based data is not reassuring. NASA themselves were left red-faced when USA data had to be re-calculated , which now shows that in the USA 1934 was the hottest year.

  168. Brendan H:
    If the lag of CO2 is irrelevant or more complicated than what appears to be the case and if CO2 does drive the system then how do you explain the coincidence between methane gas and CO2???
    How can methane and CO2 display a similar pattern? Surely CO2 cannot be the driving force behind methane concentration?
    There is an interesting concept that springs to mind… The Shampagne Bottle Effect…

  169. John McLondon:

    Caillon et al (2003) : This is the statement that precedes the one you quoted:
    Quote:

    “This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a daglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing ( I, 31, 32), which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2″

    This article does give a few opposing views and does raise questions and uncertainties on both sides but nevertheless the above cannot be ignored.

  170. Smokey: “So, who are you gonna believe? Hansen? Or your lying eyes?”

    Keep it civil. You will notice three things about the graph:

    1. The period is for ten years only. This is not sufficient time to establish a climate trend.

    2. The graph begins in 1998, an el Nino year that experienced an anomalous spike in temperatures. By choosing that year as the starting point, the following years will appear as a cooling. Choose 2000 as your starting point, and the picture changes.

    3. The graph fails to provide a trend line for temperatures. A five-year rolling average calculated across, say, 30 years, will provide a more accurate picture of a climate trend. And it’s the trend that counts.

    Remember that the topic under discussion is climate, which is a long-term phenomenon.

  171. Syl: “So CO2 levels haven’t risen so ’sharply’ after all.”

    CO2 levels have more or less steadily risen by about 30 per cent over the past 150-odd years, most of the increase from human activities. This figure is accepted by not only AGW scientists, but also by many sceptics, including Richard Lindzen, arguably the most highly qualified climate scientist in the sceptic camp.

    “For how long we don’t know but Keenlyside, one of you, and others think we’re in for at least a decade of cooling if not more.”

    Some points:

    1. The study forecast a hiatus in warming, not a “cooling”.

    2. Not all AGW scientists agree with Keenlyside’s conclusions.

    3. The Keenlyside study is a first attempt at forecasting short-term, ie decadal trends. This type of forecasting is still very much in the experimental stage.

    4. Some clumsy reporting has misrepresented the claim of a decade of no warming. The study claims that average temperatures over the decade 2005-2015 will be no greater than over the decade 2000-2010. The ‘next decade’ comment refers to 2005-2015, but has been misunderstood to apply from now.

    Therefore, it is not correct to say that Keenlyside et al think we’re in for a decade or more of cooling.

  172. Alex: “If the lag of CO2 is irrelevant or more complicated than what appears to be the case and if CO2 does drive the system then how do you explain the coincidence between methane gas and CO2???”

    I’m not sure what you mean by “coincidence”. Human activities such as energy use and agriculture have led to an increase in methane levels, but I don’t see that this is a coincidence, more a result of similar industrial and other sorts of activities.

  173. Brandon : “Both Galileo and Hansen are offering new explanations for the way the world works; for Galileo, the heliocentric view of the solar system versus the traditional earth-centred view; for Hansen, the AGW thesis versus the traditional natural variation view. ”

    Galileo looked at the real world and figured out that it was not acting like the accepted theory of the time. Hansen has done no such thing. He uses corrupted data, simplistic models and tries to silence those on the opposite side of the debate. They are not even close to being similar. Giordano Bruno, a distant relative, was burned at the stake for challenging the doctrine of an Earth centered universe. Hansen wants to put challengers of his theory on trial. Similar tactics for those who know they are wrong but want to hang on to their positions of power. Please do not insult Galileo by putting Hansen in the same sentence.

  174. Alex, From what I understand, the CO2 lag occurs only in the southern hemisphere, which is mostly covered with water. The trigger had to be natural, since we were not around, but the CO2 released from ocean intensified and prolonged the warming. This I have no trouble in following. But, one has to assume that at the end of the warming period, it was also a natural cause that triggered the reduction of CO2 and temperature also. I have not seen anyone explaining this part of the story extensively, may be I haven’t looked at the right sources.

    BTW, we have trouble in determining exactly what happened between 900 and 1600 AD. So, I am not really sure to what degree we can rely on the data from the Silurian Era. I assume that is why we have this never ending debate.

  175. Other than Shaviv, of course. But that is probably a different time scale and for that there are more questions and answers without a clear conclusion.

  176. Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation…”

    Well, duh. How long would temperatures have to increase before deglaciations occured? It’s not like you just fire up the space heater, and, BAM, millions of tons of ice dissapear. Talk about constantly changing the goalposts.

  177. A better, more informed discussion of the Wegman report, the NAS report and the motivations and implications of each is available at CA from last year.

    That Mann has any support from the statistics community is disinformation or worse.

  178. This may not be the right string for this post but here goes. I lean towards the anti-global warming side of the debate, but am just starting to investigate for myself. This morning i looked at Dr. hansens madel predictions and found that two of his scenarios chart closely with real data. These are the model runs(scenarios B and C) which are based on either a linear growth of Co2 emissions or the elimination of Co2 emissions after 2000. The problem I have is that scenarion A doesn’t plot well against real data. This scenario is based on exponential growth of Co2 emissions. I quickly pulled up some graphs of Co2 emissions and they all show exponential growth of Co2 emissions from about 1950 forward. It seem that you can make a point that scenarioc b and c match real data and argue for global warming. However, if the actual emissions data don’t match these two scenarios the only conclusion can be that his model is seriously flawed.

  179. Alex, “This article does give a few opposing views and does raise questions and uncertainties on both sides but nevertheless the above cannot be ignored.”

    I have to agree, we cannot ignore it. It certainly raises some interesting questions.

  180. Kim

    Ever the shock to the psyche!

    That was about the time I was immersed in geology with dreams of entering the new field of oceanography. Alack alay.

  181. John, agreed, there are many uncertainties which should be tackled in future papers, we will have to wait and see! It is a complex system but I see some of your points.

    Brendan, sorry let me clarify: I totally agree with you that recently have we disturbed the natural amount variations of greenhouse gases due to industrialisation.
    By “coincidence” I mean that in pre-industrial data we see a very similar pattern between CO2 and Methane, meaning that these two gases increase and decrease at approximately the same times, ie the two gas curves are the same. In this case I do not see how CO2 could be driving methane. My point being that temperature would be a more likely driving influence on the gases rather than one gas driving temperature and another gas especially considering that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas.

  182. timothy:

    Here are two graphics (one smoothed, one not) comparing Hansen’s predictions vs. satellite data.

    It doesn’t look terribly close to predictions.

    Ground data (with its higher absolute base point) probably matches better, but those NOAA/GHCN-based ground measurements are a scandal on roller skates.

  183. Brendan H:

    I was attempting a little humor with the statement: “who are you gonna believe, etc.” Now I know better, and will avoid the jokes. Being thin-skinned is an affliction, and I don’t want to be accused of discrimination.

    OK, seriously now. You stated:

    “By choosing that year [1998] as the starting point, the following years will appear as a cooling. Choose 2000 as your starting point, and the picture changes.”

    No. It. Doesn’t. How many times do I have to post graphs like this: click Or this: click

    And:

    “CO2 levels have more or less steadily risen by about 30 per cent over the past 150-odd years, most of the increase from human activities.” [my emphasis]

    In fact, only about 2.75% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin [source] Why do you continue to make false statements such as this? Is it deliberate? Or is it your opinion, since your numbers don’t come close to the actual data?

  184. BH & Smoke:

    The way I have seen it, if you go from 1997-2008, it is flat.

    If you go from 1998 – 2008, it is down.

    If you go from 1999/2000 it is up.

    If you go from 2001 – 2008 it is down.

    This can be explained by the following: There was a big El Nino in 1998 (as everyone knows). It was immediately followed by a big 2-year La Nina. After that there were three El Ninos an no La Nina until 2007/8.

    There has been a monstrous drop in temperature since Jan 2007. This is a combo of La Nina and the PDO switch to cool phase.

    From 1977 – 2001, the “Big Six” Atmospheric-Oceanic multidecadal cycles flipped from cool to warm. In 2007/8, the PDO has flipped to cool. Others to follow over the next couple of decades.

    The temperature going forward will probably be dominated by the effects of the Big 6 turning back to cool phase. That and the possibility of a Solar DeVries cycle switch.

    The Aqua satellite, so far, seriously calls CO2 feedback loop effect into question.

    That about covers it. More data and further discoveries pending.

  185. As to CO2, c. 3% of OUTPUT is anthropogenic.

    But half of that ACCUMULATES in the atmosphere, driving up CO2 levels by c. 0.4% per year: Man puts out c. 6.5 Bil. Metric Tons of atmospheric carbon. c. 3.2 remains in the atmosphere. the atmospheric sink has c. 750 BMTC.

    All natural CO2 output is reabsorbed. Half of Manmade CO2 is reabsorbed. the rest accumulates (though this is limited by the persistence limits).

    Therefore there is c. a third more CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of man.

    So BH is right about this.

    BUT

    My gripe is that there is very little CO2 to begin with and a third more (in the absence of positive H2O vapor feedback) has very, very little effect (other than to increase the earth’s plant biomass and expand growing seasons).

    And that is why I stand on the same side of the AGW line as the Smokester.

  186. John:
    Thanks for that link…interesting article but unfortunately I must say that date is extremely relevant in this case. In 2004 temperatures had been level for 6 years, solar activity had been normal and up til then, Antarctica hadn’t shown major cooling yet and neither had the earth, and skeptisism at the time was much more stifled and shunned. Times have changed drastically. Antarctica is booming with record ice, temperatures have dropped since late 2007, predictions by Hansen and the IPCC have FAILED (emphasis on “failed”) to materialise and scientists are now willing to come forward with skepticism. Times are changing and skeptisism is growing even among the public.
    Consensus? I honestly don’t believe that just because there is “consensus” it means that a 20-year-old theory is correct, and totally universally accepted. Given that major organisations usually have political background ( cough cough IPCC) and are “hush-hush” about disagreement I don’t really believe that until we have concrete evidence of AGW that there can be a consensus.
    I am not a scientist but I believe that as long as there is one scientific party who totally disagrees and has an alternate theory , we cannot make political decisions based on such theories which could have serious future consequences (eg current food shortages/price increases) if proved incorrect to a certain degree or totally. That’s just my view.
    I don’t believe that there is consensus…I don’t believe that the science is settled.
    The debate is not over and until I see solid evidence that runaway AGW is a serious threat to the planet, until I see “20 feet rises in sea level” in the near future, until I see [fatally flawed] “climate models” (which are really the only thing supporting the IPCC’s theory) which can ‘predict’ the past trends, and until the IPCC “hockey-stick” is revived and in fact proven to be valid representation…only then will I say ‘Yes Hansen, Yes Gore, Yes IPCC, you were right AGW is real.’
    But to be honest, in my opinion I don’t ever see that happening :)

  187. Brendan, sorry let me clarify: I totally agree with you that recently have we disturbed the natural amount variations of greenhouse gases due to industrialisation.

    Yeah, but here’s the rub, especially with CO2, You,re not really creating anything, you’re just releasing stuff that was sequestered in a previous time.

  188. *those damned emoticons… ;) shouldnt be there…it should be “failed” )
    Does anyone know how to remove them? There was someone who posted how to do it earlier in one of the articles but I can’t find it… oh the Joys of the internet :o(

  189. John: I have two reactions:

    1.) As you say, it is years old. This was before the Rev documented the surface stations–and before St. Mac. splintered the Hockey Stick. The worm has like so totally turned since 2004.

    2.) It is a false appeal to Pascal.

    Pascal’s Wager presumes that there is no cost involved in taking up the side of caution. Therefore, since there is noting to lose, it is nonsensical not to play it safe.

    But theis is NOT “no cost” in “playing it safe” in this case. The cost will be extremely high and will be mostly paid in human life and misery of the poorest people on earth, especially those (in India and China) who are just beginning (through valiant and praiseworthy effort and efficacy) to break the bonds of privation that have forever held them.

    The particulate pollution they will produce is harmful but highly temporary (in historical terms) as I have often explained. I argue that the resulting CO2 (a far more permanent fixture) is quite unimportant in the climate equation.

  190. Therefore there is c. a third more CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of man.

    Here’s my other rub.

    If we are gonna continue to feed everybody on the planet, we are gonna need it. Carbon was sequestered in earlier times, now it is being rereleased. I beleive it’s because we need it. Maybe it’s just a conincidence that we are releasing a compound that greatly helps plant growth at a time when our population is increasing exponentially?

  191. temperatures have dropped since late 2007

    You mean since VERY early 2007. And dropped like a rock.

  192. Evan:
    I do not understand…why is all “natural” CO2 reabsorbed but only half of man-RELEASED (not made, we didn’t make it, it was synthesised by the prehistoric plants/plankton that died and eventually became fuel which we burned releasing natural CO2)
    As far as I know CO2 is CO2 so why is this man-released CO2 not “reabsorbed”? Please provide the sources and logic of such statements.

  193. “But theis is NOT “no cost” in “playing it safe” in this case.” Evan Jones

    Amen, brother. The Great Depression is high on the list of the causes of WWII. Our banking system has once more wrecked disaster; this is not a good time to hobble the economy if there ever is one.

  194. “Maybe it’s just a conincidence that we are releasing a compound that greatly helps plant growth at a time when our population is increasing exponentially?” Pofarmer

    I might be wrong but doesn’t ALL the carbon in food (carbohydrates, proteins and fats) come from CO2?

  195. I do not understand…why is all “natural” CO2 reabsorbed but only half of man-RELEASED (not made, we didn’t make it, it was synthesised by the prehistoric plants/plankton that died and eventually became fuel which we burned releasing natural CO2)
    As far as I know CO2 is CO2 so why is this man-released CO2 not “reabsorbed”? Please provide the sources and logic of such statements.

    Here is the basic exchange formula (look at the center of the page for the diagram):

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm

    And I notice they’ve updated their numbers beyond what I posted!

    Look at how the natural releases are balanced by natural absorption mechanisms.

    The logic is that that the relatively small amount we are adding is a little like a bathtub where there water is being added and a similar amount draining out, thus the water level is even. But if we increase the inflow of water by just a little, the water level starts to rise continually.

    My thesis is that there is no cause for alarm: the tub has hugely high sides and we are in no danger whatever of an “overflow”. But nonetheless the CO2 is accumulating and the atmospheric carbon level is increasing at about half the rate we are “releasing” it.

    Therefore I am horrified at the prospect of “shutting down the engines of the world” (thus cutting our economic wrists and starving many poor) in a futile, pathetic attempt to smite the homeopathic shadow of an imaginary phantom used to frighten schoolchildren.

  196. Evan Jones — “As to CO2, c. 3% of OUTPUT is anthropogenic.”

    This is due to the studies of the 12/13 isotope ratio, I think, because this appears to be the same number. After asking around it’s pretty well concluded that nobody knows how long the CO2 lives in the atmosphere before it’s absorbed. I’ve read that it’s 150 years.

    I rather like the number 150, because if true, this represents nothing less than the aggregate total of the latter industrial revolution thru today. So the aggregate of 150 years worth of industrial mankind is 3%. Big deal.

    If some of the claims of 10 years or so are correct, I like that too, because the ocean’s action of releasing CO2 is LIFO (last-in-first-out.) I’m sure it’s OK to leave the implications of this (and 3%) to the reader… either way it’s quite clear that CO2 isn’t the problem.

  197. Tim in Flarida: “Galileo looked at the real world and figured out that it was not acting like the accepted theory of the time.”

    Galileo was working within the framework of the new, Copernican theory of a sun-centred universe (today, galaxy). This was a highly counter-intuitive understanding of the universe. Nowadays, we have grown up with the heliocentric view and have no problem adjusting our everyday experience to the scientific understanding.

    Galileo did not just randomly point his telescope towards the sky. His aim was to test the Copernican view, which was in opposition to the traditional Ptolemaic view of an earth-centred universe.

    Similarly, today’s climate science presents a conflict between two world views: the traditional understanding that climate change is a matter of natural variation; and a new understanding that important aspects of current climate change are being driven by human activities.

    This and other similarities between the two cases do not, of course, establish that AGW theory is correct. Nevertheless, the similarities are interesting, and contradict the claims of sceptics.

  198. Alex: “In this case I do not see how CO2 could be driving methane.”

    As I’ve said elsewhere, AGW is a specific theory. It’s not a general theory about the way the climate works, but a specific theory about the way the climate is working now, or at least the warming aspect of it.

    The difference between now and then (pre-industrial times) is the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere, 30 per cent up on the 19th century and growing. Methane levels are also rising from human activities, but not yet to the same extent, and the natural tandem relationship between CO2 and methane has been disrupted. The explanation is that CO2 is acting as a forcing agent, driving temperatures upwards, and that eventually ‘natural’ methane will be flushed out from its natural deposits.

    As for how we know that not all man-made CO2 is being re-absorbed, the CO2 produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, has a different carbon isotope to naturally occurring CO2. Analysis of the composition of CO2 in the atmosphere shows that the ratio of human-produced to natural CO2 is increasing, in part because plants have a preference for the natural over the man-made. Hence, human activities are responsible most of the rise in atmospheric CO2. See link below for a more comprehensive explanation.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

  199. Wow what a great turn of phrase… “a futile, pathetic attempt to smite the homeopathic shadow of an imaginary phantom used to frighten schoolchildren.”

  200. Smokey: “I was attempting a little humor with the statement: “who are you gonna believe, etc.”

    No problem with humour. Maybe some forms of humour don’t travel well, but I take seriously any accusations of lying.

    “No. It. Doesn’t. How many times do I have to post graphs like this:”

    And these sites tell a different story:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

    There are obviously some differing methodologies between your references and mine. Question is: which is the more credible?

    From a broader perspective, ‘warming’ and ‘cooling’ are relative terms, and raise the question: warming or cooling in relation to what? Your first graph show cooling between 2002 and 2008, but your second graph shows that temperature levels post-1998 are consistently higher than temperature levels pre-1998. So while one of your graphs shows ‘cooling’ this decade, the other shows ‘warming’. Which is correct?

    “In fact, only about 2.75% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin…”

    Thanks to Evan for responding to the substantive query.

    “Why do you continue to make false statements such as this?”

    In claiming that I “continue” to make false statements you are implying that I know the truth but persist in peddling falsehoods. That’s the second time you’ve accused me of lying. Don’t do it.

    The important point about the increase in atmospheric CO2 is that it is cumulative over time. Natural processes have not been able to reabsorb the additional CO2, hence the accumulation in the atmosphere.

  201. Evan Jones: “The temperature going forward will probably be dominated by the effects of the Big 6 turning back to cool phase. That and the possibility of a Solar DeVries cycle switch.”

    Sounds like you’ve got the bones of a study there, Evan. You should go for some funding. Just phrase your study as an investigation of ENSO-style decadel variations in relation to anthropogenic global warming and you’ll be in like Flynn. I wouldn’t mention “pogies” though.

  202. On the physorg website I saw “pogies” referred to as “swallowists”. That’s not negative is it?

  203. What happened to Mr. Help-Help, I’m being repressed?

    What an absolute psycho.

    Hansen and Gore – birds-of-a-feather…along with the majority of AGW types. Refute them and they just side-step, change the subject, and come up with some other subjective non-sense.

    Why anyone, other than the rabid media, pays any attention to this loser is beyond me.

  204. Brendan H: ” Nevertheless, the similarities are interesting, and contradict the claims of sceptics.”

    Galileo was the sceptic. He went against the religion of the times. Algore and his priests, including Hansen, have created their own religion and want to damn the sceptics just as the Catholic Churc did with Galileo and Giordano Bruno. Let us not forget that Galileo and Bruno were following a line of thought that went against the trusted beliefs of the time for the sake of knowledge. If they were wrong, no harm done to anyone else. Gore, Hansen et al want the rest of us to pay for an expensive satisfiing of their beliefs. If they are wrong the people of the world will pay a fearful price in lives and misery. The only similarity is that the Church condemed and burned Bruno and placed Galileo under house arrest and Hansen condems and calls for trials of his opponents. Perhaps the trials should be held in Salem, Mass.

  205. The important point about the increase in atmospheric CO2 is that it is cumulative over time. Natural processes have not been able to reabsorb the additional CO2, hence the accumulation in the atmosphere..

    Well, according to numbers presented here, about HALF of the Anthropogenic CO2 HAS been absorbed. How long will it take the biosphere to ramp up to absorb the other half of it??? It did it once, after all. Plants don’t respond instantly to change.

  206. Brendan H:

    “Who are you gonna believe, Hansen, or your lying eyes?” refers to the words of a song. It means that the charts show cooling — but Hansen still screams “global warming catastrophe!”

    Sorry you missed the joke, but I wasn’t calling you a “liar,” much as you seem to want me to. It, like the song, is sarcasm: I invited you to look at a chart which was previously posted on this site. It clearly shows that Hansen is flat wrong. The comment was intended to mean: “Are your eyes deceiving you?” …Or, was Hansen flat wrong? Which is it? I’m sorry you don’t get it.

    *Sheesh* You come here with an AGW agenda, posting the AGW line way more than anyone else, making statements like “…a new understanding that important aspects of current climate change are being driven by human activities,” as if that were a proven and indisputable fact. Then you act all hurt by deliberately misconstruing the meaning of the words in a song.

    In the same post, I commented that I couldn’t seem to find your “continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade for 1998-2007.” Again I ask: Where is it? All I see is flat to cooling global temperatures over the past decade. But I welcome any citations to the contrary you may have, and I will read them with interest.

    You also made the statement: “CO2 levels have more or less steadily risen by about 30 per cent over the past 150-odd years, most of the increase from human activities.” I disputed it just as I disputed your uncited claim of .1 degree warming from 1998 – 2007.

    Here is my reasoning: it is generally accepted that there has been about a 100 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the past [your time frame] 150 years. [That is close enough to your 30% number. I'm rounding all figures]. You state that “most” of this rise is due to human activity. Giving you the maximum benefit of the doubt, let’s say that means that 51 ppmv out of the 100 ppmv of increased CO2 is due to anthropogenic causes, and the rest is due to to increased ocean outgassing, undersea volcanoes, etc.

    The link I provided states that 2.75% of all atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. Therefore, out of the current 380 ppmv, about only 10.5 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 is due to human activity [2.75% X 380 = 10.45].

    Now, compare that ~10.5 ppmv with your statement above, which implies that 51 ppmv out of 380 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 is due to human activity. That’s how I read it.

    Maybe I didn’t understand what you were trying to say. In that case, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

    However, regarding your repeated claims that I am calling you a “liar,” I’m not. That is your word. You keep using it. I am merely disputing some of your comments and figures. Your defensiveness reminds me of the man who goes into a room, picks a coat from the rack, tries it on, and says, “This coat fits me perfectly!” It must be my coat!

  207. I wouldn’t mention “pogies” though.

    I never do. (I merely expostulated the etymology.)

    I don’t know if anyone has lined up the “Six Cycles” (PDO, IPO, AMO, NAO, AO, AAO) in tandem and noted how they went from cold to warm, one by one, from 1977 to 2001 and now (starting with the PDO, and possibly beginning to be joined by the NAO) beginning to flip cool again.

    But I cannot imagine this can possibly be an original concatenation. I would be stealing some hardworking oceanographer’s thunder. (Joe D’Aleo, for one, noted the initial AMO/PDO correlation.)

    Bear in mind that while I agree with you about the accumulation of CO2, I do not feel that a 30%, a 50%, or even a 100% increase is particularly significant.

    It is a lone domino. If it knocks over other dominoes and creates a chain reaction, then it is significant, perhaps highly so. But if it falls alone in a woods will anyone noticed it even happened?

    The Aqua satellite so far indicates the latter. If so, that means the IPCC feedback equation is all to hell.

    If the cost of mitigation was merely a needless expense and not so heavy in human blood I would not be so, well, sanguine about it.

  208. Tom in Florida: “Galileo was the sceptic. He went against the religion of the times.”

    Not exactly. The Catholic Church at the time was suffused with Aristotleanism and had great difficulty separating out religious from secular understandings. Galileo made a distinction between the explanations offered by religion and those offered by science. However, Galileo remained a believer in all the major Catholic doctrines.

  209. Pofarmer: “How long will it take the biosphere to ramp up to absorb the other half of it???”

    You tell me. Fact is, it’s not doing it at the moment, which is why the CO2 is accumulating.

  210. Smokey: “Who are you gonna believe, Hansen, or your lying eyes?” refers to the words of a song.”

    I got the allusion the first time. I could accept your explanation, except for the fact that in your very next post you compounded the original by suggesting that I deliberately make false statements.

    Now you say: “Your defensiveness reminds me of the man who goes into a room, picks a coat from the rack, tries it on, and says, “This coat fits me perfectly!” It must be my coat!”

    So my defensiveness is evidence that I’m a liar? That’s the third time you’ve called me a liar, and now you are compounding it further by calling me a thief. Stop digging.

    “In the same post, I commented that I couldn’t seem to find your “continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade for 1998-2007.” Again I ask: Where is it?”

    That’s because you’re looking in the wrong place. Try here:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

    “The link I provided states that 2.75% of all atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin.”

    Yes, but that’s not the whole picture. Only about half of the emissions of human-produced CO2 is reabsorbed by oceans, plants etc. We know this because human-produced CO2 has an isotopic ‘fingerprint’ that distinguishes it from naturally occurring CO2, and the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. The link below provides more explanation.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

  211. Brendan H

    “The important point about the increase in atmospheric CO2 is that it is cumulative over time.”

    Part of it is. Your assumption is that it’s a bad thing. I dispute that.

    Throughout the history of life on this planet–around 1 billion years–atmospheric CO2 levels have been dropping due to the fact that Earth Life is carbon-based. Where do you think the carbon in fossil fuels came from?

    For the past few million years the earth has fallen into cycles of Ice Ages and studies have shown that it’s possible Ice Ages don’t happen if CO2 is greater than about 500PPM. Does the level of CO2 really matter when it comes to avoiding an Ice Age? Nobody knows for sure, of course. But to assume that the level we are at now (or 100 years ago) is the level we SHOULD be at is rather hubristic.

    And that assumption is Hansen’s view.

  212. Evan, Brendan H, Smokey,

    On the fraction of atmospheric CO2 with anthropogenic origin, in Evan’s citation,

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm

    (thanks for providing this), if we assume no human beings are around, then the total CO2 production from natural means is approximately 210.2 billion tons and the total absorption is 212.4 billion, which means there is a net reduction of 2.2 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere every year. Since human activitites are are adding 8.2 billion tons, causing a net increase of about 6 billion tons of CO2, shouldn’t that imply 100 % of the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human activities alone? In other words, without human activities, CO2 levels should be going down?

  213. Interesting points Brendan and Evan…I can’t agree with some and Evan, I notice your link is linked to a government website…hmmm (no comment)

    Pofarmer:
    That’s exactly what i said in a later post , we are releasing NATURAL CO2 in an UNNATURAL way. The thing is that it is unlikely that in nature that coal and oil would be burnt continually without human influence so the natural balance is being slightly disrupted BUT the thing is that:

    a) Man IS a part of nature, we are not a foreign organism and therefore the planet has natural mechanisms which will cope with our small imput.

    b) That coal and oil is part of the carbon cycle, it was created naturally and therefore the CO2 released must continue the cycle and be reabsorbed.

    c) That CO2 which we emmit is not man-made! We cannot say it is “unnatural”. It is NOT only plants that absorb CO2 but also the oceans and as far as I know an entire sea of salts and water molecules do not “photosynthesise ceratin isotopes”. CO2 is CO2 to the oceans.

    My point is that there is no consensus on how much of the CO2 we release is absorbed. In fact many scientists believe that all of our CO2 emmissions are eventually reabsorbed. It would make sense as the origins of this CO2 are natural.

    Mike: Haha to be honest at first I thought the “error” was a suitable one!

  214. Brendan H, the source you cited is old. It ends in 2001 — yet you explicitly stated that there was warming from “1998 – 2007.” As a matter of fact, there was no overall warming in the decade from 1998 – 2007. Care to retract?

    Next, I consider RealClimate to have zero credibility because they routinely delete the comments of numerous skeptics, including those of the extremely well regarded Steve McIntyre [whose site, climateaudit.org, won the Best Science Site Award in 2007 -- many thousands of votes ahead of the climate propaganda site RealClimate -- and who was personally instrumental in forcing the UN's IPCC to remove Michael Mann's bogus "hockey stick" chart from its publications].

    The fact that RealClimate arbitrarily deletes McIntyre’s posts and the posts of many other skeptics, which refute the AGW hypothesis, tells us all we need to know about RealClimate’s political agenda. Note that RealClimate is run by the odious Gavin Schmidt, a NASA employee and colleague of James Hansen, who stands to personally benefit from continued AGW taxpayer funding. RealClimate is not credible, and I do not accept them as a reliable source. Nor will I read anything on their site unless they begin allowing skeptical science that is uncomfortable to their AGW/CO2/planetary catastrophe belief system. If you need to cite a source, please cite a credible source.

    Finally, as Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter, “There you go again.” In your post above you stated, twice, that I had called you a “liar.” I have never called you a liar. Ever, in any of my posts. That is your word, and you keep repeating it. You are simply using it as a tactic in order to change the subject when you’ve been called on posting misinformation.

    By presenting arguments and numbers that are easily falsifiable, such as your incorrect information that the planet has heated up from 1998 – 2007, you should not be surprised when someone corrects that false information. That is the benefit of these threads; incorrect information faces Darwinian selection pressure, and is rooted out. What remains unrefuted is the truth, or as close to the truth as we can currently get.

    I won’t be pushed into the corner that you’re trying to put me in, by pretending that I said something that I never said. Stick to the established facts, and none of this will be an issue. Be a stand-up guy and admit it when you’re wrong; I do and I have. And don’t put words in other people’s mouth that they never said. It’s disingenuous and off topic.

  215. However, Galileo remained a believer in all the major Catholic doctrines.

    I suppose if he hadn’t, he might have found himself subjected to some of that old-time runnaway global warming.

  216. I haven’t read all the posts in this thread in order to properly referee, but can we please back off the liar/nonliar rhetoric, whoever it was that started it and discuss issues only please? Going back to bed now from slight bout of insomnia.

  217. John McLondon

    “if we assume no human beings are around, then the total CO2 production from natural means is approximately 210.2 billion tons and the total absorption is 212.4 billion, which means there is a net reduction of 2.2 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere every year. Since human activitites are are adding 8.2 billion tons, causing a net increase of about 6 billion tons of CO2, shouldn’t that imply 100 % of the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human activities alone? In other words, without human activities, CO2 levels should be going down?”

    I have no problem attributing the increase to humans. My problem is that WITHOUT us the CO2 levels in the atmosphere would continue to decrease–as has been happening over the billion year history of life on the planet. CO2 is a necessary resource (earth’s life is carbon-based), not a pollutant, and this resource is being depleted. Man is actually FIXING the problem. Now, you can question if we are fixing it too fast, and I think that is a legitimate question, but to assume that because life is depleting carbon from the atmosphere, it’s unnatural for life (us) to put it back is kinda of silly.

  218. As Spencer showed in a post hear earlier the seasonal CO2 and long-term trend CO2 from Mauna Loa display the same variablility with regard to the 13C/12C fraction with an F-Test.
    This demonstrates, once again, that the partial pressure of CO2 in the oceans, and the SO in particular, determine its atmospheric abundance.
    The anthropogenic fluence is 1/24000 that of the natural and specifically the daily fluence between the atmosphere and ocean dwarfs the yearly fluence of man’s.
    The recent rise in CO2 of 50ppm will disappear as the SO returns to its temporally local mean temperature.
    Moreover, fluences cannot be ‘balanced’ using arithmetic. Could ‘expert’ opinion that does not directly entertain and address these issues be thought to countermand them, anyone?

  219. Syl, you say: “re the Schwarz paper and rebuttal, I read both and found the claim that the rebuttal decimated Schwartz was overblown.” Well, considering that in the reply to these comments, Schwartz himself has upped his estimate of the climate sensitivity by basically a factor of two, I would say your position is rather untenable. At the very least, it seems that noone can quote the Schwartz paper anymore without noting that Schwartz himself no longer agrees with its conclusions in regards to climate sensitivity!

    You then say, “The statistical arguments can be addressed by others, but using climate models to show that Schwarz estimate of the time constant is biased on the low side is really really funny… contraire, using climate models shows that climate models are biased on the high side!” Unfortunately, I think you have misinterpretted or ignored the strongest argument from the models. What Annan et al. used the models to show is that when you take a climate model with a known equilibrium climate sensitivity and use Schwartz’s method to estimate the climate sensitivity in the model, you get the wrong result. This does not prove that the method will not get the right result when applied to the actual climate system but it does make it rather implausible. As you know, the real world tends to be more…not less…complicated than the models. So, it would take a lot of luck for the method to give a good estimate of the climate sensitivity in the real world when it doesn’t even do so in the model system.

  220. Smokey: “It ends in 2001 — yet you explicitly stated that there was warming from “1998 – 2007.”

    Not only me, but the source I cited: “A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability.”

    The source is a fact sheet from the UK Met Office, and the quote mentions “the latest decade (1998-2007)” and says that the warming can be seen in the graph supplied. The graph is headed “Global temperature, 1850-2007.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/

    An earlier cite was from the Met Office Hadley Centre, which showed graphs of surface temperatures: 1850-2008.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

    “The fact that RealClimate arbitrarily deletes McIntyre’s posts and the posts of many other skeptics, which refute the AGW hypothesis, tells us all we need to know about RealClimate’s political agenda.”

    You’re entitled to your views on RealClimate. I have heard claims about their high-handed attitude, which I cannot verify, but that doesn’t detract from the explanations provided. Also, don’t assume that contrary views necessarily “refute” AGW science. The correct term is “challenge” until the contrary view has been established.

    “You are simply using it as a tactic in order to change the subject when you’ve been called on posting misinformation.”

    There has been a warning posted about ‘liar’ claims, and an instruction to discuss issues only, so I will let the matter drop. Above and previously, I have quoted and described the contents of a couple of websites. You have claimed, without evidence, that my source is old, and that it ends in 2001. At the least, there’s been a misunderstanding. You can clear this up by showing your evidence.

  221. Thanks Brendan H., Smokey, however exasperated you may feel, let’s try and keep the discussion civil.

    “I don’t think that is relevant”

    is better than

    “You are simply using it as a tactic in order to change the subject when you’ve been called on posting misinformation.”

    for example.

    Note: This is not a moderator endorsement of either side in this debate. I do that explicitly at other times though.

  222. Smokey says: “I knew it would happen: Joel Shore picks a small handful out of the 50+ papers I posted — then uses ad hominems to try and refute even that handful [with unsupported labels like "psuedoscience", etc.]. And the one link that Mr. Shore cites is from an old environmentalist blog that still posts Michael Mann’s thoroughly discredited “hockey stick” chart! C’mon, Mr. Shore, you can do better than that …or can you?”

    Actually, if you add up the papers that were published in Energy & Environment plus the specific three that I mentioned, that is about half of those you listed. If you take out those that are clearly not even published anywhere, it is more than half. And, that is before trying to do any research. Oh, and since you complained about my statements about the papers I commented on in particular, here is something explaining where the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper goes wrong: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324 As I noted, the Khilyuk and Chilingar is really too silly to even comment on as they, among other things, try to pass off a calculation of the direct effect of man’s heating the earth from burning fossil fuels as a calculation of the greenhouse effect: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/khilyuk_and_chilingar_oh_my.php

    As for calling the American Chemical Society’s magazine “an environmentalist blog,” that just demonstrates how far out there in the weeds you actually are on all of this!

    Smokey goes on to say: “The point Einstein made was that unless a hypothesis can withstand rigorous scrutiny, it is falsified. By failing to refute all of the posted links that falsify the AGW/CO2/runaway global warming hypothesis, you may not realize it, but you are inadvertently admitting that Hansen’s global warming/AGW/planetary catastrophe hypothesis has been falsified by his peers.” This is the sort of reasoning that drives us real scientists crazy. Yes, technically speaking, a theory can be falsified by one single refutation. However, in practice that is only true if the refutation is absolutely bullet-proof. In reality, there is probably not an accepted theory in science for which you cannot find several papers that claim to find results in contradiction to it. And, unfortunately, in a case like AGW, the garbage perveyors can always put out more garbage faster than one can refute said garbage. There is a reason why basically every major scientific society has accepted AGW…and it isn’t because of some mass conspiracy.

  223. There is a reason why basically every major scientific society has accepted AGW…and it isn’t because of some mass conspiracy.
    Yes, Joel, when in doubt, do what all AGWers do; drag out the old “it’s a consensus” nonsense, and add a straw man for good measure. Good job.

  224. Syl: “But to assume that the level we are at now (or 100 years ago) is the level we SHOULD be at is rather hubristic.”

    Common sense, more like. Our entire way of life – economic, political and social — is based on the climate operating within a particular, fairly narrow range. If that changes by a couple of degrees or more, human beings will need to make major changes to their way of life.

    For example, food crops and domestic livestock are adapted to specific climate types. A changing climate would require adaptation. Wealthy countries would be able to adapt readily enough, although at a cost, but poorer countries would find it much more difficult.

    So hubris has nothing to do with it.

  225. Evan: “I suppose if he hadn’t, he might have found himself subjected to some of that old-time runnaway global warming.”

    Yeah. “Smoke gets in his eyes…’

  226. It really isn’t hard to change to a different kind of crop if the weather (climate) changes. It takes about 1 season.

    Oh yeah, and I think you’ll find the chickens, ducks, cattle, pigs, and horses are all found in quite a variety of climates, and I think that probably accounts for more than 90% of all domestic livestock.

    (I love how being a moderator allows me to edit my own posts)

  227. “Our entire way of life – economic, political and social — is based on the climate operating within a particular, fairly narrow range. If that changes by a couple of degrees or more,”- Brendan H

    Do what??? People live in, and have adapted to a very large range of temperatures. Please, sir, you are not addressing children here. Are you just making it up as you go? Get out into the real world.- Mike Bryant

  228. In other words, without human activities, CO2 levels should be going down?

    Well, it–was–going down more or less steadily since before the Cretaceous period.

    So far as we can tell (i.e., probably to be revised sometime next week):

    Going back to 600mya, CO2 was c. 7000 ppm. It dropped pretty steadily to sometime “not too long” before the end of the Paleozoic Era to near current levels. Then for some odd reason it shot back up to around 3000 ppm by the beginning of the Mesozoic Era. it bumped up and down around that level until the Cretaceous period, at which started to head south, and has been doing so (on the grand scale with the usual ups and downs) ever since.

    All the while, climate was between 12 and 22 degrees Celsius. It was on the high side in the past, and dropped steadily (on the whole) during the Cenozoic era. (There is some correlation between the CO2 and temperatures, but not a hell of a lot.) The very fact of Pangea probably had more to do with it–it was hell-desert (very little life) in the interior with most land life all around the edges. (And there were “South Pole” issues I won’t go into at the moment.)

  229. shouldn’t that imply 100 % of the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human activities alone?

    In a word, yes.

    (But, as we already went through, I don’t think it has much effect other than the mildly beneficial.)

  230. These events remind me of the sincerely held belief less than 20 years ago that held that autism was the result of cold mothering. It took the internet to dispel that belief. Parents started comparing notes. Lots of parents. Thousands of parents. What they discovered, that small case study journal articles could not, was that parenting styles ran the entire gamut between passionate mothering, no mothering, daddy only mothering, mommy only mothering, grandparent mothering, fostercare mothering, etc, etc, etc. It was the parent groups that sprang up all over the infant internet that finally made accepted practice die a deserved death. There was another reason for autism because parenting could not be the reason. It then took a lot of open minded discussion among scientists and physicians to search for that unknown reason. The search continues today. Thankfully the debate is not over. It will also be so for climate change.

  231. Jeez: “It really isn’t hard to change to a different kind of crop if the weather (climate) changes. It takes about 1 season.”

    As I said, wealthy countries would be able to adapt readily enough, but at some cost. Farmers in developed countries can quickly change their crops (livestock less easily) because they are supported by a large, stable infrastructure, including R&D, the production of farm inputs (fertilisers, pest controls etc), seed stock and livestock breeding, knowledge and technology transfer to the user. From the other direction, a marketing infrastructure supports the income generated for the various players.

    Major climate change could potentially require substantial changes throughout these infrastructure, and this is where the extra costs would arise. Take this report prepared for the EC on the risks and opportunities of climate change.

    http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/climate/ex_sum_en.pdf

    Sample comment: “However, before many of these adaptation initiatives can be implemented, short-term measures involving policy development, knowledge transfer, assessing adaptation costs and establishing relevant partnerships must first be put in place.”

  232. Mike Bryant: “Are you just making it up as you go? Get out into the real world.”

    Keep it civil. AGW deals in average temperatures.

  233. Adaptation would be less work than dealing with a single naturally occurring drought.

    Eurocrat studies aside, necessity is the mother of invention.

    Or to put it differently–how have the poor souls dealt with the emergence from the LIA? Did all agriculture in low income regions collapse and everyone starve?

  234. Brendan,

    Every crop currently grown by man grows in a large number of climate regions.

    A “one or two” degree change will have little to no affect on what is grown where.

    On the other hand, a slightly warmer world will open up new areas for crop growth.

  235. When climate changes, there are costs associated with it. That I will agree with. There are also opportunities.

  236. “Keep it civil. AGW deals in average temperatures.”

    There was nothing amiss with Bryant’s comment. Keep it objective, use more science in your argument and less histrionics, have a point, and we’ll be less apt to giggle.

    You do not possess, nor can you attain, the high moral ground here.

  237. Bruce Cobb says: “Yes, Joel, when in doubt, do what all AGWers do; drag out the old ‘it’s a consensus’ nonsense, and add a straw man for good measure. Good job.”

    Okay, Bruce, so could you please explain specifically to me why a myriad of scientific organizations from the National Academy of Sciences (and the analogous bodies in all 12 of the other G8+5 countries), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geopphysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society (which is my own professional society), etc. endorse the conclusions of the IPCC? Do you actually believe that you understand the science better than these organizations or is it some sort of conspiracy? I honestly want to understand specifically what you believe.

  238. There seems to be an “ONLY man is causing the increased CO2 in the atmosphere” theme amongst the AGW crowd.

    I have seen this position before and it goes to the heart of so many anti-humanity groups.

    Remember, the politicians and scientist have gotten together to promote this AGW theory. Once that happened then scientific principles were replaced with half truths that are a mixture of science and politics.

    Bottom line is the AGW crowd claim that:
    NATURE produces “X” CO2
    NATURE absorbs “X + Y” CO2.
    MAN produces “Y + Z” CO2.
    NATURE can’t absorb the extra “Z” so then man is responsible for the extra CO2 thus man is to blame for the extra CO2. It does not matter how small “Y + Z” is.

    It is necessary for the AGW crowd to exclude man from the natural process, that way then can then single out man and claim the CO2 produced by man is what is exceeding the maximum CO2 absorbing capabilities of this planet.

    This logic then gives way to, man has no right to have any of its CO2 absorbed by the oceans and plants (that is reserved for other natural sources) so in effect man has no right to even be on this planet.

    How about this. I want to include man in with nature and exclude cows and then blame the cows for putting us over the top. How about including man with nature and excluding soil bacteria from the natural process and then blame the soil bacteria for putting us over the top.

    It seems to me it is important to pick your natural friends wisely.

    For me, of course, this is tortured logic and is what you HAVE to say if you want to push the MM GW Alarm Button.

    Bottom line is the AGW crowd has begrudgingly reserved only 2 percent of this planet’s CO2 absorbing capabilities to mankind, period. I’m sorry, I think this is an issue that the AGW crowd is going to have a difficult time justifying because to stay within the 2 percent then you have to cut back the population to pre 18th century levels.

    Love and Kisses

    Serenity now………..

  239. Well said PA. Scientists and scientific associations are wonderful tools for the human race. However the science of climate is still in its infancy. when it has matured in twenty to thirty years I will give it more credence, If I remember correctly the last IPCC report used no scientific papers that were completed after 2005. Let’s not consign the human race to a slow death based on bad or incomplete science.

  240. PA: That has to be some of the most tortured logic that I have ever seen. The accepted scientific facts are these: Before the industrial revolution, for the previous ~10,000 years, there was a balance between sources and sinks of CO2 and the CO2 level was pretty constant within about 10 or 20ppm of 280ppm. Within the last 750,000 years, the CO2 levels have stayed within the range of ~180ppm to ~300ppm. By rapidly liberating CO2 that has been locked away from the atmosphere for tens of millions of years, we have raised the levels to ones probably not seen for something on the order of 10 million years. No amount of sophistry can get us around these basic facts.

    Mike Bryant: If you go back to around 2003-2005, you can find plenty of statements from”skeptics” who claim that there was important new data that was not included in the IPCC Third Assessment Report and, if we only knew what we knew now, the conclusions would be different. However, as it turns out, the conclusions of the AR4 were different only in that the evidence for AGW was found to be even stronger. I predict that most “skeptics” will forever claim that new evidence is pointing to AGW being wrong as the scientific community continues to conclude that the evidence is growing stronger and stronger.

  241. Pingback: Global Warming Debate, or Lack Thereof « The Last Capitalist

  242. “I predict that… ” Joel Shore

    That’s the problem, you want to base my future on your predictions and computer models.

  243. To: Mike Bryant

    You know that I know that we know that the AGW crowd knows that we know that the AGW politicians and AGW Scientists are up to no good.

    Misleading Power Hungry Politicians want to mislead the people but they do not want to just out right lie. So they invent tricky realities to mislead people. It is the old, it depends on what “is” is.

    Well the AGW Scientists have been taking lessons from the Misleading Power Hungry Politicians.

    That is why Tricky Jimmy Hansen does not want to debate. It is hard to defend these tricky realities from others who are very knowledgeable about climate systems.

    You see the CO2 absorbing formula and how the AGW crowds uses it to blame only man for the extra CO2 even though we produce so very, very little.

    See how that works. Misleading but not lying. Those tricky AGW Scientist have learned a lot from those Misleading Power Hungry Politicians.

    This is why the AGW crowd does not want to talk about the documented observation of temperature increase first then co2 increase centuries later.

    It proves that nature does not always absorb all the emitted CO2 that nature puts out.

    Well, if CO2 increases when man was not around then maybe it is increasing today for the same reasons it increased hundreds of times before.

    This is fun unraveling the tricky realities of the tricky AGW crowd trained by the Misleading Power Hungry Politicians.

    XoXXoXoX

    Serenity now…………

  244. PA: There seems to be an “ONLY man is causing the increased CO2 in the atmosphere” theme amongst the AGW crowd.”

    I’d say woman is also responsible. In fact, round my way most SUV drivers seem to be women. Perhaps it’s the attraction of that big, throbbing, CO2-emitting engine.

  245. Jeez: “Adaptation would be less work than dealing with a single naturally occurring drought.”

    I’m not sure how one could quantify that, but of course one of the IPCC planks is adaptation.

    “Or to put it differently–how have the poor souls dealt with the emergence from the LIA? Did all agriculture in low income regions collapse and everyone starve?”

    Presumably not. But, however one defines the LIA, AGW is forecast to be greater than the warming occurring after the LIA, and the resulting effects greater, although I doubt that everyone will starve.

  246. MarkW: “Every crop currently grown by man grows in a large number of climate regions.”

    Yes, but as you point out, they are “grown by man”. As I pointed out, modern food production is an industry supported by a large infrastructure. Even if the percentage cost of transition were very low, the aggregate cost spread across the industry could be large.

  247. Gary Gulrud: “…less histrionics…”

    I don’t do histrionics.

    “You do not possess, nor can you attain, the high moral ground here.”

    I do, and I can. Read the script. “Climate” is the average of weather over the long term.

    BTW, real climate scientists do not “giggle”. Michael Jackson giggles. Climate scientists laugh boldly and heartily, in deep, booming, man-like tones.

  248. Presumably not. But, however one defines the LIA, AGW is forecast to be greater than the warming occurring after the LIA, and the resulting effects greater, although I doubt that everyone will starve

    Not sure how that’s possible, since we haven’t yet reached the highs of the MWP and RWP as the best evidence shows us. Also, all evidence shows that wamer is better than colder, within reason. There’s no reason to believe anything will get too warm, but plenty of reason to believe cold will eventually destroy civilization (e.g. the next ice age, whenever it starts).

  249. Joel Shore states, with apparently true belief:

    “Within the last 750,000 years, the CO2 levels have stayed within the range of ~180ppm to ~300ppm.”

    Um… no, they haven’t: click [Click on the picture to bring up a larger, more readable image.]

  250. OK, it’s my mistake for not reading Joel Shore’s post above closely before posting. I now see that he had arbitrarily picked 750 thousand years as his cutoff. Why? No such date was ever mentioned in PA’s post that Mr. Shore was commenting on.

    For example, 65 million years ago the Earth was absolutely teeming with life of all kinds; the planet had a pleasant temperature and dinosaurs roamed the land… and the atmospheric CO2 concentration was in the thousands of ppmv: click

    That appears to be the reason for the arbitrarily selected cutoff date of 3/4 of a million years ago, no? AKA: cherry-picking the data.

    Look, there is general agreement that increased carbon dioxide has previously resulted in a very *slight* amount of warming. But even doubling the current concentration will cause very little additional warming. In fact, the planet is currently starved of CO2 compared with past atmospheric concentrations. It is simply alarmism to state that a few hundred ppmv change will cause a planetary catastrophe. The real threat is another Dalton Minimum-type global cooling. Now that is scary.

    Finally, as a past officer in a large statewide organization, I understand how the organization’s public positions are taken. The rank-and-file scientists are not polled by secret ballot on their opinions; rather, the organization’s Executive Board almost always makes those decisions. If the dues-paying scientists’ views were polled, they would look like this: click

    I know how these organizations play the game, because I was an insider; the elected chief financial officer of an organization with 15,000+ members. Therefore, I only accept a secret ballot vote of the rank-and-file members, or a poll such as Gallup’s as cited above. Anything else is the result of gaming the system.

  251. Smokey.

    Brendan H. knows, that I know, that he knows that I know, that he knows the reasons that Tricky Hansen won’t debate. They are the same reasons that Brendan H. struggles to debate and goes to the weakness of the GW is bad argument.

    1. They have not proved that GW is even bad. In fact history has shown GW is good. If it was not for GW we would still be living in caves. GW is the reason we have advanced so far in just 10,000 years.

    2. They have done a very poor job of even proving that GW is occurring. Thanks to their criminally managed temperature measuring sites combine with incompetent staffing and sneaky evolving smoothing software “algorisms” by Tricky Jimmy Hansen we can’t be sure of the alleged empirical evidence anymore. We have to use anecdotal evidence (i.e. my Grammy says it is warmer now then when she was a little girl line of thinking.)

    3. They have not even proved CO2 is causing the GW. The trends, graphs and CO2 science just don’t stack up right. Their current AGW Theory is getting weaker every year (i.e. last 10 years and next 10 years).

    The AGW crowd toss numbers, theories and climate model outputs around hoping to confuse. Unfortunately for them, when they represent in front of an audience and against other climate knowledgeable skeptics they get slaughtered. Just ask Jimmy Hansen’s lap dog “Gavin”.

    I think it is time for a new AGW Theory by the AGW crowd.

    Love and Kisses

    Serenity now.

  252. “Moreover, fluences cannot be ‘balanced’ using arithmetic.”

    I do not see why arithmetic summation is not applicable to fluences. These are almost periodic systems, and if each fluence is the total annual flux representing one period, So I see nothing wrong in using algebraic addition. They are scalar quantities and continuity or mass balance relations represent the same phenomenon whether they are represented in differential forms (for any specific time) or arithmetic forms (for a appropriate period of time).

  253. Syl: “I have no problem attributing the increase to humans.”

    Evan: “shouldn’t that imply 100 % of the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human activities alone?

    In a word, yes.
    (But, as we already went through, I don’t think it has much effect other than the mildly beneficial.)
    —–
    Sure. I know that some AGW critics do not accept that increase in CO2 in recent times is due to human activities, which I find to be inconsistent.

    Evan, Yes, we have already gone through whether CO2 is beneficial or not. I have no problems in admitting that your views are consistent.

  254. Well, once one gets into the CO2 absorption mechanics and persistence issues, it could get a little more complex. And I have serious questions about how it’s measured. And I still have that WWII question (how could CO2 possibly have been flat during that time).

    But I also see a perfectly logical mechanism whereby a 3.5% increase in CO2 output can increase the atmospheric sink by a little under half a percent per year.

  255. Smokey: You say, “OK, it’s my mistake for not reading Joel Shore’s post above closely before posting. I now see that he had arbitrarily picked 750 thousand years as his cutoff. Why? No such date was ever mentioned in PA’s post that Mr. Shore was commenting on … That appears to be the reason for the arbitrarily selected cutoff date of 3/4 of a million years ago, no? AKA: cherry-picking the data.”

    There is in fact an excellent reason to choose 750,000 years ago that has nothing to do with cherry-picking data. It is that this is how far back we have ice core measurements, which are the only measurements of CO2 levels that have the precision and time-resolution to make strong statements.

    It is also sufficient for the discussion at hand, which was whether it is our emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere that is responsible for the current rise above the pre-industrial baseline level. Just on the basis of probability alone, the odds that the CO2 levels would happen to rise above ~300ppm by a natural process during the century-long period in which we have liberated all this sequestered CO2 when they haven’t in the previous 7500 century-long periods are miniscule. Of course, comparing the amount we have emitted to the amount of increase in the atmosphere and also by looking at the isotope ratios of that atoms, we can determine with certainty that we are in fact the ones responsible for the current rapid rise in CO2 levels.

    As for your separate argument that we don’t need to worry about high CO2 levels because they have been higher when we look in the past on geological timescales: First of all, a particular concern is the very fast rate of rise of CO2 levels, which is much faster than what has been seen, for example, in the ice age – interglacial transitions over the past 750,000 years of ice core records. Second of all, noone is claiming that the earth…and life on it…cannot survive some dramatic changes over the long term. However, this is hardly an argument for this not being a major problem.

    After all, looked at this way, no problems we are currently facing are important: Do you think the earth and most of its inhabitants can’t survive a few terrorists flying planes into buildings? Do you think the earth and most of its inhabitants can’t survive rising Medicare costs or higher taxes? The earth has gone through dramatic changes over geological time: major asteroid impacts, supervolcanoes, major extinctions, etc., etc. It does not follow that we want to just sit back and not prevent such a major change caused by us simply because the earth’s inhabitants will be able to recover from it on geological timescales. Rather, the question to ask is how such changes will affect ecosystems and human societies over timescales that we are interested in, which tend to be on the order of years to a few centuries rather than millions of years.

  256. I honestly want to understand specifically what you believe.
    Yeah, you would say that, Joel. It’s all about Belief with you AGWers, not science. Science isn’t about consensus, Joel. But, you knew that, right?

  257. John McL.

    Vector quantities, not scalar. As an example I re-post my comments from a recent thread at jennifermarohasy on radiative fluences:

    The black body has a characteristic curve of emission dependent only on its temperature.

    Solids, particularly Kirchoff’s plane solids, are analogous but at reduced emissivities=absorptivities as the kinetic energy is continually transiting their lattice and is ‘immediately’ available for emission.

    The dimensionless constants e=a are also proportional to the time required to emit or absorb, the speed of the interaction.

    Their frequency/wavelength curve is of modified shape and displaced toward higher temperatures as their e=a falls.

    Gases e=a are dependent on their pressure and temperature, requiring a different graph of emission against temperature for each pressure.

    It is only at high pressures and temperatures, e.g., the solar surface that the black body analogy for gases becomes congruent to reality.

    At 1Atm, 350ppm and 25 degrees C the e=a constant for CO2 is 9*10^-4, a very small value in comparison to green leaves at 0.94.

    The fluence through any cube of air within the first few 100 m of the ground (at night) would then be a resultant vector overwhelmingly outward bound.

    If Kirchoff’s law applied, and all the radiative flux into the cube were matched by that leaving the space, all of the resulting vector remains outward bound simply accounting for probability.

    But we know that a vanishingly small portion remains in the cube because the temperature rises. Therefore the atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium.

    This energy is available for random emission, for conduction or if the ‘cube’ is warmer or cooler than surrounding cubes, for convection.

    The direction of the radiation as well as it’s value is essential. The same is true of strictly chemical fluences. This should be obvious in the case of CaO creation for cement. The use of the cement removes CO2 from the atmosphere and water used. To imply that this is distinct from the natural fluence, which scalar arithmetic must do, is inaccurate to say the least.

  258. Bruce, am I to take that non-answer as saying that you are simply unwilling to explain why all of these scientific organizations endorse the conclusions of the IPCC?

    As for the role of consensus in science: Well, you are technically correct in the sense that in science all knowledge is provisional, nothing can ever be proven (as it can in mathematics because science is inductive and mathematics is deductive). However, the concept of consensus is useful whenever it becomes necessary to ask what the current view is in a scientific field, as is necessary if science is ever to, for example, inform public policy decisions.

  259. Smokey, you say “Finally, as a past officer in a large statewide organization, I understand how the organization’s public positions are taken. The rank-and-file scientists are not polled by secret ballot on their opinions; rather, the organization’s Executive Board almost always makes those decisions. If the dues-paying scientists’ views were polled, they would look like this: click”.

    First of all, it seems to me that it is an unfair debating tactic to link to a chart with no context or sourcing provided that would allow me to investigate it or verify it. As near as I can tell (see the article I link to below), the chart you provided is to a poll that is now 17 years old and, again as near as I can tell, the chart is a misrepresentation of what the poll found. Here is a link to a more recent poll of the AGU and AMS memberships: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html I think such a poll is an imperfect device, given that only a small fraction of the membership of these two organizations is probably actively working in the climate change field, but with that caveat noted, here is a summary of some of that poll’s results:

    97% of these members surveyed say that the surface temperature has increased in the last century.

    84% percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring while only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming.

    41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, 44% below it will by moderately dangerous, and only 13% see relatively little danger.

    26% find “The Inconvenient truth” to be “very reliable” and 38% rate it as somewhat reliable (which is much, much higher than the analogous numbers given to the media on the subject). This is also to be compared to no more than 1% who rate Michael Crichton’s novel “State of Fear” as very reliable.

    As for how an organization produces statements on climate change, I agree that the decision is probably usually made at the upper levels rather than by a poll of all of the members. That’s what representative democracy is all about. And, it has the advantage that the executive committee of these organizations are usually good at identifying the most appropriate experts for a particular issue. By contrast, when you poll the whole society, you are polling lots of people who work in a competely different field than climate science.

    Now, I could conceivably imagine a situation where one or two scientific organizations had an executive committee that was quite out-of-touch with their rank and file on some issue. However, if this were the case, you would expect to see quite an outcry within the organization, and perhaps some dramatic changes in the next election cycle of that organization. Furthermore, while it seems conceivable that this could happen within one or two organizations, it seems like it requires a vast conspiracy to happen in the scientific academies of all the G8+5 nations, all the relevant professional societies, etc., etc. And, indeed, the poll that I cited above, while imperfect, seems to verify that no dramatic divergence of this sort between the executive committee and the rank-and-file appears to have happened within the AGU or the AMS.

  260. Here’s a complete non-statement from the survey linked to by Joel:

    Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.

    That would seem to say, the current trend being no warming or some cooling, that members of those two groups think the current interglacial is dangerous. Interesting. That, or they’re afraid of extreme cooling.

  261. Gary,

    I’m not sure what your point is. I don’t think the democratic method is best either. I think it is best to review the peer-reviewed science in the field. However, some of your peers here seem to think polls are better…so I gave the results of a poll of the AGU and AMS members.

    Jeff,

    I think that actual scientists in the field, as opposed to many of the “skeptics”, are actually capable of seeing beyond internal variability to consider trends over time periods where the trends are significant enough to yield firm conclusions. All because you and your skeptical friends have an alternative view of reality, it doesn’t mean the scientists in the field do.

  262. “to consider trends over time periods where the trends are significant enough to yield firm conclusions.”

    Your data, please. Please show which trends, over time, your are measuring that support your ‘firm conclusions.’

    Perhaps skeptics don’t have the alternative view. Perhaps they have the view that fits measureable observations.

  263. Scientific truth is not ultimately determined by “democratic” means.

    However, policy is and, most emphatically, must be.

    Sticky one, that.

  264. I’ll add that the only reason we are going on about all this is the policy implication.

    Before GW policy became a hot political issue, climatology was a relative backwater. Now it’s all tres chic and enrollment is up around tenfold. This, in turn, will lead to much greater knowledge, which, in turn, will affect opinion and policy.

    Interesting feedback issues, no?

  265. “reasonable debate”

    Since Pat Michaels erased Hansen’s graphs in his testimony to congress, why would one think this debate would be reasonable? It seems to me Hansen made the best choice. What’s that saying? Don’t wrestle with a pig–you’ll just get dirty and the pig likes it…something like that.

  266. GG,

    “The fluence through any cube of air within the first few 100 m of the ground (at night) would then be a resultant vector overwhelmingly outward bound.”
    “The direction of the radiation as well as it’s value is essential”…………..”To imply that this is distinct from the natural fluence, which scalar arithmetic must do, is inaccurate to say the least. ”

    Well, I believe I understand where you are coming from. Thanks. Just a few observations. Some radiations do not disperse and are highly directional – but CO2 being a gas will disperse and blend very quickly, especially since (I am assuming) this flow is a slow, but large scale, process, the Reynolds number is very small, and the difference between diffusion and flow is probably small. The directionality of evolution/absorption may not matter much since it will be lost quickly to other mechanisms like wind just mm away from the surface. I am of course making some assumptions here that seem reasonable. In other words, it is not like CO2 coming out of a jet engine at takeoff where we have to consider the direction of flow if we want to understand what is happening in the immediate neighborhood of the gas exit.

    When I said scalar I was referring to the continuity relation itself – there is only one, unlike other relationships like for momentum. For continuity, the directionality is already taken when we take the dot product to obtain, for example in gas flow, div V = (whatever) relationship. I assume you are also implying that we need an appropriate integral form, rather than a differential form. The summation of fluence is an approximate integral representation.

    I agree with you about the need for accounting directionality if our objective is a detailed knowledge about CO2 exchange mechanisms in close proximity to the exchange surface. But the real process is extremely complex, so I believe the above objective can (and will) be a hopeless task. We have to take into consideration the directionality of the surface on each leaf, for example, which will change in time. Dealing with averages or total quantities of areas and fluences is probably the best we can do for mass balance.

    I hope I understood your response correctly. If not please post a link to your published work on this, which you mentioned earlier, or another extended version of it if available. I will be happy to read it.

  267. I think that actual scientists in the field, as opposed to many of the “skeptics”, are actually capable of seeing beyond internal variability to consider trends over time periods where the trends are significant enough to yield firm conclusions. All because you and your skeptical friends have an alternative view of reality, it doesn’t mean the scientists in the field do.

    So, you pick your starting point and I’ll pick mine. It’s immensely easy to pick a point and show that there is no trend, just as it’s easy to pick any other point and show there is a trend. It’s all opinion. There’s no net warming since 1934, or the MWP or the RWP or any of the other interglacials.

  268. Jeff Albert: “Not sure how that’s possible, since we haven’t yet reached the highs of the MWP and RWP as the best evidence shows us.”

    Globally temperatures are now higher than those of any period over the past thousand years: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jones2004/jones2004.html

    “There’s no reason to believe anything will get too warm…”

    Past climate changes have been caused by natural factors. AGW theory claims that current warming is largely driven by CO2 and other greenhouse gases produced as a result of human activity. The earth’s atmosphere has shown consistent warming over the past 30 years, in the absence of any major influence from natural climate factors. So it’s likely that global temperatures will increase in the future.

    If temperature is a proxy for heat, and heat is a form of energy, the AGW concern is not just about ‘warmth’, but also about the injection of additional amounts of energy into the climate system. It’s this additional energy that could cause the atmospheric system to become more unstable and therefore less hospitable to human life.

  269. You do understand Brendan H that posting the discredited Mann hockey stick is not considered evidence of anything.

    One study, one set of proxies was seized upon has evidence that the MWP did not exist. The Hockey Team regurgitates and republishes the same thing over and over, but it is all based on a limited set of out of date and poorly documented proxies.

    There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of studies before and after Mann which show our planet is not warmer now than the MWP. You don’t read about it because of the groupthink of the media and the so-called climate science community.

  270. Past climate changes have been caused by natural factors. AGW theory claims that current warming is largely driven by CO2 and other greenhouse gases produced as a result of human activity. The earth’s atmosphere has shown consistent warming over the past 30 years, in the absence of any major influence from natural climate factors. So it’s likely that global temperatures will increase in the future.
    Right, Brendan, that is the AGW dogma. Trouble is, there’s no proof whatsoever that C02 has ever or possibly can drive temperatures, and the AGW claim that man’s measely 3% contribution of C02 is what is “largely” responsible for the warming of the past 30 years is as laughable as it is pathetic. But you continue to hang on to your Belief, like some sort of security blanket. You’ve been brainwashed, Brendan. Wake up. Try some actual science for a change.

  271. I see jeez and Bruce beat me to it ;)

    Essentially we’d have to double the “original” 280ppm to get any measurable CO2 warming. And saying that’s a bad thing is quite a stretch. As always, cold is more dangerous than warm.

  272. Brendan H (00:59:12) :

    “If temperature is a proxy for heat, and heat is a form of energy, the AGW concern is not just about ‘warmth’, but also about the injection of additional amounts of energy into the climate system. It’s this additional energy that could cause the atmospheric system to become more unstable and therefore less hospitable to human life.”

    Brendan, the others have made their points, but one they missed is what you said above. Insofar as energy is concerned, the Sun is the only (disregarding the fractional amount from geothermal sources) source of energy for this planet. The reason that the planet is as warm as it is is that the energy received is delayed on it’s way to being re-emitted. The IR absorbing gases, of which water is by far the main player, are what enables this effect, along with heat stored in the oceans. There is NO additional energy being added. So the system will not cause any instability or in-hospitability to life. Indeed, the extra CO2 might slightly extend the retention time of the Sun’s energy before release, but this effect is minimal. It also is beneficial on two fronts. One, extra CO2 is causing increased plant growth, some of which is crops. Two, history shows that, by and large, warm periods were times of expansion, peace and trade while colder times tend to be those where famine, war and disease reigned.
    Take your choice, I know where I want to be.

    Oh, and one last detail, even if the warming theory is correct, but without the tipping points, which are just bunk, it says that the increase in AVERAGE temperature is achieved by increasing the daily minimum without altering the daily maximum. Therefore, even on their own theory, there will be warmer nights with similar days. I can live with that, too.

  273. Jeff Alberts said, “So, you pick your starting point and I’ll pick mine. It’s immensely easy to pick a point and show that there is no trend, just as it’s easy to pick any other point and show there is a trend. It’s all opinion. There’s no net warming since 1934, or the MWP or the RWP or any of the other interglacials.”

    This isn’t true. Here are the results for temperature trends for the HADCRUT and NASA GISS temperature records over the past several decades ending in 2007: If you look just over a few years, then it is true that the trend you get depends strongly both on the start year and on whether you use HADCRUT or GISS. However, after about 12 years or so, the trends settle down to around 0.2 C per decade, basically independent of the data set used or the start year chosen. (These trends are, of course, from regression fits since noone would be silly enough to just connect the start year and end year data, would they?)

    And, both global data sets show clear net warming relative to 1934. As for comparison to the MWP, this is more difficult since it involves temperature proxies but the accepted scientific understanding is that current temperatures are likely higher now than they were then (for the Northern Hemisphere at least…Proxy data is too sparse for the Southern Hemisphere).

  274. A verbal debate is primarily an exercise in rhetoric–it is ideal for politicians, who benefit from the kind of forum where a clever turn of phrase can win out over rational argument, the short sound-bite trumps the lengthy explanation, nobody is fact checking every statement. Scientific debate is carried out in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, where it is very hard to get away with rhetorical sleight of hand, every claim is fact-checked, and there are no convenient time-limits to limit rebuttal. Of course, you need to be able to provide the price of admission: original research.

  275. And, both global data sets show clear net warming relative to 1934.

    This only became “true” after NOAA/GISS adjusted the past to be cooler than it really was as of a couple years ago.

    As for comparison to the MWP, this is more difficult since it involves temperature proxies but the accepted scientific understanding is that current temperatures are likely higher now than they were then (for the Northern Hemisphere at least…Proxy data is too sparse for the Southern Hemisphere).

    Which “accepted scientific understanding” would this be? Certainly not the Hockey Stick or any study based on the same data. They’ve pretty much been invalidated due to poor statistical correlation, sloppy data, and refusal by the parties involved to divulge data and methods. In other words, it aint science.

  276. Jeff: You say “This only became ‘true’ after NOAA/GISS adjusted the past to be cooler than it really was as of a couple years ago.” If this were true, how did GISS manage to get the HADCRUT data sets adjusted in the same way?

    And, you say, “Which ‘accepted scientific understanding’ would this be?” It would be the understanding as expressed by the IPCC AR4 report and the NAS report on temperature reconstructions, based on several studies including…but certainly not limited to…the hockey stick study.

  277. Jeez: “You do understand Brendan H that posting the discredited Mann hockey stick is not considered evidence of anything.”

    Keep in mind that I was replying to this claim: “Not sure how that’s possible, since we haven’t yet reached the highs of the MWP and RWP as the best evidence shows us.”

    The evidence is a matter of dispute, so “the best evidence” is very much a matter of opinion. However, a reconstruction from various sources shows that the general thrust of the hockey stick graph supports my original claim that: “Globally temperatures are now higher than those of any period over the past thousand years…”

  278. Bruce Cobb: “…AGW claim that man’s measely 3% contribution of C02…”

    The human contribution accounts for a 30 per cent or more increase in CO2 over the past 150 or so years. The amount and speed of the increase are the important factors in the CO2 ‘forcing’ of temperatures.

    “You’ve been brainwashed, Brendan.”

    I’m touched by your concern for my welfare, Bruce, but I think I have critically examined the science, as far as my ability allows. As a matter on interest, until a year or so ago I was agnostic on the science of AGW. I am now reasonable confident that the science is sound, but of course if the evidence turns against it I will change my views.

  279. Tony Edwards: “Indeed, the extra CO2 might slightly extend the retention time of the Sun’s energy before release, but this effect is minimal.”

    The IPCC view is that there is a climate sensitivity of around 3 deg C for a doubling of CO2. That’s probably more than “minimal”.

    “Two, history shows that, by and large, warm periods were times of expansion, peace and trade while colder times tend to be those where famine, war and disease reigned.”

    The Little Ice Age is variously dated, but assume it began around 1300 and with variations lasted until the mid-19th century. What were some of the events during that period? Renaissance, Discovery of New World, Reformation, birth of modern science and medicine, beginnings of industrial revolution, modern technology, democracy, human rights.

    So colder times are correlated not only with war and disease, but also with expansion and trade, as well as scientific and social advances.

  280. In a word: no.

    All those studies cited in that graph are rotating the tires on MBH98 and calling it a new car.

    The most hilarious thing on that page is this:

    “Data for Oerlemans was provided by William M. Connolley.”

    I have no time to go into detail. You can read all about those studies by clicking on their links in the left nav here:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=7

  281. “Brendan, the others have made their points”

    Those in discussion, who will not acknowledge their counterpart’s points and proceeds with their monomania without appreciating its consequence are not serious or reasonable: They are unwilling or unable to modify their worldview for any reason.

    This fellow is wasting your time and is no more teachable than Joel.

  282. John McL:

    No papers, I’m an engineer.
    My Thermodynamics reference is “Thermal Physics”, Kittel & Kroemer, 2nd. Ed., Freeman, for quantum electrodynamics, “QED”, Richard Feynman, Freeman again, I forget those for Electromagnetic Fields and Optics but I’ll have time to pluck them from the shelf this weekend. For vector math its “Div, Grad, Curl and All That”, I forget the author, but I’ve got it near the bed.

    “I agree with you about the need for accounting directionality if our objective is a detailed knowledge about CO2 exchange mechanisms [in close proximity to the exchange surface]. But the real process is extremely complex, so I believe the above objective can (and will) be a hopeless task.”

    I agree with the preceding allowing for the excision of the indicated qualifier. Which leads me to wonder anew: Why are balanced equations of fluences practicable?

    I’m not sure I understand much of the remainder of your reply.

  283. Gary G.

    “I’m an engineer.” Come on, you should have told this long ago, then I would have been more aggressive in stating that engineers are fully capable of doing basic science, and the distinction between engineering and science is not too deep!! I assume you are an example.

    Let us see: I am agreeing with your original statement that for EM radiations directionality is important (where changing direction does not happen in short lengths unless other surfaces are involved like mirrors, since we have to apply strong gravitational pull or scattering in a large region or something like that change the direction). But that approach of directionality is not needed for the CO2 exchange, since it probably is not going to add any significant information. The surface where such CO2 exchange is happening is a complicated interface, covering the surface of the oceans, the surface of leaves, mountains, etc. impossible to account for directionality. Through this interface CO2 is coming out in a certain direction, but that direction is lost very quickly due to other mechanisms – like wind for example. Some type of average fluence has to be used to make the problem solvable. But I am not sure how they came up with these estimations of CO2 fluence coming out and going in – I assumed that they got that part correctly. If they got that correctly, then algebraic summation is fine. That is all. I know that people work on Knudsen diffusion in leaves and lungs, where they take direction, which is very useful if we are looking at the immediate region (micro or milli-meters) near that surface. I hope I am bit more clear here. If you have any more explanations, I would be curious to know.

  284. J McL:

    “Some type of average fluence has to be used to make the problem solvable.”

    I think this is different than ‘simplifying assumptions’. In the example of the ‘cube’ of air, the fluence into and out of the four sides didn’t figure, not because they weren’t large but because they cancel.

    I don’t believe the component interactions are complex at all, those at each interface, though empirical testing may be difficult.

    What is difficult is the concept that the players are free to originate at one interface and interact with multiple others, and in fact does so. The problem is that the ‘balance’ equation does not model this reality.

    Most of ‘climate science’ believes that the warmed atmosphere back radiates heating the warmer surface which the radiative example, when properly setup with vectors, makes trivially false, silly.

    When one adds the human CO2 flux in on one side of the equation, along with the ocean “contribution” and on the other notes the rise in the atmospheric total, they then think the ocean could only take up half of the human excess. But this is ridiculous. The human contribution is taken up at night, expelled during the day, on and on. It is the overall heating of the ocean that results in increase or decrease.

    “I assumed that they got that part correctly.”

    I sat thru higher level classes in physics and math, say four of us at times, boosting the curve. Do you really think ‘climate scientists’ kept me company, getting Bs and Cs? Of course not, how would they get into grad school without their As. You assume too much. Its not the credentials that determine competence but the work.

  285. GG.

    “the fluence into and out of the four sides didn’t figure, not because they weren’t large but because they cancel.”

    Not if it is a compressible flow like air – fluences do not cancel out.

    “I don’t believe the component interactions are complex at all,”

    Yes, but accounting for the directionality for each and every CO2 exchange surface is.

    “What is difficult is the concept ……..makes trivially false, silly”

    This part I cannot follow, you will have to explain a little more. In particular about “interact with multiple others …” : as long as these are physical interactions, shouldn’t change anything. If they are chemical interactions, then of course, mass balance should be on carbon than CO2.

    “When one adds the…. increase or decrease.”

    I do not know how they find how much CO2 is absorbed. I think they probably could test the acidity of water, to get some estimate, etc. Here I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt.

    “I sat thru higher level classes… You assume too much. Its not the credentials that determine competence but the work”

    I do not have any climate science friends (or class mates), so I cannot make any judgment on that. I agree with the last part, that it is the competence of the work that is important. But I would also claim that credentials represent a measure of the number and depth of competent work by a scientist – so credentials and competence are not opposite things.

    If we just look at what some of the Nobel Laureates are saying, it is pretty one sided. As I said earlier, I cannot find more than one Nobel Laureate in science who is a skeptic. Here is a partial list of them, that called for the ratification of the Kyoto treaty. Again, I have to assume that these people at least read and understood AGW and did not find any major problems with it.

    Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
    Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
    Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
    Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
    Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
    Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
    John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
    James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
    Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
    Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
    Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
    Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
    Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
    Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
    Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
    Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
    Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
    Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
    Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
    Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
    Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
    Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
    Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
    Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
    Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
    Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
    John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
    Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
    Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
    Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
    Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
    David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
    Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
    Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
    William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
    Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
    Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
    R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
    Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
    Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
    Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
    Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
    Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
    Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
    John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
    Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
    Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
    Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
    Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
    F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
    Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
    Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
    Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
    Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
    Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
    Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
    Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
    Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
    Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
    Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
    Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978

  286. J McL:

    Your ‘education’ not withstanding I can make no sense of your physical/chemical argument.

    Your appeal to authority is fallacious as you must be aware.

  287. >>”Your ‘education’ not withstanding I can make no sense of your physical/chemical argument.”

    Physical interactions (without chemical reactions) should not change the mass balance relations, for say CO2, in a representative volume. There are also reactive flows, a typical example is flow in a jet engine or in the transfer lines in a chemical plant, where you have to apply mass balance relations to specific elements, since components are undergoing reactions. I am sure they cover these things in fluid dynamics classes as a part of physics.

    >>”Your appeal to authority is fallacious as you must be aware.” Yes. But since you talked about your climate science classmates, I assume you were implying that they are somewhat incompetent and their opinions have diminished value, I just showed the other side of the spectrum. My appeal to authority is as bad (or as good) as your implication about your climate science classmates.

  288. J McL: Well FluidDynamics really was too deep for me, my chances of passing despite great effort didn’t warrant the attempt.

    However, a look at Brandenberg or Miesch’s work on the solar dynamo indicates vector math is necessary there so I’m not inclined to pursue this further, as uncertain approximations aren’t the goal.

  289. GG.

    “solar dynamo indicates vector math is necessary”

    Yes, but this is a different problem – moving fluid through preexisting magnetic field, which itself is generating the magnetic field – so directionality is important.

    “so I’m not inclined to pursue this further, as uncertain approximations aren’t the goal.”

    That is fine. I enjoyed our discussions.

    J. McL

  290. Pingback: Wait a Minute, « Expat Texan

Comments are closed.