See: The Solar Dynamics Observatory: The ‘Variable Sun’ Mission”

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm?list26348

From NAS: “According to a 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences, a century-class solar storm could cause twenty times more economic damage than Hurricane Katrina.”

From NASA Headquarters: “The sun,” explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC, “is a variable star.”

From NRL: “Understanding solar variability is crucial,” says space scientist Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab in Washington DC. “Our modern way of life depends upon it.”

From NRL: “‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises an falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”

From Boulder, CO: “If human eyes could see EUV wavelengths, no one would doubt that the sun is a variable star,” says Tom Woods of the University of Colorado in Boulder.

From Goddard Spaceflight Center: “Understanding the inner workings of the solar dynamo has long been a ‘holy grail’ of solar physics,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

Leif may soon be left alone defending the obsolete dogma of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.

Now DOE (Department of Energy) scientists need to get involved and admit or deny that N-N repulsion is the energy source that powers the Sun and generates the cycles of solar magnetic activity that are empirically linked with changes in Earth’s climate.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Studies
Former NASA PI for Apollo

Just wanted to thank you for your polite and thoughtful discourse.

“Climate change is dependent on the emission of CO2…”

That is a repeatedly falsified statement. It’s not worth my time to refute it again, which I have done numerous times here. Read up on the archives.

As for Hansen’s multiple sharpshooter predictions, one of them is almost in the ball park. Almost. But still a foul ball: click [chart by Lucia]

I disagree with your assertion that fossil fuels is a “choice.”

Humanity made a “choice” to lift itself out of squalor via the industrial revolution and fossil fuels. Until there is a viable alternative to fossil fuels, there is no other choice. Our current world without massive use of fossil fuels would be intolerable. There are tens of millions of people in LA and hundreds of other cities who have to get to work and have to eat. What other options do they have? Government mandates about CO2 reduction are meaningless.

January, 2010 was the warmest January in the satellite record, due to very warm water in the southern oceans. Yet Antarctica remains below normal temperatures and sea ice above normal. How does that jibe with the cold “southern seas buffering” idea?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/ANIM/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.30.gif

It is always possible that Antarctica will drastically change behaviour before CO2 doubles, and ends up warming 6C – but that doesn’t seem very likely right now.

The areas of East Antarctica which changed from blue to red between maps show between 0 and 0.05 degrees warming, so the total over 30 years is 0-1.5 degrees, which is considerably less than the measurement error. Hardly a basis to change the original map.

But that’s exactly what you’re doing.

No, I am picking the emission scenario not the climate prediction.

Climate change is dependent on the emission of CO2 (and to a lesser extent CH4, NO2, soot, etc). The amount of CO2 that is going to be emitted is a choice, made by humanity. It is inherently unpredictable. The change in climate as a result of that choice is the domain of the climate scientists. The choice wrt emissions is the domain of the politicians. It is not predictable.

“Um, I assume you are not questioning the moon landings themselves, but rather that you are refering to other aspects of research on the material that was brought back…. Yes?”
————————————————————–
Oliver K. Manuel (09:23:16) :

“NASA really went to the Moon in 1969 and discovered an inconvenient truth:

Under the direction of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), NASA became a propaganda machine in 1969, when analysis of the Apollo lunar samples revealed an inconvenient truth – the Sun is not a ball of Hydrogen (H) and H-fusion is not its source of heat.”
———————————————————-

“Ah, righto. Didn’t think you were actually denying the landings… :-)

I’ll read the links.”
———————————————————-

Yes, NASA definitely went to the Moon in 1969 and discovered solar-wind implanted elements in lunar samples that disproved their cherished model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.

While NASA was busy trying to limit access to lunar samples, the Allende meteorite landed with still unmixed isotopes and elements from different regions of the supernova that gave birth to the solar system:

See this summary of the findings:

“Fingerprints of a local supernova,” in SPACE EXPLORATION RESEARCH (Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, NY, in press, 38 pp, 2010);
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0684

Or read the story as it unfolded:

“Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites”, Nature 240, 99-101 (1972);
http://www.omatumr.com/archive/XenonInCarbonaceousChondrites.pdf

“Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195, 208-209 (1977);
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/195/4274/208-b

“Elemental and isotopic inhomogeneities in noble gases: The case for local synthesis of the chemical elements”, Transactions Missouri Academy Sciences 9, 104-122 (1975).

“Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”, Nature 277, 615-620 (1979);
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5698/abs/277615a0.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo

But that’s exactly what you’re doing.

In your response to Herman L you state the following:

The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius.” So they are trying to claim a warming trend of less than 0.1 degrees with an uncertainty 20-30 times greater than the trend.

You can not compare a trend to an absolute value in this way. A trend of 0.1 degrees per year over 26 years is a total rise of ~2.6 degrees. That is the number that you should compare the 2-3 degrees accuracy to.

Forget about my question to your about the time to reach equilibrium. That should not have ended up in my comment.

Roger Knights,

This article is about one particular prediction regarding the state of Antarctica around 2100. Those other predictions for shorter periods have been highlighted before. I’d rather not digress into that area.

I say that because Hansen has made a number of predictions, which cover most eventualities. By picking A1B you demonstrate that.

It is not quite like that. Hansen is in the business of climate prediction, not politics prediction. You are accusing him of being unable to predict our future decisions.

Even I could make numerous predictions, and point to the one that came closest to predicting the future.

That is a distortion of reality. He makes a number of predictions, based on emission scenarios. You can not later pick the prediction that was closest. You have to pick the emissions path according to reality, and then check whether the related climate prediction holds up.

Like I said, you can’t blame Hansen for being unable to predict how much coal we will burn in 2040 or how much forest we chop down in 2025.

A1B assumes little growth in CO2 emissions, when in fact they have grown faster than A1FI. Wouldn’t you expect to have seen temperature rise and albedo loss by now?

People are quick to blame Arctic warming and sea ice loss on CO2 – so why isn’t it also happening in the Antarctic?

I pointed this out before, but you seem to have missed it.

There is a good explanation in reduced stratospheric ozone and the southern seas buffering the heat. We still have 90 years to go, so my point still stands: it is not possible yet to declare Hansen’s prediction a failure.

Can you point me to the lower equilibrium figures than decades? I couldn’t find it.