Recently, Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS gave his 20 year anniversary speech before congress, in which he was restating the urgency of the global warming crisis we now face. Warnings of tipping points, and a call for putting “energy executives on trial for crimes against humanity and nature” were parts of that speech.
Here are the just published global temperature data sets for UAH (University of Alabama) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and the 20 year time-line. Dr. Hansen if you are reading can you kindly point out where in the time-line the crimes occurred and tipping points are?
Click for larger images
I would have thought the CO2 enhanced warming would have been further along by now. Maybe the graphs are inverted?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
H2O or CO2?
Some observers have noticed in desert cities like Las Vegas that the relative humidity has increased over the decades and attribute this to land use changes, such as planting lawns and non-native plants which must be watered regularly. This amplifies the UHI effect for those cities.
Has anybody looked at the affect of noctilucent clouds? They seem to be on the increase.
http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/gallery2008_page8.htm?PHPSESSID=ol98he5vv7hl3nr4s7s614b0d7
Where can one read Hansen’s 20th anniversary speech verbatim?
Also, to what mean/average are the graphs pegged? I’ve seen that the “0” peg is a moving target: 1950-1981, 1970-1998, 20th century avg, etc. Do RSS, GISS, UAH use the same peg?
REPLY: Here you go:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
Figures on the last page speak volumes.
Wow…………….
Climate change imperils 4th of July — again!
http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/03/climate-change-imperils-4th-of-july-again/#more-3259
Of course, “CO2 enhanched warming” has just been temporarily overwhelmed by natural (!) factors. It is simply on hiatus right now, taking a bit of a breather, if you will. Where’s your faith Anthony? It will return, and with a vengeance. And just watch that Arctic ice disappear – that will prove it – unless it doesn’t, in which case it won’t mean a thing. And, stop looking at the sun – don’t you know it can blind you to the Emerging Truth of manmade global Alarmism? (Sarc OFF).
Bruce, although you’re unconvinced by this logic, it really is appropriate and plausible. Think about it in terms of the superpositioning of waves, as on a vibrating rope:
The amplitude of a wave at a point is equal to the sum of both the wave patterns’ individual magnitudes at that point. If we posit that there is a linear, positive trend signal for climate temperature, and suggest that there might be a cyclical feature which causes a negative temperature anomaly every once in a while, then we can analyze what happens when both signals meet. Depending on relative magnitudes, the warming signal could appear to “cancel out” for a brief period of time, until the negative-anomaly-inducing feature enters the opposite phase of its cycle. Factor in the variance and short term noise in the signals, and you have a situation which could very likely describe what’s going on right now.
So in short, even if you choose to deride this hypothesis, it is still completely rational and valid, and is even supported by the data (if you accept the presence of a long term PDO which can greatly impact temperatures). Of course, the safe thing would be to keep a tight lip to see if this “cooling trend” really does continue, or whether it turns out to be nothing more than cooler-than-“hot air.”
Kind of makes you wonder what Hansen’s claim in 1988 that current temperatures were the warmest ever. Was it based on the warmer months of Dec87 and Jan88? Or was he committing perjury before a congressional committee?
Leif writes:
There is no evidence that such a cooling is caused by the lack of solar activity.
—-
There is no evidence that the previous warming was caused by CO2 either, but I notice you are quite vocal in your support of that theory.
I’ll believe there may be an emergency when Hansen abandons his daily, ~85 mi one-way commute.
—
How about when Al Gore turns off the heater to even one of his rather large swimming pools.
REPLY: Actually it turns out Hansen has an aparment in NYC and drives to the farm on weekends. But yes Gore does like his pool 24/7
Daniel Rothenberg (06:50:01) :
While it’s true that H20’s residency time is much shorter than that of CO2. It’s also true that the areas around most of the temperature sensors have seen an increase in absolute humidity because of human activity. If an irrigated field is only a few miles from the sensor, the H20 only has to be in the air a few hours to make a difference.
I see Daniel is another one of those who believes that when natural “waves” are on the cool side, it is possible for them to cancel out global warming. However, when those same waves are on the warm side, they have no affect on global temperature, because everyone knows that the warming of the last century is 100% the fault of CO2.
Mark:
Regarding hydrogen fueled cars, that was my first thought – that hydrogen fueled cars will boost the humidity of our atmosphere which will cause the temperatures to climb. I got a lot of guffaws from the AGW crowd.
Tip O’Neill said “All politics is local”. The same applies to weather. Local influence appears to far override anything else. Irrigation or sewage treatment, concrete buildings, land use in general. Hard to describe an elephant if you only look at one small part.
H2O’s atmospheric duration doesn’t really change it’s effect if there is a continuous source of it. If the source varies, then the effect can be all over the place.
A question: Several threads back, we had graphs showing absorption of light of CO2, H2O, and overall, with reradiated levels as well. It looked like everything that CO2 can get is already ‘got’. More CO2 can’t really do anything. Hansen and crew have to have this information, so where are they coming from? This isn’t a ‘startling new revelation’. RJ’s question of perjury is a valid one.
Mark W: There is no evidence that the previous warming was caused by CO2 either, but I notice you are quite vocal in your support of that theory
As if that was a bad thing. But, as usual, you are mistaken. Nowhere have I advocated that theory. It does not follow that if the Sun is not doing it, CO2 must.
Factor in the variance and short term noise in the signals, and you have a situation which could very likely describe what’s going on right now. Interesting hypothesis, Daniel, but completely wrong, unless you continue to believe C02 can, or indeed ever has driven climate change. To my knowledge, no one has ever proven that C02 can ever, on the simple basis of physics, drive climate change. Perhaps you can, though. You could be the next Nobel prize winner.
This is running on the Drudge Report right now. Ack!
Due to pending disasters predicted because of global warming, government scientists are urging the creation of a new Earth Systems Science Agency — by merging the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey…
‘The United States faces unprecedented environmental and economic challenges in the decades ahead,’ the group warns. ‘Foremost among them will be climate change, sea-level rise, altered weather patterns, declines in freshwater availability and quality and loss of biodiversity’… Developing…
Mark (03:47:56) :
“I feel sure the humidity factor will be studied and found more alarming even than CO2 was, just as soon as we’ve switched to a hydrogen-based economy.”
In order to scare people away from using Hydrogen, perhaps we shoud use the more ominous sounding technical name Di-Hydrogen Monoxide.
Perhaps we should start putting limits on Di-Hydrogen Monoxide emmisions.
As pointed out, Di-Hydrogen Monoxide is actually the most prevelent Greenhouse Gas and is actually a byproduct of burning fossil fuels also.
After All Di-Hydrogen Monoxide is a very deadly substance. Di-Hydrogen Monoxide poisoning is one of the leading causes of death in children, as breathing in too much of it causes pulmunary disfunction and death.
Di-Hydrgogen Monoxide causes flooding, and is the primary cause of recent levee failures in the midwest and has extremely destructive force in causing erosion, and massive property destruction.
Also Di-Hydrogen Monoxide was a major factor in the Tsunami deaths a few years back.
Di-Hydrogen Monoxide can be very deadly too in its solid and crystalized states contributing to thousands of automobile deaths each year.
Perhaps we shoud all join together to demand that the UN and Congress immediately enact restrictions on Di-Hydrogen Monoxide.
;>)
Leif:
You forgot land use changes… Roger Pielke, Sr has been advocating more study to determine the real effects of land use changes (irrigation, dams, UHI, etc) and that CO2 isn’t the only reason why the temperatures have been climbing.
MarkW (09:59:20) :
> Leif writes:
> There is no evidence that such a cooling is caused by the lack of solar activity.
MarkW replied:
“There is no evidence that the previous warming was caused by CO2 either, but I notice you are quite vocal in your support of that theory.”
Richard deSousa (11:07:42) :
[To Leif]
“You forgot land use changes…”
MarkW and Richard deSousa both forget that Leif generally sticks to his area of expertise, namely solar physics.
Who is John Galt?
Dell (11:03:15) :
“In order to scare people away from using Hydrogen, perhaps we shoud use the more ominous sounding technical name Di-Hydrogen Monoxide.”
See http://www.dhmo.org/
Also, http://www.dhmo.org/environment.html claims that “DHMO contributes to global warming and the “Greenhouse Effect”, and is one of the so-called “greenhouse gasses.”
For some reason, they advertise Klein bottles there, http://www.kleinbottle.com/ even though mine isn’t the best thing for restraining DHMO.
Leif,
All warming of this planet comes from the sun. If the sun increases it’s radiative output then objects in the path of that output will indeed get hotter, which has been observed on other planets in the solar system.
Sun Spots are a measure of the suns energy output. More sunspots occur during periods of greater energy output. Conversely, fewer sunspots indicate lower energy output. Less energy output means less energy striking this planet, thus the planet will get cooler.
Thank fully we have H2O to regulate the temperature swings from night to day and season to season and from periods of high output to lower output.
This cooling will take place some are predicting on the order of the little ice age.
Only time will tell, but it seems these two factors far outweigh anything CO2 could ever do, regardless of the concentration.
Matthew R. Epp P.E.
Thanks Ric.
Great site on the horrors of Di-hydrogen monoxide.
Yeah there is the whole Di-Hydrogen Monoxide but I blame the real hysteria on the US Science education and Carbon Monoxide.
In school every kid in the 70s was taught that Carbon Monoxide was bad. It’s poison. Now the Global Warming lobby starts talking about Carbon Dioxide and all the averge adult hears is exacly what they remember from school…
“carbon….oxide” and they don’t pay attention to the middle. Half of them couldn’t tell you the difference in terms of how it effects plants – ‘we were taught Carbon Monoxide is bad for plants so this Carbon Dioxide stuff must work just like it. If we could just stop air pollution…’ Once you finally get through to people that Carbon DiOxide isn’t bad for plants then comes the fun part.
Read a study once where they exposed the plants to increased CO2 during the day, then at night they took away the increased CO2 and left the plants uncovered. Plants with increased CO2 showed they could sustain more water and grew more – all expected. But the trick was the night you see one night there was frost (now think about it the plant has spent the day absorbing extra H2O but now it’s been put in a carbon deprived environment – it’s going to shed some of that extra CO2. So when a frost hit guess which plants took more damage – that’s rights the ones being CO2 deprived and sheding water. It’s not a surprise that a plant moved from a CO2 rich to a CO2 poor environment will take more frost damage until it acclimates to the new environment. On the other hand such swift changes in CO2 volume don’t occur…
It’ll shed extra H2O – typo.