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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Alex, I think the emoticons look good right where they are… hahaha
“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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Wow what a great turn of phrase… “a futile, pathetic attempt to smite the homeopathic shadow of an imaginary phantom used to frighten schoolchildren.”
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.
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.
On the physorg website I saw “pogies” referred to as “swallowists”. That’s not negative is it?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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!
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.
*Shocking revelation!*
” July 13,2008: The So-Called ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is a Myth”
Read this!
In the link below, scroll down to “Icing the Hype”
Quite interesting, any comments?
http://icecap.us/index.php
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.