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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…’
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)
“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
Perhaps Brendan would like to debate Michaels?
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.)
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.)
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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.
When climate changes, there are costs associated with it. That I will agree with. There are also opportunities.
“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.
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.
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………..
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.