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: “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.
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.
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.
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.
Syl, I met Paul Siple once, almost half a century ago.
===========================
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
timothy:
Here are two graphics (one smoothed, one not) comparing Hansen’s predictions vs. satellite data.
http://runningpast.com/images/hansen_1988_chart.gif
http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/23/hansencheck.gif
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.
Evan, Alex, Smokey,
What is your take on this paper? I know it is a few years old, but still. Thanks.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Oreskes was discredited repeatedly by a few authors, but that information has been ignored or suppressed, especially on Wikipedia. Suppression by William Connelly of this issue on Wikipedia has been documented.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm is the primary rebuttal, which Science refused to publish.
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:
No. It. Doesn’t. How many times do I have to post graphs like this: click Or this: click
And:
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?
A little info on Connelly.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx
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.
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.
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 🙂
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.
‘
*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(
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.
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?
temperatures have dropped since late 2007
You mean since VERY early 2007. And dropped like a rock.
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.