Jim Hansen's AGU presentation: "He's 'nailed' climate forcing for 2x CO2"

I received this presentation of the “Bjerknes Lecture” that Dr. James Hansen gave at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union on December 17th. There are the usual things one might expect in the presentation, such as this slide which shows 2008 on the left with the anomalously warm Siberia and the Antarctic peninsula:

James Hansen, GISS
Source: James Hansen, GISS

Off topic but relevant, NASA has recently “disappeared” updated this oft cited map showing warming on the Antarctic peninsula and cooling of the interior:

Click for larger image

Here is the link where it used to exist:

(h/t) to Richard Sharpe and Steve Goddard

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg

See the updated image here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239

(h/t to Edward T)

There is also some new information in Hansen’s presentation, including a claim about CO2 sensitivity and coal causing a “runaway greenhouse effect”.

Hansen makes a bold statement that he has empirically derived CO2 sensitivity of our global climate system. I had to  chuckle though, about the claim “Paleo yields precise result”.  Apparently Jim hasn’t quite got the message yet that Michael Mann’s paleo results are, well, dubious, or that trees are better indicators of precipitation than temperature.

hansen-agu-2xco2

In fact in the later slide text he claims he’s “nailed” it:

hansen-sensitivity-nailed

He adds some caveats for the 2xCO2 claim:

Notes:

(1)

It is unwise to attempt to treat glacial-interglacial aerosol changes as a specified boundary condition (as per Hansen et al. 1984), because aerosols are inhomogeneously distributed, and their forcing depends strongly on aerosol altitude and aerosol absorbtivity, all poorly known. But why even attempt that? Human-made aerosol changes are a forcing, but aerosol changes in response to climate change are a fast feedback.

(2)

The accuracy of our knowledge of climate sensitivity is set by our best source of information, not by bad sources. Estimates of climate sensitivity based on the last 100 years of climate change are practically worthless, because we do not know the net climate forcing. Also, transient change is much less sensitive than the equilibrium response and the transient response is affected by uncertainty in ocean mixing.

(3)

Although, in general, climate sensitivity is a function of the climate state, the fast feedback sensitivity is just as great going toward warmer climate as it is going toward colder climate. Slow feedbacks (ice sheet changes, greenhouse gas changes) are more sensitive to the climate state.

Hansen is also talking about the “runaway” greenhouse effect, citing that old standby Venus in part of his presentation. He claims that coal and tar sands will be our undoing:

hansen-runaway-ghe

Hansen writes:

In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.

That would be the ultimate Faustian bargain. Mephistopheles would carry off shrieking not only the robber barons, but, unfortunately and permanently, all life on the planet.

hansen-agu-faustian-bargain

I have to wonder though, if he really believes what he is saying. Perhaps he’s never seen this graph for CO2 from Bill Illis and the response it gives to IR radiation (and thus temperature) as it increases:

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

It’s commonly known that CO2’s radiative return response is logarithmic with increasing concentration, so I don’t understand how Hansen thinks that it will be the cause of a runaway effect. The physics dictate that the temperature response curve of the atmosphere will be getting flatter as CO2 increases. Earth has also had much higher concentrations of CO2 in past history, and we didn’t go into runaway then:

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

There’s lots more in this paper to behold in wonderment, and I haven’t the time today to comment on all of it, so I’ll just leave it up to the readers of this forum to bring out the relevant issues for discussion.

Here is the link to the presentation (PDF, 2.5 MB):  hansen_agu2008bjerknes_lecture1

I’m sure Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit will have some comments on it, even though his name is not mentioned in the presentation. My name was mentioned several times though. 😉

0 0 votes
Article Rating
512 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard Sharpe
December 21, 2008 10:56 am

That wasn’t me who pointed you at that graphic. That was someone else, I was simply pointing out that I got a 404 with one of the URL’s he offered.
REPLY: You pointed out it was missing now, that is what I was referring to. – Anthony

Richard Sharpe
December 21, 2008 11:06 am

OK, I must have made a mistake. It was actually Steven Goddard who pointed out it was missing.
I tried to point out that I got a 404 on one of the URLs he posted, but I might have screwed up or misunderstood what he meant.

Richard Sharpe
December 21, 2008 11:08 am

Yes, it was Steven Goddard who gets priority on pointing out the missing graphic.
I misunderstood what he was saying. I clicked on the link he had already said was missing and confirmed it, but thought I had found a mistake in what he was saying.
Sorry.

John Cooper
December 21, 2008 11:11 am

Hansen is becoming a real embarrassment to NASA, but I don’t think he should be fired. He’s doing more to discredit AGW than anyone else, with the exception of AlGore himself, of course.

Bruce Cobb
December 21, 2008 11:16 am

So, if he’s “nailed” it, that means he’s willing to debate, right?

December 21, 2008 11:24 am

After reading Hansen’s comparison of the Earth and Venus, I notice that he made no mention of the fact that Venus is much closer to the Sun than the Earth is. Or that Mars’ atmosphere is mostly CO2, and Mars is freezing cold.
It really appears that Hansen has gone off the deep end. I’ve read a lot of of scientific journals, and I don’t recall any credible papers that intersperse pix of the author’s grandkids, and AGW protesters, and lots of pictures of melting glaciers, etc., supposed to be really scary. Those pictures are apparently intended to take the place of the science that Hansen believes he has “nailed.”
This guy is crying “Wolf!” way too much.

Noblesse Oblige
December 21, 2008 11:26 am

I have seen at least a half dozen empirical estimations of the climate sensitivity done by a variety of different methods, and their range runs from less than 1 to ~ 1.7 deg C for doubling. They use a variey of correlation techniques (e.g., Douglass and Christy) or estimates of the temperature relaxation time (Schwartz, Scafetta). Therefore the ‘consensus’ (ha, ha) is that the climate sensitivity is far less than Hansen’s claim.

Paul Wescott
December 21, 2008 11:37 am

John (11:11:31),
If he isn’t discredited among the movers and shakers, the folks with the agendas and the MSM it won’t matter if he’s discredited among the rest of us who have functioning BS meters no matter how numerous. There remain too many regular folks with the sensitivity of their BS meters dialed way back, turned off even.

Phil.
December 21, 2008 11:38 am

Off topic but relevant, NASA has recently “disappeared” this oft cited map showing warming on the Antarctic peninsula and cooling of the interior:
It’s not disappeared, it’s here:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_detail.php?id=17529
REPLY: Thanks for pointing out that link, which finally resolves to this URL:
http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov//17529/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg
The point is that this graphic was removed from that server in my original URL.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg
Which is part of the NASA “Newsroom”
The one you cite is a completely different server, perhaps even at a different NASA facility.
The antarctic graphic has come under attack recently by those that disagree with it. So why then should it be removed rather than either updated or with a caveat attached? As we’ve seen with the NANSEN sea ice graph recently, changing things with no notice is not conducive to building trust, nor is it good practice. – Anthony

December 21, 2008 11:39 am

RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT?
Who Ya Gonna Call?
The A(GW) TEAM
Call Hannibal Hansen on:-
910841-ALARM

Richard deSousa
December 21, 2008 11:41 am

Hansen also fails to mention Venus’s atmosphere is 97% CO2… how he can jump from Earth’s atmosphere of .03% CO2 to runaway global warming is beyond comprehension… he’s completely an imbecile…

December 21, 2008 11:42 am

Re: Grandkids in presentation — Reminds me of the old National Lampoon magazine with a dog on the cover “Buy This Magazine Or We’ll Kill This Dog” was the satirical headline (complete with dog looking at gun pointed at dog’s head) — so yeah, personalizing the Global Warming thing is playing to the heartstrings. Perhaps it was a toss-up between putting in pics of his grandkids vs pics of cuddly polar bears on shrinking ice floes.
Re: Ocean heat issue: Funny, the only way the ocean can take up the heat is for some “Quick Mixing” of the warmth pulled in by the shallow ocean and the deep ocean, because there’s little evidence of the shallow ocean holding in this missing heat before it gets mixed with that deep ocean we have trouble monitoring. That’s a shame.
Also, no chatter about the ocean expanding upon heat up. No more sea level issues to deal with?
Re: Lack of atmospheric modeling success — Uh, where is that, because I missed that part. Hansen talks about the lack of ocean heat, where’s the talk about the lack of atmospheric heat, specifically in the equatorial regions? I’ll have to re-read the presentation. Or has Hansen nailed that atmospheric issue so well we no longer need to discuss things?
To sum Hansen, there’s still a lot of missing heat out there, and the forcing of the carbon dioxide is being held in check by man-made aerosols. And the forcing we are witnessing is being hidden by the oceans so quickly we can’t actually trace the heat transfer. Do I have this correct?

Ed Scott
December 21, 2008 11:42 am

Web sites, such as WUWT, are dangerous and an impediment to political consensus of AGW.
Read John’s commentary and then consider where the danger lies.
John Holdren Commentary: Convincing the Climate-Change Skeptics
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/commentary/climate-change-skeptics
The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed – and continues to delay – the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge. The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. Those who still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again.

Bill Illis
December 21, 2008 11:44 am

He’s nailed the CO2 doubling climate sensitivity of 3.0C per doubling by calculating the following for the ice ages:
-2.25C for the decline in CO2/GHGs from 280 ppm to 180 ppm.
-2.625C for ice sheet albedo and vegetation.
First, where is the solar reduction part of the equation due to the Milankovitch cycle. This formula says it doesn’t even play a part including kicking off the ice albedo in the first place.
Second, his math is wrong if the sensitivity is 3.0C per doubling because a reduction to 180 ppm from 280 ppm only results in a decline of 1.9C (picky I know but he is the one who says he has nailed it empirically – the formula doesn’t even work).

Retired Engineer
December 21, 2008 11:47 am

(with apologies to Ernest Thayer)
Somewhere people laugh
Somewhere people shout
There is no joy in Warmville
James Hansen has struck out

Les Johnson
December 21, 2008 11:48 am

Hansen should try to publish that, in a peer reviewed journal. It would be, shall we say, interesting?

Ed Scott
December 21, 2008 11:51 am

“My name was mentioned several times though. ;-)”
Watch your six!

REPLY:
That was a tongue in cheek reference to Steve McIntyre’s “he who must not be named” issue. My name is “Watts” which is sprinkled throughout the radiative forcings section.

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 11:56 am

Hansen’s grid maps have absolutely no credibility. First of all there is no integrity in the input data set. Stations go “missing”, data from stations that do report is incomplete causing all sorts of mathematical contortions to “backfill” the missing data with calculated “averages” (even though the “missing” values and data from the “missing” stations seem to be available for download from other sources).
Hansen’s results are a prime example of “garbage in, garbage out” and should not be used as any representation of reality.
To be fair, not all of this is Hansen’s fault as NOAA is the one providing the data and they are the ones providing incomplete sets. Stations go “missing” never to return even though data for those stations is readily available for download over the net. Stations the do report often have many missing values even though more complete data sets are available from other sources. So we seem to have a synergy of errors where sloppy data collection on NOAA’s part leads to sloppy calculation of missing values on Hansen’s part and the sum of all this sloppiness is output that is pretty to look at but doesn’t really mean much.
Hansen could, if he cared for the integrity of his work, find the “missing data”. NOAA could, if they cared for the integrity of their product, do the same. But there is no incentive to do so because the current sloppy procedure provides the “desired” result and validates their hypothesis. Since the output looks exactly what they expect it to look like, the missing data must not matter. Right?
One disturbing element is that most of the stations that have gone “missing” from the NOAA data set over the years are rural stations. This results in a greater influence of urban sites in the output. Missing data in stations that do report provide an opportunity for Hansen to manufacture values for the “missing” information.
I am not going to say that Hansen’s output is a big lie, but it does appear to be “made up facts”.

Ed Scott
December 21, 2008 11:59 am

Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx
In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.
An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, “Man-made global warming is junk science,” explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration … This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.”
For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA’s eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, “variations in global temperatures since 1978 … cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide.”
It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn’t any global warming.

The Engineer
December 21, 2008 12:02 pm

“Nailed it” – Is that a scientific term ????
And if so, does Hansen supply the science.
How does one empirically prove a state that doesn’t actually exist.
I mean the CO2 hasn’t doubled yet, so how does one test the doubling
empirically ?

jae
December 21, 2008 12:09 pm

I quit reading Hansen’s junk a long time ago. It is a waste of time. He is simply an ex-scientist, who has turned into a looney politicial hack.

David L. Hagen
December 21, 2008 12:09 pm

Hansen opines:

In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.

I wonder if he every thought of where the coal, tar sands and tar shale came from in the first place if not from the atmosphere/ocean?!
Thus how could putting back into the atmosphere what came from the atmosphere cause a runaway greenhouse effect that was not there in the first place?
He also states that:

Estimates of climate sensitivity based on the last 100 years of climate change are practically worthless, because we do not know the net climate forcing.

I wonder if he officially applies that to Mann’s work?
Does he mean that “we do not know the net climate forcing”
or
that “we do not know what the net climate forcing was during that period”?
The uncertainty in today’s climate, especially the contributions and feedbacks from water, is likely so large as to invalidate all his assumptions and models.
All in all a very curious perspective.

Andrew
December 21, 2008 12:09 pm

REPLY: That was a tongue in cheek reference to Steve McIntyre’s “he who must not be named” issue. My name is “Watts” which is sprinkled throughout the radiative forcings section.
I think the description “peppered” more accurately describes the disbursement of your name in this case.
Andrew ♫

Ben Kellett
December 21, 2008 12:16 pm

Although new to this site, I’ve been following some of the commentry for some time. Hansen is clearly one of the main champions of AGW and obviously believes he has some compelling evidence here! The claim by skeptics however, often relies heavily on the claim that there have been some major warming periods in the last 1000 years – a claim generally rejected by IPCC et al. One of the main corner stones of their contempt for such claims is the lack of sediment in ice core data.
A little off topic I know but can anyone show me any science which challenges this ice core data? I am aware of the work of Prof Easterbrook where he clearly points to the activity of the sun being the main culprit behind climate change, but I would also like to find out if/where the challenge to ice core data exists.
Ben

stephen richards
December 21, 2008 12:26 pm

When I was a young whippersnapper if you had ‘nailed’ something empirically it meant that you had indisputable data from a physically reproducable experiment which you could put before you colleaques with total confidence of confirmation and verification.
Sorry Hansie, don’t see that here on anywhere else at NASTY.

December 21, 2008 12:26 pm

Hi,
Forgive OT but I don’t know the protocol for posting stuff like this:
I still would like Anthony or somebody to discuss the week or so oddity on the AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent chart. Unlike the other 5-6 years on the chart,2008 is now going sideways for the last week or so. Anna noted that thereis vulcanism in the region. Is there anybody talking about this, since it would seem to be a pretty big phenomenon to totally stop ice formation for over a week in the Artic, especially given the temperatures in the region as we speak: -18 degrees F at the North Pole
Grant

David L. Hagen
December 21, 2008 12:33 pm

DailyKos reports on: Dr. James Hansen: “How do we make them understand how serious this is?” and gives links to other similar 2008 presentations.

TI: Threat to the Planet: Dark and Bright Sides of Global Warming
AU: * Hansen, J E
EM: jhansen@giss.nasa.gov
AF: The Earth Institute at Columbia University, 405 Low Library, 535 West 116th Street, New York, NY 10027, United States
AU: * Hansen, J E
EM: jhansen@giss.nasa.gov
AF: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, United States
AB: Abstract. Earth’s history reveals that climate is sensitive to forcings, imposed perturbations of the planet’s energy balance. Human-made forcings now dwarf natural forcings. Despite the climate system’s great inertia, climate changes are emerging above the ‘noise’ of unforced chaotic variability, and greater changes are ‘in the pipeline’. There is a clear and present danger of the climate passing certain ‘tipping points’, climate states where warming in the pipeline and positive feedbacks guarantee large relatively rapid changes with no additional climate forcing. The fact that we are close to dangerous consequences has a bright side: we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will minimize many impacts that had begun to seem almost inevitable, including ocean acidification, intensification of regional climate extremes, and fresh water shortages. Actions required to stabilize climate, including prompt phase-out of coal emissions, are defined well enough by our understanding of the climate system, the carbon cycle, and fossil fuel reservoirs. These actions would also yield cleaner air and water, with ancillary benefits for human health, agricultural productivity, and wildlife preservation. Yet the actions required to stabilize climate are not being pursued. Denial of climate change by the fossil fuel industry and reactionary governments has been replaced by ‘greenwash’. The policies of even the ‘greenest’ nations are demonstrably impotent for the purpose of averting climate disasters. I conclude that inaction stems in large part from ‘success’ of special financial interests in subverting the intent of the democratic process to operate for the general good. The consequence is intergenerational inequity and injustice, affecting negatively the young and the unborn. The defense of prior generations, that they ‘did not know’, is no longer viable. Indeed, actions by fossil fuel interests that served to deceive the public about the dangers of human-made climate change raise questions of ethics and legal liabilities. Youth, at least those who are not too young or unborn, have recourse through democratic systems, but continued failure of the political process may cause increasing public protests.

The Dark and Bright Sides of Global Warming James Hansen August 13, 2008 YouTube

The Threat to the Planet: Dark & Bright Sides of Global Warming PDF

Jim Hansen, 3 October 2007, presented at conference: Heating Up the Energy Debate, Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota
What Hansen critically fails to realize is that liquid fuel is critical to our civilization – and his job. The looking decline in global petroleum production (“Peak Oil”) will enforce rapid reductions in available liquid fuels to fuel importing countries like the US. See:
Robert L. Hirsch The Inevitable Peaking of World Oil Production
Peaking of world oil production: recent Forecasts
US Department of Energy/National Energy Technology Lab., NETL-2007/1263 |
year = 2007, February 5, (The “Hirsch report”), and
Mitigation of maximum world oil production: Shortage scenarios Vol 36 # 2, Feb. 2008, 881-889
Our critical issue is not whether the ocean will warm 1 or 1.5 feet, but whether we will have the fuel to run tractors, trucks and to drive to work.
Note especially the World Export Model. Khebab, Graphoilogy, especially slides 16 and 17.
We can convert oil sands and coal to fuel. Sasol of South Africa has successfully been producing oil from coal since 1955.
I would like to see how Hansen proposes to run cars or planes on sequestered CO2. It is our future and our children’s that Hansen is unwittingly destroying in his zeal. Obama’s buying into Hansen’s perspective means much worse economic times ahead in that the US will be even more unprepared for operating on 75% less fuel than we currently use!

Jim G
December 21, 2008 12:34 pm

Here’s one of my favorite Hansen charts.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1974/Lacis_Hansen_1.html
pg 119 shows solar energy vs wavelength in w/m
it also shows dark bands corresponding to absorption by (O2, O3, CO2, H2O)
CO2 appears to only effect low energy wavelengths.
But water vapor on the other hand….

Robert
December 21, 2008 12:38 pm

So what happend to “If it looks to good to be true than it probably is ?”
Does he really think that the debate will be over now that he has nailed it? This is pure politics, and he knows it, its all or nothing now.

Bill Illis
December 21, 2008 12:42 pm

Just reading the deep ocean response time section of the presentation (of interest to me) and I can’t believe all the “if, then” “on the other hand, if, then ..” over and over again.
It does say most of the models predict it will take well over 1,000 years before the oceans fully adjust to the surface temperature.
Then there is no answer to the question of if it take the oceans 1,000 years to adjust (or in other words, 1,000 years to absorb heat from the surface) what does that do to the surface temperature response time – does it also take over 1,000 years – no answer to that important question – just more “aerosols are masking the warming which has occurred.”

foinavon
December 21, 2008 12:52 pm

It’s worth pointing out the essential fallacies represented in the two graphs presented in Anthony’s introductory post:
(i) the Illis temp vs [CO2] graph of Bill Illes (who he?) is very misleading since it is dominated by the very large temperature changes occurring over the very low [CO2] ranges (0-50 ppm) never experienced on earth.
It’s easy for anyone with the most basic graphing program (e.g. Excel) to see this for themselves.
You can construct essentially the same graph presented by Anthony (Illes) using the equation:
T = (3.0/log(2))*(log(C))-9.39
where C is the CO2 concentration.
So set up a column of X values ranging from 2-3000 ppm. This is C the atmospheric CO2 concentration
In the above equation 3.0 is the climate sensitivity, the log(2) value refers to the fact that this is the temperature increase upon doubling, the log (C) indicates the logarithmic relationship between temperature rise and change in CO2 concentration, and the 9.39 “normalises” the earth’s temperature to 15 oC at at pre-industrial CO2 concentration (280 ppm).
If you then expand the data to observe the relevant bits; i.e. CO2 concentration between 280 ppm and 1000 ppm (to give the extreme value that might be realized in the next 150 years if we didn’t address this problem at all) or 3000 ppm that might be realized under the Hansen scenario of burning all of the coal and tar shale, you can see that very dramatic temperature rise will accrue (and that’s without factoring in other potentially large feedbacks like recruiting all of the methane clathrates in the deep oceans).
(ii) The “Scotese” “graph” is nonsense. Where has it come from? It bears no relation to our understanding of the earth’s temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels in the deep past. I think we all know, for example, that the earth’s temperature hasn’t drifted steadily downwards from ~22 oC 25 million years ago to 12 oC now! And are we really supposed to believe that the earth’s temperature “sat” at a rock-steady 22 oC for many 10’s of millions of years in the past? I think not, and that’s certainly not what the science shows.
..oh well….

Radun
December 21, 2008 12:53 pm

Alternative views (From New Scientist)
http://www.newscientist.com/commenting/browse?id=dn16292&page=6
The Consensus Is Fake – Scientists Do Not Agree
Fri Dec 19 15:59:50 GMT 2008 by Benfranklin
I am a skeptic.Global warming has become a new religion. – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical. – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.
Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesnt listen to others. It doesnt have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity. – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don buy into anthropogenic global warming. – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will. – Geoffrey G. Duffy a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet. – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact. – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined. – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn pay to say so Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver seat and developing nations walking barefoot. – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds. – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

Bobby Lane
December 21, 2008 12:53 pm

Slightly off topic…having a little but uncertain hope is worse than having no hope at all. Yet New Scientist, in an article on-line, first says we have reached a tipping point of no return and then says, well, there may yet be a little hope for the Arctic (summer) ice after all. It’s a very confusing article, all based on those infamous oh-so-reliable computerized models.
As you can see from the link, the headline is: Arctic melt 20 years ahead of models. The question nobody seems to be asking, however, is: if this is so, why are the models so incorrect? Could it be that, one way or the other, we really still don’t understand how our complicated planetary climate system works? Like the ending of that tootsie pop commercial says, “the world may never know.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16307-arctic-melt-20-years-ahead-of-climate-models.html

Thomas J. Arnold.
December 21, 2008 12:53 pm

Ed Scott quotes Holdren:
“THE FEW climate-change “skeptics” with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all.”
I do not profess to have any grounding in specialist subjects related to AGW but I studied Geography and Geology and Meteorology in some depth at College to degree level. Ergo I am an ‘amateur’, the paranoia with which this site is vilified is interesting, can we not have serious debate? What are the pro man-made GW warming scientists worried about??
If you do not have significant number of letters after your name, then your opinion does not count! Why is this? – can it be that if you do not believe, and are uneducated then it follows that you are not worthy of joining the debate.
Some of us are just saying, “hang on a minute let us test the theory before we commit to these ideas” That surely is the essence of Scientific debate and whether or not you are qualified, this is not relevant. The jury is still out and because a lot of people think one thing, they are not always necessarily correct, just ask Gallileo.
Tom.

David L. Hagen
December 21, 2008 12:54 pm

Hansen cites CO2 in some 16 pages, but only mentions water relating to melting glaciers or ocean level rise.
Hansen fails to clearly show that H2O is 80% of greenhouse gas while CO2 only 20%. Furthermore, we know the least about H2O, especially the precipitation and the water heat conduction mechanisms, especially below the troposphere.

Bobby Lane
December 21, 2008 12:59 pm

Anthony,
Could we then call Steve McIntyre the “Sauron of the Skeptics”? A little Lord of the Rings humor there, but fittingly appropriate. Characters in LOTR often use “the Enemy” or “the Unnamed One” when referring to Sauron. Steve “Sauron” McIntyre? Not a bad monicker.
REPLY: I don’t think he’d appreciate the title, but I could be wrong. – Anthony

George E. Smith
December 21, 2008 1:00 pm

Ben,
When you refer to ice core data; just what “data” do you mean ? I would suggest that there is NO ice core data that is more famous world wide, tha the two graphs in Al gore’s “an Inconvenient Truth (p 66/67), and that is simply purported Temperature Data, and purported CO2 data. My understanding is that the CO2 data is actual measured CO2 composition in the samples, and that the “Temperature Data” relies on an O16/O18 proxy; which I don’t claim to understand. how O16 and O18 can simply transmute into each other (or from something else solely as a function of atmospheric temperature is beyond my understanding of atomic Physics (which I once taught0, but that was way back at the start of the space age.
But I am constantly amazed at the ingenuity of scientists at sensing things remotely. My hat is off to Astronomers, who pretty much derive their entire science from the Electromagnetic spectrum for DC to Cosmetic Rays and beyond to unobservable parallel univerese, where any imaginable lwas of Physics can be found.
Now I know those “ice cores” yield a whole lot more substance that just temperature proxies, and CO2 concentrations, and I also know there is a whole lot of skepticism/ debate about just how reliabl;e that stuff is.
But regardless of doubts about the validity of these proxies; it seems to me, that the one thing you can probably count on with some level of credibility, is THE TIMING of whatever happens in those ice cores. They are very tree ring like in their Timing, although I never heard of one tree ring diffusing into otheres to scramble the data. But I generally believe the event timing; unless the lab technicians sometimes screw up.
And therein lies the crux in my mind. In Al gore’s book he deliberately separated those two graphs vertically for the purpose of hiding the true relative timing of CO2 events, and Temperature events.
Well OK he hasn’t had his day in court so maybe I shouldn’t accuse him of outright fraud; I mean it is also possible that he is just as dumb as a box of rocks, and didn’t realize that if he overlapped the curves, one could really see the relative timing of events; sort of what an 8th grade high school science student would do.
Well I have to admit that I have seen the same data printed in peer reviewed journals and other so-called Scientific publications; and actually I have NEVER ever see them overlapped by any author; but I don’t deny that some author/s may exist who have done that.
Bottom line is it is evidently irrefutable that the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes (that caused them) by intervals of from 500 -1500 years, with 800 years appaerntly yielding the highest correlation coefficient.
So regardless of how hokey other ice core evidence may or may not be (I’m not competent to judge that); I don’t se how you get past the usually fatal conclusion that we don’t like our causes happening 800 years after the effect that they cause.
I actually queried Spenser Weart on that point, in Physics Today for Jan 2005 (letters), and he basically changed the subject in his reply, and by e-mail declined to comment further.
Explain the relative timing “anomaly” to me and I’ll die happy.

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 1:02 pm

There are some significant problems with ice cores that aren’t obvious. First of all, Southern Hemisphere ice going to present with a few problems. Antarctica is so huge (twice the size of Australia) and so cold and centered on the pole so it basically makes its own weather. The ice there has survived since long before we had the current cycles of glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, since it is already so cold there in winter, variations in global temperatures or Northern Hemisphere temperatures might not make that much difference at the South pole.
There really isn’t any analog to Greenland in the Southern Hemisphere where you would have a relatively large land mass with long standing ice. Tropical ice cores would be ideal but there is a major problem with them in that when we go into a Northern Hemisphere ice age, the climate becomes so dry in places like the Andes that the ice disappears for lack of precipitation. The oldest ice core I have been able to learn about from the Andes goes back only 20,000 years and then you hit bedrock. So when we were at glacial maximum in the Northern Hemisphere, the Andes were likely free of snow because of a lack of moisture to produce adequate snow to survive through sunny periods.
New Zealand Southern Alps would seem to be a good candidate but again, the ice doesn’t seem to go very far back in time, nothing found that I know of that goes back before the Holocene. So our ice core records are limited by the looking only at the local climate in Greenland and Antarctica which seem to have had very different local responses to global conditions. We can’t look at Antarctica cores and figure out what things are going to do in the Northern Hemisphere and we don’t have any Northern Hemisphere locations other than Greenland.
That leaves the Himalayas but so far cores seem to give conflicting results in some cases. We just don’t have enough samples from that region to be able to say much. I did find this interesting though:

First, major climatic events from deep sea cores were well recorded in the Guliya ice core. Secondly, the transition from warm to cold periods was abrupt. Third, the temperature fluctuations indicated by the Guliya record are closely related to insolation. It is, therefore, speculated that insolation might be a major driving force of the major climatic events recorded in this ice core.

So here we again show insolation (amount of sunshine) a major driving factor but also we see “the transition from warm to cold periods was abrupt”. Which again would argue against gradual orbital changes being the cause of these abrupt changes. Something else needs to “kick” the system into the other state and the orbital mechanics might be a hysteresis mechanism that keeps it in that state.
The hypothesis I am coming around to is that orbital changes cause a slow change in insolation. Our sun is a variable star. We sometimes have periods of low activity (Maunder, Dalton, etc) which seem to correspond to additional cooling. We also have ocean cycles that seem to be unrelated to these events but also cause some climate impact. When we get into a period of decreasing insolation due to gradual changes in orbit, it might be likely that a period of decreased solar activity might be enough to “kick” the system into a colder stable state. If the solar minimum happens while we are also in a “cold” ocean cycle, it might be even more likely to be a trigger that could switch the state of the system in an abrupt fashion.
Things would then go along until we get into a cycle of increasing solar insolation and have a period of increased solar output, maybe combined with a cycle of warmer ocean climate at the same time and it “kicks” the system into the other state.
This would also explain why we seem to “miss” some 40,000 year periods of opportunity when orbital conditions seem right to come out of the glaciation but don’t. Maybe you need all three conditions to be right. You need the right about of sunlight, the right general trend in sunlight, and be in the right cycle of things in ocean cycle. If we have increasing insolation, and an active sun but the Pacific is in a “cold” phase, it isn’t enough and things stay in the cold state until all three conditions line up again.
The abruptness of the change suggests that something or some combination of things act to trigger a phase change between two stable states. It also seems that the cold phase is the more stable of the two states as the climate seems to stay in that phase 90% of the time and is in the warm state only 10% of the time. Also, overall the glaciation periods have been getting longer meaning it seems to be getting even more stable in the cold state and that might be caused by gradual changes in ocean currents caused by tectonics. As the positions of things change, ocean currents change. We could well at some point get to a situation where the isthmus of Panama opens back up again, we get more equatorial mixing, and the system goes more stable in the warm state as it apparently was some 3-5 million years ago.
But I am just guessing.

PeteM
December 21, 2008 1:02 pm

@Smokey (11:24:08) : On your point
“After reading Hansen’s comparison of the Earth and Venus, I notice that he made no mention of the fact that Venus is much closer to the Sun than the Earth is. Or that Mars’ atmosphere is mostly CO2, and Mars is freezing cold.
….. ”
(a) I’m not sure if you are suggesting that position from the sun is the dominant reason for the the temperature difference between Venus , Earth and Mars .
Mercury is much closer to the Sun (58 million Km) than Venus (108 million km)
Mercury has a temperature of that varies between about 430 C and -180 C. Venus has a temperature of about 450 C with not much difference between night side and sun side.
This can be explained by a run away greenhouse effect on Venus
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus)
(b) Since atmosphere is important ( comparing Venus and Mercury) …why is Mars cooler . Its atmosphere is so thin (about 100th that of the Earth) that even though the CO2 content is hight ( 95%) there isn’t enough to cause a runaway greenhouse effect or mask the effect of its distance from the Sun .
(http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/resources/mars_data-information/temperature_overview.html) . Although the CO2 content does appear to have some effect on Mars.

Edward T
December 21, 2008 1:09 pm

I can still access that image here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502
It was NASA’s “Image of the Day”, pPosted April 27, 2006.
REPLY: Thanks for finding that, interesting to note the before and after images they cite. Big difference.
Anthony

December 21, 2008 1:17 pm

It’s also curious when making the comparison to Venus, shouldn’t he mention Venus has no no planetary magnetic field? Because of that, the sun has stripped Venus’ atmosphere of most of the lighter gases, leaving an atmosphere of mostly the heavier CO2 and Nitrogen molecules.
If you are going to do science why not do it completely, why not do it in the open?
It’s as if he thinks no one knows what photosynthesis is. Come to think of it, I asked that very same question to a group of people (I won’t say who they really were) and not one in the crowd knew what it was. So obviously they didn’t have a clue what would happen if we were able and reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere to zero.

foinavon
December 21, 2008 1:27 pm

George Smith:
18O/16O in H2O in ice cores:
This pretty much represents the effect of distillation. It takes more thermal energy to vapourize 18O water than 16O water, and during glacial periods with colder seas, the water vapour is depeleted in 18O water as a result. And as the vapour travels to the polar regions there is anadditional tendency for any 18O water to condense our before 16O water. So when polar precipitation (snow!) occurs, the water is more depleted in 18O(H2O) relative to 16O(H2O), and this can be measured in the ice cores using mass spectrometry.
Timing of CO2 and temperature in ice cores:
Yes, the temperature variations precede the CO2 variations throughout much of the ice core depths. That rresults from the fact that the temperature variations during these events were initiated by insolation changes resulting from the cyclic variations in the earth’s orbital properties. According to the Illes graph that is shown in the introductory article of this thread, rising atmospheric CO2 levels result in warming, and this equates to around 3 oC of warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2. So during ice age cycles the raised atmospheric CO2 concentrations from around 180 ppm to 270 ppm during a glacial to interglacial transition contributed a bit under 2 oC of warming to the total warming transition.
Remember that during the ice age transitions these phenomena were slow, slow slow! So the last glacial to interglacial transition from around 15,000 to 10,000 years ago saw atmospheric CO2 levels rise by around 90 ppm over 5000 years. That’s less than 2 ppm per 100 years averaged ove rthe transition.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising over 100 times faster now (of the order of 2.5 ppm per year).
The essential point is that however atmospheric CO2 levels rise (a result of orbital-induced insolation changes during ice age cycles, or direct pumping into the atmosphere on a truly humungous scale now), the enhanced CO2 levels result in enhanced warming of the earth (near 3 oC of warming per dubling of atmospheric CO2 according to a whole load of analyses).

deadwood
December 21, 2008 1:33 pm

PeteM:
Did you even read Kasting’s 1988 paper where he uses the term “runaway greenhouse” occurs? Clearly not. He is specifically linking this term to solar activity during the early stages of planetary evolution causing all the water vapor to blow away into space.
The water it seems, in his one-dimensional atmospheric model, acted as a negative feedback untill it dissipated into space.
Try again Pete, but this time follow-up on your “proof”. Don’t just read the buzz words.

John Galt
December 21, 2008 1:33 pm

Is it possible that Hansen believes nobody will bother to check on his work? Perhaps he believes people will blindly accept everything he says as fact, instead of wishful-thinking-based opinion?

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 1:37 pm

“the enhanced CO2 levels result in enhanced warming of the earth”
And that is the point nobody has proved to my satisfaction. All we have are “models” created by people who already wanted to show this fact.
We have no indication that CO2 has added any appreciable amount of warming to Earth. And you have the problem of diminishing return. If you get a certain amount of warming when you add 100ppm of CO2, you get significantly LESS warming when you add the next 100ppm. The response is not linear.
Also I believe the models are completely bogus because they predict a hot spot in the middle of the atmosphere. You can’t do that in real life because they minute you warm air in a given location, it wants to rise and it rises above more of the CO2 in so doing and radiates any heat it gained into space. So an increase in CO2 would maybe increase convection but none of the models take convection into account. They seem to depend on a static and infinitely “deep” atmosphere.
The models aren’t based on reality.

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Overall, I agree with the elder Pielke. We *are* causing warming but not in the way that Hansen would have you believe. Most measured warming is due to local land use changes. And I don’t mean to imply I think it can be ignored but I believe we are focusing on the wrong thing.
When we cut down forest to build housing developments, turn the landscape from a shady green to a barren black (roofs, roads, parking lots) and fill it with a gazillion radiant heaters (cars sitting in the sun, etc) we do change the local temperature and precipitation patterns. Taken together in large urban regions such as the area between Washington and Boston, it can have a large regional impact.
Replacing millions of acres of natural grassland with plowed fields changes things too, as does irrigating millions more acres out west. Climate can very well change due to human activities but I believe it is less about the cars we drive and the electricity we generate than it is the forests we cut and the land we irrigate and the pavement we lay. Increasing albedo by simply changing the color of roofs and pavements, shading areas with trees, can go a lot further in reducing local climate changes due to human activity. Changing the amount of CO2 isn’t going to amount to any change, really, because even if every single human being on the planet were to perish today, it would reduce global CO2 emissions by about 3%.

PeteM
December 21, 2008 1:54 pm

deadwood (13:33:02) :
You have missed the point – Smokey seemed to suggest that distance from Sun was a factor to explain differences in Earth Mars and Venus .
The information I provided shows that is not always a dominant factor .
Venus is suffering from a strong green house effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus)
Mars doesn’t have a thick enough atmosphere to escape most of the implications of its distance from the sun .

JimB
December 21, 2008 1:59 pm

Anyone have the total world supply of coal numbers at their fingertips?
I thought I read somewhere that at present consumption rates, there was enough coal in the U.S. alone to last 1,000yrs. I’m sure that China and Russia have some deposits as well…
Doesn’t Hansen’s preso state that if we burn “ALL the coal”?
JimB

December 21, 2008 1:59 pm

Pete M:
To answer your question: yes, the proximity to the Sun is the dominant cause of the temperature differences between planets. Atmosphere is a secondary cause. Note that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune — all gas giants with extremely thick atmospheres — become progressively colder as their distance from the Sun increases.
Your Mercury example has unique problems because Mercury’s day and year are the same, and Mercury has essentially no atmosphere. Your implication that the day side and night side should be averaged is incorrect.
So is the comparison with Venus, which has an atmosphere that is about 93 times denser than Earth’s atmosphere. It is laden with sulfuric acid, and it is completely covered with clouds. The atmosphere of Venus retains heat, but that is where any similarity ends.
Mars has a thin atmosphere consisting of more than 95% CO2. Yet the average temperature is below -80 degrees F. If CO2 were the scary greenhouse gas that AGW proponents believe it is, then Mars, with 95%+ CO2 [compared with Earth’s tiny .038] would have an average temperature greater than eighty degrees below zero, despite its thin atmosphere. But as we now understand, the heat retention of CO2 begins to fall off logarithmically after the first 20 ppmv. So Mars remains a very cold place, and 95% CO2 does not make a difference.
I understand that you’re avoiding my original point, which is that Hansen never mentions the close proximity of Venus to the Sun, as compared with the Earth’s distance. He simply points to Venus and says, “Runaway global warming!!” Why do you think he neglected to mention the basic fact that Venus is much closer to the Sun? Is it because he doesn’t want people to see the gaping hole in his conjecture?
More to the point: why is Hansen so afraid to debate his beliefs?

Bill Illis
December 21, 2008 2:00 pm

To foinavon
“T = (3.0/log(2))*(log(C))-9.39
where C is the CO2 concentration.”
is not a correct representation of the theory.
On page 8 of this paper by Raymond Pierrehumbert (a RealClimate contributor)
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/CaltechWater.pdf
“Eliminating the 50W/m2 of tropical CO2 greenhouse effect would drop the tropical temperature by about 25 K, once amplified by water vapor feedback.”

ElphonPeeduponTheContrite
December 21, 2008 2:14 pm

this post coincides with me being more aware of a localised possibly micro-climatic change that’s occurring in my freezer. Unfunded research reveals that the ice is disappearing!!! I blame a Scottish distiller . . .

Peter
December 21, 2008 2:24 pm

PeteM:

This can be explained by a run away greenhouse effect on Venus

Nothing to do then with the fact that: a) the atmospheric pressure of 90 atmospheres, b) it has no magnetic field and c) it rotates extremely slowly.
If the runaway CO2 effect could exist on Earth then, by constructing huge glass domes, filling them with CO2 and using the resultant heat to generate electricity, we could solve the worlds energy problems and stop using fossil fuels altogether.
Except for one small problem – it won’t work.

foinavon
December 21, 2008 2:28 pm

Re Bill Illes:
Yes it is. It reproduces the temperature response resulting from raised atmospheric CO2 according to a climate sensitivity of 3 oC of warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2. It essentially reproduces your graph. Of course I may not have got there in exactly the same way that you did, but it’s straightforward to derive an equation for the logarithmic relationship of temperature to raised CO2 according to a climate sensitivity of 3 oC. My graph gives the absolute surface temperature at equilibrium assuming that the earth’s temperature was 15 oC at a pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm.
The main point is that the representation in the introductory post is highly misleading since is is dominated by the very very large temperature response over the completely unrealistic region of the CO2 concentration (e.g. 0 – 50 or even 100 ppm).
If someone wants to get a proper feel of the earth’s temperature response to raised CO2 during contemporary periods and in the future then the graph in the introductory post is pretty useless. Likewise if one wants to address Hansen’s scenario properly (that’s the point of this thread Ibelieve!), then one should use a proper representation of the earth’s temperature response over the range of CO2 concentrations relevant to the discussion.
And your reproduction of Raymond Pierrehumbert’s statement is entirely compatible with my equation (and your graph). But it’s not very relevant. We’re considering the earth’s warming response to very large increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, not the effect of eliminating atmospheric CO2 entirely (we don’t want to go there either!).

December 21, 2008 2:29 pm

@Grant Hodges
I agree with you. Mr Hansen’s activity may be sort of interesting but the “true” phenomena of our times went off from this site’s radar.
Regards

PeteM
December 21, 2008 2:30 pm

Smokey (13:59:44) :
Your Mercury example has unique problems because Mercury’s day and year are the same, and Mercury has essentially no atmosphere. Your implication that the day side and night side should be averaged is incorrect.
> I didn’t say they should be averaged — Mercury’s temperature varies like this because it has no atmosphere to avoid the consequences of its rotation and distance form the sun . Venus ( despite being further from the sun) achieves higher temperatures because it has an atmosphere.
If CO2 were the scary greenhouse gas that AGW proponents believe it is, then Mars, with 95%+ CO2 [compared with Earth’s tiny .038] would have an average temperature greater than eighty degrees below zero, despite its thin atmosphere. But as we now understand, the heat retention of CO2 begins to fall off logarithmically after the first 20 ppmv. So Mars remains a very cold place, and 95% CO2 does not make a difference.
> 95% of a much,much thinner atmosphere than Earth . On Venus high greenhouse gases make a difference because there is a much thicker atmosphere.
I can’t speak for Hansen about why he didn’t mention it so I’m only responding to your point.

PeteM
December 21, 2008 2:32 pm

JimB (13:59:24) :
World Coal figures — an article from New Scientist (Jan 2008)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726391.800-coal-bleak-outlook-for-the-black-stuff.html
(All – I didn’t write the headline or article so don’t complain at me about it)

Ben Kellett
December 21, 2008 2:37 pm

“When you refer to ice core data; just what “data” do you mean ?”
George E Smith
George, thanks for your very comprehensive response. In my trawling over time, I cannot remember exactly which study, by whom or when…which isn’t very helpful I know.
However the studies to which I refer make use of ice cores by measuring phylo-plankton sediment (or lack of it) as evidence of periods when polar regions were relatively ice free. As I understand it, the claim is that because there is little or no evidence of such sediment within ice cores over the past 10,000 years, this suggests that the northern ice cap has remained more extensive than it is currently over that period.
I am aware that ice core measurements are used in a multitude of ways, but this one is of interest to me in particular because of the work of Prof. Easterbrook’s in proposing that there have been a number of warm periods with the last 10 millennia – or certainly since the end of the last ice age.

foinavon
December 21, 2008 2:47 pm

That’s not really true crosspatch. The fact that enhanced CO2 concentrations result in enhanced warming of the earth has got very little to do with models. It’s the result of a whole load of empirical (and theoretical) analyses.
In fact the role of CO2 in warming the earth has been known since the middle of the 19th century, and already by the end of the 19th century Arrhenius had established that the earth’s temperature rose as the logarithm of the enhanced CO2 concentration.
There is a whole load of data that bears on the quantitative relationship between enhanced CO2 and enhanced temperature. This has been obtained by examining the temperature response during ice age cycles…. the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature in the deep past (last 500 million years)…the analysis of ocean heat uptake….the temperature response following volcanic eruptions….the temperature response to the solar cycle and so on…
…these generally give a result near 3 oC of warming (plus/minus a bit) per doubling of atmospheric CO2. Hansens’ recent analysis of the ice age cycles illustrated in his powerpoint presentation discussed on this thread is yet another example..
That’s not to say that this isn’t also found by modelling. However that’s because the models are parameterized according to our empirical understanding of the real world. But it’s the empirical analyses, measurements and so on that inform the models and not the orher way round….
And yes, we all know that the response is not linear. It’s logarithmic. You can make a very simple calculation of the earth’s temperature response to enhanced CO2 within a climate sensitivity of 3 oC of warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2 using the equation I dumped in my post above:
see post at: 12:52:53
and as Bill Illes points out (post at 14:00:54) in his reproduction of Raymond Pierrehumbert’s quotation from the paper he links to:
“Eliminating the 50W/m2 of tropical CO2 greenhouse effect would drop the tropical temperature by about 25 K, once amplified by water vapor feedback.”
it would be extraordinary to propose that raising atmospheric CO2 levels further (rather dramatically according to the “all the coal and tar shale’s burnt” scenario being discussed on this thread) wouldn’t result in a very large temperature rise (it would be at least 10 oC according to a climate sensitivity of 3 oC, without any rather unpleasant unforseen feedbacks like methane hydrate release and widescale deforestation…)
I don’t think your point about hot spots in models is correct, and they certainly don’t depend on an infinitely deep atmosphere. In fact raising atmospheric CO2 levels results in an increase in height at which longwave radiation is radiated into space. That’s an essential part of the greenhouse effect, and as far as I’m aware it’s represented in models, predicted by theory and observed in reality…

Alan Peakall
December 21, 2008 2:51 pm

Smokey,
Mercury’s day and year are *not* the same length. The tidal influence of the Sun is insufficient to prevail over the 3:2 resonance (sidereal day=58 Earth days, year=88 Earth days) to yield synchronous locking. This knowledge dates from the late 1950s.
That said, the resulting longer solar day of Mercury 176 days (like the long solar day of Venus 117 Earth days) must militate against the establishment of a stable climate as you suggest.

Stefan
December 21, 2008 2:55 pm

How on earth can so many of these eminent scientists be wrong?
Or are they just human like everyone else?

Dave Dodd
December 21, 2008 3:10 pm

If this is OT I apologize, but it certainly is not off subject of the blog. The AGW hypothesis is based on a single premise, namely: Pre-industrial CO2 levels were approximately 280 ppm — present CO2 levels are apporximately 380 ppm, the increase “obviously” human induced. I do not know Ernst-Georg Beck, but he seems well respected in his field. His paper, “180 Years accurate CO2-Gas analysis of Air by Chemical Methods (Short Version)” makes the case that pre-industrial CO2 levels were approximately 355 ppm and temperature dependent, rather than forcing, seemingly blowing the entire AGW argument out the window. He further makes a very strong argument that the 280 ppm value was “cherry picked” by ignoring 90% of known research data. Any comments?
A copy here: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003818.html

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 3:19 pm

“Eliminating the 50W/m2 of tropical CO2 greenhouse effect would drop the tropical temperature by about 25 K, once amplified by water vapor feedback”
The impact of water vapor certainly seems to be something that could cause a drastic change over a short period of time. From my reading of that paper, a reduction of oceanic evaporation rate could reduce atmospheric water vapor and result in a drastic cool down in a short period of time. And in fact we see severe drought in the equatorial region during Northern Hemisphere glaciations to the extent where rain forest is replaced by grasslands. That could be a self-reinforcing mechanism that keeps the system stable in the cold state.

Frank Ravizza
December 21, 2008 3:32 pm

I wonder if Hansen took any critical questions following this presentation? I would have several.

jarhead
December 21, 2008 3:51 pm

to Ben Kellett
re ice cores….google zbigniew jaworowski

Joseph
December 21, 2008 4:09 pm

What!? Multiple references to Hades? Destroying creation? Preserve creation? This, in a lecture at a scientific conference? That’s not science! Pastor Jim is really going off the deep end now. Methinks he has reached his own personal “tipping point”.

foinavon
December 21, 2008 4:11 pm

Dave Dodd,
I suspect you’ll find with deeper investigation that Beck’s data is not a reliable atmospheric CO2 record, although it is interesting in the historical sense…
Beck has complied all of the atmospheric CO2 measures that he has been able to find covering the past nearly 200 years. Unfortunately as acknowledged by many of the scientists that made these measurements, the data were often heavily contaminated by measuring in laboratories in cities (e.g. Vienna, Giessen, Kew gardens London, Frankfurt, Poona India, Belfast, Clermont Ferrand, Copenhagen, Paris, Bern, Rostock in Denmark, Ames Iowa….and so on).
These values are woefully inadequate as measures of atmospheric CO2, since cities give very high CO2 levels as they’re close to emission sources. So, for example, one of the sets of data that Beck uses is that of W. Kreutz in 1939/40 in Geissen.
Kreutz’s laboratory was not far from the railway station, and Kreutz himself pointed out that his data were affected by soil and industrial/urban sources. He found values that were 40 ppm higher in the afternoons than mornings, and higher CO2 on windless days than windy days (when high emissions were dispersed) and so on… That’s what we find today if we measure CO2 levels in cities.
To put that into perspective, a 40 ppm change in 1/2 a day, is around the change in atmospheric CO2 occurring in 2000 years during an ice age transition…!
Unfortunately Beck is misleading the unwary through assertions of “Accuracy” (as in his title). The measures he quotes are not accurate with respect to the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, even if they were precise with respct to a valid determination of local urban/industrial CO2 levels.
Some early practitioners recognisied the problem of massive contamination of CO2 data from urban measurements and made great efforts to obtain data from uncontaminated sources. Jules Reiset, for example, made measurements in the late 19th century on the windy N. Atlantic coast, far from urban centres. His values were rather similar to those obtained from ice cores for that period (around 290-300 ppm). We can also be more confident of his data since he identified the clear cyclic variation in atmospheric CO2 resulting from N. hemispheric plant growth/decay cycles…

foinavon
December 21, 2008 4:14 pm

Frank Ravizza,
why not put your questions here. Perhaps some of the posters can address them..!

Patrick Henry
December 21, 2008 4:16 pm

Mars’ atmosphere is 90% CO2, and it is extremely cold there. Must be the runaway greenhouse effect caused by the dominant greenhouse gas.

December 21, 2008 4:29 pm

Alan Peakall, I appreciate your explanation of Mercury’s rotation.
Dave Dodd:

Beck… makes the case that pre-industrial CO2 levels were approximately 355 ppm and temperature dependent, rather than forcing, seemingly blowing the entire AGW argument out the window.

And that is why the AGW contingent went absolutely ballistic when they understood what Beck was saying. They know that if Beck is even somewhat correct, their AGW hypothesis is defenestrated.

Lansner, Frank
December 21, 2008 4:30 pm

@Smokey and Pete M
Temperature at Venus:
Not only is the temperature dependent on distance to the sun , it also a function of pressure:
Temp = F(Distance to sun, pressure)
See here the stunning similarities between planets, for pressures over 0,3 atm:
http://www.glar.gl/planet.jpg
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/121/images/FG09_007.jpg
And “ladies and gentlemen”, if you check the temperature at Venus at 1 atm pressure, you find 330 K.
That is, just around 45 K more than earth at 1 atm. In K that is around 15% warmer af Venus, which is explainable by distance.
Now – il grande experiment to show real-world effect of greenhouse gasses:
Imagine a planet with no greenhouse gasses but still a thich atmosphere.
Arrhenius gave greenhouse gasses all “blame” for the atmospheres isolation effect.
So?
Well, a planet without greenhouse gasses should then have a temperature profile with no isolation effect… This planet should have a temperature-pressure curve totaly vertical.
The pressence of greenhouse gasses are very different from planet to planet. But they all have a quite similar slope in their temp-presseure graph. No planets seems to have different temperature characteristic due to atmosphere contents?

Mike C
December 21, 2008 4:31 pm

My first point is that Hansen is backing off on coal and is now targeting shale sands.
My second point is that PeteM has not thought much through when it comes to comparrisons involving Venus. Not only is Venus closer to the sun, it has a super rotating upper atmosphere of sulphur gases that act like a blanket. Venus also has no magnetic field so it is directly impacted by the solar wind. Nor does Venus have any water at the surface. Comparing Venus and Earth is like comparing an apple to a Mac Truck, there is no comparrison. Hansens efforts to the same, especially since he comes from that field, is idiotic.

Graeme Rodaughan
December 21, 2008 4:31 pm

Some entertainment (from my CO2 Fevered imagination) – perhaps?
Climate Zombie.
Headline From the “The Herald” Newspaper, circa sometime in 2009.
“Climate Zombie Haunts Town”…
Meanwhile in the Sceptic household, Arthur and Martha prepare for battle.
Martha: “Arthur, have you got the shotgun?”
Arthur: “Yes Martha.”
Martha: “Have you got the special shells that are effective against the Climate Zombie?”
Arthur: “Yes Martha.”
Martha: “Are you sure – let’s list them and make sure.”
Arthur: “There’s the following shells”
– Arthur reads from the blurb on the shell box.
“1. Vostok Ice Cores show CO2 Trailing Temperature Rises SHELL.
2. No Troposphere HotSpot AGW Fingerprint SHELL.
3. Climate Models not Empirically Validated SHELL.
4. One Fact Kills Consensus SHELL.
5. Poorly Sighted and Calibrated Temperature Instruments SHELL.
6. Data Mismanagement SHELL.”
Martha: “Good – at least we are prepared with some real science.”
Arthur: “And your’ve got the Razor?”
Martha: “Occam’s best and at hand.”
– Glass shatters loudly.
Martha: “The back window…”
– Arthur and Martha rush to the back room and burst through the door. The Climate Zombie is inside the house. They both gag from the reek of corruption that has filled the room. Arthur recovers first – and fires from the hip.
Arthur: “Take that – fiend”
– Arthur lets rip with 6 body shots from his pump action shot gun. The Zombie staggers backwards from the impact of the scientific arguments embedded into the shells. Then it lurches forward, with a leering grin.
Zombie: “Ha, you fool – Science cannot refute me – I’m invincible”.
– The zombie lashes out and throws Arthur against the wall where he crumples into a broken heap.
Martha: “Art!”
Martha leaps forward – Occams Razor firmly in hand, first feinting with a simpler hypothesis before going with a deadly “Climate Change by Natural Variation” Manoeuvre.
The Climate Zombie, moves quickly with a “Stacking the Peer Review Board” counter and Martha’s Occams Razor clatters to the floor.
Zombie: (Scornfully) : “Occam’s Razor – What next – will you quote Sir Karl Popper at me, or try a falsification manoeuvre?”
– The Zombie seizes the now defenceless Martha, and drags her off her feet as he sneers into her face.
Zombie: “Never mind… – the pain will not last for long.”
Martha: (Defiantly) “Do your worst!”
– Martha gives the Zombie the finger.
– Zombie kills Martha.
The Climate Zombie looks at the pair of lifeless sceptics. Nodding to himself and contemplating the feast of sceptic brains that is about to begin.
Zombie: “They keep trying science – don’t they know that I am a multi-faceted Politico-Religious Meme backed by vested interests in Government, Industry and a host of NGOs seeking wealth and power.”
– Then the Zombie shivered.
Zombie: “Thankfully – they haven’t tried Parody – it’s my Achilles heel –it’s hard to be serious and frightening if people are laughing at you.”
(end)

davidc
December 21, 2008 4:36 pm

“Now we can look at 800,000 years. The same sensitivity fits for the earlier times, even better. Bottom line: The fast feedback climate sensitivity is nailed. It is 3 C for doubled CO2, plus or minus half a degree.” (p7/39).
Since it is nailed at 3C over all time periods under consideration it’s clear that Hansen is claiming a linear relation between T and CO2. That is,
T = A + B*CO2
where A and B are constants. If we take an arbitrary reference point as CO2 concentration C1 at temperature T1 and take Hansen’s sensitivity figure of 3C for a doubling of CO2 we get
T = T1 – 3 + (3/C1)*CO2 [1]
Check: take CO2 = 2*C1 we get T= T1+3.
It seems to me that Hansen gets his sensitivity number from the CO2 and T estimates from the ice core data on p7/39 (eg C1=200ppm at T1 = -4C; C2=250ppm at T2 = -1C) but I get different results. Any suggestions?
But taking Hansen’s result in the form of eq[1] all we need to do (following Hansen) to predict future temperature is to predict future CO2 (the data is so regular that a simple extrapolation would be enough) and substitute in eq[1]. Why bother with GCMs, forcings and all sorts of complications when it is a simple as this?
Well, it seems that Hansen is referring here to an “equilibrium” or “fast feedback “sensitivity” and maybe the detailed modeling is needed to track the time-course of the approach to this equilibrium.
My first question is: based on the proposed greenhouse mechanism wouldn’t the response of temperature to current CO2 concentrations be very rapid (a few days at most?)?. I know that long times are involved in recycling via the deep ocean, but that is irrelevant if we have a reliable estimate of CO2 “now”. If you want to predict the atmospheric CO2 resulting from current CO2 production it would be necessary to model those factors; but firstly, I don’t think that’s being done (anyone know?) and secondly the one data set that seems to be reliable and predictable (so far) is the recent CO2 rise. Much better to simply extrapolate.
My second question is: why not use the same data as used for the sensitivity estimate to estimate lag-times. If the data he’s using is the Vostok ice core data I think I know why, that the change in T precedes the change in CO2 and the whole story falls apart. Is the sole reason for the GCMs, forcings etc, to estimate lag-times involved in approach to equilibrium?
I know that what I’m saying here is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue, but it seems to me to be what Hansen is saying when he nails sensitivity at 3C per doubling (without reference to the many other potentially significant variables). What else is there to know?

old construction worker
December 21, 2008 4:46 pm

PeteM (13:54:55) :
‘The information I provided shows that is not always a dominant factor .
Venus is suffering from a strong green house effect’
Venus is suffering? It seems to me the green house effect on Venus is normal for Venus.
You have to remember Hansen’s run-a-way green house effect on Venus is still an unproven theory.

foinavon
December 21, 2008 4:47 pm

Smokey,
I don’t think anyone went ballistic over the Beck stuff. It’s clearly nonsense, as a little bit of investigation and clear thinking will illustrate. In general it was noticed and essentially ignored.
The aim in science is to establish supportable explanations for observations. That’s how we learn stuff and make progress (not to mention policy decisions). Things that are clearly erroneous do not need dwelling on.

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 4:56 pm

“Pre-industrial CO2 levels were approximately 280 ppm — present CO2 levels are apporximately 380 ppm, the increase “obviously” human induced.”
One main problem the AGW crowd hasn’t addressed is why were temperatures decreasing during the period when CO2 levels increased the most between WWII and the 1970’s? And why have temperatures declined since 2000 while China and India have industrialized adding even more CO2?

December 21, 2008 4:58 pm

I’m still wondering where Hansen took the figure 3 for 2xCO2. If we increase the mass of carbon dioxide, but the heat source remains constant, then the CO2 would act like a cooler, not like a radiator. I think Hansen resorted to the “Solar Irradiance has increased” for making his fantasy sounds more credible from a scientific standpoint. For the carbon dioxide acted like a warmer, the solar irradiance had to increase, but it has happened just in the opposite way… Heh! On the other hand, sandy lands have always existed on Earth. Perhaps Hansen is trying to blame deforestation on global cooling.

PeteM
December 21, 2008 5:01 pm

Mike C (16:31:11) :
“My second point is that PeteM has not thought much through when it comes to comparrisons involving Venus. Not only is Venus closer to the sun, it has a super rotating upper atmosphere of sulphur gases that act like a blanket….”
I think you are attributing to me points that I was not making .
My point ( which it appears you are supporting) is that Smokey is incorrect to suggest distance from the Sun the why Venus is warmer than Earth and Mars
It’s also strongly linked with the atmosphere ( or lack of it) , and the composition of the atmosphere ( including the greenhouse effect ).
To think this through … you only have to wonder about the Earth and Moon which are at very similar distances from the sun to understand the issue .
Lansner, Frank (16:30:07) – interesting charts .
How is the data for the charts comparing various planets generated .

foinavon
December 21, 2008 5:07 pm

David,
No, Hansen certainly isn’t claiming a linear relation between CO2 and T…far from it.
The relationship is logarithmic. I’ve dumped a simple equation in my post above (see 12:52:53), which can be used to calculate the temperature response to enhanced CO2 within a 3 oC climate sensitivity.
Hansen’s analysis is more complex almost certainly. He’s presumably done a full fit of the ice age record incorporating insolation variations (these can be calculated from analysis of Milankovitch cycles), and the known feedbacks (water vapour, albedo), and optimised the climate sensitivty of the CO2 forcing….something like that.
However if one wants to estimate the earth’s temperature response to enhanced CO2 within a particular climate sensitivity, the equation in my post above will allow you to do that (or you can change the climate sensitivity and see what happens)..
Of course that doesn’t means that’s what’s going to happen! It’s possible that the sun might do something funny…or we might enter a weird volcanic/tectonic stage…or we might get hit by an asteroid…but there’s quite a lot of evidence that the earth’s temperature response to greenhouse gas forcing can be estimated to a first approximation using a climate sensitivity value. Hansens’ study reinforces a lot of other data suggesting that this is somewhere near 3 oC of warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2..

Mark Smith
December 21, 2008 5:20 pm

Re; saving/destroying creation.. I thought the issue was global, not cosmic… Anthropogenic Cosmic Warming, anyone?

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 5:27 pm

“but there’s quite a lot of evidence that the earth’s temperature response to greenhouse gas forcing can be estimated to a first approximation using a climate sensitivity value”
Can you demonstrate any such evidence using data other than Hansen’s? Can you show a temperature response that rises in step with CO2 rise? I haven’t seen one yet. I have not seen any temperature response that even remotely resembles the increase in CO2. Again, we had the most dramatic increase in CO2 while global temperatures were cooling. In 1998 we had much more CO2 than we had in 1933 yet temperatures during that PDO/ENSO warm cycle didn’t rise as high as they did in 1933.
Sure there are a lot of theoretical models that demonstrate this relationship but none have shown to be an analog to reality.

Steven Goddard
December 21, 2008 5:34 pm

The thing that I find most troublesome about the updated map is this comment-
“The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239
Why would they make a change to the map in the range of 0.3 degrees, when their precision is an order of magnitude lower than the adjustment? There is never any justification for doing that.
Another very troublesome NASA “correction” article came out a few weeks ago.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
What could have motivated a bizarre “science” story like that? I’ve never seen anything like that before.

foinavon
December 21, 2008 5:36 pm

crosspatch,
Atmospheric CO2 levels rose relatively slowly after the war up through the mid 60’s:
1944ish 310 ppm
1962 320ppm
1973 330ppm
So in the 30 post war years CO2 levels rose around 20 ppm.
In the next 30 years they rose 47 ppm (377 ppm in 2003; 386 ppm now).
The earth’s temperature was pretty flat post war ’til the early 70’s. The evidence indicates that the massive release of very dirty fuels that gave us killing London smogs and acid rain and such like was sufficient to counter the small temperature rise expected from the smallish (in the grand scheme of things!) CO2 rise. As various clean air acts kicked in during the 1960’s especially, the “cooling” effect of our diry aerosols was somewhat diminished. We are still “protected” from the full whack of greenhouse-induced warming by a cooling aerosol effect.
The temperatures haven’t really declined since 2000. As the earth’s temperature responds to enhanced greenhouse warming, the temperature trends slowly upwards (there is quite a large inertia in the climate system, and so it takes a considerable time for the earth’s temperature to eqilibrate with a new forcing). During this rising trend stochastic variations in the climate system may dominate for short periods. 2008 is going to be somewhat short of a record year due to the strong early La Nina, and we’re smack at the bottom of the solar cycle.
it wouldn’t be surprising if the next record temperature year will occur at the next El Nino or two!

December 21, 2008 5:37 pm

foinavon @16:47:55

Smokey,
I don’t think anyone went ballistic over the Beck stuff. It’s clearly nonsense, as a little bit of investigation and clear thinking will illustrate.

You’re new around here, so I’ll disregard your misplaced belief that you are the arbiter of clear thinking.
In fact, there has been some very *ahem* lively discussion regarding Dr. Beck’s paper. You can simply search the keyword “Beck” on this page to find more threads and commentary on his work.
It’s interesting that Beck has been completely open regarding his data and methodology. He answers questions and explains how he arrived at his conclusions.
In contrast, Hansen, Mann and others refuse to publicly archive their taxpayer-funded raw data and “adjustment” methodology, which of course makes their claims highly suspect. How could it not?
Rather than assuming that CO2 [which is entirely beneficial and nothing to get alarmed about] remained right at 280 ppmv prior to the 1900’s, it has been shown that CO2 concentrations can vary by two orders of magnitude in different parts of the ocean [see commentary in the Beck thread]. So by flippantly pretending that Beck’s 90,000 recorded measurements can’t be accurate because they vary widely, even over the open ocean, you have staked out your position and you fool nobody here.
Beck’s work has some problems — which he has satisfactorily addressed to Keeling — but to simply disregard many years of work by numerous esteemed scientists like J.S. Haldane makes it clear that Beck’s new information is very unwelcome to some, as the attacks on him, similar to those on Monckton, clearly demonstrate.
Dr. Beck will answer your questions, his contact information is in the link. But I’ll bet you don’t want to ask him.

davidc
December 21, 2008 5:43 pm

foinavon,
Maybe he did all those things but if his sensitivity is a constant the end result is a linear relationship. If not, he should be saying that the sensitivity is a function of a whole range of parameters and variables, not a constant. For example, with your log relationship you would need to specifying the starting concentration of CO2 to be able to state the effect on T of a doubling. No?

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 5:45 pm

From 1933 to 1975 North America cooled at a rate of 2.5C/century. What was the rate of CO2 increase over that same period? And the cooling was fairly even throughout the period, pretty much a steady cooling while CO2 levels were in a steady rise.
From 1998 to 2008 in the most recent 12 month period (December to November) temperatures in North America have been cooling at a rate of 2.1C/century.
So we had 42 years of cooling, followed by 20 years of warming followed by another 10 years of cooling. In other words, we have had 52 years of cooling temperatures and 22 years of warming over a period of 74 years of monotonic CO2 increase.
As of last month the trend from 1930 to today for the most recent 12 month period is a warming of 0.3C per *century*. I see no relationship between either the amount of warming or the timing of it in relation to CO2 increase.

Leon Brozyna
December 21, 2008 5:49 pm

Whenever this gentleman’s name appears, an image of the muppets intrudes into my consciousness. At least with those creatures there’s an aura of innocence about their silliness.
Did a quick scan of his lecture and one of the first thing I noticed is how he sets up a strawman of solar irradiance to dismiss solar influence on the climate. TSI, as I understand it, is a relatively stable element. Of more consequence is solar wind and solar/earth magnetic field interactions. To use TSI as he does is to place blinders on science.
And the presumptive arrogance of the man — “to preserve creation.” Give me a break!
And the examples he pulls out of his hat.
Rongbuk glacier — probably less about temperature than a disruption of monsoonal precipitation patterns due to dumping of particulate matter into the atmosphere.
Western wildfires — a consequence of repressing natural fires which resulted in an explosive growth of combustible tinder over the decades.
Western drought with that picture of the Lake Mead pier far from any water — the infrastructure in the Western states was developed and built during an unusually wet period. Now that a more normal, drier period is upon us, there’s much hand wringing.
And he goes on and on.
I’ve saved the file so I can read some of it tomorrow morning to get my blood racing so I can shovel some of that +15″ of global warming {it’s still coming down}.

Mike Bryant
December 21, 2008 5:50 pm

NCDC and HADCRUT say:
2008… Coldest Year of the Millenium!!

David L. Hagen
December 21, 2008 5:53 pm

Bobby Lane
Please rethink your characterization.
The one sending out the massive troops to enforce the decree was Sauron.
Aragon was the one upholding the truth.

December 21, 2008 5:54 pm

davidc and foinavon… Yes, it is taken like a log correlation:
ln(CO2x2/CO2 standard)
Nevertheless, the question is: what the real standard atmospheric concentration of CO2 could be? Perhaps 280 ppmV is not the natural standard, but 300 or higher. Who knows?

yonsaon
December 21, 2008 5:55 pm

SOMEONE PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, BUT…
CO2 and temps were both higher in the past, so if the planet’s climate is on hair-trigger, how do we not see this happening in the past, and why once the temps go up due to feedback, do they ever come back down. I would thing that if the climate was so unstable that a slight tip could force it to get hot that it would be locked in at the high end, with cold spells being the anomaly. What reset it in the past when humans weren’t here to sacrifice themselves and their wellbeing for the greater good of Ma Nature?

Graeme Rodaughan
December 21, 2008 5:55 pm

crosspatch (17:45:13) :
I admire your facts and it’s important to keep presenting them – however the AGW religeous zealots aren’t listening.
I think that it’s going to have to be a very extended cold period before it starts to sink in.
And even then – this may all morph into “Man Made Emissions of CO2 cause Global Cooling.”

foinavon
December 21, 2008 5:56 pm

Not really Smokey,
You’ve brought all sorts of extraneous “political” stuuf that’s not really relevant. It’s all about the evidence, I hope we would agree!
i’ve hardly disregarded “many years of work by numerous esteemed scientists like J.S. Haldane”… If you read my post above (16:11:33), you’ll see that i’ve been more than favourable to the early measurers of CO2. And if you read the primary literature on this subject (i.e. the papers of the likes of Kreutz in Giessen or Jules Reiset), you’ll see that they are quite open about the deficiencies of their measurements (Reiset went to great lengths to get relaiable data).
Notice that Beck plays fast and loose with the word accurate. But we need to be clear about what the accuracy refers to. Measurements can be precise but inaccurate. Or they can be inaccurate but not representative of the subject at hand. That’s the case with many of the measurements that Beck complies while removing all reference to the qualifiers of the excellent scientists themselves.
Basically a number of scientists made atmospheric CO2 measurements in heavily contaminated urban environments while developing the methodologies for CO2 collection and analysis. Their measurements were often precise. They were accurate measurements of the CO2 content in the air in the urban locations that they lived. But they were not accurate in relation to the well-mixed atmospheric CO2 levels.
Some scientisits (like Rieset) took great efforts to measure atmsopehric CO2 in uncontaminated settings far from urban centres. Reiset took his apparatus to the windy N. Atlantic coast and obtained atmospheric CO2 values that are pretty close to the ice core data (290-300 ppm) for the late 19th century…
Nobody said that “remained right at 280 ppmv prior to the 1900”
Nobody is trying to “fool” anyone. You’re being overly defensive. It’s all about the evidence Smokey.

December 21, 2008 5:59 pm

Contrary to GCMs, empirical evidence shows that CO2 does not cause temperature rise:
R-squared CO2/temp correlation of just 0.07. They don’t correlate. See?
For a longer term look at CO2/temp non-correlation: click
Please show us unclear thinkers how CO2 caused this.
And an interesting graph on Beck’s work here. [Thanx to Bill Illis].

foinavon
December 21, 2008 6:03 pm

No David you don’t actually need to state the starting concentration of CO2. That’s one of the essential features of a logarithmic relationship. It’s a little like the radioactive half life which is also an independent parameter in relation to the starting radioactivity.
So if the atmospheric CO2 concnetration rises from 180-360 ppm the earth’s temperature response is a warming one equivalent to 3 oC
And to get another 3 oC of warming the atmospheric CO2 concentration would have to rise from 360 ppm to 720 ppm.
Or one could take any arbitrary value. 280 ppm (pre-industrial level) to 560 ppm gives 3 oC of warming within a climate sensitivity of 3 oC per doubling.
…and so on…

Wondering Aloud
December 21, 2008 6:03 pm

Nothing quite like NASA for honesty, integrity, and good honest science in the public interest.
I am very glad nothing else is like them.

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 6:06 pm

Not only that, the cooling over this last 12 month period is the greatest since the Pinatubo cooling. We are 1.49 degrees cooler over the last 12 month period than we were over the same 12 month period ending in November 2007. The Pinatubo cooling was 1.87 degrees in one year. El Chichon cooling was even greater in N. America at around 2 degrees. So we have had cooling in one year that has only been matched in the recent past (since the 1970’s) by major volcanic events. And we have had no such major volcanic events.

foinavon
December 21, 2008 6:06 pm

crosspatch, the earth’s temperature response is assessed globally. Obviously regional variations may be different within an overall warming (or cooling) trend.

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 6:14 pm

The global response is similar. More years of cooling than warming since WWII. The exact numbers differ but the trends are the same. North America accounts for most of the land area in the Western half of the Northern Hemisphere so accounts for about 1/4 of the world. Trends in N America should match global trends, and they do.
The problem is in getting accurate data from the other half of the Northern Hemisphere. The data from China and Russia seem spotty and tends to go “missing”. And there is even less data from the Southern Hemisphere.
The satellite global trends and NOAA’s North America trends match.

MartinGAtkins
December 21, 2008 6:15 pm

Australia Network
Television Program:- Heat
“This 2 part series investigates how big businesses have manipulated the debate over, and response to, global warming in America and around the globe. As the reality and potential impact of a warming climate become increasingly clear, this production examines how pressure from shareholders and other financial partners may have the power to reshape the ways oil-and energy-related businesses approach environmental policies to transform into momentum for change.”
This is scheduled to screen across Asia on Tuesday 23 Dec and Wednesday 24 Dec.
For your regional program scheduled.
http://australianetwork.com/guide/
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is Siamese twin of the British Broadcasting Corporation and a publicly funded propaganda machine.

foinavon
December 21, 2008 6:16 pm

Smokey, you seem to be linking to stuff that you haven’t really thought about.
The “Scotese” graph is nonsense. I hope you can see what’s horribly wrong with it. Anyway, you’ve linked to this without apparently looking at the paper by Pagani that’s cited there. That paper addresses some of the issues you request guidance on. For example, it highlights the essential link between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperaure, in this case the slow reduction in atmospheric Co2 (through weathering most likely) that, according to Pagani “likely allowed for a critical expansion of ice sheets on Antarctica”:
Pagani M (2005) “Marked decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the Paleogene” Science 309, 600-603
Abstract: The relation between the partial pressure of atmospheric carbon dioxide (pCO(2)) and Paleogene climate is poorly resolved. We used stable carbon isotopic values of di-unsaturated alkenones extracted from deep sea cores to reconstruct pCO(2) from the middle Eocene to the late Oligocene (similar to 45 to 25 million years ago). Our results demonstrate that pCO(2) ranged between 1000 to 1500 parts per million by volume in the middle to late Eocene, then decreased in several steps during the Oligocene, and reached modern levels by the latest Oligocene. The fall in pCO(2) likely allowed for a critical expansion of ice sheets on Antarctica and promoted conditions that forced the onset of terrestrial C-4 photosynthesis.

paminator
December 21, 2008 6:20 pm

Venus has an atmospheric pressure of 92 bar at the surface consisting of 96% CO2. Compare to Earth at 1 bar and 0.039%. The lapse rates on the two planets are similar. Venus receives almost 4 times higher solar insolation due to its closer proximity to the sun, but its Albedo is also higher than Earth (0.65 versus 0.3 for Earth). Venus has much more atmospheric mass, a higher tropopause, and like Earth the atmosphere is a good absorber of infrared emission from the surface. There is no runaway effect required to explain the higher temperatures on Venus. It is all controlled by atmospheric pressure of an IR absorbing atmosphere, and solar insolation.

Robert Wood
December 21, 2008 6:22 pm

Hansen has done no empirical work whatsoever. And, if he wants to deny that statement, he can call me for the coordinates of my lawyers.
Hansen, you have no credibility. Come on; take me to court… if you can? I will defend; I have the money to do so. You, sir, are a charletan.

Graeme Rodaughan
December 21, 2008 6:28 pm

Robert Wood –
I’m in your corner – I can at least Cheer you on.

kuhnkat
December 21, 2008 6:33 pm

Foinavon,
you and other warmers appear to be getting pretty desperate in your level reasoned discourse. Of course, you are also becoming DENIERS!!!
Would you please post the data and models that differ from the IPCC who presented graphs, argument, data, and models showing the infamous HOT SPOT in conjunction with tropospheric cooling and tropopause heightening as the ID of Anthropogenic Global Warming through Greenhouse Gasses??
AR7 is what you must deal with to DENY the hotspot.
I assume you do not agree with the games with models and wind speed measurements to tell us that we can’t EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF A HOT SPOT??
Personally I am just fine with the IPCC science. They tell us that GG warming will cause the three mentioned data points. We do not have those data points. Therefore we either do not have GG warming (or ANY warming with no hot spot) or they are wrong.
Since we apparently agree that they are wrong, I again urge you to post your theory and data!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

foinavon
December 21, 2008 6:35 pm

Nasif, it’s not obvious that the term “natural standard” has any real meaning with respect to CO2 levels.
Clearly eons of contingent earth’s history has left a particular amount of accessible carbon in the short/medium term carbon cycle which equilibrates between the atmosphere, the land and the oceans. For the last 10 million years this has been near 280-300 ppm of atmospheric CO2 [*]. During ice age cycles this value drops to 180 (glacials) and then returns to around 280 ppm (interglacial). One might take that as the “natural” CO2 concentration. Obviously in the deeper past the “natural level” was often considerably higher.
What’s “natural” at any one time is what the biosphere has accomodated itself to! There’s plenty of evidence from the deep past that rapid large changes are not good…
[*]e.g. PN Pearson and MR Palmer (2000) Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years. Nature 406, 695-699.

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 6:38 pm

“And even then – this may all morph into ‘Man Made Emissions of CO2 cause Global Cooling.'”
Actually, that is where Hansen got his start. His first climate models were used (by Rasool, 1971) to show that burning fossil fuel would plunge us into an ice age. Then when temperatures go the other way, his models show it will boil us alive.

foinavon
December 21, 2008 6:40 pm

That can’t be right crosspatch. if the earth’s global temperature anomaly is 0.5-0.6 oC above the levels of the 1950’s-60s, then we’ve clearly had a lot more warming than cooling!

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 6:45 pm

And note that even in 1971 Rasool noted that:

the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

So even then they knew the response wasn’t linear. If you increase CO2 by 100ppm you might get some rise. You get less rise when you add another 100ppm and even less rise when you add another. So if we have added, say, 200ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere, adding another 200ppm will have less impact than we have already had. In other words, for a linear increase in CO2, you get a non-linear increase in temperature with a large initial rise that trails off as CO2 increases.

December 21, 2008 6:50 pm

crosspatch (18:06:10)… Just a small (really infinitesimal) correction. The name of the volcano should be Chichonal, not El Chichon.

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 6:58 pm

And finally:

“As a scientist and lifelong liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear-mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science,” Hertzberg wrote in Sept. 26’s USA Today. “From the El Niño year of 1998 until January 2007, the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere near its surface decreased some 0.25 C (0.45 F). From January 2007 until the spring of 2008, it dropped a whopping 0.75 C (1.35 F).”

So “fighting” global warming might be rather silly considering there is no “global warming” to fight and hasn’t been since 1998. What I find so amazing is that Mann could take an El Niño temperature rise and project it continuing non-stop into the future and get away with it for this long.

AnonyMoose
December 21, 2008 7:05 pm

Looking for that missing image, I noticed there’s a copy in Wikipedia. The Talk page points out a discussion at “Satellite_pic” on an article about an “Antarctica cooling controversy” which now only shows the newest pic. So in an article about a controversy they dare not show images which are part of the controversy.
And as for persons who must not be named, I prefer to not name Beetlejuice.

Graeme Rodaughan
December 21, 2008 7:08 pm

Hansen and the rest… I concerned by the core of Fascism that haunts the AGW Meme like a cancer. After all, anything is justified if you are saving the planet.
Some more pseudo-entertainment from my CO2 fevered imagination – story seems the appropriate vehicle for expressing my concerns with the AGW movement.
When Green Chickens Come Home To Roost.
Somewhere in the USA, Sometime in 2018…
FADE IN.
OUTSIDE: EARLY EVENING – NOVEMBER.
– A weary group of men and women, chained into a gang, trudge along a city road. Their guards carry rifles, and short whips. A light dusting of snow is falling.
– They pass a Primary (Elementary) school where the teachers and students have assembled to watch them pass. The Principle of the school turns and faces the assembled children and staff and raises her arms.
Principle: (Stern Encouragement) “Now children all as one – Sceptics are Septics”.
Assembled Children and Staff: (Chanting) “Sceptics are Septics… Sceptics are Septics… Sceptics are Septics…”
– Some of the chained people steal glances at the children.
Guard: “Eyes Front!”
– The guard smashes his whip across the face of one of the chained men and bright blood splashes onto the snow.
– One of the schoolchildren breaks ranks and staggers forward through the snow.
Schoolboy: (Falteringly Disbelief) “That’s my Dad!?”
– The principle turns abruptly towards the boy and signals to green frocked School Proctors, who leap forward and grab the boy before he can reach the road.
– The struck man slumps to the ground, barely conscious, the man chained next to him, takes his arm and drags him to his feet.
Principle: (Outraged) “Shocking behaviour. Samuel Taylor – A months detention. Proctors remove him to the holding room.”
– The proctors drag the boy away.
Assembled Children and Staff: (Continue Chanting) “Sceptics are Septics… Sceptics are Septics… Sceptics are Septics…”
– Two school cleaners stand quietly to the side of the assembly, not being teaching staff or students they are not required to join in. They talk quietly together.
Cleaner One: “So the Higgs Boson has been found at CERN?”
Cleaner Two: “Yes, the Paper by Peebles gives an excellent demonstration of the existence of the Higgs Boson.”
Cleaner One: “Do you miss the research at MIT?”
Cleaner Two: “Of course – but at least I’m able to feed my little girl. – and what choice did I have, Particle Physics isn’t Environmental Science is it.”
Cleaner One: “Same with Nuclear Engineering – now that all the reactors have been shut down – there’s just no more work for a PHD in Engineering in my field.”
– Cleaner Two nods towards the steadily moving chain gang.
Cleaner Two: “Still it’s better than what that lot are facing.”
Cleaner One: “Which is?”
Cleaner Two: “5 Years Hard Labour in the Pig Methane Plant.”
Cleaner One: “Shovel Pig manure for 18 hours a day and get fed…”
Cleaner Two: “Which would you prefer – that – or the alternative?”
– Cleaner one shivered from more than the cold, and drew his coat more tightly around his thin frame.
Cleaner One: “The fertiliser plant – but that’s just for capital crimes isn’t it?”
Cleaner Two: “Apparently “Carbon Denial” is set to become a capital crime – rumour has it, that it’s to be the next Presidential Emergency Directive.”
Cleaner One: (Quietly) “Oh my god… what have we become?”
– Cleaner Two nods silently in agreement.
– The Principle signals a halt to her students and staff.
Principle: (Smug) “Now everyone – we have todays new mantra, lets chant it together for the benefit of these poor deluded people.”
All: (Chanting in practised unison) “Man Made CO2 Causes Global Cooling… Man Made CO2 Causes Global Cooling… Man Made CO2 Causes Global Cooling…”
FADE OUT.

J.Hansford.
December 21, 2008 7:15 pm

Hanson has taken a lot of taxpayers money as pay and grants… Can he be made to give it back if he is wrong?

Ed Scott
December 21, 2008 7:21 pm

For those of you who believe that Algore/UN/IPCC/Pachauri are dangerous, I hope are now watching 60 Minutes and listening to the most scientifically ignorant governor ever to be wrongly elected to public office. It is clear that Californians will be lucky to survive this moron.

Greg
December 21, 2008 7:22 pm

Peter provides an interesting idea for an energy factory. Build a huge glass green house, fill it with CO2 and let the sun heat it up. Theory states that it should produce lots of heat. You’ve now got a steam generator, and you’ve used industrial waste to do it.
REPLY: CO2 has no effect inside a greenhouse (except to hasten plant growth). Warming of a greenhouse is all about the structure and convection. The gas inside is a minimal component to the equation. – Anthony

Richard Sharpe
December 21, 2008 7:34 pm

Steven Goddard says:

Another very troublesome NASA “correction” article came out a few weeks ago.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
What could have motivated a bizarre “science” story like that? I’ve never seen anything like that before.

That certainly doesn’t look like science.

Richard Sharpe
December 21, 2008 7:38 pm

Crosspatch says:

In other words, for a linear increase in CO2, you get a non-linear increase in temperature with a large initial rise that trails off as CO2 increases.

We know that, and that is why they quote the climate sensitivity as the temperature increase for each doubling of CO2.
I think you would be better off pointing out that with CO2 levels increasing at what looks like a linear rate (or the human contribution being linear), the time it takes for each doubling grows longer and longer.
However, I also think that the increase in H2O in the atmosphere with temp increases causing an increased albedo (via clouds) is important as well.

December 21, 2008 8:41 pm

I’ve googled bill illis and all I can find is his posts on the various denialist sites. Any credentials? Expertise? Why is there no professional information on Illis?
Cheers
REPLY: On the flip side – Why is there no professional information or even a name for “Tamino”? Why is there no name or professional information from you?
If Bill wants to respond I’m sure he’ll do so.

December 21, 2008 8:46 pm

Duhhhhh, read all the comments, and the thing that jumped out at me is that Mars atmosphere is +90% CO2, yet it’s colder than Hades, Venus atmosphere is sulphuric acid and hot, hot, hot. The difference between the two is distance from the sun. I keep reading that the only reason life exists on earth is because the orbit is at the exact correct distance from the sun to sustain the temperature range needed for life to survive. This leads me to believe that the distance from the sun is the thing controlling temperature, not CO2. Why is Mars not hotter with a whole helluva lot more CO2 than in earth’s atmosphere? I thought Mars was the planet most similar in size to earth than any of the other planets? Could it be it’s greater distance from the sun? Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles . Doesn’t this confirm that distance from the sun is the determining factor in the occurrence of ice ages? Duhhhhhh, I’m just sayin’. I guess the truth is just too obvious and the explanation too simple to be acceptable to highly-paid government climate scientists. They have to do something to justify all that high-powered training and education and research they did to get where they are, and to keep the grant money flowing. We are paying for this folly, folks, and the economy is tanking. What are you gonna do about it?

Retired Engineer
December 21, 2008 8:50 pm

Another problem with ‘doubling’ is saturation. A graph appeared many threads back that showed the diminishing return of absorbtion. (can’t remember the name, couldn’t find it) With CO2 somewhere above 97% of everything it can absorb, a doubling might get to 98.5%.
That won’t have much effect. The real question is what level of that nasty stuff hit 95%? Or any arbitrary point. We just can’t get many more degrees C from any additional CO2.
Barking up the wrong tree.

December 21, 2008 8:50 pm

apparently Jim hasn’t quite got the message yet that Michael Mann’s paleo results are, well, dubious
How so? I know of no peer review that says so. Link?
perhaps he’s never seen this graph for CO2 from Bill Illis and the response it gives to IR radiation (and thus temperature) as it increases
It seems Illis is a garage scientist (Links to prof. qualifications appreciated.), so you are probably right. it is so easy to cook a graph, or just get it wrong, or, in the case of the denier folks, get what you are looking for instead of what is. This is why rigorous science is called for: while not perfect, since people aren’t, at least scientific method and review give some chance of objectivity. Denialism is just one big MAAS, unfortunately. Note: skepticism should be driven by generic desire for accuracy, not by ideology.
It’s commonly known that CO2’s radiative return response is logarithmic with increasing concentration, so I don’t understand how Hansen thinks that it will be the cause of a runaway effect. The physics dictate that the temperature response curve of the atmosphere will be getting flatter as CO2 increases. Earth has also had much higher concentrations of CO2 in past history, and we didn’t go into runaway then:
Why pretend CO2 is the only input? Methane? Clathrates? Etc.? Are these not part of the issue?
Out-of-context nitpicking just makes the nitpicker look petty.
Cheers

REPLY: “ccpo” That’s quite a bit of lecturing and put down from a person who demands credentials from somebody that puts their name to their work (Bill Illis) while at the same time denigrating them as a “garage scientist”, yet doesn’t have the courage nor the integrity to even use thier own name in a post.
If you want to continue to hurl insults at Mr. Illis while demanding his information, use your own real name, otherwise you don’t get to exist here. I have a low tolerance level for such cowardly arrogance.
– Anthony Watts

crosspatch
December 21, 2008 8:52 pm

“, I also think that the increase in H2O in the atmosphere with temp increases causing an increased albedo (via clouds) is important as well.”
Well, the bottom line is that there currently is no “global warming” and while we did get a period of about 22-23 years of warming that coincides with a positive PDO, the rest of the period since 1933 have been cooling years.
There just isn’t any “global warming” to relate rising global CO2 levels to. I don’t doubt that CO2 is rising, you can clearly see that from the data. I don’t doubt that climate warmed from about 1976 to 1998, that is also clear from the data. What isn’t shown at all by the data is any relationship between that 22 year rise and CO2 rise when the 30 years prior and 10 years since directly contradict that hypothesis. 40+ years of declining temperatures and 22 years of increasing temperatures with CO2 climbing in a nearly linear fashion over the entire time does not exactly cause me to jump to any cause/effect conclusions.

Kum Dollison
December 21, 2008 9:04 pm

CO2 has increased by 13.8% from June 1980 thru June 2008, yet this year will come in, probably, a tad cooler.
Mauna Loa:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
UAH Global Temp. Anomaly:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/uah_msu_sept2008.png

J.Peden
December 21, 2008 9:27 pm

No David you don’t actually need to state the starting concentration of CO2 [in order to have a 3C. temperature increase for each CO2 doubling]./foinavon
Of course you do. Or are you arguing that doubling CO2’s concentration from 1ppm CO2 up to whatever levels we have now would have induced a 3C. degree response each time? In addition, you are ignoring the [relatively small] amount of long wave radiation reflected from the Earth’s surface which is available to be captured only by virtue of CO2’s absorption characteristics – which isn’t very much in comparison to water vapor’s, and, of course the climatic mechanisms which dissipate heat energy, the same ones which have also already kept water vapor from performing at its untethered theoretical maximum here in the real world.

Mark
December 21, 2008 9:28 pm

Hey CP30…
Science should be driven by generic desire for accuracy, not by ideology.

December 21, 2008 9:40 pm

I see that James Hansen is using that well-known form of scientific reasoning called “Proof by vehement assertion”.

Kum Dollison
December 21, 2008 9:53 pm

Another interesting factoid (I think) is that CO2 in the atmosphere increased by about 2.80 ppm in 1998, but only by about 1.30 ppm/yr in 1999, and 2000.
And, only by about 0.95/yr in 92′, and 93′.

Graeme Rodaughan
December 21, 2008 10:11 pm

crosspatch (18:38:58) :
“And even then – this may all morph into ‘Man Made Emissions of CO2 cause Global Cooling.’”
Actually, that is where Hansen got his start. His first climate models were used (by Rasool, 1971) to show that burning fossil fuel would plunge us into an ice age. Then when temperatures go the other way, his models show it will boil us alive.
The technique of morphing the ideology to fit the available data – when swamped by that data – has been used once before. We can expect it to be used again in the future.
In all three (2 past, 1 proposed Future) cases the target of restricting CO2 output as a means of constraining the development of Western Civilization remains invariant.

Editor
December 21, 2008 10:20 pm

ccpo (20:41:58) :

I’ve googled bill illis and all I can find is his posts on the various denialist sites. Any credentials? Expertise? Why is there no professional information on Illis?

I Googled ccpo and the best match seems to be
http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/sectors/ccpo/index.html . Do you represent them? Do they approve?
You can Google me – here’s a challenge: What’s the oldest reference to me on the web? Hint – it predates the Internet.

Graeme Rodaughan
December 21, 2008 10:20 pm

Retired Engineer (20:50:19) :
Another problem with ‘doubling’ is saturation. A graph appeared many threads back that showed the diminishing return of absorbtion. (can’t remember the name, couldn’t find it) With CO2 somewhere above 97% of everything it can absorb, a doubling might get to 98.5%.
Is that the reason that the curve is a logarithmic one – i.e as the absorption spectra for CO2 gets saturated – CO2 faces a diminishing returns relationship for forcing warming?
Just asking?

Mike Lawley
December 21, 2008 10:20 pm

The fact that Hansen refers to “Robber Barrons” in todays age says it all. The man is warped. He obviously is driven by politics, not science.

Kum Dollison
December 21, 2008 10:26 pm

This year looks pretty similar to 1981 when we did about 1.60 ppm CO2, so it seems likely we’re looking in the 1.50 to 1.60 range this year.
If we averaged adding 1.50 ppm/yr, for the next 30 years (which seems reasonable) we could be looking at flat to lower temps for the cycle with 90 – 100 ppm CO2 added to the atmosphere. That would be roughly 90/340 or an addition of 26% increase in CO2 for the cycle with flat, to slightly lower temps.
How does THAT fit in with 3o C for a double?

Graeme Rodaughan
December 21, 2008 10:36 pm

ccpo (20:50:41) :
apparently Jim hasn’t quite got the message yet that Michael Mann’s paleo results are, well, dubious
How so? I know of no peer review that says so. Link?

Check http://www.climateaudit.org for an extensive review of Michael Mann’s (MM) work.

December 21, 2008 10:38 pm

Foinavon,
“The earth’s temperature was pretty flat post war ’til the early 70’s. The evidence indicates that the massive release of very dirty fuels that gave us killing London smogs and acid rain and such like was sufficient to counter the small temperature rise expected from the smallish (in the grand scheme of things!) CO2 rise. As various clean air acts kicked in during the 1960’s especially, the “cooling” effect of our diry aerosols was somewhat diminished. We are still “protected” from the full whack of greenhouse-induced warming by a cooling aerosol effect.”
I’ve read all this before on the Realclimate website. What you’re saying may all be true of course, but certainly it is very convenient isn’t it? When the Earth isn’t warming, its due to the cooling effects aerosols. When the Earth is warming, the aerosols have apparently disappeared from the atmosphere? Are places like China and India burning very ‘clean’ fuels now as opposed to what was being burnt in Europe back in the 60’s? Could be so, I don’t know. But it’s a reasonable question to ask I think.
You state: “the evidence indicates..”. If there is evidence and the research is pretty solid I’m happy to accept it as credible. Could you provide links please?
One wouldn’t want to be lead to the conclusion that the aerosal claim is an ad hoc assertion used to save AGW. It seems to me that without invoking aerosols as a massive atmospheric coolant, AGW is in a lot of trouble. So presumably there has to be a lot of very solid science behind aerosols and their effects on the atmosphere and good data on historic atmospheric content. I would also expect that the data would tend to be showing significantly more cooling in those areas of the globe where aerosols were being mostly expelled? And all the empirical data supports this and is (reasonably) consistent with this?
(One of the frustrating thing I find about reading Realclimate is that very very critical points such as this example tend to be lightly skipped over.)
Thanks.

CJ
December 21, 2008 10:39 pm

I’d always thought that the largest two factors regarding Venusian temps were the total mass of the atmosphere (it has far, far more atmosphere than Earth, hence the far greater surface pressure, around 90 times that of Earth as I recall) and thus a far thicker, heavier “blanket”. The other is total solar insolation (just under twice that or Earth for a given surface area), due to being nearer to the sun. As for the CO2, on Venus it makes up 95% of the atmosphere, while on Earth it makes up a few hundred parts per million, a tiny fraction of one percent, which makes it a trace gas. Yet, Hansen seems to disregard all that and cites just the CO2?? Even to a layman like me, that sounds absurd in the extreme.
I’ll admit it, I used to be a AGW believer. But then, I started looking into it, and found far, far to many holes in the theory. I think the biggest red flag for me was that the polar caps on Mars were seen to be retreating during the period when the earth was warming. Now, to be clear, I do believe that, until a few years ago, the Earth was getting warmer. I even think that mankind is responsible, via various activities, for one or two percent of it. When it comes to polar ice melting, I’ll go even further; I beleive that mankind’s activity accounts for some of the retreat. I’ve personally seen soot layers in Alaskan and Canadian glaciers (reportedly in large part from China’s very unclean coal plants). However, CO2? I think that has been pretty much shown to be a crock.
My dark suspicion is that it’s seen by politicians as a lucrative new way to rob the taxpayers, and that’s the main driving force in official circles for this baseless hysteria.
I hate to say it, but I’m rooting for a new Dalton minimum or similar. I know it would bring great hardship, but it would serve to debunk the CO2 hysteria, hopefully before the insane “carbon cap and trade” raid on our wallets is in place (or at least to get it repealed).

eric anderson
December 21, 2008 10:45 pm

1. The graphic of Antarctica illustrates the period 1982-2004. What would the graphic look like if the period was ’82-’07? What will it look like in January, when we could include data from ’08???
2. The problem with Hansen “nailing” his conclusions by including aerosols, albedo, and water vapor — the IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers rates our “Level of Scientific Understanding” (LOSU) for aerosols as “medium-low” for direct effect and “low” for cloud albedo effect. The LOSU is rated “medium-low” for surface albedo forcings. The chart I’m looking at in the report does not quantify the LOSU for water vapor forcing.
My point is that if you have low or medium-low understanding of major components in the final calculation of anthropogenic radiative forcing, how can you claim to have “nailed” anything until you understand all the major factors with reasonable certitude? You can’t. It’s a logical impossibility. Even granting for the sake of argument that understanding of the CO2 factor is very good, you cannot approach certainty by adding in other uncertain factors. Duh!
Dr. Hansen, sit in the corner and put on the dunce cap.

Mike Lawley
December 21, 2008 10:47 pm

Guys, this is off topic, but I m trying to gain a better understanding of what is going on. Based on what I have read, common sense and my gut instincts, I don’t believe the man caused global warming theory but I am not a scientist. I asked someone named Gavin a question on the RealClimate website after reading his comment that many if not most of the 650 scientists that Imhoff refers to in a senate report are not scientists. My questions and his answers follow. His answers are at odds with what I have read and heard elsewhere. On his website he maintains that he is objective without bias, but it is obvious from reading the questions and his answers that this is not true, – one doesn’t need to be a scientist to see that. He skirts my question regarding non scientists as members of the IPCC and seems to dance around the rest of my question. What do you think of his answers and comments concerning my questions.
Lawley Says:
21 December 2008 at 7:02 PM
Gavin, With respect to comment 47, I have heard the same thing about IPCC. That many of the \scientists\ listed as members of the IPCC are not scientists and that some of the scientists listed have left the IPCC as a result of their disagreement with IPCC findings. The same source goes on to say that there is substantial disagreement among the scientists that remain members over the conclusions of IPCC studies.
[Response: None of this is true in substance. I am aware of only two people (over 3 working groups and over the last two reports) who left the IPCC chapter they were involved in. That is not overwhelming. There is I think only one person on the IPCC author list who is also on Inhofe’s sceptics list (who hasn’t been horribly misquoted) (J. Christy). As for ‘disagreement’ where is it? Thousands of scientists reviewed the reports and were able to make as many critiques as they wanted. The basic fact is that IPCC is the mainstream – go to the AGU website and check the abstracts of last weeks meeting. Out of thousands dealing with climate, you’ll find maybe half a dozen that go against the ‘consensus’ with the vast majority trying to move beyond what’s already been found in order to tackle the remaining uncertainties. – gavin]

anna v
December 21, 2008 11:08 pm

I’d like to encapsulate some conclusions I have from looking at CO2 data, old and new.
CO2 was decided by the present gurus that it should be measured where it is “stable” and at the specific time of day when it is the lowest.
Why so? because it can vary enormously from location to location and height to height and time to time. The AIRS animation maps that show the CO2 bands and the earth breathing with the seasons are the tip of the iceberg, literally, since they are over 5000 meter high. Most of the biosphere is below 1000 meters. In data shown in http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html we can see variations of 100ppm depending on updrafts etc. Thus it is not surprising that the Beck compiled figures show all this diversity.
What is surprising is why the “stable” choice is considered scientifically robust.
Why not measure as one measures temperatures? hi/low average and thousands of locations avraged, as with temperatures? Because the rise would be smaller?
Of course one might say that temperatures are not robust either. Maybe they should be measured like CO2, on top of Mauna Loa on the cooler time of day and 100 other sites hand picked for stability, all shown independently as confirmations of Mauna Loa temperatures. But then maybe the temperature rise, even when it does rise , would be less dramatic.
There is a smell coming from the whole field as cultivated by AGW.

Phil.
December 21, 2008 11:17 pm

crosspatch (18:38:58) :
Actually, that is where Hansen got his start. His first climate models were used (by Rasool, 1971) to show that burning fossil fuel would plunge us into an ice age. Then when temperatures go the other way, his models show it will boil us alive.

Actually you’re wrong, at the time you’re speaking of Hansen was working on a light scattering model for use in a project studying the Venusian atmosphere. Rasool needed a scattering model for aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere, which Hansen gave him.
By the way foinavon why did you have to use that name, it brings back bad memories! 😉

Katherine
December 21, 2008 11:25 pm

Retired Engineer wrote:
Another problem with ‘doubling’ is saturation. A graph appeared many threads back that showed the diminishing return of absorbtion. (can’t remember the name, couldn’t find it) With CO2 somewhere above 97% of everything it can absorb, a doubling might get to 98.5%.
Check this post: A Window on Water Vapor and Planetary Temperature – Part 2 The graphs there look like what you describe.

December 21, 2008 11:30 pm

My 2c worth:
“Thousands of scientists reviewed the reports and were able to make as many critiques as they wanted.”
At the end of the day, because the empirical data is sketchy at best, and the prediction of 2-6C of warming of the IPCC is ultimately dependent on computer models, this means that the only people qualified to assess the validity of the warming claim are the atmospheric physicists.
Everyone else – the “thousands” referred to – are not being asked to assess the validity of those scientific claims – they are just not qualified. What they are being asked to do is try to determine things such as: what is the impact on water resources if AGW is true? What is the impact on disease if AGW is true? What is the impact on hurricanes if AGW is true? In other words, AGW is assumed to be true for the vast majority of working scientists.
Now I would like to know how many atmospheric physicists worked on the theory. (I think we should reasonably exclude computer programmers, etc., as they are plugging in the calculations, not working them out.) Are we talking about 10? 30? 300? That is the size of the real consensus, whatever that size is. Does anyone have the number handy?

paminator
December 22, 2008 12:17 am

correction- That should have been “Venus receives almost 2 times higher solar insolation due to its closer proximity to the sun”.

December 22, 2008 12:37 am

Anna V
Agree with you that we should take min/max readings on Co2
I know that poor mixing makes a difference of 20ppm but where are the variations of up to 100ppm mentioned on Ferdinands site?
TonyB

Editor
December 22, 2008 12:55 am

Phil. (23:17:26) :
Actually you’re wrong, at the time you’re speaking of Hansen was working on a light scattering model for use in a project studying the Venusian atmosphere. Rasool needed a scattering model for aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere, which Hansen gave him.

Do you have a citation?
The IBD original is at:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275267681833290
Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, “could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
Aiding Rasool’s research, the Post reported, was a “computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen,” who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

I’d say a more accurate description would be that “a research associate provided the computer programs that lead to the claim of global cooling.”
All is see is Hansen backpedaling from his earlier model to a newer model.

J.Peden
December 22, 2008 1:23 am

“Thousands of scientists reviewed the reports and were able to make as many critiques as they wanted.”
That doesn’t mean they agreed with the “reports” and/or the ipcc’s main hypotheses, predictions, and alleged solutions. Instead of hiding behind vague hand waving statements such as the above one, “scientists” should be asked whether they agree or disagree with specific statements involving the ipcc’s major contentions, including “don’t know”, and should sign their hands to it. Otherwise their numbers shouldn’t be mentioned. The fact that the ipcc honchos did not do it this way is telling.
In addition, some substantial disagreements were either summarily dismissed or not given a full discription and documentation in the reports, in contradiction to the ipcc’s own operating rules – according to Steve McIntyre’s meticulous dissections.
And need I point out again what happened when Steve McIntyre wanted to review Mann’s Hockey Stick data, as an official ipcc peer reviewer himself? Mann first said he didn’t have/couldn’t find the data, then finally gave data which excluded one very important proxy study, all of which McIntyre finally got hold of and then – along with Ross Mckitrick – managed to debunk Mann’s whole study.
And, btw, if Mann couldn’t find his data and algorithims – the latter which Mann never did release, iirc – no one else had gotten to them either: no one else within the ipcc had actually reviewed his critical study.
So much for ipcc Peer Review and the alleged “consensus” by hundreds of ipcc scientists!
[“Peer Review” itself doesn’t really mean anything specific. Peers usually can do anything they want in doing their “reviews” and are rarely testifying as to the “truth” of the studies and papers they ok for publication. Many papers are actually published simply because they are “controversial”, not because they are “true”, and usually the authors themselves admit that further study is needed. Moreover, where I come from, Medicine, the real Peer Review starts after the paper or study is published.]

Freezing Finn
December 22, 2008 1:35 am

If there is – according to Hansen – a “runaway global warming” on Venus, what “on earth” (English is a funny lanhuage 😉 caused it – and again according to Hansen?
Seems like the sun has nothing to do with anything anymore – oh, except with cancer, “of course”…

December 22, 2008 1:40 am

REPLY: That was a tongue in cheek reference to Steve McIntyre’s “he who must not be named” issue. My name is “Watts” which is sprinkled throughout the radiative forcings section.
Following up on another suggestion, and in view of your wordpress page view figures, maybe you should adopt the middle name “Giga”. 🙂

Bing
December 22, 2008 1:52 am

@Grant I’ve been watching that as well and wondering what to make of it, but it’s not entirely unusual. If you examine the chart, the 2004 data stepped sideways for a bit around the same time last year, as well as the 2003 data later in the month. The 2008 sideways step is lasting longer, however, than the other years depicted.
What I find curious is that NSIDC hasn’t heralded the change in a new press release. They really like to point out warming changes whenever they can. Cooling changes are either ignored or downplayed as far as I’ve observed. If you look at the NSIDC chart (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png) you’ll see that the growth has not only slowed, but lost mass by a degree.
Anyone have an explanation for why this may be occurring? I was under the impression that this was a colder winter. Is that not the case up north?

Steve
December 22, 2008 2:05 am

Using foinavon’s equation
T = (3.0/log(2))*(log(C))-9.39
and Total global warming, on a decadal average, is 0.8 °C since 1900 (IPCC 2007)
We have
Pre-Industrial (read: 1900) CO2 concentration @ 280 ppm:
T(280) = (3/log(2)) * (log(280)) – 9.39 = 15
Today’s CO2 concentration @ 380 ppm:
T(380) = (3/log(2)) * (log(380)) – 9.39 = 16.31
Delta(T) = T(380) – T(280) = 1.31 C > 0.8 C
(God I hope I got the maths right and please correct my assumptions if they are wrong 🙂 )
So doesn’t that mean that the (3/log(2)) is likely to be biased too high or there must be some negative feedback at work here. Apparently we can’t use aerosols to explain the negative feedback required[1] so some other unexplained force would have to be at work here. [2] also come up with a much lower climate sensitivity than foinavon seems to imply.
Further can we even assume that CO2 caused all the warming over the last 100+ years. I’m not sure the IPCC even claim that. In any event [3] claim that most of the warming since the 1970s can be explained by the oceans. This to me is the crux of the issue as the IPCC claim most of the warming is due to increases of atmospheric CO2. The reason they give is because they cannot think of any natural variation that could have caused the warming. Well now they have something … the oceans. Therefore, to me, the null hypothesis should still be most of the observed warming is due to natural causes with CO2 only playing a minor role
[1] Chylek et. al. [2007]: Limits on climate sensitivity derived from recent satellite and surface observations
[2] Douglas and Christy [2008]: Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
[3] Compo and Sardeshmukh [2008]: Oceans a main driver of climate variability.

December 22, 2008 2:16 am

re to Will
When you refer to what most of the IPPCC scientist are looking for in response to AGW please add the word negative. As the IPCC takes AGW for granted, they mainly look for negative and often doubtfull effects, and ignore postive effects of increased CO2.

Hugh
December 22, 2008 3:11 am

“Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.” D. Vader.

December 22, 2008 3:26 am

Steve: Foinavens value of 3 should be around 2.92 for the figures to work.

Reference
December 22, 2008 3:40 am

Guys, It’s the antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg you’re looking for.

Bill Marsh
December 22, 2008 3:55 am

Great thread. People actually discussing math and science.
Question I have is that if the temperature response to CS (Climate Sensitivity) is logarithmic as Dr Hansen and most seem to agree then why:
1) is the temperature increase primarily linear? Only way that happens I think is if CO2 growth is exponential, yes?
2) Given the 2.5 – 3.5C temperature in response to doubling CO2 from 280ppmv and we are currently nearing 400 ppmv (about halfway there) should we not have already seen about 70% of the 2.5-3.5C temp increase?

pkatt
December 22, 2008 4:13 am

Question. If Venus has run away global warming, why is its temp not continuing to rise over time? Is that not the definition of “run away” temps?
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Venus&Display=OverviewLong
this post by NASA seems to point to dense clouds, high atmospheric pressure and recent extreme global volcanic activity(on a universal timescale). Further it states that Venus holds trapped heat, yet reflects a large portion of the sunlight it gets back into space. For grins a few posts ago I asked if co2 was indeed a warming forcer, why wasn’t it warmer on Mars.. I got the Mars is further from the sun and its atmosphere is thinner explanation. I would like to point out that works both ways folks. Venus is closer to the sun and its atmosphere is denser:)
Sure would be nice to have a scientist in his position that actually had a shred of professionalism or even a pretence of objectivity. He needs to be retired.
I dont remember who posted this site http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
but theres one line in there that says it all ….
‘Since the revision, says Willis, the bumps in the graph have largely disappeared, which means the observations and the models are in much better agreement. “That makes everyone happier,” Willis says.
Happier may not necessarily mean more accurate. Seems funny that the instruments both new and old had to be adjusted to fit the model temps. Seems like theres a lot of that going around, ocean temps, land temps, Ice mass… and yet it continues to get colder as the jet stream slams the northern hemisphere without the aid of La Nina. Dont worry tho, by summer this will be one of the hottest fall-winter seasons on record 😛

Arthur Glass
December 22, 2008 4:51 am

If Mercury has no atmosphere, how can we talk about its ‘climate’?

Dell Hunt, Jackson, Michigan
December 22, 2008 5:02 am

With regards to what I call the “Mysterious Trans-Siberian Heat Wave” that is “driving” global temps up and shown on the GISS map for 2008:
Has anybody looked into calculating the average temp, sans Siberia?
And if it weren’t for this Mysterious heat wave there, where would the global average be?
Interesting that while the rest of the globe has been cooling down, the one place with the least number of actual weather stations, the least reliable past temp history (especially long term), and the coldest land on Earth, outside of Antartica, is the only place thats showing significant warming.

Reference
December 22, 2008 5:04 am

All roads lead to Rome…
Earth Observatory
Image of the Day (h/t Steve Goddard)
Visible Earth

Mike Bryant
December 22, 2008 5:10 am

I wonder what the sea ice graph will look like when the great lakes start freezing over? 🙂

foinavon
December 22, 2008 5:13 am

Steve,
Yes, your numbers are right. Within a climate sensitivity of 3oC (of warming per doubled CO2) we expect around 1.3 oC of warming at equilibrium for a CO2 increase from 280-380 ppm.
Of course that’s the equilibrium response. Since the earth has a large inertia (largely from the oceans), it takes some time for the planet to come to a new thermal equilibrium with the forcing. So we still have a bit of warming “in the pipeline” even were CO2 levels to stop dead at current levels.
We’re also still pumping out loads of aerosols and these are protecting us somewhat from the full whack of our greenhouse gas emissions. This has been reviewed recently by Ramanathan and Carmichael, who conclude that the 3 W m-2 excess greenhouse forcing is still being countered by around -1.5 W.m-2 of aerosol cooling.
V. Ramanathan & G. Carmichael (2008) Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon; Nature geoscience 1, 221-227.
That’s a costly paper to get hold of, but Ramanathan has made a detailed presentation of this work to the Wegman oversight committee which can be found here:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071018110734.pdf
The papers you cite concerning climate sensitivity are an odd bunch. I couldn’t find this one:
Compo and Sardeshmukh [2008]: Oceans a main driver of climate variability.
Until I realized you’d changed the title! Were you trying to make it sound more interesting?
It’s actually
Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9.
And in fact it’s not particularly controversial. The authors do some modeling and suggest that within their model they can calculate much of the land warming of recent years as a result of ocean warming. They don’t address the cause of the ocean warming, but the evidence is pretty strong that the oceans have warmed due to greenhouse enhancement. Some of the observations of the paper don’t accord with real world observations. For example they question the water vapour feedback to greenhouse warming (which they have eliminated from their model by design), particularly the prediction that the troposphere tends towards a constant relative humidity. However data that identify the predicted change in water vapour feedback and a tendency towards a constant relative humidity has recently been published:
A.E. Dessler et al (2008) Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L20704,
(a summary can be found here:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html)
The “paper” by Douglas and Christy is being prepared for a non-science polemical magazine. That’s unlikely to be very helpful!
The Chylek paper seems O.K. I’ll read it when I get a chance…

tty
December 22, 2008 5:20 am

According to Hansen life is just about finished on this planet whatever happens. Ha says on p. 23 that 10-20 Wm-2 is sufficient to cause runaway warming until the oceans boil away. That is about a 1% increase in solar radiation, a figure that will be exceeded in another 100-200 million years.

Mark P
December 22, 2008 5:20 am

Hansen’s Venus comparison is utterly desperate and you’d think somebody working for NASA would actually understand the origins of that planet’s atmosphere. The idea that Venus is an example of ‘runaway greenhouse’ is a common misconception. Venus has always been hot and the reason there is so much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere has nothing to do with volcanic emissions as many people believe.
It all began billions of years ago when Venus and the Earth were much the same; balls of ice and rock. Unfortunately for Venus, its proximity to the Sun meant its ice soon turned to steam and, if there ever were any oceans, they never would have been below boiling point. As the steam reached the upper atmosphere, UV light from the Sun broke the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen floated off into space whilst the oxygen sunk back down to the surface and joined with carbon from the super-heated surface rocks thus creating carbon dioxide.
Rather than getting hotter when the CO2 replaced the water vapour, Venus’ surface cooled quite significantly due to it being a much less effective ‘greenhouse’ gas. Venus has only managed to keep its heat due to its incredibly dense atmosphere and extremely slow rotation creating a pressure cooker effect. The atmospheric composition is largely irrelevant. One thing’s for sure though, Venus did NOT heat up as Hansen implies, it just never had a chance to cool down.

JimB
December 22, 2008 5:24 am

PeteM:
Was the article from New Scientist the only one you looked at?…there seems to be other articles that offer a different point of view.
Perhaps they may be of interest…
or not.
“Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) allows access to coal resources not otherwise recoverable and could be used to double or even triple U.S. coal reserves, Julio Friedmann of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL) energy and environmental security program”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5712/is_200803/ai_n25285308

JimB
December 22, 2008 5:36 am

“foinavon (14:47:48) :
That’s not really true crosspatch. The fact that enhanced CO2 concentrations result in enhanced warming of the earth has got very little to do with models. It’s the result of a whole load of empirical (and theoretical) analyses.”
Foinavon,
What is the difference between modeling and theoretical analysis?
“In fact the role of CO2 in warming the earth has been known since the middle of the 19th century, and already by the end of the 19th century Arrhenius had established that the earth’s temperature rose as the logarithm of the enhanced CO2 concentration. ”
So 1800s…this was “known”. I think there were quite a few things that were “known” then…but now, maybe not so much.
“There is a whole load of data that bears on the quantitative relationship between enhanced CO2 and enhanced temperature.”
And there’s a whole load of data that doesn’t.
“But it’s the empirical analyses, measurements and so on that inform the models and not the orher way round….”
I agree with this one. I think it’s been proven beyond any question that the models don’t inform the measurements, although some seem to be trying very hard to get them to do exactly that.
“it would be extraordinary to propose that raising atmospheric CO2 levels further (rather dramatically according to the “all the coal and tar shale’s burnt” scenario being discussed on this thread) wouldn’t result in a very large temperature rise”
Based on a 5 minute google of “u.s. coal reserves”, it’s pretty clear to me that there is no “consensus” on how much coal is available, so how is it possible to predict the result of buring it “all”. We have no idea what “all” is.
” Stefan (14:55:53) :
How on earth can so many of these eminent scientists be wrong?
Or are they just human like everyone else?”
There is a part of human nature that makes some people seek data that only supports their belief systems. I don’t know anyone who ever got a “bad deal” buying a car…just ask them.
JimB

Editor
December 22, 2008 5:41 am

Graeme Rodaughan (22:20:35) :

Retired Engineer (20:50:19) :

Another problem with ‘doubling’ is saturation. A graph appeared many threads back that showed the diminishing return of absorbtion. (can’t remember the name, couldn’t find it) With CO2 somewhere above 97% of everything it can absorb, a doubling might get to 98.5%.

Is that the reason that the curve is a logarithmic one – i.e as the absorption spectra for CO2 gets saturated – CO2 faces a diminishing returns relationship for forcing warming?

Sort of. The IR absorption window _is_ saturated. Further increases in CO2
can only eat away at the margins of the window, slightly widening it. There are probably some effects due to IR photons having a shorter “mean free path” before getting absorbed, but that may be 10s of meters already. (Don’t quote me, I may be wrong!)
N.B. It’s important to keep in mind that the logarithmic relationship is primarily thanks to curve fitting and not theory. If falls down at low levels where the window isn’t saturated, and at high levels where the margins are virtually saturated too.

December 22, 2008 5:46 am

Cannot help but wonder if some of you folks are related to the creationista/ID folks.
What do ya alls think of comparison of the atmosphere to blood – specifically its function as a buffer? As with blood, it absorbs and absorbs and absorbs until a critical point is reached, whereby it all goes downhill from there.

foinavon
December 22, 2008 5:46 am

kuhncat:
In relation to your comments:
——–
kuhncat (18:33:59)
Would you please post the data and models that differ from the IPCC who presented graphs, argument, data, and models showing the infamous HOT SPOT in conjunction with tropospheric cooling and tropopause heightening as the ID of Anthropogenic Global Warming through Greenhouse Gasses??
AR7 is what you must deal with to DENY the hotspot.
I assume you do not agree with the games with models and wind speed measurements to tell us that we can’t EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF A HOT SPOT??
Personally I am just fine with the IPCC science. They tell us that GG warming will cause the three mentioned data points. We do not have those data points. Therefore we either do not have GG warming (or ANY warming with no hot spot) or they are wrong.

———–
I’m not sure what you mean by “hot spot”. Can you enlighten us? It’s predicted that greenhouse warming will result in particularly strong warming in the high Northern latitudes due to efficient wind and ocean currents that transport excess heat from the equator, coupled with albedo feedbacks. is that what you mean?
As for the other predictions, our understanding of the greenhouse effect and the consequences of its amplification include enhanced tropospheric water vapour, tropospheric warming, stratospheric cooling, an increased height for longwave radiation to space and so on. Each of these has been characterised by real world measurements.
For example one of the many corrections of the early satellite temperature analysis describes the tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling;
Q. Fu et al. (2004) Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends Nature 429, 55-58.
A whole load of analysis has characterised enhanced tropospheric water vapour:
Soden BJ, et al (2005) The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening Science 310, 841-844
Santer BD et al. (2007) Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 15248-15253
A.E. Dessler et al (2008) Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L20704.
There doesn’t seem to be any substantive disagreement between predicted and measured tropospheric temperature trends (‘though accurate tropospheric temperature measurements are still difficult):
B. D. Santer et al. (2008) Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology 28, 1703 – 1722.
and so on…
anyway, please give us some clarification with respect to the “hot spot”

JP
December 22, 2008 5:46 am

“It seems Illis is a garage scientist (Links to prof. qualifications appreciated.), so you are probably right. it is so easy to cook a graph, or just get it wrong, or, in the case of the denier folks, get what you are looking for instead of what is. This is why rigorous science is called for: while not perfect, since people aren’t”
The first thing Alarmists resort to is the credentials of those who critique. If that doesn’t work, personal attacks are in order.
How interesting that one of the world’s preminent statisticians (Wegman) is denergenated, and is reduced to a “garage scientists” becuase he failed to toe the line. CCPO, you seem blissfully unaware that Mann’s MBH9X temp reconstructions were nothing more than a statistical analysis of 1300 temp proxies. Those was no “science: involved in crafting the Hockey Stick, as it was purely an excercise in Principle Component Analysis. McIntyre and McKitrick are professional statisticians, and it didn’t take them and many others to find out what Mann was up to. Yet, not one of Mann’s “peers” discovered Mann’s mistakes. So much for Peer Review. Wegman was correct in affixing the label “Social Network” to Climate Science’s peer review process.
BTW, keep a weathered eye on GISS and NOAA’s treatment of December’s Siberian temp anaomalies next month. Should be interesting as Central Siberia has had high temps ranging from -40 to -80 deg F for this month.

Philip_B
December 22, 2008 5:50 am

Human-made aerosol changes are a forcing, but aerosol changes in response to climate change are a fast feedback.
Oh Boy! A new magic fudge factor.
For those of not inclined to sift through Hansen’s argument. In summary he says,
Aerosols are a cooling forcing roughly half the size of CO2 warming over 20th century (although uncertainty is large and aerosols may be as large as CO2).
Warming causes more water vapour in atmosphere which reduces aerosols and aerosol cooling. Aerosols are therefore a warming (positive) feedback.
Hansen claims aerosol emissions have not reduced. On a global basis he may be right, but aerosols operate locally (mostly) and we know there have been large changes in local aerosol production (Clean Air Acts; Asian industrialization).
The kicker is the overwhelming majority of the sites Hansen uses in his climate network (GISS) are in places where aerosol prodcution has changed substantially (mostly reduced).
Another example of local changes averaged and extrapolated to show a spurious global effect.

foinavon
December 22, 2008 5:59 am

J Peden,
You’re right that the climate sensitivity breaks down at very low [CO2] concnetrations, but these aren’t realistic anyway. Anything below around 100-120 ppm isn’t relevant to CO2 levels during any period in the earth’s history of the last billion years or more (except perhaps during the nasty ice house period(s))!
And of course the climate sensitivity as defined in mine or Bill Illis equations doesn’t give the absolute temperature (mine does since I’ve normalised this to 15 oC at 280 ppm) , but the temperature increase above the blackbody (atmosphere-free) temperature of the earth supplemented with whatever residual warming that would exist in a CO2-free world. So as one continues to halve the CO2 concentration within the climate-sensitivity relationship, the temperature tends towards some horrible cold temperature (around 255K-ish?), rather than continuing to plummet with 3 oC of cooling per halved [CO2]!
The point of my analysis ‘though and the equation that I produced (post at 12:52:53) is to highlight the extremely misleading nature of the Bill Illis curve in the introductory article here.
The Scotese graph with a pseudo-“paleotemperature/paleoCO2 evolution” is also horribly incorrect, but that’s another matter!

foinavon
December 22, 2008 6:01 am

Phil, have you had a bad eperience with “foinavon” in the past? Is that something I might know about? Or did you have an accident on the mountain or something? 😉

Don Keiller
December 22, 2008 6:06 am

Forgive me if this has already been said- I hadn’t time to read Hansen’s opus and all comments.
Am I mistaken in my belief- since Hansen’s ignored it- that ice-age inceptions and terminations have everything to do with solar radiation input at over 65 degrees latitude (Milankovitch cycles) and nothing to do with CO2 (which lags temperature changes by up to 800 years).
So let’s see whether I’ve “nailed it” Looking at slide 8 in Hansen’s lecture (We have good records of the long-lived atmospheric gases from ice cores, covering 400,000 thousand years, even 800,000 years.) there is a temperature change of about 7-8 degrees for roughly a 1.6 increase/decrease in C02, or about 4.5 degrees for a CO2 doubling. Dial in the logarithmic “response” and a few other non-solar “feedbacks” and there you are- about 3.5 degrees/CO2 doubling.
Simple- as long as you ignore the big bright yellow ball in the sky.

Bill Illis
December 22, 2008 6:08 am

Hansen’s presentation (and foinavon) mention Pangini’s high resolution CO2 estimates covering the period from about 16 million years ago to about 45 million years ago.
Hansen used this paper to say CO2 levels should stay below 450 ppm because that is the level Pangini got for the time period when Antarctica glaciated over about 35.5 million years ago.
Except Pangini’s numbers are much higher than this for the time period, as high as 1,500 ppm 34 million years ago.
The CO2 estimates vary greatly over the overall time period including some numbers as low as 181 ppm 16 million years ago (before Greenland glacatiated over.)
Some CO2 enthusiasts might like to look at the actual numbers and see if one can build a CO2-temp correlation from this data.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/trace_gases/pagani2005co2.txt

Bill Illis
December 22, 2008 6:11 am

Sorry, that should say Pagani.

December 22, 2008 6:24 am

re George E. Smith 13:00:45 on the fact that CO2 changes lag behind temperature change in the ice-ages record.
Sorry if I failed to explain this to you–isn’t it obvious? The lag is not good news. Rather, it strongly confirms that the Milankovitch-cycle shifts in sunlight over tens of thousands of years regularly initiated a powerful feedback loop. I think essentially everyone agrees that the close of a glacial era comes when solar insolation in mid northern latitudes results in less snow cover in late spring and perhaps early fall, bringing a slight rise of temperature. The long-standing puzzle as to how this slight change could drive a glacial cycle is answered once we understand that the small temperature rise stimulates a substantial increase in gas levels (not only CO2 but also methane, which follows a similar path); this drives the temperature higher, which drives a further rise in the gas levels, and so forth. The process takes quite a few centuries. Ice ages are thus the reverse of our current situation, where humanity is initiating the change, setting the feedback in motion, by adding greenhouse gases — although far faster, and reaching a far higher level, than anything in the Pleistocene record.

Jack Simmons
December 22, 2008 6:25 am

foinavon (16:11:33) :

Dave Dodd,
I suspect you’ll find with deeper investigation that Beck’s data is not a reliable atmospheric CO2 record, although it is interesting in the historical sense…
These values are woefully inadequate as measures of atmospheric CO2, since cities give very high CO2 levels as they’re close to emission sources.

Aren’t the current measures of CO2 from Hawaii close to emission sources, that is, volcanoes?

anna v
December 22, 2008 6:33 am

TonyB
http://meteo.lcd.lu/papers/co2_patterns/co2_patterns.html
This is the report from whence the wind updraft plot comes. Quite recent data.

Bill Illis
December 22, 2008 6:35 am
foinavon
December 22, 2008 6:41 am

Will (22:38:48)
I don’t think it’s an “ad hoc assertion”! There’s a lot of data on aerosols and their cooling and warming contributions, and even though the errors associated with quantifying their effects are large, they certainly have to be included in consideration of the historical temperature evolution and future effects.
There’s still a very strong aerosol load apparently, and this is protecting us somewhat against the warming effect of enhanced greenhouse gases. I described some of the data summarised by Carmichael and Ramanathan in their recent review in a post above. HereHere’s the source again:
V. Ramanathan & G. Carmichael (2008) Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon; Nature geoscience 1, 221-227.
Essentially the same data can be accessed from Ramanathan’s testimony before the Wegman oversight committee hearing last year:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071018110734.pdf
Attribution of the contributions from aerosols can be found there. Likewise ice core data can be used to for determining black carbon and sulphurous aerosols in great detail, although the levels in ice cores likely give a localized measure:
J. R. McConnell et al (2007) 20th-Century Industrial Black Carbon Emissions Altered Arctic Climate Forcing. Science 317, 1381 – 1384.
more global scale analysis of emissions and their contributions have come from detailed fuel use statistics and suchlike:
e.g. Novakov T (2003) Large historical changes of fossil-fuel black carbon aerosols, Geophys. Res. lett. 30,, art # 1324
but I suspect these aren’t as precise as we would like, and it’s not an easy subject to quantitate. It does seem to be reasonably well established that the aerosol load is actually substantially greater now than through the 50’s-60’s, but then the greenhouse forcing from excess CO2 during this period wasn’t actually than large either (< 0.3 oC at equilibrium).

Wondering Aloud
December 22, 2008 6:51 am

Wow Hansen has “nailed it”! I don’t notice any data though, or even an explanation of a logical line of reasoning that doesn’t assume all the effects he is supposed to be measuring?
Hypothesis is not theory, theory is not fact. The burden of proof is supposed to sit squarely on the theory in question.
Computer model runs are not data, corrections to the temperature record also known as WAGs are also not data. I like foinavon waving away all the paleo data. In the past CO2 has clearly not been a major climate driver, nor is it even evident that it is a positive effect despite a prediction based on incorrect assumptions from Arrhenius.
If you think Hansen has any credibility it isn’t because of science. Until he releases his raw data and his methods for doing his calculations the logical conclusion is fraud.

foinavon
December 22, 2008 7:09 am

Bill (03:55:54)
re:
Question I have is that if the temperature response to CS (Climate Sensitivity) is logarithmic as Dr Hansen and most seem to agree then why:
1) is the temperature increase primarily linear? Only way that happens I think is if CO2 growth is exponential, yes?

Good question. The temperature response in an ideal world with an instantaneous forcing (e.g. add 386 ppm’s worth of CO2 into the atmosphere as now and then stop and wait to see what happens!) would be something like a hyperbolic rise to a new equilibrium:
e.g. T = Tmax*t/(t+k)
where T is the temperature, Tmax is the temperature at equilibrium that will eventually result from the effect of the forcing, t is time and k is some constant that relates to the intertia in the system.
This should give a hyperbolic change in temperature that tends towards Tmax.
Even within this simple model the temperature change might appear linear since the early parts of a hyperbolic are near linear (t <k). Likewise as you say, the forcing is an ever increasing one since we are continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere. This will also tend to make the temperature trend more linear…
2) Given the 2.5 – 3.5C temperature in response to doubling CO2 from 280ppmv and we are currently nearing 400 ppmv (about halfway there) should we not have already seen about 70% of the 2.5-3.5C temp increase?
We can calculate the temperature rise expected within a 3 oc climate sensitivity (CS) (280-400 ppm change) as 1.5 oC, so yes, your value of around 70% is about right. However this is the change expected at equilibrium. It comes back to the inertia in the climate system defined by in the equation just above (in fact there are many different ‘s with different elements of the climate system equilibrating on different timescales). So we don’t expect to get the full “whack” of our current emissions until some decades into the future…
It also seems that the earth’s temperature response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations is somewhat suppressed by our aerosol emissions:
see, for example the testimony from V. Ramanathan before the Wegman oversight committee last year which is very informative on the current aerosol science:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071018110734.pdf

December 22, 2008 7:13 am

foinavon (05:59:16)…
You wrote:
The Scotese graph with a pseudo-”paleotemperature/paleoCO2 evolution” is also horribly incorrect, but that’s another matter!
I’m sorry, but the Scotese graph has been corroborated using other proxies (i.e isotopes and iron stained grains) and it is correct. If you read the references at the bottom of the diagram, you would find other authors who have found the same results.

anna v
December 22, 2008 7:19 am

foinavon (05:59:16) :
The Scotese graph with a pseudo-”paleotemperature/paleoCO2 evolution” is also horribly incorrect, but that’s another matter!
You make sweeping comments like this, without any links.
What is the correct ”paleotemperature/paleoCO2 evolution” according to you? Links please.
And here are my links of why the whole caboodle of GCM as presented in the IPCC reports should be considered bad history.
This is the third time I am putting these up on these boards, and I hope the regulars here will excuse me.
A model/theory falls even if one datum disproves it, and there are at least four failures of the projected fits of the models to the data of the last ten years.
1) Temperatures do not follow IPCC projections. Here is a plot to remind this:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg
2) The fingerprint of CO2 in the tropical troposphere as set out in the AR4 report is absent in the data. Here are the links
for models:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
data:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GHGModsvsReality.jpg
3) The oceans are cooling instead of warming and setting off a feedback loop of greenhouse warming: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
The spin is: global warming missing heat. The truth is, nature does not follow the GCM IPCC models.
4) the specific humidity is not rising as it should in order to create the runaway feedback loop predicated in the models:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/Timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Specific+Humidity+(up+to+300mb+only)&level=300&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=-180&lon2=180&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&iarea=0&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries
Here are plots of relative humidity, which also falls: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg
The basic premise of the models, that the tiny, (anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere:
http://www.co2web.info/Icecap_CarbonDioxide.pdf) anthropogenic CO2 is the straw that breaks the camel’s back and starts runaway greenhouse warming is absolutely not supported by the data
In addition there is no driving correlation between the rise in CO2 and global temperatures in this plot: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_of_Carbon_Dioxide_with_Temperatures_Negative_Again.pdf

Joel Shore
December 22, 2008 7:23 am

Anthony Watts says:

Hansen makes a bold statement that he has empirically derived CO2 sensitivity of our global climate system. I had to chuckle though, about the claim “Paleo yields precise result”. Apparently Jim hasn’t quite got the message yet that Michael Mann’s paleo results are, well, dubious, or that trees are better indicators of precipitation than temperature.

Since his argument isn’t based on Michael Mann’s paleo results, I don’t see that this message (assuming it to be true…another whole can of worms) is particularly relevant.
Bill Illis says:

First, where is the solar reduction part of the equation due to the Milankovitch cycle. This formula says it doesn’t even play a part including kicking off the ice albedo in the first place.

Yes, changes in solar insolation kick off the ice albedo changes. However, these changes are in the distribution of solar insolation. The total amount of solar insolation hitting the earth does not change (or not appreciably).

Second, his math is wrong if the sensitivity is 3.0C per doubling because a reduction to 180 ppm from 280 ppm only results in a decline of 1.9C (picky I know but he is the one who says he has nailed it empirically – the formula doesn’t even work).

Your calculation includes only CO2. His presumably also includes methane(and maybe NO2?).
Noblesse Oblige says:

I have seen at least a half dozen empirical estimations of the climate sensitivity done by a variety of different methods, and their range runs from less than 1 to ~ 1.7 deg C for doubling. They use a variey of correlation techniques (e.g., Douglass and Christy) or estimates of the temperature relaxation time (Schwartz, Scafetta).

Actually, Schwartz has revised his estimate in the reply to the comments on his original paper. His new estimate is something like 1.9 C and has large enough error bars to overlap with a good portion of the IPCC range. (And my guess is some of the commenters on his paper would argue his new estimate is still too low based on the problems they identified in his paper.)

Phil.
December 22, 2008 7:31 am

Phil, have you had a bad eperience with “foinavon” in the past? Is that something I might know about?
Yes, my money was on Red Alligator! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foinavon
My issue with Bill’s data fits is that he treats the baseline [CO2] as one of his parameters, in the latest graph it’s as high as 334ppm

Joel Shore
December 22, 2008 7:36 am

Richard deSousa says:

Hansen also fails to mention Venus’s atmosphere is 97% CO2… how he can jump from Earth’s atmosphere of .03% CO2 to runaway global warming is beyond comprehension… he’s completely an imbecile…

That is it’s composition now but the question would be what its composition was before the runaway greenhouse effect got going. In particular, all the water on Venus boiled into the atmosphere when it got very hot, dissociated and then I think it eventually escaped into space. It is also worth noting that although nitrogen only makes up ~3.5% of the current Venus atmosphere, this is not a small amount of nitrogen considering that the air pressure on Venus is currently 92X that on earth.
Since Hansen is one of those responsible for understanding the greenhouse effect on Venus, I think he might know a little more about it than you do. (That said, I must admit that I am also surprised to hear him argue that a runaway effect could occur here on Earth, since most scientists that I know of, such as those at RealClimate, argue that a true runaway on Earth is not in the cards. I would like to hear the arguments on both sides.)

tty
December 22, 2008 7:39 am

“Philip_B (05:50:54) :
Human-made aerosol changes are a forcing, but aerosol changes in response to climate change are a fast feedback.
Oh Boy! A new magic fudge factor.”
You don’t know how right you are. There is strong evidence that aerosols (dust) is a very important factor in the sharp swings between glacial and interglacial climate. What Hansen is trying to do is to claim that GHG is the one important thing and everything else (including aerosols) is feedback. That bit about “fast” feedback, is because dust levels change very quickly in ice-core records when the climate shifts, much faster than the CO2 levels, so for “fast” read “effect before cause”

tty
December 22, 2008 8:03 am

foinavon, would you perhaps indicate where in your opinion correct paleotemperature/CO2 level curves are to be found?
By the way only the paleotemp curve is due to Scotese, as you would have seen if you had bothered to check. Incidentally the original has rather more detail during the Cenozoic, Anthony selected a simplified version.

JimB
December 22, 2008 8:05 am

OT, but thought it was interesting anyway…
Anyone in New England with access to the cable channel NECN, as part of their 30 minute “news loop”, they are reporting that even though THIS Christmas will be white, Global Warming is threatening to eliminate ALL white Christmases in the future…
They can even tie it into the holidays.
Wonder what Dickens’ Tiny Tim would have thought about that…
JimB

Joel Shore
December 22, 2008 8:05 am

E.M.Smith says:

Do you have a citation?
….
I’d say a more accurate description would be that “a research associate provided the computer programs that lead to the claim of global cooling.”
All is see is Hansen backpedaling from his earlier model to a newer model.

Hansen explains here that what he gave Rasool was a code to do Mie Scattering calculations. Mie Scattering is something that was worked out around 1900, although the formulas are complicated enough that it would have been a non-trivial task to write code to calculate them back in 1971. (Today, with routines to compute Bessel functions and Legendre Polynomials more readily available, it is much easy to calculate Mie scattering and many people, including myself, have written our own codes.)
To say that Hansen or his model predicted cooling because that is the result that Rasool got is not much different than saying that Newton predicted cooling because Rasool used calculus, invented by Newton, to get his result. (In fact, Newton actually invented, or co-invented, calculus whereas Hansen merely codified the theory already worked out by Mie, so Newton’s connection is more direct.)
It is also worth noting that although the initial paper by Rasool and Schneider in 1971 did predict that cooling due to aerosols would win out over warming due to GHGs, the authors themselves admitted it was a first calculation…and, particularly in response to a comment on their paper, were very clear in noting that their calculation had a variety of potential inaccuracies. Within a few years, Schneider had done further calculations that made him realize that warming would likely win out over cooling. (It is also worth noting that in 1971 it was by no means clear that the U.S. and other Western countries would begin to sharply curtail their emissions of aerosols because of the Clean Air Act and other legislation…and thus that these emissions would not continue to grow exponentially.)

Joel Shore
December 22, 2008 8:06 am

Sorry I forgot the link to Hansen’s explanation: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20070924_Grandfather.pdf

J.Peden
December 22, 2008 8:19 am

As for the other predictions, our understanding of the greenhouse effect and the consequences of its amplification include enhanced tropospheric water vapour,…./foinavon
Which is also not happening so far, consistent with the fact that water vapor alone has not produced the maximal theoretical “greenhouse” effect it otherwise should have, according in part to the very same energy wave absorption mechanism alleged to operate in the case of CO2 [coupled with water vapor’s increasing concentration per atmospheric temperature increase] – an effectively real damping regulation probably due to the operation of climatic mechanisms involving heat energy blocking and dissipation by means of cloud formation, release of latent heat during water vapor precipitation, and convection.
And why these same mechanisms for regulating water vapor’s “ghg” effect would not also work in the case of CO2’s so as to further blunt the alleged large temperature effect from doubling [a small] atmospheric CO2 concentration, is certainly a mystery to me, again especially noting that water vapor concentration is not increasing, but even instead decreasing with increased CO2 concentration.
Moreover, regarding any alleged correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature over some range of CO2 concentration, if CO2 concentrations follow/lag temperature increases quickly enough, a relevant correlation between them of some significance could be present but not a CO2–> temperature causation. Apparently, previous concentrations of CO2 much higher than those of today have not abetted warming temperatures nor prevented atmospheric temperature decreases.

Joel Shore
December 22, 2008 8:46 am

Pk att says:

Question. If Venus has run away global warming, why is its temp not continuing to rise over time? Is that not the definition of “run away” temps?

No…Eventually, there are forces that come in that stabilize the temperatures. A definition of “runaway” that required such stabilization to never occur and the temperatures to run off to infinity could certainly be proposed but would not be very interesting since such a scenario would never occur. (In particular, I believe you’d be violating the laws of thermodynamics if the temperature of the atmosphere got larger than that of the surface of the sun.) I am not sure if a precise definition has been settled upon but I doubt that any scientist would argue that temperatures rising to the point where all the water in the oceans boils away should not constitute “run away global warming”!
Bill Marsh says:

1) is the temperature increase primarily linear? Only way that happens I think is if CO2 growth is exponential, yes?

One thing that many people fail to realize is that all functions are locally linear over a small enough range unless you are right at a point of zero slope. So, over a small enough range, it is difficult to distinguish between logarithmic and linear or between linear and exponential. And, that range is not all that small: For example, if we assume a linear relationship for temperature for CO2 concentrations between 280 and 560 ppm, we get that our current concentration of ~385 ppm is 37.5% of the way there whereas if we assume the expected logarithmic relationship, we get that it is 46% of the way there, not that huge a difference.

2) Given the 2.5 – 3.5C temperature in response to doubling CO2 from 280ppmv and we are currently nearing 400 ppmv (about halfway there) should we not have already seen about 70% of the 2.5-3.5C temp increase?

I am not sure how you came up with the 70% number. My number of 46% is more accurate. Furthermore, you have to understand that the estimate you quote for a temp increase is the EQUILIBRIUM climate sensitivity…and we are pretty far outside of equilibrium…i.e., we haven’t yet seen the full response of the climate to the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Best estimates for the transient climate response for a doubling CO2 levels are lower (and depend, of course, on the rate of CO2 increase). Also, without having good estimates for the other contributions to climate forcing during the 20th and early 21st century, such as aerosols, as well as internal climate variability, it is rather difficult to obtain very strong bounds on the estimated climate sensitivity by considering the temperature rise that we have seen over this time. Better estimates are obtained from other events (such as temperatures at the last glacial maximum vs now or response of the atmosphere to the major volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo).

December 22, 2008 8:47 am

Citing Venus as an example is laughable. The Venusian atmosphere is hundreds of times denser than ours. This is like arguing that since the armor on an M1A1 tank can protect one from an RPG, a throw pillow should do the same.
J. Peden,
You are missing the obvious explanation that the CO2 travelled back in time to cause the warming. Surely this makes more sense than doubting global warming orthodoxy.

hunter
December 22, 2008 9:09 am

The dead give away that Hansen is full of it is to try and drag Venus in to his claims.
Venus, besides being composed of chemicals similar to Earth, has nothing to do with Earth’s climate. It is much closer to the sun, its rotation is practically nil, it does not have oceans, tectonics, and its atmophere is radically different and always has been. When AGW promoters use Venus as a bogey man to try and induce fear based belief, they are simply demonstrating the lack of proof behind their fear mongering.

foinavon
December 22, 2008 9:13 am

J. Peden,
I’m surprised that you assert that our understanding of the greenhouse effect and the consequences of its amplification include enhanced tropospheric water vapour,… is not happening. That simply doesn’t seem to accord with the science:
A recent experimental study presents further evidence for the water vapour feedback, and supplements a whole slew of studies identifying warming-induced enhancement of tropospheric water vapour (see following citations):
A.E. Dessler et al (2008) Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L20704,
a summary can be found here:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html)
see also:
Soden BJ, et al (2005) The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening Science 310, 841-844
Santer BD et al. (2007) Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 15248-15253
Buehler SA (2008) An upper tropospheric humidity data set from operational satellite microwave data. J. Geophys. Res. 113, art #D14110
Brogniez H and Pierrehumbert RT (2007) Intercomparison of tropical tropospheric humidity in GCMs with AMSU-B water vapor data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, art #L17912
Gettelman A and Fu, Q. (2008) Observed and simulated upper-tropospheric water vapor feedback . J. Climate 21, 3282-3289
etc. etc….

hunter
December 22, 2008 9:14 am

AGW beleivers, when it is convenient, claim climate reposnes to forcings is swift, but when the evidence that the Earth climate is not radically changing, they make the pitiful dodge that ‘we are not seeing the full effect yet’.
Just like Hansen’s contrivance of climaing that the Antarctic’s continued cooling and ice growth is a proof that it will later warm, this ‘delay’ dodge is just an effort to make the prophecy seem to be reliable.
When Pinatubo or Krakatoa blew, the impact was immediate. If we were seeing someting anywhere close to what Hansen and the IPCC claim, it would alreadybe happening. It is not, so now we get slideshows of grandkids and ohter entertainments as distractions.

Bill Marsh
December 22, 2008 9:26 am

Joel,
“One thing that many people fail to realize is that all functions are locally linear over a small enough range unless you are right at a point of zero slope.”
I don’t consider 118 years (1890 – present) to be a small range? Actually it’s pretty much the entire range so it can’t be ‘small’. Small would be 5-10 years, at least to me.
‘we get that our current concentration of ~385 ppm is 37.5% of the way there whereas if we assume the expected logarithmic relationship, we get that it is 46% of the way there, not that huge a difference.

I’d disagree that it is ‘not that big a difference’, close to a 20% difference is big (46% is ~ 20% larger than 37.5%). Assuming 3C for doubling and accepting the 46% figure, doesn’t that mean that we should have already seen a 1.15 – 1.61C temp increase (and we clearly haven’t seen even the low end of that range). Further if we’ve seen .6C increase (not an accurate figure, it may be lower) over 46% of the range, then doesn’t that mean we might expect to see roughly a 1.3C total increase?

Alan Chappell
December 22, 2008 9:29 am

foinavon
” If ” you are still with us in the New Year, it will be interesting to see what music you are playing.

Phil.
December 22, 2008 10:04 am

paminator (00:17:45) :
correction- That should have been “Venus receives almost 2 times higher solar insolation due to its closer proximity to the sun”.
But it reflects ~75% of that insolation back into space so that its atmosphere actually receives less light from the sun than the Earth’s does.

Frank K.
December 22, 2008 10:07 am

I read through Hansen’s presentation, and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. He clearly has lost it, and crossed the divide from being a credible scientist to a political activist. What I find particularly disturbing is his defense of the vandalism perpetrated by the “Kingsworth 6”. In addition, he has in the recent years said some vile and repulsive statements in defense of his “climate tipping point” hysteria. The most egregious was this:
“In his recent testimony to the Iowa Utilities Board, Rev. James Hansen argued that the construction of a new coal-based power plant is equivalent to the holocaust. The trains that bring coal to the new power plant are nothing else than the death trains that were moving the Jews to extermination camps:
… If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species …”
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/hansen-power-plants-extermination-camps.html

I, for one, can no longer accept anything Jim Hansen says as anything more than political propaganda.

Pamela Gray
December 22, 2008 10:13 am

Maybe it is because people are doing “out the backdoor” assessments of the validity of said global warming and are beginning to smell a contrived panic driven agenda.
In the western part of the US we have this: Record lows at both minimum and maximum combined with record snow falls/liquid precip. The humidity is high yet the air temps are freezing my little behind. Until this month, I always thought colder meant dryer. Nope. I forgot my 5th grade lesson on precipitation circulation. The current weather reminds me much more of that little chapter in 5th grade science books about on-shore flow and mountain precipitation. Simple little model. So simple that it should make the current AGW models, that apparently are too complicated for one chapter in a 5th grade science book, literally short circuit and blow fuses on the computers used for said climate models.
http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=pdt
This site = sanity

DR
December 22, 2008 10:34 am

Joel Shore,
This is just more of the same from Hansen.
He claimed to have had the smoking gun in 2005, but as it turns out it was a blank.

foinavon
December 22, 2008 10:47 am

The Scotese “graph”
Nasif Nahle (07:13:30)
anna v (07:19:27)
tty (08:03:04)
J Peden (08:19:15)
The Scotese graph in the Introductory post should set the alarm bells ringing! Surely a “skeptic” should ask the question “where are the data?”
The main problem can be put in a nutshell:
A true determination of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and earth’s surface temperature can only be obtained from paleodata under those circumstances where contemporaneous paleoCO2 and paleotemp data are available”
What you can’t do is take a scattering of sparse data points (which we can’t see since they’re not represented on the childish sketch) and draw straight lines between these encompassing many 10’s of millions of years in some instances, and pretend that all the vast intervening periods are thus defined.
The other problem is that the CO2 data is from Berners GeoCarb model in which a broad brush representation of the major elements of the earths CO2 history are modeled. It’s not really a proxy CO2 measure..it’s more of a proxy-based broad reconstruction.
I have no idea where the sketched temperature data comes from. Does anybody know? It doesn’t seem to be described on Scotese’s site. In the context of Scotese’s rather nice site describing epochal climate histories, it’s perfectly satisfactory as a broadly educational sketchy indication of how things have changed in the past. But I’d be surprised if Scotese was thrilled at seeing his sketch used as historical temperature evolution to compare with modeled broad-brush CO2 evolution.
There is a whole load of data on contemporaneous proxy CO2 and proxy temperature measures. These have been compiled quite recently in a review by Dana Royer and covers the data up to around 2005:
D.L. Royer (2006) “CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic” Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70, 5665-5675.
since Royer’s review, quite a number of further studies have been done which continue to highlight a general link between atmospheric CO2 levels and earth’s temperature under conditions where contemporaneous proxy CO2 and proxy temp. relationships have been established:
R.E. Carne, J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer et al (2007) “Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era” Nature 449, 198-202
W. M. Kurschner et al (2008) “The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystem” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 499-453.
D. L. Royer (2008) “Linkages between CO2, climate, and evolution in deep time” Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 407-408
Zachos JC (2008) “An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics” Nature 451, 279-283.
Doney SC et al (2007) “Carbon and climate system coupling on timescales from the Precambrian to the Anthropocene” Ann. Rev. Environ. Resources 32, 31-66.
Horton DE et al (2007) “Orbital and CO2 forcing of late Paleozoic continental ice sheets” Geophys. Res. Lett. L19708 (Oct. 11 2007).
B. J. Fletcher et al. (2008) “Atmospheric carbon dioxide linked with Mesozoic and early Cenozoic climate change” Nature Geoscience 1, 43-48.
and modelling studies of glaciation thresholds for CO2:
DeConto RM et al (2008) Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation Nature 455 652-655.
Lunt DJ et al (2008) Late Pliocene Greenland glaciation controlled by a decline in atmospheric CO2 levels. Nature 454, 1102-1104
etc…

Joel Shore
December 22, 2008 10:50 am

hunter says:

AGW beleivers, when it is convenient, claim climate reposnes to forcings is swift, but when the evidence that the Earth climate is not radically changing, they make the pitiful dodge that ‘we are not seeing the full effect yet’.
….
When Pinatubo or Krakatoa blew, the impact was immediate. If we were seeing someting anywhere close to what Hansen and the IPCC claim, it would alreadybe happening.

Since the same models that accurately represent the effect on climate of the Mt Pinatubo eruption are the ones that predict that it will take a fair bit of time to see the full effect of the current forcings, you are not correct. Now, you could try to make the argument that the effective relaxation times in the climate models are not realistic and the actual times are much shorter (as Schwartz did, although he has now had to backpedal quite a bit in the face of evidence that his method of determining the relaxation time systematically underestimates it in model systems where the correct answer is known). However, to claim that one cannot both account for the effect of Mt Pinatubo and have a reasonably long relaxation time for the climate system is demonstrably wrong.

December 22, 2008 11:12 am

EVERYBODY PANIC!!! #1
EVERYBODY PANIC!!! #2
EVERYBODY PANIC!!! #3
EVERYBODY PANIC!!! #4
EVERYBODY PANIC!!! #5
The climate is normal.
Merry Christmas, everyone!

December 22, 2008 11:17 am

Hungry for more charts & graphics? OK:
Pirates cause global cooling
Proof of global warming
Cheers!

Joel Shore
December 22, 2008 11:27 am

Bill Marsh says:

I don’t consider 118 years (1890 – present) to be a small range? Actually it’s pretty much the entire range so it can’t be ’small’. Small would be 5-10 years, at least to me.

For an exponential or logarithmic function, the question of regarding the region of linearity is related to the FRACTIONAL change in the function over the time period in question. I don’t think you can determine anything one way or the other from your intuition on what is a short or long period of time.

I’d disagree that it is ‘not that big a difference’, close to a 20% difference is big (46% is ~ 20% larger than 37.5%).

Well, I won’t quibble with you on what constitutes a large or small difference but considering that you were originally claiming our current CO2 concentrations (being ~37.5% of the way between 280ppm and 560ppm on a linear scale) constituted being >70% the way to a doubling on a log scale, I would say that the fact that it actually is only 46% of the way to a doubling does mean that the linear-to-log conversion doesn’t make nearly the difference that you thought it did.

Assuming 3C for doubling and accepting the 46% figure, doesn’t that mean that we should have already seen a 1.15 – 1.61C temp increase (and we clearly haven’t seen even the low end of that range)…

See the rest of my post there. Given that we are out-of-equilibrium and given the large uncertainty in the value of the negative aerosol forcing, what we have seen is compatible with a very broad range of values for the equilibrium climate sensitivity. The simple fact is that the 20th and early 21st century temperature record just doesn’t provide us with very strong constraints on this value, which is why we have to look at other empirical evidence.

Uncle Larry
December 22, 2008 11:45 am

Considering the “man made” increase in carbon dioxide (from the burning of fossil fuels and tuna casseroles), shouldn’t we be seeing a corresponding 2-to-1 reduction in oxygen levels in respect to current carbon dioxide levels?
I’m at a loss to find any long-term data on the subject. Does anyone have any sources for such data?
Thanks,
-Uncle Larry

Solomon Green
December 22, 2008 11:51 am

I do not think that Ben Kellet needs ice-core evidence that the Northern Hemisphere has warmer than now during the last 1,000 years. Greenland (so called because of its fertility) was actively farmed from about the eighth century until the little ice-age in the fourteenth cetury. This is borne out not only by archeology but also by contemporaneous written documents. It is still not warm enough to support much farming now. So if the ice cores do not show this pattern of warmer climates one must question either the accuracy of the ice-cores samples or the science which translates ice core samples into historical temperatures.

AnonyMoose
December 22, 2008 11:59 am

“Thousands of scientists reviewed the reports and were able to make as many critiques as they wanted.”
Last time I checked, the critiques were locked up in IPCC headquarters and someone was having trouble getting permission to visit and view them. Anyone know of an independent examination of them?

apb
December 22, 2008 12:20 pm

I love the 600-million year graph showing declining CO2 levels vs. temperature – my question would be, why are there apparent flat limits to temperature at 22C and 12C ? Since we’re at the lower limit, isn’t there only 1 direction to go? Temperature changes certainly weren’t caused by humans before.

hernadi-key
December 22, 2008 12:39 pm

BREAKING NEWS..!!!
————————————————————————-
Did Early Global Warming Divert A New Glacial Age?
ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008) — The common wisdom is that the invention of the steam engine and the advent of the coal-fueled industrial age marked the beginning of human influence on global climate.
But gathering physical evidence, backed by powerful simulations on the world’s most advanced computer climate models, is reshaping that view and lending strong support to the radical idea that human-induced climate change began not 200 years ago, but thousands of years ago with the onset of large-scale agriculture in Asia and extensive deforestation in Europe.
What’s more, according to the same computer simulations, the cumulative effect of thousands of years of human influence on climate is preventing the world from entering a new glacial age, altering a clockwork rhythm of periodic cooling of the planet that extends back more than a million years.
“This challenges the paradigm that things began changing with the Industrial Revolution,” says Stephen Vavrus, a climatologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Center for Climatic Research and the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. “If you think about even a small rate of increase over a long period of time, it becomes important.”
Addressing scientists on Dec 17 at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Vavrus and colleagues John Kutzbach and Gwenaëlle Philippon provided detailed evidence in support of a controversial idea first put forward by climatologist William F. Ruddiman of the University of Virginia. That idea, debated for the past several years by climate scientists, holds that the introduction of large-scale rice agriculture in Asia, coupled with extensive deforestation in Europe began to alter world climate by pumping significant amounts of greenhouse gases — methane from terraced rice paddies and carbon dioxide from burning forests — into the atmosphere. In turn, a warmer atmosphere heated the oceans making them much less efficient storehouses of carbon dioxide and reinforcing global warming.
That one-two punch, say Kutzbach and Vavrus, was enough to set human-induced climate change in motion.
“No one disputes the large rate of increase in greenhouse gases with the Industrial Revolution,” Kutzbach notes. “The large-scale burning of coal for industry has swamped everything else” in the record.
But looking farther back in time, using climatic archives such as 850,000-year-old ice core records from Antarctica, scientists are teasing out evidence of past greenhouse gases in the form of fossil air trapped in the ice. That ancient air, say Vavrus and Kutzbach, contains the unmistakable signature of increased levels of atmospheric methane and carbon dioxide beginning thousands of years before the industrial age.
“Between 5,000 and 8,000 years ago, both methane and carbon dioxide started an upward trend, unlike during previous interglacial periods,” explains Kutzbach. Indeed, Ruddiman has shown that during the latter stages of six previous interglacials, greenhouse gases trended downward, not upward. Thus, the accumulation of greenhouse gases over the past few thousands of years, the Wisconsin-Virginia team argue, is very likely forestalling the onset of a new glacial cycle, such as have occurred at regular 100,000-year intervals during the last million years. Each glacial period has been paced by regular and predictable changes in the orbit of the Earth known as Milankovitch cycles, a mechanism thought to kick start glacial cycles.
“We’re at a very favorable state right now for increased glaciation,” says Kutzbach. “Nature is favoring it at this time in orbital cycles, and if humans weren’t in the picture it would probably be happening today.”
Importantly, the new research underscores the key role of greenhouse gases in influencing Earth’s climate. Whereas decreasing greenhouse gases in the past helped initiate glaciations, the early agricultural and recent industrial increases in greenhouse gases may be forestalling them, say Kutzbach and Vavrus.
Using three different climate models and removing the amount of greenhouse gases humans have injected into the atmosphere during the past 5,000 to 8,000 years, Vavrus and Kutzbach observed more permanent snow and ice cover in regions of Canada, Siberia, Greenland and the Rocky Mountains, all known to be seed regions for glaciers from previous ice ages. Vavrus notes: “With every feedback we’ve included, it seems to support the hypothesis (of a forestalled ice age) even more. We keep getting the same answer.”

December 22, 2008 12:39 pm

Uncle Larry “shouldn’t we be seeing a corresponding 2-to-1 reduction in oxygen levels ”
It really would be 8 to 3, as the real ratio is O2=32 and C=12

John S.
December 22, 2008 12:40 pm

The absence of any scientific rigor in Hansen’s immodest claims is patently evident from his miscasting of CO2 as a “forcing” and from his reliance upon an entirely novel notion of “positive feedback” by water vapor leading to a “runaway greehouse.”
CO2 produces not one calorie of energy; it merely absorbs and reradiates energy in a few narrow bands from a planetary surface thermalized entirely by insolation. It is thus a capacitance effect–a minor one, at that, compared to water vapor–and not any proper (i.e., energetic) forcing of the climate system.
Evaporation and moist convection combined rival radiation as a surface cooling mechanism, redistributing surface heat into the atmosphere. That heat is subsequently partially exchanged back and forth with the surface through radiative transfer. There can be no magic multiplication of total thermal energy through any proper feedback, however, in violation of conservation laws. The salutary effect of this so-called “greenhouse” is an elevated surface average along with a low-pass filtering of variations, which results in far smaller diurnal range than is oberved at the Moon. The harsh extermes found there are avoided.
At climatic time scales, the premise that increased CO2 concentrations lead to higher surface temperatures runs into a two-fold problem: temperature leads CO2 on millenial scales and the variables are virtually incoherent on multi-decadal basis. The weak millennial correlations are best expalined by outgassing from the oceans.
The basic physical fact seemingly ignored by Hansen is that one cannot obtain higher humidities aloft without an attendant increase in evaporative cooling at the surface and in cloudiness. The usual GCM model assumption of constant relative humidities is simply unrealistic, as is their parameterized treatment of “average” cloudiness. The danger we’re plainly witnessing is a runaway deification of results from unproven models.

anna v
December 22, 2008 12:45 pm

foinavon ,
from the link you provided about aerosols: Role of Black Carbon on Global and Regional Climate Change
V. Ramanathan
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071018110734.pdf
VI.Major Source of Uncertainty: Emission Sources for BC
Our ability to model the effects of BCs in climate models is severely limited. One of the
main reason is the large uncertainty (factor of 2 or more) in the current estimates of the
emission of the organic (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) (See Bond et al. 2004 and
2007).. Furthermore, biomass burning contribute significantly to the emissions of OC
and EC and the historical trends (during the last 100 years) in these emissions are
unknown and models currently resort to ad-hoc methods such as scaling the current day emissions with past trends in population.

So we are talking factors of two, now.
I suspect all the references you give ( which unfortunately we cannot read since we do not subscribe to the publications) buried somewhere will be similar hedgings.
Do not get me wrong. It is fine that people explore all possible avenues, publish and defend them. That is normal in a scientific environment.
What is wrong is saying the science is settled, which you have adopted and shout loudly. The science is NOT settled. And trying to stampede the world politicians into disastrous energy policies on such flimsy and precarious arguments is unethical and immoral and downright dangerous.
Maybe the gods will take pity on us an bring on a few more winters like this so that AGW hotheads cool off.

Steve
December 22, 2008 12:46 pm

Hey Foinavon,
Yeah, sorry, I did change the title accidentally (I had no ulterior motive other than being lazy 😉 ). I got it from this site without double checking properly and was in a rush.
It is:
Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9.
I’m pretty sure in that paper they don’t claim what the main cause of the oceans warming was (and that’s what I’m interested in) . They say it could be GHG but that it could also be due to natural causes and is a matter of active investigation. Sure GHG may have warmed the oceans but to what degree and were they the main driver of that warming. If so what evidence do we have to show that. Also, do we know what the thermal equilibrium time between atmosphere and ocean? Obviously that is vitally important in our understanding of climate sensitivity to CO2.
There was warming of the planet between say 1860 and 1940 and I find it hard to believe that that was due to CO2. If you look at the global mean surface temperature records, from 1860 to around 1915 the temperature goes up and then back down again even though there is very little change in CO2 (I think there might be a slight upwards trend in CO2). From 1860 to 1940 there is roughly a 0.5 degree change in temperature.
From the SIple Ice core I get the CO2 concentration in 1860 at around 289 ppm and in 1943 around 307 ppm. The global mean temperatures show a rise of around 0.5 degrees but by my calculations and your formula I get CO2 only being able to account for 0.26 of that or roughly half even assuming the oceans have come to thermal equilibrium and CO2 has done all its warming. If it hasn’t then the warming due to CO2 is less than 0.26.
Therefore, to me, there had to have been some natural (or other non CO2 forced) process at work and I’m still not convinced the IPCC (a Polemic of it’s own you’d have to admin) has enough evidence to claim that natural variation can’t have caused the warming of the latter 20th century. Claiming that increases in atmospheric CO2 was the main driver of temperature because you can’t think of any NV that could be responsible seems highly suspect to me because there have been these processes in the past, we may not know what they are and have fancy formulas for them but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Using aerosols for canceling the warming reminds me of Ptolemy’s earth centric model of the solar system and the mini cycles mars and other planets took, they’re necessary to uphold ones view. Surely there is also another plausible explanation, that climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as assumed (2C02 = 3C). Is that not possible?
Chylek [2007] certainly seem to think it is. I think it would make more sense to me to assume that climate sensitivity is small until we are more sure of the effects of aerosols (i.e. uncertainties are reduced) and hence more certain of the climate sensitivity.
Surely you must agree statements like “the debate is over” and “science is settled” don’t help in these situations and seems to imply more certainty to Joe public like me than there really is. Then again I guess no one has actually defined what the “debate” was and which “science” has been settled.

Roy Sites
December 22, 2008 12:50 pm

If you assume that the temperature change is the result of CO2 and then compute the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 and then using that result to prove the temperature change is the result of doubling the CO2 then this is circular reasoniong. I do not see how Mr. Hansen’s calculations are any more than circular reasoning. Please indicate where I am wrong.

Mark
December 22, 2008 12:52 pm

Speaking of Hansen, when I look at his graph (C) on the second page of the following link, I see a regularly occurring temperature cycle.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/arctic2007/pdf/aws_hansen.pdf
And when I look at where we are right now on the graph (time wise), the slope of those two (red and blue) curves preceding the temperature increases are very similar to the other 3 that happened in the past.
Unless I’m missing something, I see nothing abnormal in that graph for today’s time frame that hasn’t already occurred in the past 3 cycles.

Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 12:56 pm

sauerkraut (05:46:13) :
Cannot help but wonder if some of you folks are related to the creationista/ID folks.
What do ya alls think of comparison of the atmosphere to blood – specifically its function as a buffer? As with blood, it absorbs and absorbs and absorbs until a critical point is reached, whereby it all goes downhill from there.

And your bland generalisation adds “what value” to the conversation?
Comparing the buffering properties of blood with the Atmosphere – have you heard the term “Drawing a long bow”.
My commiserations for your recent loss.

Phil.
December 22, 2008 1:14 pm

Mark (12:52:08) :
Speaking of Hansen, when I look at his graph (C) on the second page of the following link, I see a regularly occurring temperature cycle.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/arctic2007/pdf/aws_hansen.pdf
And when I look at where we are right now on the graph (time wise), the slope of those two (red and blue) curves preceding the temperature increases are very similar to the other 3 that happened in the past.

What you’re missing is the last 58 years of growth in CO2 (+~70ppm) and warming (~0.5ºC)!

foinavon
December 22, 2008 1:15 pm

anna v,
Yes there’s considerable uncertainty in the extent of the aerosol forcing. However the evidence indicates that it’s protecting us somewhat from the warming effects of hugely enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. The nett aerosol contribution is a cooling one. As you have read in the paper that you’ve quoted from, Ramanathan is concerned about the possibility of removing the aerosol load since this will cause a significant enhancement of greenhouse warming (Ramanathan would like to find a means of selectively removing the warming contribution from black carbon).
I’m not shouting. I may have used the odd exclamation mark (!) but you’re the one using cpitalised bold text! As for “the science being settled”, one needs to be specific. Some science is essentially settled, some less so, and some is still controversial……that’s science for you!
It’s unfortunate that you don’t feel able to access the scientific literature (don’t you have a local University library?). It’s very easy to become mired in disinformation by resorting to blogs and other dodgy websites. If you use Google Scholar, you might be able to obtain downloadable versions of the papers. Or email the authors (email addresses obtainable with the free abstracts on journal websites. Some of the articles might be “Open Access”, and anything published by the major publicly funded research organisations (NASA Giss etc.) should be publically available free of charge.
I wouldn’t say that the papers I cited are “hedgings” at all. That’s rather presumptious! They present evidence that informs our understanding…
Just because the world is warming doesn’t mean that we don’t have winters. It’s quite a mild one over here in Blighty!

December 22, 2008 1:17 pm

To: foinavon
“I’m not sure what you mean by “hot spot”. Can you enlighten us? It’s predicted that greenhouse warming will result in particularly strong warming in the high Northern latitudes due to efficient wind and ocean currents that transport excess heat from the equator, coupled with albedo feedbacks. is that what you mean?”
“anyway, please give us some clarification with respect to the “hot spot”
Let me try to fill the gap in your inconvenient memory loss. 😉
“Twelve IPCC climate model forecasts for the Fourth Assessment Report are shown at: http://ipccwg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/suppl/Ch10/Ch10_indiv-maps.html: see the column for Figure 10.7.
These model experiments follows the ‘A1B’ emissions scenario, a medium-range emissions trajectory out to 2100. The global average surface warming as of the end of the century for the GISS model is about 2.3 C.29. The tropospheric average is twice that, reaching 5 C, and the focal pattern emerges at the beginning of the forecast period. The visual pattern shown in Figure 5 is found in all 12 climate model simulations done for the recent IPCC report.  In the Fourth Assessment Report Figure 9.1 (see http://ipccwg1.
ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch09.pdf, page 675) a ‘hindcast’ is presented examining model-generated climate patterns for the interval 1890 to 1999. The Figure 5 pattern shows up in the greenhouse-only run (panel c) and, because the greenhouse forcing dominates the experiment,
in the summed changes (panel f). The clear implication of this graph is that a strong warming trend in the tropical troposphere ought to be underway already and should be the dominant pattern of change in comparison with all other forcings. The Figure 5 pattern is also shown in a model-generated ‘hindcast’ that simulates climatic changes from 1958 to 1999 under the assumption of strong GHG-warming, which was done for the US
Climate Change Science Program Report, Figure 1.3 Panels A and F, page 25, available at http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm. Again, the bright disc in the tropical troposphere is the dominant feature of the diagram.”
Now that you know what we are talking about, would you care to explain your view of the discrepancy?
More complete information here:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/T3tax.VVedition.pdf

paminator
December 22, 2008 1:18 pm

Phil- you say “But it reflects ~75% of that insolation back into space so that its atmosphere actually receives less light from the sun than the Earth’s does.”
Indeed I did mention the difference in Albedo between Earth and Venus in my previous post-
“…but its Albedo is also higher than Earth (0.65 versus 0.3 for Earth).”
More accurate numbers-
Earth Albedo = 0.36, Venus = 0.65, Ratio V/E = 1.77
Top of atmosphere insolation Earth = 1367 W/m^2, Venus = 2600 W/m^2, Ratio = 1.9
Estimated surface insolation Earth = 1367*(1-0.36) = 875/m^2 at equator, noon sunward side
Venus = 2600*(1-0.65) = 910 W/m^2 at equator, noon on sunward side.
Pretty close to even by my estimates.
Surface temperature average Earth = 288 K, Venus = 737 K.
Biggest single difference between Venus and Earth- 92 times more total atmosphere on Venus (both atmospheres are good absorbers of infrared emission from the surface).
No runaway greenhouse needed.
Hansen is well aware of all of this, since I believe his PhD work involved modeling the atmosphere of Venus!
*sigh*

mugwump
December 22, 2008 1:19 pm

Hansen’s footnote (3):

Although, in general, climate sensitivity is a function of the climate state,

I made that point a while back on realclimate, here, here, here and here.
.
In fact, I used almost identical language:

However, the feedbacks are a function of the climate state, which is a highly nonlinear function of T (only a few degrees separates us from the last ice age – a very different climate), hence the contribution to climate sensitivity from the feedback processes may be very different today than it was in the LGM.

Of course I was roundly ridiculed for my heresy, but maybe Hansen gets his ideas from realclimate comments?

foinavon
December 22, 2008 1:24 pm

apb, re your question:
I love the 600-million year graph showing declining CO2 levels vs. temperature – my question would be, why are there apparent flat limits to temperature at 22C and 12C ?
The answer is that there aren’t flat limits to temperature at 22C and 12C. It’s just some blokes sketch. No one seems to know where the “data” come from…it’s quite clearly incorrect….and yet it’s used as if it’s the last word on paleotemperature…..go figure!
I love it too btw!

Stan Jones
December 22, 2008 1:32 pm

Just because the world is warming doesn’t mean that we don’t have winters. It’s quite a mild one over here in Blighty!
The BBC announced last week that the UK has had its coldest start to winter for 30 years. The government has already paid out £25m in cold weather payments. And another cold snap is on its way Boxing Day.

mugwump
December 22, 2008 1:36 pm

Although, in general, climate sensitivity is a function of the climate state, the fast feedback sensitivity is just as great going toward warmer climate as it is going toward colder climate.

Anyone understand what Hansen means by this? If it is meant to be an argument that climate sensitivity today is the same as in the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum), it makes no sense. If he is arguing that climate sensitivity is the same for doubling CO2 as it is for halving (except for the sign), then it is irrelevant in that it doesn’t tell us whether increased forcing today will have the same impact as increased forcing at the last LGM.
If we don’t know the dependency of climate sensitivity on climate state, we can’t use glacial-interglacial temperature/CO2 changes to estimate today’s climate sensitivity, In other words, Hansen’s arguments are bunk.

J Black
December 22, 2008 1:37 pm

AnonyMoose asked about IPCC reviewers.
300 reviewers posted comments. Only 30 posted comments on more than 3 chapters and only 5 on all 11 chapters.
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
Many of the comments came from authors. Oddly enough, they tended to comment heavily in the chapters that they were authors of. This one was from chapter 9.
“Reviewer – David Sexton
Status – an author of this chapter
section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand.”
http://mclean.ch/climate/Review_Update_summary.pdf
It’s important to remember in all of this too that should not be lost in the conversation that the IPCC is the mechanism that provides a need for Carbon Credits. The worlds largest Carbon Offset Market (CDM) is run by the UN and like most things the UN touches is corrupt and inept.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/21/environment.carbontrading

Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 1:37 pm

@Spencer Weart (06:24:32) :
Hi Spencer, I have had a look at your website and there is no doubt that you have made some serious achievements in your field.
Could you please try an answer the following questions.
1. Would you hold that a well formed scientific theory would have clearly defined falsification criteria?
2. If you hold that the theory that “Man made emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Global Warming”, is a well formed scientific theory – what are the falsification criteria for the above theory.
It is my understanding that what the IPCC are saying is the following.
1. That Climate Change is happening. (no suprises there).
2. That it is in the direction of Warming (Well supported until recently – now currently contentious)
3. That Man Made emissions of CO2 are the primary cause of the Warming.
4. That the warming will be catastrophic.
Also – there is something that has deeply troubled me about the basis of the “evidence” for “Man made emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Global Warming” which is encapsulated in the following posts on Climate Audit.
Well, well. Look what the cat dragged in.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3393
Bishop Hill: Caspar and the Jesus Paper
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427
These two posts and the attendent comments outline a set of practices by the purveyors of the “Hockey Stick” that could well be argued to be fraud.
Spencer – could you please outline what your POV is with regards to the content of the above posts.
Spencer – if the content of the above linked posts is valid – what do you have to say with regards to such practices occuring in science?
In my own profession (Software Engineering), Bad Practices lead to Bad Results – why should I expect Bad Practices to lead to Good Climate science?
Thanks. G

December 22, 2008 1:39 pm

Just imagine an actual greenhouse built with a thousand spaces to put glasses on them but just put the actual percentage of “CO2 glasses”, it would have only 3.8 glasses (a little less than four). Would that “greenhouse” , with 996 empty spaces, increase the temperature inside?

foinavon
December 22, 2008 1:40 pm

John S:
Without going through your entire post it’s worth pointing out that:
CO2 is a forcing. It can also be a feedback (as in Milankovitch-induced recruitment of CO2 from terrestrial and ocean sinks during warming phases of insolation cycles). Whatever you call it, and however it gets into the atmosphere, it still results in a warming (equivalent to something of the order of 3 oC of warming per doubling).
There’s nothing novel about the water vapor feedback to CO2-induced atmospheric warming, since this has been predicted for decades, and we can measure it in the real world.
A blanket likewise produces not one calorie of energy. However that doesn’t mean that putting a blanket over your tootsies on a cold winter night doesn’t tend to warm them…(it traps thermal energy that would else radiate from your toes away into your chilly room).
In spite of your arm chair argumentation, one can obtain higher humidities aloft without significant evaporative cooling at the surface. And despite your assertion of the unrealistic nature of roughly constant relative humidity, that’s actually what the measurements support:
A.E. Dessler et al (2008) Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L20704,
a summary can be found here:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
etc. etc.

foinavon
December 22, 2008 1:42 pm

Yes it was chilly for a while Stan. But now it’s pretty dismally grey and mild (last week or so) and we’re predicted the same through to XMas.

Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 1:44 pm

Over on Climate Audit,
From
Bishop Hill: Caspar and the Jesus Paper
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427
To quote a post from Pat Keating:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Stolen from Harmless Sky (Robin Guiniere), with some additions:
It seems that the climate alarmists’ views are increasingly complying with Nobel-prize-winning Irving Langmuir’s (1881 – 1957) “Laws of Bad Science” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science).
These ‘laws’ are:
• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and
the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
• The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
• There are claims of great accuracy.
• Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
• Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.

About here right now

• The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

Man Made Emissions of CO2 Cause Catastrophic Global Warming – Is A Dead Meme Walking…
Ref: Zombie (Ctrl-f) above.

Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 1:48 pm

Adolfo Giurfa (13:39:42) :
Just imagine an actual greenhouse built with a thousand spaces to put glasses on them but just put the actual percentage of “CO2 glasses”, it would have only 3.8 glasses (a little less than four). Would that “greenhouse” , with 996 empty spaces, increase the temperature inside?
Off by a factor of 10 mate :-)… – it’s 385 Parts Per Million. That would be 3.8 glasses in 10,000 Glasses.
Another visual analogy is 9996 White Ping Pong Balls in a Pool, throw in 4 Red ones and stir… – then spot the Red balls…

Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 1:53 pm

Graeme Rodaughan (13:37:50) :
@Spencer Weart (06:24:32) :
Sorry to hit you once again – What’s your take on the following with regard to science.
That Scientists should make their data, and methods freely available in formats that facillitate the analysis, test, reproduction and verification of results.
What do you think the issue is, if scientists withhold their data and methods preventing independent scrutiny of results?
With the caveat that the science is publically funded and conducted in the public interest – i.e where Climate Science would expect to fit.

Phil.
December 22, 2008 1:54 pm

paminator (13:18:49) :
Phil- you say “But it reflects ~75% of that insolation back into space so that its atmosphere actually receives less light from the sun than the Earth’s does.”
Indeed I did mention the difference in Albedo between Earth and Venus in my previous post-
“…but its Albedo is also higher than Earth (0.65 versus 0.3 for Earth).”
More accurate numbers-
Earth Albedo = 0.36, Venus = 0.65, Ratio V/E = 1.77
You should use Bond Albedo, 0.75, 0.31
Top of atmosphere insolation Earth = 1367 W/m^2, Venus = 2600 W/m^2, Ratio = 1.9
Estimated surface insolation Earth = 1367*(1-0.36) = 875/m^2 at equator, noon sunward side
Venus = 2600*(1-0.65) = 910 W/m^2 at equator, noon on sunward side.
Pretty close to even by my estimates.
Surface temperature average Earth = 288 K, Venus = 737 K.
Biggest single difference between Venus and Earth- 92 times more total atmosphere on Venus (both atmospheres are good absorbers of infrared emission from the surface).
No runaway greenhouse needed.

That is the Greenhouse effect!
Hansen is well aware of all of this, since I believe his PhD work involved modeling the atmosphere of Venus!
Exactly!

anna v
December 22, 2008 1:57 pm

foinavon (13:15:28) :
I am sure that if there is a real refutation of the paleoclimate shown in this thread, it will have appeared somewhere on the net. Since you are the one that does not accept and rather ridicules the links provided on this thread, and there was another link provided a few posts ago, you are the one that has to give a link that shows your position. After all this is the net age. If it is not on some web page somewhere it is probably marginal and iffy or theoretical handwaving.
Sorry for all that bold, I only wanted to bold the “the science is NOT settled” but the notation ran away from me and there is no editing,

John W.
December 22, 2008 1:57 pm

sauerkraut (05:46:13) :
Cannot help but wonder if some of you folks are related to the creationista/ID folks.
Interesting you should raise the point. Bad science is bad science, regardless of political agenda. Personally, I tend to think of the AGW advocates sharing office space with Creationist/ID, anti-vaccination, anti-GM agriculture, flat Earth, “9/11 Truther,” etc. crowds. The common element is their consistent response with ad hominem arguments to simple requests for basic elements of science, such as a falsifiable hypothesis (for AGW, as an example).
Here’s some suggestions. If you, and other AGW advocates, really are that confident that AGW is a real, current problem requiring an immediate solution:
1. Include a detailed model of the Sun in your simulations. Share the details of the models. Reveal algorithms and data bases. Subject them to Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V). If we don’t see the impact of Solar activity (including X-ray, UV, IR, wind/particles and magnetic), good for you. Your case that the Sun isn’t affecting climate is bolstered by model generated information from a proved code.
2. Share the raw data and most especially the algorithms used to process it. I have an open mind with regard to whether the global climate is warming, cooling or holding steady. I have an extremely suspicious mind when it comes to “hidden” data or “secret” equations to “adjust” it. There isn’t any good justification for it. And I think I can speak for all of us when I assert that repeatability, one of the touch stones of the scientific method, demands it. Besides, based on experiences I’ve had in previous jobs, that’s always been a key indicator of fraud.
3. Engage in serious discussion. “Denier,” “denialist,” “skeptic,” threats, etc. don’t represent any mathematical, analytical or experimental technique I’m aware of. They do, however, lead a large majority of people to draw the inference that AGW advocates are hiding something, that they are being less than honest.
4. Acknowledge that there are a great many people with excellent credentials on the other side of this issue. When the AGW advocates deny or downplay this simple fact, see point 3.
So, up for the challenge?

Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 2:00 pm

@Spencer – again (It’s just because your a historian of Science… Therefore you should know…)
To Quote above: Will Nitschke (13:17:04) :

“I’m not sure what you mean by “hot spot”. Can you enlighten us? It’s predicted that greenhouse warming will result in particularly strong warming in the high Northern latitudes due to efficient wind and ocean currents that transport excess heat from the equator, coupled with albedo feedbacks. is that what you mean?”

The clear implication of this graph is that a strong warming trend in the tropical troposphere ought to be underway already and should be the dominant pattern of change in comparison with all other forcings. The Figure 5 pattern is also shown in a model-generated ‘hindcast’ that simulates climatic changes from 1958 to 1999 under the assumption of strong GHG-warming, which was done for the US
Climate Change Science Program Report, Figure 1.3 Panels A and F, page 25, available at http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm. Again, the bright disc in the tropical troposphere is the dominant feature of the diagram.”

Is the above a falsification criterion?
Is it indeed falsified?
What should be done with falsified theories?
Thanks G

Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 2:01 pm

(Whoops left the italics on)
@Spencer
Is the above a falsification criterion?
Is it indeed falsified?
What should be done with falsified theories?
Thanks G

Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 2:03 pm

John W. (13:57:47) :
Well said.

Graeme Rodaughan