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:
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:
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.
In fact in the later slide text he claims he’s “nailed” it:
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 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.
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:
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 ).
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.
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. 😉
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.
Hansen might a creationist, but he doesn’t post here.
Atmospheric chemistry doesn’t include a pH buffer or any analog. The ocean does do buffering, but since blood plasma started out as sea water, that’s no surprise.
Dave Dodd
December 22, 2008 2:47 pm
foinavon,
Your initial response to my post popped my BS filters into place! I’m an old data acquistion guy (not a scientist, but supported many of them!) I’ve built much electronic/computer hardware and a fair amount of software attempting to record data someone requested for their studies. That, without introducing undue instrumentation biases; a non-trivial endeavor. I agree that SOME urban sites dating from the 1800s might have produced anomalous levels of CO2, however the sheer number of sites Beck describes as producing similar results, introduce enough randomness that a fair profile of actual CO2 levels should emerge. I acknowledge “should” is not scientific, simply horse sense!
As Beck further points out, Callendar and Keeling examined ~10% of available literature and considered <1% as accurate. IMHO their pompous attitudes are exceeded only by Al Gore himself!!!!! If a “denier” mentions that the earth has cooled for the past decade, they are accused of cherry picking data??? Give me a break!!
My DA experience instilled not only sampling theory in me, but the necessity of achieving as high a signal to noise ratio as possible under given conditions. The Internet, unfortunately, suffers from a very low S/N ratio, requiring much sampling to eliminate as much random noise as possible. Beck is only one of many signal sources competing with noisy AGW hypothesis proponents! A clear signal begins to emerge simply by averaging out the random AGW noise from those clear signals. When Mann, et al become as accessible and open as Beck they will acheive more credence in the signal department!
Many reagrds!
foinavon (05:13:46) :
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.
Great! So we can put the sulphur back into jet fuel used at high altitudes, and cure this puppy right now!
Since large jets have multiple fuel tanks, we can have one with low sulphur for use in takeoff and landing, don’t want smog. And since the sulphate we add to the upper atmosphere is less than a decent volcano can produce, we even have a solution inside natural bounds. Dare I say it, since we’re mimicking a natural mechanism, we could even say it was a green solution!
Uncle Larry
December 22, 2008 3:14 pm
Uncle Larry “shouldn’t we be seeing a corresponding 2-to-1 reduction in oxygen levels ”
Adolfo Giurfa “It really would be 8 to 3, as the real ratio is O2=32 and C=12”
Good point… I was fudging the numbers to make it seem like a more urgent political problem, sorry.
Actually, the real-world conversion ratio would be more on the order of 1.43 to 1 due to incomplete combustion (i.e. the mercury content of the tuna in the casserole, etc.) and other gases involved/released in the process.
Nevertheless, even if biologic forces were to be 100% efficient in the conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen, records should still indicate a oxygen deficit (since emmisions are all man made).
And quite frankly, I’ve converted a great deal of carbon to keep from freezing due to this latest wave of global warming sweeping the country. It should be readily apparent in the graphs…
-Uncle Larry
** Disclaimer ** Cold temperatures or the lack of hurricanes do not indicate a trend.
foinavon:
Firstly, let me say I appreciate your input. You have great patience and are generally polite which is appreciated. There is a tough crowd to please on this forum. 😉
But two issues I have with your reply:
1. The general tendency to rubbish the data if it doesn’t support your argument. “Satellite data has too many uncorrected errors, is unreliable, etc.” Come on, let’s be grown-ups here. You can throw out ANY empirical data that doesn’t suite your argument by pointing to “measurement errors”. This is exactly what “deniers” do all the time, and it’s the fall back position of “alarmists” when they hit problems fitting their theories to the data. This is a touchy issue for the sceptical community and generally this argument will convince the ‘Realclimate crowd’ so to speak, but not the more jaded audience here. If you want to make the argument that “the empirical data is bad but my theory is good” (which may well be true,) you still need to argue this in some depth. You won’t get a free ride here on that issue.
2. Quoting D. Santer et al. (2008), which is not accepted as a good study in the sceptical community. Santer doesn’t seem prepared to share his data and methods at this point in time, and is therefore not open to sceptical scrutiny. See the links posted above for more information on this. That sets off alarm bell one. Sceptics have seen this all before…
Secondly, Santer ends his study in 1998 at the height of the super el nino. A little convenient perhaps? The cherry picking being done here is breathtaking. Alarm bell two.
And finally it appears if you extend his analysis to include recent data, he falsifies himself. Again I refer you back to the links already posted.
So your response remains unsatisfactory and evasive on the question of the “hot spot”, unfortunately.
hunter
December 22, 2008 3:25 pm
Joel Shore,
What I think this means is that Hansen and pals simply developed an algorithm that shows what they want it to show.
Hansen was here in Houston a few months ago promoting his apocalypse, and part of his presentation was to lie about the state of the sun spot cycle.
He is just making this stuff up.
JimB (05:36:20) :
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 burning it “all”. We have no idea what “all” is.
This is exactly correct. In fact, ‘reserves’ is itself a flexible word. Which reserves? Ultimate Reserves? Economically Recoverable? (there are about a half dozen terms of art in use for different quality of ‘reserves’. “Proven Reserves” is yet another one.)
If the speaker does not say “Ultimately Recoverable Reserves” you have no idea what quantity they are talking about. Even “Ultimately Recoverable” can change over time as new technology is invented to turn “unrecoverable” into “recoverable” reserves.
The basic problem, though, is that in typical usage ‘reserves’ often means economical to produce reserves. The quantity of ‘economically recoverable reserves’ increases as the price rises. Gold miners do this all the time. At $400/oz for gold, I shut my $500/oz mine, but work my $200/oz mine and reserves go down. When gold hits $800/oz, I raise my reserves and open my $500/oz mine (and my stock price goes up…)
This is the same reason why we have had roughly 30 years worth of oil ‘reserves’ since about 1919 (I have an old book on oil in a box somewhere from 1919…) and will for the next decades too. Pump a bunch of oil and due to depletion, price rises, and then oil companies all look at the same dirt with newly economical to pump oil on it and ‘suddenly discover new reserves’. APC and APA are great at doing this. (Anadarko Petroleum and Apache Oil)
This is also the fundamental flaw in all the gloom and doom “We’re running out of {foo}!!!” panics. We don’t run out because we keep finding ‘new’ ‘reserves’ that were there all the time… Like extracting a near infinite quantity of U from sea water. It is a few dollars a pound more expensive than the stuff on land (and far cheaper than it needs to be to make profitable electricity) but because yellowcake is cheaper, that ocean of U simply does not exist in ‘reserves’.
Either Hansen does not know this and is speaking from ignorance, or he does know it and is choosing to obfuscate… “All Coal” is deliberately vague.
sauerkraut (05:46:13) :
Cannot help but wonder if some of you folks are related to the creationista/ID folks.
Yes, as are you. All humans are related to each other since we all evolved from the same amoeba billions of years ago…
apb
December 22, 2008 3:36 pm
foinavon –
Here’s info on the bloke’s who sketched the temp graph – site has his methodology, no pure columnar content; but I wonder if his compilations are available – he’s authored quite a bit. http://www.scotese.com/
Based on his analysis of the geographic record, can you insist this is just a sketch?
Thanks for your 2 cents.
Leon Brozyna
December 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Flaunting his awesome predictive powers before his humbled AGU listeners, Hansen says that “there will be an unambiguous new global temperature record during the first term of the Obama administration.” — — Get those GISS algorithms working overtime. — —
You can read all about it at http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/nasa-scientist-warns-of-runawa.html Be warned — that post drips with the use of the “D” word.
Mike
December 22, 2008 3:43 pm
Excuse the OT but I didn’t know where to put this. http://www.ageofstupid.net/
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry at the stupidity of this film.
John Philip
December 22, 2008 3:54 pm
Mainly for Anna V 1) Temperatures do not follow IPCC projections. Here is a plot to remind this: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg
That plot is labelled an update of IPCC TS26, however it is no such thing; it has some significant differences from the IPCC graph, which is here. The main one being that the IPCC graph plots smoothed yearly averages for both the models and the observations [the actual yearly figures are the black dots] whereas the ‘update’ suddenly changes to monthly figures for the first half of this year only, which just happens to coincide with an El-Nino driven cool period. A more legitimate plot would be of this year’s overall average, but of course this would not show the desired wide apparent divergence between the model and reality. In my view this is a very poor and clearly biased presentation, I am surprised a ‘sceptic’ would cite it.
James Annan shows that over the same period the models and the observations are consistent to the 95% level here.
Or, equally valid, here are the models vs data since 1999… http://www.realclimate.org/images/2008_from1999.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 No it is not, as patiently explained to Lucia by Arthur Smith here… 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.
The radio interview cited is with Josh Willis, who works with the Argo data; here is Willis expanding on the ‘cooling oceans’. Again, I am surprised a genuine sceptic would rely on reports of a media interview as a primary source, but still… http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/31/josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real.aspx 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
As others have pointed out, a recent paper from Dessler et al observed a very real increase in humidity, the existence of which means that projected business-as-usual greenhousegas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.
Just my view, but I find Geophysical Review Letters a slightly more credible source than Icecap. 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
Actually, the hypothesis is that the positive feedbacks: primarily the increased water vapour, but also the release of methane from permafrosts, melting of summer sea ice, the die-back of the rainforests, etc that amplify the GHG forced warming and instigate the runaway scenario.
So I fear we are still waiting for the ‘one datum’ to falsify the models, and the science tells us that time is running short…
regards
JP.
paminator
December 22, 2008 4:02 pm
Phil- Bond albedo versus Albedo is a better measure of total spectral reflectance, so I agree with your correction to my post. This makes the surface insolation at Earth 940 W/m^2 versus Venus at 650 W/m^2.
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).
Then you say “That is the Greenhouse effect!”
No argument there. A concentration of IR absorbing gases (relative to 1 bar on Earth) of about 90,000,000 ppm results in a temperature increase of about 500 K.
Still no runaway effect required.
Foinavon:
“and we really need more precise and accurate real world measurements before we can assume that there is something wrong with the models for the tropical troposphere.”
Sorry, I should have added that I do agree with you on the above point. Time will ultimately tell. Lots of theories could not be empirically proven in a comprehensive way, immediately either. That didn’t mean the theory is disproven.
Of course the cynic (as opposed to the sceptic) might point out that the climatological community perhaps should have invested more in making those required accurate real world measurements before declaring that the science was 100% settled. There is a certain disconnect when you declare that the problem is that these things can’t be measured accurately (yet) but atmospheric scientists are certain anyway about what is happening out there. It’s a difficult, complex field, though. Perhaps one side has over sold the certainty and as a consequence the other side has been making ‘unreasonable’ demands for proof of that certainty.
Joel Shore (08:05:32) :
“E.M.Smith says:
Do you have a citation?”
Hansen explains […]
So your citation is a personal reference to Hansen himself… I thought so…
Nice waving of hands, though. So I repeat, got a citation? You know, published, paper, words on it, publisher, that kind of thing?
TallDave (08:47:16) :
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.
It also presumes that we know how much U and Th are in the core of Venus, how fast it has/is reacting, what the core temp is, and why the surface seems to remodel all at once, like it was sinking into a molten core just below. One theory is that the core has much more heat than ours, possibly from more nuclear reactions. And that just might have an impact on the air temp… (Please note: I’m not asserting that is true, but I am asserting that nobody, and I do mean nobody, knows.)
Without that data, the rest of the Venus comparison is just more fantasy.
TWC reporting “expecting a massive arctic outbreak”… God I hope this global warming ends soon, I’m about to freeze to death /sarcoff>
Bill Illis
December 22, 2008 4:29 pm
Just so we can all be clear that temperatures are not keeping up with global warming theory, here are all the temperature observations (Hadcrut3, GISS, UAH and RSS using the same baseline) versus CO2 since the time each record started.
Also conveniently included is the global warming model’s timeline that was originally predicted (it is a little lower than Hansen’s 1988 Scenario B and if you want to put the newest Hansen aerosol-fudge-factors into it, you just shift it out about 20 ppm.) http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2626/tempobsrvvsco2ct4.png
I can take out some of the cyclical components if you like but it just smoothes the observations out a little like the big bump from the 1997-98 El Nino.
Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 4:41 pm
Will Nitschke (16:02:24) :
Foinavon: Perhaps one side has over sold the certainty and as a consequence the other side has been making ‘unreasonable’ demands for proof of that certainty.
So why the “Certainty” if the “we really need more precise and accurate real world measurements before we can assume that there is something wrong with the models for the tropical troposphere”.
Because you can’t sell a repressive CAP and Trade system to the general populace if the science is “uncertain”.
Foinavon: The Models predict a Tropospheric Hot Spot – Which has not been found after years of looking for it. It’s a dead horse – stop flogging it.
Or stump up real world evidence that the Tropospheric Hot Spot actually exists – come on – where’s the evidence.
AGW = “Dead Meme Walking”.
Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 4:48 pm
John Philip (15:54:27) :
If CO2 engenders Positive feedbacks – why hasn’t the worlds climate system already moved to a massive and catastrophic stable greenhouse given that very large amounts of CO2 (relative to today) have been present in past atmospheres.
In any system with positive feedbacks it will move towards a stable state as driven by the positive feedbacks.
Systems with inbuilt negative feedbacks will oscissilate within a stable set of boundaries as the negative feedbacks work against each other.
A relatively stable climate system as per the Earth would require strong negative feedback systems to maintain what has been inferred for past climates.
John S.
December 22, 2008 4:52 pm
Foinavon,
The claim that CO2 is both “a forcing” and “a feedback” shows the utter lack comprehension not only about the role of capacitance elements in thermodynamic systems, but about the basic distinction between the two in quantitative analysis of systems. Yes, a blanket or any other insulator is a capacitor, but without body heat it assumes the ambient temperature. Yes, the atmosphere retards the escape of surface heat to space, but the surface heat comes from thermalized insolation in the first place. Capacitors simply store energy, relying entirely upon external sources for all energy.
In any proper scientific sense, feedback constitutes the return of system output signal for algebraic summation with the input (i.e., forcing) signal–a basic concept wholly obscured in “climate science.” Insolation is the umistakabable source of energy in the climate system and the only feedback loop is the recirculation of LW radiation between surface and atmosphere, which elevates surface temperatures to mankind’s benefit. But the total amount of thermal energy in the system is unchanged by such redistribution. And any changes in downward LW radiation are balanced by countervening changes in moist convection from the surface, as the system seeks to re-establish thermodynamic equilibrium via maximum entropy paths by adjusting the moist adiabatic not just aloft, but also at the surface. Pray tell, where else does atmospheric moisture originate? And what do you think that precipitation does to specific humidity aloft?
There are no credible in situ measurements to support your claims. Pointing to model-based papers (e.g., Dessler) is an exercise in circular reasoning that can only persuade the inexperienced true believers.
Uncle Larry (11:45:24) :
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? http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/O2/O2_2_Atmosphere.htm#pg_globchange
reports a 3ppm decrease over 7 years. Is that long term enough?
TWC reporting Portland Oregon having record snow since 1968, 40 years. Snow expected along Gulf of Mexico again too… Houston, you have a problem? 😉
Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 5:04 pm
John Philip (15:54:27) :
The Troposphere hot spot is the “specific” signature for CO2 Global Warming as espoused by the IPCC – the hot spot does not exist (i.e can’t be found after years of looking for it).
Hence the underlying theory of CO2 Global Warming is wrong.
Have you got any real causation evidence of,
1. That CO2 will cause measurable Global Warming?
2. That Man Made emissions of CO2 will cause measurable Global Warming?
3. That Global Warming is – in fact – Catastrophic?
4. That Increases in CO2 will not allow for a Global Cooling?
Some more questions for you.
1. What is the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration for plant life?
2. What is the optimal temperature for Planet Earth?
3. What is the optimal method for measuring Planet Earth’s temperature?
4. What is the optimal method for data management of the sciences?
5. What is the value of openness and transparency with regards to data and methods in science.
6. What are the specific falsification criteria for the hypothesis that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming”.
7. If there are no falsification criteria for the hypothesis that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming” – how do you distinguish that hypothesis from the following one.
… The world, and all in it was created 10 minutes ago. All memories are fake… — Which also has no falsification criteria as it explains all phenomena.
8. If “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause both Global Warming and (now) Global Cooling” as some our now beginning to suggest. Is it still science?
Thanks
That’s cherry picking. If you go back one year, to 1998, you get all but one model ABOVE the measured temperatures.
But you are correct to say “equally valid.”
Or invalid, as the case may be. Both are accurate descriptions.
sauerkraut (05:46:13) :
Hansen might a creationist, but he doesn’t post here.
Atmospheric chemistry doesn’t include a pH buffer or any analog. The ocean does do buffering, but since blood plasma started out as sea water, that’s no surprise.
foinavon,
Your initial response to my post popped my BS filters into place! I’m an old data acquistion guy (not a scientist, but supported many of them!) I’ve built much electronic/computer hardware and a fair amount of software attempting to record data someone requested for their studies. That, without introducing undue instrumentation biases; a non-trivial endeavor. I agree that SOME urban sites dating from the 1800s might have produced anomalous levels of CO2, however the sheer number of sites Beck describes as producing similar results, introduce enough randomness that a fair profile of actual CO2 levels should emerge. I acknowledge “should” is not scientific, simply horse sense!
As Beck further points out, Callendar and Keeling examined ~10% of available literature and considered <1% as accurate. IMHO their pompous attitudes are exceeded only by Al Gore himself!!!!! If a “denier” mentions that the earth has cooled for the past decade, they are accused of cherry picking data??? Give me a break!!
My DA experience instilled not only sampling theory in me, but the necessity of achieving as high a signal to noise ratio as possible under given conditions. The Internet, unfortunately, suffers from a very low S/N ratio, requiring much sampling to eliminate as much random noise as possible. Beck is only one of many signal sources competing with noisy AGW hypothesis proponents! A clear signal begins to emerge simply by averaging out the random AGW noise from those clear signals. When Mann, et al become as accessible and open as Beck they will acheive more credence in the signal department!
Many reagrds!
foinavon (05:13:46) :
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.
Great! So we can put the sulphur back into jet fuel used at high altitudes, and cure this puppy right now!
Since large jets have multiple fuel tanks, we can have one with low sulphur for use in takeoff and landing, don’t want smog. And since the sulphate we add to the upper atmosphere is less than a decent volcano can produce, we even have a solution inside natural bounds. Dare I say it, since we’re mimicking a natural mechanism, we could even say it was a green solution!
Uncle Larry “shouldn’t we be seeing a corresponding 2-to-1 reduction in oxygen levels ”
Adolfo Giurfa “It really would be 8 to 3, as the real ratio is O2=32 and C=12”
Good point… I was fudging the numbers to make it seem like a more urgent political problem, sorry.
Actually, the real-world conversion ratio would be more on the order of 1.43 to 1 due to incomplete combustion (i.e. the mercury content of the tuna in the casserole, etc.) and other gases involved/released in the process.
Nevertheless, even if biologic forces were to be 100% efficient in the conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen, records should still indicate a oxygen deficit (since emmisions are all man made).
And quite frankly, I’ve converted a great deal of carbon to keep from freezing due to this latest wave of global warming sweeping the country. It should be readily apparent in the graphs…
-Uncle Larry
** Disclaimer ** Cold temperatures or the lack of hurricanes do not indicate a trend.
foinavon:
Firstly, let me say I appreciate your input. You have great patience and are generally polite which is appreciated. There is a tough crowd to please on this forum. 😉
But two issues I have with your reply:
1. The general tendency to rubbish the data if it doesn’t support your argument. “Satellite data has too many uncorrected errors, is unreliable, etc.” Come on, let’s be grown-ups here. You can throw out ANY empirical data that doesn’t suite your argument by pointing to “measurement errors”. This is exactly what “deniers” do all the time, and it’s the fall back position of “alarmists” when they hit problems fitting their theories to the data. This is a touchy issue for the sceptical community and generally this argument will convince the ‘Realclimate crowd’ so to speak, but not the more jaded audience here. If you want to make the argument that “the empirical data is bad but my theory is good” (which may well be true,) you still need to argue this in some depth. You won’t get a free ride here on that issue.
2. Quoting D. Santer et al. (2008), which is not accepted as a good study in the sceptical community. Santer doesn’t seem prepared to share his data and methods at this point in time, and is therefore not open to sceptical scrutiny. See the links posted above for more information on this. That sets off alarm bell one. Sceptics have seen this all before…
Secondly, Santer ends his study in 1998 at the height of the super el nino. A little convenient perhaps? The cherry picking being done here is breathtaking. Alarm bell two.
And finally it appears if you extend his analysis to include recent data, he falsifies himself. Again I refer you back to the links already posted.
So your response remains unsatisfactory and evasive on the question of the “hot spot”, unfortunately.
Joel Shore,
What I think this means is that Hansen and pals simply developed an algorithm that shows what they want it to show.
Hansen was here in Houston a few months ago promoting his apocalypse, and part of his presentation was to lie about the state of the sun spot cycle.
He is just making this stuff up.
JimB (05:36:20) :
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 burning it “all”. We have no idea what “all” is.
This is exactly correct. In fact, ‘reserves’ is itself a flexible word. Which reserves? Ultimate Reserves? Economically Recoverable? (there are about a half dozen terms of art in use for different quality of ‘reserves’. “Proven Reserves” is yet another one.)
If the speaker does not say “Ultimately Recoverable Reserves” you have no idea what quantity they are talking about. Even “Ultimately Recoverable” can change over time as new technology is invented to turn “unrecoverable” into “recoverable” reserves.
The basic problem, though, is that in typical usage ‘reserves’ often means economical to produce reserves. The quantity of ‘economically recoverable reserves’ increases as the price rises. Gold miners do this all the time. At $400/oz for gold, I shut my $500/oz mine, but work my $200/oz mine and reserves go down. When gold hits $800/oz, I raise my reserves and open my $500/oz mine (and my stock price goes up…)
This is the same reason why we have had roughly 30 years worth of oil ‘reserves’ since about 1919 (I have an old book on oil in a box somewhere from 1919…) and will for the next decades too. Pump a bunch of oil and due to depletion, price rises, and then oil companies all look at the same dirt with newly economical to pump oil on it and ‘suddenly discover new reserves’. APC and APA are great at doing this. (Anadarko Petroleum and Apache Oil)
This is also the fundamental flaw in all the gloom and doom “We’re running out of {foo}!!!” panics. We don’t run out because we keep finding ‘new’ ‘reserves’ that were there all the time… Like extracting a near infinite quantity of U from sea water. It is a few dollars a pound more expensive than the stuff on land (and far cheaper than it needs to be to make profitable electricity) but because yellowcake is cheaper, that ocean of U simply does not exist in ‘reserves’.
Either Hansen does not know this and is speaking from ignorance, or he does know it and is choosing to obfuscate… “All Coal” is deliberately vague.
sauerkraut (05:46:13) :
Cannot help but wonder if some of you folks are related to the creationista/ID folks.
Yes, as are you. All humans are related to each other since we all evolved from the same amoeba billions of years ago…
foinavon –
Here’s info on the bloke’s who sketched the temp graph – site has his methodology, no pure columnar content; but I wonder if his compilations are available – he’s authored quite a bit.
http://www.scotese.com/
Based on his analysis of the geographic record, can you insist this is just a sketch?
Thanks for your 2 cents.
Flaunting his awesome predictive powers before his humbled AGU listeners, Hansen says that “there will be an unambiguous new global temperature record during the first term of the Obama administration.” — — Get those GISS algorithms working overtime. — —
You can read all about it at
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/nasa-scientist-warns-of-runawa.html
Be warned — that post drips with the use of the “D” word.
Excuse the OT but I didn’t know where to put this.
http://www.ageofstupid.net/
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry at the stupidity of this film.
Mainly for Anna V
1) Temperatures do not follow IPCC projections. Here is a plot to remind this:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg
That plot is labelled an update of IPCC TS26, however it is no such thing; it has some significant differences from the IPCC graph, which is here. The main one being that the IPCC graph plots smoothed yearly averages for both the models and the observations [the actual yearly figures are the black dots] whereas the ‘update’ suddenly changes to monthly figures for the first half of this year only, which just happens to coincide with an El-Nino driven cool period. A more legitimate plot would be of this year’s overall average, but of course this would not show the desired wide apparent divergence between the model and reality. In my view this is a very poor and clearly biased presentation, I am surprised a ‘sceptic’ would cite it.
James Annan shows that over the same period the models and the observations are consistent to the 95% level here.
Or, equally valid, here are the models vs data since 1999… http://www.realclimate.org/images/2008_from1999.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
No it is not, as patiently explained to Lucia by Arthur Smith here…
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.
The radio interview cited is with Josh Willis, who works with the Argo data; here is Willis expanding on the ‘cooling oceans’. Again, I am surprised a genuine sceptic would rely on reports of a media interview as a primary source, but still…
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/31/josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real.aspx
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
As others have pointed out, a recent paper from Dessler et al observed a very real increase in humidity, the existence of which means that projected business-as-usual greenhousegas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.
Just my view, but I find Geophysical Review Letters a slightly more credible source than Icecap.
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
Actually, the hypothesis is that the positive feedbacks: primarily the increased water vapour, but also the release of methane from permafrosts, melting of summer sea ice, the die-back of the rainforests, etc that amplify the GHG forced warming and instigate the runaway scenario.
So I fear we are still waiting for the ‘one datum’ to falsify the models, and the science tells us that time is running short…
regards
JP.
Phil- Bond albedo versus Albedo is a better measure of total spectral reflectance, so I agree with your correction to my post. This makes the surface insolation at Earth 940 W/m^2 versus Venus at 650 W/m^2.
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).
Then you say “That is the Greenhouse effect!”
No argument there. A concentration of IR absorbing gases (relative to 1 bar on Earth) of about 90,000,000 ppm results in a temperature increase of about 500 K.
Still no runaway effect required.
Foinavon:
“and we really need more precise and accurate real world measurements before we can assume that there is something wrong with the models for the tropical troposphere.”
Sorry, I should have added that I do agree with you on the above point. Time will ultimately tell. Lots of theories could not be empirically proven in a comprehensive way, immediately either. That didn’t mean the theory is disproven.
Of course the cynic (as opposed to the sceptic) might point out that the climatological community perhaps should have invested more in making those required accurate real world measurements before declaring that the science was 100% settled. There is a certain disconnect when you declare that the problem is that these things can’t be measured accurately (yet) but atmospheric scientists are certain anyway about what is happening out there. It’s a difficult, complex field, though. Perhaps one side has over sold the certainty and as a consequence the other side has been making ‘unreasonable’ demands for proof of that certainty.
Boston is 4+ x average snow for this day. It’s been snowing for 50 hour straight (per TWC).
Joel Shore (08:05:32) :
“E.M.Smith says:
Do you have a citation?”
Hansen explains […]
So your citation is a personal reference to Hansen himself… I thought so…
Nice waving of hands, though. So I repeat, got a citation? You know, published, paper, words on it, publisher, that kind of thing?
Foinonen
JenniferMarohasy.com/blog titled:
“Climate Modellers Acknowledge Important Role of Oceans”
links to a pdf of the original article:
Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming by Gilbert P. Compo and Prashant D. Sardeshmukh, Climate Dynamics, 2008.
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.comp/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
TallDave (08:47:16) :
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.
It also presumes that we know how much U and Th are in the core of Venus, how fast it has/is reacting, what the core temp is, and why the surface seems to remodel all at once, like it was sinking into a molten core just below. One theory is that the core has much more heat than ours, possibly from more nuclear reactions. And that just might have an impact on the air temp… (Please note: I’m not asserting that is true, but I am asserting that nobody, and I do mean nobody, knows.)
Without that data, the rest of the Venus comparison is just more fantasy.
TWC reporting “expecting a massive arctic outbreak”… God I hope this global warming ends soon, I’m about to freeze to death /sarcoff>
Just so we can all be clear that temperatures are not keeping up with global warming theory, here are all the temperature observations (Hadcrut3, GISS, UAH and RSS using the same baseline) versus CO2 since the time each record started.
Also conveniently included is the global warming model’s timeline that was originally predicted (it is a little lower than Hansen’s 1988 Scenario B and if you want to put the newest Hansen aerosol-fudge-factors into it, you just shift it out about 20 ppm.)
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2626/tempobsrvvsco2ct4.png
I can take out some of the cyclical components if you like but it just smoothes the observations out a little like the big bump from the 1997-98 El Nino.
Will Nitschke (16:02:24) :
Foinavon:
Perhaps one side has over sold the certainty and as a consequence the other side has been making ‘unreasonable’ demands for proof of that certainty.
So why the “Certainty” if the “we really need more precise and accurate real world measurements before we can assume that there is something wrong with the models for the tropical troposphere”.
Because you can’t sell a repressive CAP and Trade system to the general populace if the science is “uncertain”.
Foinavon: The Models predict a Tropospheric Hot Spot – Which has not been found after years of looking for it. It’s a dead horse – stop flogging it.
Or stump up real world evidence that the Tropospheric Hot Spot actually exists – come on – where’s the evidence.
AGW = “Dead Meme Walking”.
John Philip (15:54:27) :
If CO2 engenders Positive feedbacks – why hasn’t the worlds climate system already moved to a massive and catastrophic stable greenhouse given that very large amounts of CO2 (relative to today) have been present in past atmospheres.
In any system with positive feedbacks it will move towards a stable state as driven by the positive feedbacks.
Systems with inbuilt negative feedbacks will oscissilate within a stable set of boundaries as the negative feedbacks work against each other.
A relatively stable climate system as per the Earth would require strong negative feedback systems to maintain what has been inferred for past climates.
Foinavon,
The claim that CO2 is both “a forcing” and “a feedback” shows the utter lack comprehension not only about the role of capacitance elements in thermodynamic systems, but about the basic distinction between the two in quantitative analysis of systems. Yes, a blanket or any other insulator is a capacitor, but without body heat it assumes the ambient temperature. Yes, the atmosphere retards the escape of surface heat to space, but the surface heat comes from thermalized insolation in the first place. Capacitors simply store energy, relying entirely upon external sources for all energy.
In any proper scientific sense, feedback constitutes the return of system output signal for algebraic summation with the input (i.e., forcing) signal–a basic concept wholly obscured in “climate science.” Insolation is the umistakabable source of energy in the climate system and the only feedback loop is the recirculation of LW radiation between surface and atmosphere, which elevates surface temperatures to mankind’s benefit. But the total amount of thermal energy in the system is unchanged by such redistribution. And any changes in downward LW radiation are balanced by countervening changes in moist convection from the surface, as the system seeks to re-establish thermodynamic equilibrium via maximum entropy paths by adjusting the moist adiabatic not just aloft, but also at the surface. Pray tell, where else does atmospheric moisture originate? And what do you think that precipitation does to specific humidity aloft?
There are no credible in situ measurements to support your claims. Pointing to model-based papers (e.g., Dessler) is an exercise in circular reasoning that can only persuade the inexperienced true believers.
Uncle Larry (11:45:24) :
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?
http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/O2/O2_2_Atmosphere.htm#pg_globchange
reports a 3ppm decrease over 7 years. Is that long term enough?
TWC reporting Portland Oregon having record snow since 1968, 40 years. Snow expected along Gulf of Mexico again too… Houston, you have a problem? 😉
John Philip (15:54:27) :
The Troposphere hot spot is the “specific” signature for CO2 Global Warming as espoused by the IPCC – the hot spot does not exist (i.e can’t be found after years of looking for it).
Hence the underlying theory of CO2 Global Warming is wrong.
Have you got any real causation evidence of,
1. That CO2 will cause measurable Global Warming?
2. That Man Made emissions of CO2 will cause measurable Global Warming?
3. That Global Warming is – in fact – Catastrophic?
4. That Increases in CO2 will not allow for a Global Cooling?
Some more questions for you.
1. What is the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration for plant life?
2. What is the optimal temperature for Planet Earth?
3. What is the optimal method for measuring Planet Earth’s temperature?
4. What is the optimal method for data management of the sciences?
5. What is the value of openness and transparency with regards to data and methods in science.
6. What are the specific falsification criteria for the hypothesis that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming”.
7. If there are no falsification criteria for the hypothesis that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming” – how do you distinguish that hypothesis from the following one.
… The world, and all in it was created 10 minutes ago. All memories are fake… — Which also has no falsification criteria as it explains all phenomena.
8. If “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause both Global Warming and (now) Global Cooling” as some our now beginning to suggest. Is it still science?
Thanks
john Philip: your
Or, equally valid, here are the models vs data since 1999… http://www.realclimate.org/images/2008_from1999.jpg
That’s cherry picking. If you go back one year, to 1998, you get all but one model ABOVE the measured temperatures.
But you are correct to say “equally valid.”
Or invalid, as the case may be. Both are accurate descriptions.