Many readers here marvel at the scope of adjustments that NASA GISS performs on weather station data.
Along those lines, Michelle at Read N Say points out something interesting in Jim Hansen’s NASA page.
Below is an excerpt from her post:
This is his background copied from the official NASA GISS web page:
Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen’s space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.
One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth’s atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.
I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans’ potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.
He actually says, in the second paragraph, “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
To me this sounds like spin for “The hardest part is making the numbers show what I want them to”. Let’s see how long it takes for that sentence in the NASA GISS website to get changed.
The above in italics is from Michelle’s post.
In Hansen’s defense, perhaps what he meant was something along the lines of trying to extract useful information from a noisy signal.
On the other hand, with a plethora of issues with GISS data, including adjustments to pristine data, failing to catch obviously corrupted data, significant errors in splicing and reporting pointed out by bloggers, and pronouncements from the man himself that such people are “jesters” and that vandals in England should be defended and energy company executives should be put on trial, one wonders if Hansen really wasn’t just speaking his mind.
Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder
UPDATE 1/26 Lucia at The Blackboard wrote to Jim Hansen to get his take on it. Surprisingly, he emailed back.
Lucia,
This sentence refers to satellite measurements. You could look at the report “Long-Term Monitoring of Global Climate Forcings and Feedbacks”, which is available from my office — but you could also find several papers that I wrote in the early 1990s if you go to www.giss.nasa.gov, then Publications, Authors, my name.
Jim Hansen
But now a new question arises. Why doesn’t then GISS embrace satellite measurements?
“Influence the nature of the measurements obtained.” How do you go about influencing something fundamental like a nature? Does he mean make it up like Al Gore said so that people act? Surely we’d have more chance with a true target and an honest shot.
Amazingly, most, if not all of Hansen’s adjustments result in what looks like increasing temperatures. What are the odds, eh? click
I assume the excitement jim Hansen talks about when comparing theory with data occurs only when they correlate. If this excitement is what makes all his other stuff worth it that puts a lot of pressure on achieving correlation between his theory and the data.
I have never defended the man before, but I believe that he is trying to say this:
The satellites are typically designed and operated for purposes not entirely commensurate with the collection of the kinds of planetary atmosphere data that he is looking for. He has to work with data that are not ideally suited to the task (proxy data, data-taking intervals that don’t match up with the diurnal cycle, data that is available only when other people aren’t using the instrument for something else,). Also in the specification of requirements for new instruments, his needs are competing with the needs of other investigators who are interested in completely different things.
But I admit that it could also reveal something about his state of mind, i.e. his “inner book-cooker”.
I believe that these insights into Jim Hansen’s methods and also the hysterical nature of some of his promoters is what is causing the disbelief among the populace.
The increasing drumbeat of article after article trying to press AGW into our subconscious has made many realize that we have become the target of a climate crusade. Some of the ranting and raving of the scientist/crusaders has become almost laughable as they see the futility of their task. I hope that this increasingly hopeless crusade of climate propaganda does not devolve into an inquisition.
Smokey (10:29:16) : wrote
Amazingly, most, if not all of Hansen’s adjustments result in what looks like increasing temperatures. What are the odds, eh? click
Zorita et al., (from a previous thread) seem to be pretty handy with those kinds of statistics:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109115047.htm
Incidentally, when I typed my one word response “infantile” regarding that paper, I regretted not typing “Infantile – even Tamino would cringe upon reading that paper”. Then, I few days later, I went over there to see if he had indeed made any comments on it. He supported it. That was the last time on that site for me.
I haven’t counted the data points, or flipped the coins, but I’m guessing it’s probably a one in two to the power 30 or more chance that Hansen [snip – let’s not use that term here, Anthony].
the hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained.
this could mean to stop reading the rural temps.
Anthony we need to process the rated stations you have, you can add more stations later.
TX Tim
Jeff ID? we are out of time.
The word ‘INFLUENCE’ is a Freudian giveaway.
He should have said ‘INTERPRET’. However he previously uses the word ‘interpret ‘ correctly so one must assume he realises what he is saying.
Later he says ‘understanding global changes that ARE occurring’. Another Freudian slip. He should have said ‘that MAY BE occurring’.
The fact is that he appears to first decide on the changes that ARE occurring and then seeks to INFLUENCE the results of data collection.
He also says:
“that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that WILL result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.”
He should have said ‘MAY result’ so in his ‘excitement’ he has clearly made the subjective decision that human input WILL cause changes and he seeks to exert ‘influence’ to show that the data confirms his predetermined conclusion.
Is that the way a scientist is supposed to operate ?
I think his statement refers to the actual mechanics or methods of obtaining measurements. At the time this was probably (?) altruistic.
Tim L – working on it.
Another interesting item in Hansen’s bio page is this:
“One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth’s atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth.”
So why then is he still puzting around trying to adjust an obviously corrupted (at the measurement level) surface temperature data set when he thinks satellite data is of particular interest?
As someone who is a student of the English language rather than a scientist I am intrigued by two things:
First, yes – the idea of “influencing the nature” of the data, which seems to me a polite way of saying “fiddling the figures”‘
Second, the idea that “the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.” Which would seem to beg the question somewhat. I would have thought that the basis of planetary research ought initially to be to find out whether changes to the atmospheric composition *are* anthropogenic before you go on to study climatic changes which may, or equally likely may not, arise therefrom.
I am perfectly happy to subscribe to the idea of AGW when someone actually proves it to be a) possible; b) plausible; c) actually happening!
Smokey – Amazingly, most, if not all of Hansen’s adjustments result in what looks like increasing temperatures. What are the odds, eh? click
Have you got this blink chart the wrong way round? It seems to show the adjustments are all up for old temperatures with no adjustment for recent ones
ATTN: Anthony
I’m looking at the March 1901 USHCN record from Telluride Co, and the temperatures for Tmin are shown as whole numbers with an implied error of +/- 1 deg F. The computed mean is shown as 10.87097. Now what is that nonsense? It implies the therometer is measuring temp to +/-0.00001 deg F. Why isn’ the computed mean shown as 11 deg F
On the graph the curve lies mostly between +/- 0.5 deg C , that is within measurement error. I would conclude that there has been little change if any in the mean temp. Please explain.
BTW, I counted at least 7 errors in this record, e.g, -1 should be 11, -5 should be 15 and -3 should be 13. For the Dec 1901 record I counted about 10 errors. Don’t these records under go data quality checking? How can these USCHN records be trusted?
[snip]
The following is an excerpt from Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties (2005), which can be read on-line at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11175.
It is an unsettling fact that Holdren is a bona fide member of the new administration. That does not send a chill up my leg, but it does send a chill up my back and cause the hair on my neck to stand-up.
————————————————————-
Methods for Developing Emissions Scenarios
Most emissions scenarios are developed using the IPAT model (Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971) in which environmental impact is the result of a multiplication of three driving forces: population, affluence per person, and technological impact per unit of affluence. When applied to greenhouse gas emissions, the impact is the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, while the technological factor is the rate of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP). The IPAT model has a long history in environmental studies, and there has been much debate over whether it is the proper approach (Chertow, 2001). As a purely mathematical multiplicative identity, it must yield correct emissions rates if all of the PAT factors are well known.
That blink comparator is interesting. At first I thought the recent high temperatures were simply shifting the average up which would have the effect of making the anomoly go downward in earlier years. But the 1880 to 1890 timeframe shows an upward change between the 1999 graph and the 2008 graph. Does Hansen actually detail his adjustment methodolgy anywhere?
As a scienctist myself, I may give him a pass on the ill-formed sentence containing “influence”
However, the quite that struck me was:
“that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.”
Note here he says that anthropogenic changes *WILL* result in climate change. He is obviously starting from that position. A major pitfall in any science research is to get too wedded to your pet theories. From what I have read from him, to even consider other data is something is not willing to do. That’s when de stopped doing science.
sorry for the typos, should be ‘scientist’ and last sentence ‘he’ instead of ‘de’
I’m having a hard time with the term “nature”.
“nature of a measurement obtained”?
By “nature”, maybe he means physical property, e.g. time, weight, mass, length, temperature etc. Or maybe “accuracy”.
No matter, one evaluates and assesses obtained measurements. One certainly does not influence their nature. That to me means tampering, manipulating, coaxing, fudging, etc.
Just the fact that he uses the term “nature of the measurements” shows he has very poor scientific communication skills. I don’t think there’s a scientist in the world who would know what he means with this gibberish.
Any scientists here who do?
Still,
I can’t believe the guy would be so off his rocker as to openly admit he manipulates data.
He uses really lousy technical communication. Such a poor communicator ought not be at the Director level of any major scientific facility.
Let’s see now…
He has already rewritten temperature records, climate records.
Oh!
Soon he’ll be rewriting his bio!
Download it NOW before it disappears!
This is an interesting subject.
In regard to the measuring of temperatures however I am am convinced that we should standardize the instrumentation, set strict rules to the location and position of the equipment in relation to buildings, parking lots etc. and simply measure the temp without any correction.
The step from correction to manipulation and from manipulation to corruption is….
rather small.
I once bookmarked WUWT with the article about introducing ISO standards for measurements so I am triggered to the subject of basic standards for measurements every time I open this site.
I think Anthony will agree with me for 100% in regard to tis subject otherwise there would not be any reason to make an inspection round to verify weather the stations.
Colin Aldridge (11:23:04) :
“Smokey – Amazingly, most, if not all of Hansen’s adjustments result in what looks like increasing temperatures. What are the odds, eh? click
Have you got this blink chart the wrong way round? It seems to show the adjustments are all up for old temperatures with no adjustment for recent ones”
Colin, maybe it has been his intention to create a steeper graph in order to create a strong visual increase of temp in order to keep the AGW doctrine based on rising CO2 levels alive.
I personally am getting sick and tired of all the CO2 talk.
CO2 is not a dominant warming factor.
We have to look at other mechanisms which is why the recent article about IGR is so interesting.
To be fair, he could have meant” “Influencing WHAT measurement methods are used and what SPECIFIC measurements are taken” when he said “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained.” What experiments are done during a government funded project is largely political. HST, for example, can only accommodate so many instruments and, similarly, the shuttle. The process of deciding who gets to fly has many similarities to sausage making.
“Such data, appropriately analyzed …” is almost ALWAYS true: most calculations yield the right answer when done correctly. Its a tautological filler statement.
I often see similar language in proposals. I don’t like Hansen all that much but I think it unfair to read too much into the stilted idioms of governmentese. FWIW, I don’t think he’s intentionally dishonest to the point of making cynically blatant confessions. In fact, I don’t think he’s dishonest at all. — it’s just that he can’t seem to separate his work from his biases.
There is one other remark I would like to make.
I wonder if a character like Hanson is the right man on the right place.
Here you have a scientist with a mission in control of (manipulative data)?
It’s is like having a bank robber in charge of a bank.
So not only certify the procedures, but also the people.
Scott R, The trouble with your argument is, much of his raw data comes from satellites that are specifically and solely used for monitoring the climate. So that satellite data IS the exact raw data he needs. He just fails to show HOW he “appropriately analyses” that raw data to consistently get results that show on-going and increasing global heating from raw data that shows on-going cooling.
Well done for being generous and looking for a positive message though. That is so much more than he would be to the people he disagrees with.
Sam the Skeptic says:
Well, I think that there is a good evidence that humans have had an effect on the composition of the atmosphere … however, in my opinion, there is no good evidence that our effect on the composition of the atmosphere has changed the climate in ways that are distinguishable from normal climate change.
I was about to ask the same thing. I remember seeing the blink a while back, and showing it to my wife, saying “How can it just have gotten COLDER at a given spot in 1930. You can’t DO THAT!”
Of course, then I read the whole BBC thing, and as it turns out?…I guess you CAN do that.
JimB
Steven Wilde,
I don’t it’s unusual for a scientist to start out with a hypothesis such as
“climate change on earth that WILL result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition”. I don’t see anything wrong there in itself.
But, what is wrong is the act of changing the data so that it does support your hypotheisis. Indeed a mentally sound scientist would change his hypothesis, and not change the data.
Overall, your points are interesting and you are certainly on the right track.
Psychologically, the man appears to have a rigid agenda, and a problem with reality.
Stephen Wilde says:
Perhaps you are reading too much into it. The climate changes all the time on different time scales. Perhaps that is what he was referring to.
Scott R:
Bingo!! In addition, he might also be taking a bit of a swipe at the Bush Administration for blocking the launch of an instrument that would have been crucial for better determining the earth’s energy balance, among other things:
(from http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn021706.html ) Now, why the Bush Administration has wanted to block an observatory that could provide crucial scientific information on global warming…perhaps that is a good subject for a future post here!!
It’s sad that we will all be impoverished to implement “solutions” for imaginary problems, but even sadder that these poor souls are involved in what Dante called “complex fraud”.
Those who willingly participate in “complex frauds” doom themselves to an eternal fate deep within Hades’ lower circles.
When we see blatant distortions of truth in order to increase funding to those willing to do or say anything for more money, as catholicfundamentalism.com reminds us, we should pray that they repent while they still have time.
I’m with Scott R. Irregardless of the statistical lacunae that have been found in his methodology, statistics etc, the statement he makes seems to me to be fairly straight forward – the raw data from satellites MUST be processed in various ways before it can be used for anything. Jim Hansen is excited by that task – so would I be!
I think it is enough to concentrate on a man’s actual errors; it is unnecessary to pile on at every utterance. Who amongst us does not make ambiguous statements every now and then?
Well, I am not one for jumping in and flat out accusing “scientists” of falsifying data. Yes I might chide one for “making up data where none exists.”
but at the same time, I can’t get too het up, when something like the recent WU Antarctica paper comes out. There can’t be anything more vexing to a scientist, than having a though about something; and not having any or enough data to process the idea.
So trying to obtain ANY clue form a dearth of data, is ok; so long as you don’t try to reqad too much into it.
So what is the Budget of Hansen’s department (of NASA). I though I saw $180M somewhere; and it seems as if for that we get a number once a year ofr that year’s GISStemp anomaly. Well yes monthly numbers are available too. But the next thing Hansen does, is toss out that $180M number, and hide it inside a 5 year running average, which looks “smoother”.
You gain no information by taking an average; you are throwing information away. The original monthly numbers are the most information you will ever have, unless you have all the original raw numbers form all the weather station sites.
When a lot of this GISStemp stuff, and UHI stuff was discussed fairly openly on on Rvkins NYT blog, a lot of AGWers wanted to ask which of the Hansen sites one wanted to eliminate; presumably for UHI reasons.
The problem with GISStemp,is NOT that there is too much information; there isn’t nearly enough information, and the haphazard (spatial) way it is gathered makes it almost useless.
Even if it were possible to correctly determine the true average temperature of the earth’s surface, or some level in the lower troposphere (it isn’t); that informatyion has no more scientific validity or usefulness, than calculating the average telephone number in your local telephone directory. It is simply applying mathematical processes to a set of numbers; the result of which serves no purpose.
Hansen’s very latest GISStemp number gives zero information relating to the fundamental question: “Is planet earth radiating the correct amount of energy back out into space to keep its near surface temperature range within liveable ranges.
Every different type of surface material or morphology, has a different spectral emiisivity or emittance, different specific heat, thermal capacity , thermal conductivity etc.
So there is NO simple relationship between any average surcae temperature, and any energy flux in and out of the earth.
Personally, I place almost no credibility, in anything other than an anecdotal fashion, to ANY temperature data that predates IGY in 1957/58. The space age began about that time and meaningful satellite temperature data only became available about 1979. Almost simultaneous with that time, was the first placments of oceanic buoys out in the ocean to simultaneously record near surface water and air temperatures. The results of those buoy data reported in Jan 2001 (I think it was Geophysical Research Letters) showed that for that 20year or so period, and those specific ocean locations; the air temperature increases were only about 60% of the water temperature increases (I’m reporting from memory here, so look it up if you want accurate numbers).
So that means all the previous global temperature measurements for 73% of the surface that is ocean were suspect. The IMPORTANT result of that paer, though was that the ocean water and near surface air temperatures ARE NOT CORRELATED. Why would you expect them to be, when air currents are usually much faster than water currents, so the air and water never remain in contact long enough to equilibrate. Also ocean current meanderings, mean you can return to the same GPS co-ordinates; but you won’t be in the same water, that you were in before. So to me that means all global temperature data prior to around 1979-80, is worthless, since you cannot recover the near surface air temperatures from the near suface water temperatures.
The other recent pqaper that I find crucial is the Wentz et al paper reported in Nature July 2007; “How Much More Rain will Global Warming bring?”
The crux of their paper is: a 1 deg C rise in global surface temperature, results in 7% increase in global evaporation; a 7% increase in Total atmospheric moisture, and a 7% increase in total global evaporation.
So you turn on the water into your bath tub, and you pull the plug. The water will rise until the rate of outflow exactly equals the rate of inflow (precipitation and evaporation). The water level will stop rising at that point. If you torn on the tap some more to increase the inflow (evaporation), the water level will rise again (total water content) and eventually the outflow (precipitation) will again equal the inflow due to the increased drive pressure from the higher water level, and the water again stops rising.
So this isn’t even 8th grade sience class; this is grade school stuff.
So what about the GCM predictions for this scenario (global circulation models: Global climate Models; I don’t care which.
Wentz reported that the GCMs AGREE with the 7% increase in evaporation and total atmospheric water content. Hooray; we’ve finally got some agreement.
BUT !! the GCMs predict (according to Wentz et al) that the total global precipitation only increases by from 1% to 3%; not 7% !!
Excuse me earth to GCM; the INFLOW is from 2 1/3 to 7 times the OUTFLOW but the WATER LEVEL IN THE BATH remains the same.
Now quite apart from the fact that the GCMs can’t predict the outcome to better than their customary 3:1 fudge factor; they can’t even satisfy elementary continuity criteria.
If the INFLOW and the OUTFLOW don’t return to equality, the TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC WATER CONTENT must keep changing; and in this case it must keep increasing; evidently the oceans will end up in the sky !
So to me, that reduces the credibility of the GCMs to zero. I don’t need any more information and no more quipment than a stick on a desert island sandy beach to put a stake through that piece of nonsense.
The other piece of nonsense is that the earth’s albedo, and the amount of cloud cover do not change. Well the people with the cloud cover satellite say they don’t.
Lt me see now; we can actually observe a 7% increase in total global precipitation as a result of a one deg C mean surface temperature rise; but not another molecule of additional cloud cover appears; we 7% more rain from no more cloud; no more cloud density; no more cloud persistence time; no more combination of those three.
“”Rubbish !!”” that’s my comment on that.
Wentz et al made no mention of increased cloud cover; and they didn’t deny any either; well I just said they din’t mention it; but I did; I think it went up; and I think the combination of precipitable cloud area, cloud density, and cloud persistence time, wnet up about 7%; well lets say between 4.04 and 12.1%. That’s the 3:1 mandatory climatology model fudge factor.
So do I think climatology science is in trouble; well I think it has nearly as much credibility as astrology does.
But I believe some good people are working to try and rectify that situation; and restore some credibility to what has a similar stigma to Economic science.
George; who’s just expressing his humble opinion.
Colin,
I think the blink chart is okay. Put your mouse on the chart at about 1965. Right around there the chart pivots, Hanson made temps before that cooler and temps after that hotter. In this way he makes current temps seem hotter when compated to past temps.
United States & Global Data Integrity Issues
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow
January 27, 2009
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/DAleo-DC_Brief.pdf
Issues with the United States and especially the global data bases make them inadequate to use for trend analysis and thus any important policy decisions based on climate change. These issues include inadequate adjustments for urban data, bad instrument siting, use of instruments with proven biases that are not adjusted for, major global station dropout., an increase in missing monthly data and questionable adjustment practices.
Anthony Watts started a volunteer effort to document siting issues with all 1221 stations in US. He and his team is now through over 600 stations.
An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. The urban adjustment is supposed to remove the effects of urbanization, but the NASA negative adjustments increases the urbanization effects. The result is that the surface temperature trend utilized by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is exaggerated …
The net warming in the UHI adjusted GISS US data set from the peak around 1930 to the peak near 2000 was a meager 0.15C. It may be assumed the same would be true for the world if we could make a similar needed UHI adjustment.
Colin
Huh?
That’s not what the blink chart does for me. Clearly Hansen makes the past colder and the recent past warmer and hay presto a significant warming trend appears.
Anthony
Do we really need to see Mr Hansen’s smug face peering out at us at the top of your page? Please please put another photo there of anything, or quickly put up another thread so its displaced!?
Collected temperatures data, as we have seen from number of the recent posts, is frequently corrupted by human activities near the measuring stations an it is going to be used for initiating costly governmental programs (from our taxes), and taking, for humanity, far reaching decisions. If reliable data are to be collected then a number of buoys should be positioned at selected locations (Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, as well in the Arctic and Antarctica) linked with satellite communications. Data then could be received by anyone with a suitable equipment. This way experts around the world could have access to reliable information, make assessment and than governments can take appropriate actions.
I was thinking along the lines of Scott R. The statement is ambiguous and subject to interpretations.
Possibly, he meant that the satellites are up there — he didn’t put them there — but, he would like to have a “say” in what phenomena they measured. That is, to “influence” how the satellites are used — not how to corrupt their data to his purposes.
On the other hand, I genuinely think GISS over “massages” the available temperature data — in an unproven way that makes their temperature reconstructions almost certainly inaccurate and unworthy of extensive analysis.
Amusing though this is, I basically agree with Scott. There are a number of perfectly innocent meanings of this comment. For example, any experimentalist knows that any measurement is inevitably contaminated, and one seeks to maximise the sensitivity to the quantity of interest (the signal) while minimising the sensitivity to everything else (the systematic and random noise).
More generally this is indicative of something I have frequently noticed at RealClimate, which is a remarkable lack of political sensitivity to how their statements will be perceived by readers. While I agree that they are playing political games, I disagree with the common view that they are master manipulators: they are in fact remarkably inept.
Hansens statement certainly infers he is fiddling the figures and this appears to be born out by the charts underneath the article.
From memory the data set used to show rapidly climbing figs for the 90’s but now appears to show then tailing off.
However the figs for the new millenium show then climbing in a simailar manner to old figs fo the 90’s…..but we are clearly living in cooler times.
Something is amiss.
I think what is very telling is that Mr. Hansen doesn’t seem to even realize that his comments on adjusting the data could be interpreted as injecting his bias into the data. He just assumes that everyone that reads what he writes will have have no problem with his comments. It’s this casual attitude he presents, which even if he is not consciously manipulating the data, suggests that he is not taking the necessary precautions with the data to prevent his personal bias from creeping in.
I was going to mention the same thing Smokey. You seem to have found one that has historic temperatures cooler after adjustment. Why the present is not adjusted down for obvious UHI effects in populated areas, instead of adjusting the past up when on average, less adjustment would be needed there a long time ago for UHI has always been a mystery to me.
If this is not done carefully, you might end up with artificially biased heating in the adjusted dataset. Then you might draw inappropriate conclusions that might not really be there.
Oh. er, um, yeah. Nevermind.
I meant “warmer after adjustment”. So rare it confused me.
Smokey, in the single example you linked to (Racine), did you try downloading the data and comparing the linear slope before and after the adjustments? I did, and the effect of the adjustments is a 44% decrease in the rate of warming.
Hansen must be slipping 😉
In this Hansen doc: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf
There is a graph a few months earlier than the graph used in the gif 1999/2008 in this writing above.
For Hansen a few months can do a difference, on the graf im talking about:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/hansen99.jpg
you can see that the trendcurve is 0,05-0,1 K lower for the last 10 years of the 20 century than one can see in Hansens curve above made a few motnhs later in 1999. And very interestingly, see on the older Hansen curve the year 1934…. It has a positive anomaly of almost +1,5 K.
This huge anomaly has been removed within these few months in 1999… – a HUGE change done 65 years after measurements where taken, Hansen You impress me… and the other tops of the 1930´ies was not changed likewise.. it just happened to be the one year that was too inconvenient that had to go.
K.R. Frank
David S (11:34:38) :
That blink comparator is interesting. At first I thought the recent high temperatures were simply shifting the average up which would have the effect of making the anomoly go downward in earlier years. But the 1880 to 1890 timeframe shows an upward change between the 1999 graph and the 2008 graph. Does Hansen actually detail his adjustment methodolgy anywhere?
In a word David – no. Climateaudit.org details the efforts to reconstruct the methodology used. It’s pretty arcane – and frustratingly so as the methods that GISS uses are done so at taxpayer expense, and are a mystery.
I agree, there is something about becoming so engaged in whatever real work that you are doing, that also makes a person less able to communicate well with others. Public relations is a science in itself, and perhaps NASA would do well to hire real PR professionals. Of course if they do that we will have no clue whatsoever about what is really happening.
What was Hansens’ views in 1977?
WOW, if one reads United States & Global Data Integrity Issues
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow
It’s really kinda simple at how the earth has heated up so much in the last few years.
The computed mean is shown as 10.87097. Now what is that nonsense? It implies the therometer is measuring temp to +/-0.00001 deg F. Why isn’ the computed mean shown as 11 deg F
You can get part of the way there by oversampling. But I think that calculating to finer than a tenth of a degree/year nationwide is what logicians and historians refer to as “the fallacy of misplaced precision”.
Looks to me like 2 points in the blinking graphs do not change.
1 is the low in 1918. The second is the low in 1968. Everything else is bent upwards or downwards. The ends are bent upwards. The middle bow is bent downwards.
Nice way to alter your data to support your theory…. general rise in temps on a steep slope.
Re : George E. Smith (12:31:54) :
Mr. Smith,
Please, take a deep breath.
Now, exhale. 😀
I don’t want to loose your contribution to this forum.
Thank You.
Perhaps we need to define a new term ACDC – Anthropogenic Climate Data Change.
This is the real word we are living in:
It’s not only about manipulating data, it’s about manipulating business, politics and scientists.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24876451-7583,00.html
After this publication, the man was fired only because he stated his scientific opinion.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/bond-university-dismisses-climate-change-sceptic/
It’s a disgrace and we should fight it.
wattsupwiththat (11:18:30) :
Tim L – working on it.
So why then is he still puttering around trying to adjust an obviously corrupted (at the measurement level) surface temperature data set when he thinks satellite data is of particular interest?
answer: there is no way to futz around with the data, and
we may indeed be warming a bit from the LIA. (no sat data back 100years)
OT… but this much more scary than the MSM is telling.
I go in to pay my electric bill. a conference is going on in the side room,
well, I listen in, LOL, this is what I hear, ” we must cut out 1millon kilowatts from our grid, we use 3 to 3.5 mil-kilos per day, or about 20-25% reduction. our biggest problem is we connect new services every week and this adds more load”
We are out of time to reverse this near sighted farse that is coming to a head.
My asthma will kill me if I have to cook with wood!!!!!
2nd week of june is when air condioning starts to kick in as well as water pumping for lawns etc. it is then that the grid takes a hit. ???june 14th???.
oh well.
“The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
Perhaps he is talking about the difficulty of persuading the government to launch the statellites with the instrumentation to get the best possible data on climate change. There have been many ongoing delays in launching satellites with instrumentation designed to obtain better climate data.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5134022.stm
Is this a conspiracy by governments trying to avoid collecting info that would show AGW alarmism false and so miss out on carbon tax (if so why build the satellite in the first place). Is it a conspiracy to prevent the launch of a satellite that will confirm climate change and put a hole in big oil interests? Or is it just arbritrary budget setting and beaurocracy making things 5 times more difficult than they otherwise might be?
While most of you are focusing in on the word “influence”, the thing that jumps out of the page for me is the predefined assumption that human activity has an affect on climate. He states that twice in his paragraph.
In essense .. he is working to prove that human’s influence climate, not that that would appear as any revelation to anyone who is familiar with Hansen and his critics.
As we all know, if one sets out to prove something where no hard empiric evidence exists, one will always create a confirming story, with creative statistics and all.
Took a look at that statement that got him fired.
Noticed the text of “Warmaholics” below it.
Like the Joker might say on a Batman flick: “Wait till they get a dose of global colding”.
Politically correct is a fad type of thing: It just takes a scandal to bring the house down.
By this time next year, the ice will have hit the fan, and there ain’t nothing going on right now that will lift us far enough out of Solar Coma to stop it.
The best ramps I can find take the better part of a year to pull out of Lodi.
Oh my, have they ever painted themselves into a corner.
“The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained ”
If I may, I would like to hansenize this statement to read:
“The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of obtaining the measurements”
That seems to fit better.
Freudian slip?
[snip, sorry, I appreciate the humor, but it’s really not an appropriate comparison – Anthony]
I think many are over-interpeting Hansen’s words. By this time nobody should be surprised by Hansen’s position on this topic. Our abiding hope has to be in the integrity of the data and the transparency and replicability of its analysis. This is one reason why I strongly support Anthony’s efforts to check out the accessible surface stations.
==“The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”==
Never thought I would find myself defending Hansen, but…
Anyone who is responsible for analyzing data that others collect, especially when others own the instruments or write the data collection protocols, knows exactly what he is talking about. A statistician trying to analyze a clinical trial for example, when others have more direct authority over the clinical trial protocol, and MDs collect the data at the investigative site, often have to struggle through their inability to “influence the nature of the measurements obtained.”
On the wrong track with this one I think.
These are NOT the comments of a scientist:
“Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.”
A more correct concept would be ‘…trying to understand the climate changes on earth and whether or not anthropogenic changes influence those changes.’
” The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
INFLUENCE the nature of the measurements? There is no way to interpret this other than it sounds. It does not mean ‘determine’, it does not mean ‘understand.’ It does mean manipulate or affect.
This article and the pdf ready for download provides the most correct and extensive response to this article from Anthony:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/01/hansens-junk-data.html
I think, after reading the complete PDF, this subject is closed.
Ed (a simple old carpenter) (12:47:26) :
I think the blink chart is okay. Put your mouse on the chart at about 1965. Right around there the chart pivots, Hanson made temps before that cooler and temps after that hotter. In this way he makes current temps seem hotter when compated to past temps.
Strange you should say that… While I haven’t done a detail review of it, in a cursory pass in the later steps I notice in the data adjustment sections a variable named ‘knee’… Made me think…
A grep of gisstemp sources, step*/*
grep knee */*
STEP2/PApars:echo ‘CCdStationID slope-l slope-r knee Yknee slope Ymid RMS RMSl 3-rur+urb ext.range flag’ > $fl
STEP2/PApars.f:C**** line (with a variable “knee”) to that difference series are found.
STEP2/flags.f: * cc,id,sl1,sl2,knee,yk,sl,ylin,rms,rms0,iy1,iy2,iy1e,iy2e
STEP2/flags.f: if(knee.lt.iy1+lshort.or.knee.gt.iy2-lshort) iflag=iflag+1
STEP2/flags.f: if(knee.lt.iy1+lshort.or.knee.gt.iy2-lshort) nshort=nshort+1
STEP2/padjust.f: * cc,IDc,sl1,sl2,knee,sl0,iy1,iy2,iy1e,iy2e,iflag
STEP2/padjust.f: call adj(info,idato,sl1,sl2,knee,sl0,iy1e,iy2e,iy1,iy2,iflag,
STEP2/padjust.f: * end=100) cc,IDc,sl1,sl2,knee,sl0,iy1,iy2,iy1e,iy2e,iflag
STEP2/padjust.f: call adj(info,idata,sl1,sl2,knee,sl0,iy1e,iy2e,iy1,iy2,iflag,
STEP2/padjust.f: * end=35) cc,IDc,sl1,sl2,knee,sl0,iy1,iy2,iy1e,iy2e,iflag
STEP2/padjust.f: subroutine adj(info,idata,sl1,sl2,knee,sl0,iy1,iy2,iy1a,iy2a,
STEP2/padjust.f: if(iy.gt.knee) sl=sl2
I agree with those who view Hansen’s statement as influencing the measurements so the data he is looking for is available. However, he let’s the cat out the bag with his usage of “will” and “are”. His intent is clearly to get more data that can be manipulated to his liking.
“As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen’s space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.”
So, after a decade of contemplation it seems our man has to spend the rest of his life explaining how our species is changing the atmosphere.
By this admission he is hardly the unbiased observer or a genuine curiosity driven scientist. He is a crusader for his cause and this alone is reason to doubt his data.
It is a very good thing that we have UAH and RSS now.
I can’t imagine what would have happened to the 1990-on temps without the independent agencies monitoring the temp record.
I think we need to get Frank Lansner’s chart (from 13:25) into the blink comparator.
Going by the net adjustments made to date and the inconsistencies with the satellite data since 1980, it appears as though the historic temperature trend has been artificially/unneccessarily increased by about 0.3C or so (compared to the 0.7C quoted today).
Ever notice how those on the “progressive” side always reveal their hand.
For those who believe it’s not all about the money: click
BTW, anyone else wanting to download the GISSTEMP source code can go to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
and click on the download link. They say to unpack the archive and read the documentation, but it’s a bit thin… a file at the top level of the directory structure, gistemp.txt, that gives a general idea of what’s going on but says little about algorithms. Variables and files are poorly documented (you have to hunt through the code and figure them out…) but the code isn’t very fancy. It’s about 4.5Mb unpacked and that includes some of the data files that they left in directories.
The module ‘step1’ is in python, that I’ve never written, so if a python person wanted to go through that bit it would make life easier for me 8-}
Do we really need to see Mr Hansen’s smug face peering out at us at the top of your page? Please please put another photo there of anything, or quickly put up another thread so its displaced!?
How about a sheep since he seems to be a follower and not a leader. Maurice Strong seems to be behind much of this http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf
If Hansen has not been “retired” by the March “climate conference”, I hope there is a concerted effort to see that he is removed. Taxpayers, citizens, and scientists deserve unadulterated, reliably gathered raw data from which to create hypotheses, formulate theories, and draw conclusions. The whole process must be transparent and there must be full accountability.
It cannot be any clearer how much the books have been cooked and Hansen even confesses: “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
Unfortunately, the former scientist, the man, is ill.
Give Hanson a break. He’s fanally trying to be honest about his manipulating facts. Sure.
[snip- no more of these comparisons please – Anthony]
I agree entirely with Greg (15:25:13). This site is turning pathological and is a sad loss now.
I would, like Greg at 15:25, cut him some slack in that he could be referring to not having a way to perfect the collection of the data he analyses, meaning that the data comes with baggage he has to (or can’t, legitimately) rationalize.
That would be an especially difficult consternation for someone who appears to have predicated it all with the apparent self-satisfaction that his hypothesis is true, and only requires that the evidence be adequately catalogued to substantiate it.
He presents this as an apparently obvious fact he has known since college and still states it, implying that he has not changed his view. If his text means otherwise, then his scientific writing needs very close scrutiny as there is a problem with language. If the text means what it says, then the science needs very close scrutiny, as it may not be what it seems. The bio confounds his credibility, without even looking at the science.
Greg (15:25:13) : wrote:
==“The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”==
Never thought I would find myself defending Hansen, but…
Anyone who is responsible for analyzing data that others collect, especially when others own the instruments or write the data collection protocols, knows exactly what he is talking about. A statistician trying to analyze a clinical trial for example, when others have more direct authority over the clinical trial protocol, and MDs collect the data at the investigative site, often have to struggle through their inability to “influence the nature of the measurements obtained.”
On the wrong track with this one I think.
—————————————–
Greg, that is a most charitable thought, but isn’t that the exact reason that the data for an FDA-approval is collected by independent MDs and blinded, unbiased Clinical Research Organizations in double-blinded placebo-controlled studies ?? The job of the statistician is twofold – to adequately power the study, and then determine the statistical significance of results obtained.
“Influencing the nature of the measurements” by a statistician is not something the FDA would take kindly to during the drug approval process, believe me.
On the same subject, if data for a drug approval was collected and documented as badly as temperature data appears to be collected and massaged (with no regulatory control, or even transparency), the drug would not be approved, and heads would roll for the abject sloppiness.
Luckily, Al Gore’s big mistake was inventing the internet BEFORE he invented global warming, otherwise we would never have figured all this out.
George E Smith:
George,
You have misread the paper. They do not claim the GCMs predict a 7% increase in total evaporation. What they say is this ( http://www.nasa-news.org/resources/pdf/Wentz_How_Much_More.pdf ):
So, in other words, the models predict that both the precipitation and evaporation will increase by about 3% and that the concentration in the atmosphere will increase by about 7%. So, yes, the GCMs “understand” that the amount of evaporation and precipitation should remain balanced.
I know you have little faith in climate models and the people who create and run them, but please give them the benefit of the doubt that they might actually be smart enough to recognize what you call “grade school stuff” rather than jumping to incorrect conclusions based on a misreading of the paper!
George E. Smith (12:31:54) : “The other piece of nonsense is that the earth’s albedo, and the amount of cloud cover do not change.”
I’ve posted the following links before, but to me they are so devastating that they are worth posting again.
http://climatesci.org/2009/01/02/new-jgr-paper-inter-annual-variations-in-earths-reflectance-by-palle-et-al-2009/
http://climatesci.org/2009/01/07/sea-level-budget-over-2003%E2%80%932008-a-reevaluation-from-grace-space-gravimetry-satellite-altimetry-and-argo-by-cazenave-et-al-2008/
(I have posted indirect links via Pielke Sr’s website, but he gives the links to the full papers)
The first shows that albedo decreased from the mid-1980s to about 2000. It then increased rapidly for 1-2 years and has since maintained the increased level (see graph figure 2 in Palle paper).
The second shows that ocean warming had slowed down dramatically by 2003, and that the oceans have been cooling since about 2006.
If you put these two papers together, prima facie it looks like they match quite well (I would like to see someone analyse it properly). In which case, it would be reasonable to suppose that the ocean warming in the late 20thC, and the recent ocean cooling, were both driven by clouds.
George E. Smith (12:31:54) : “the air temperature increases were only about 60% of the water temperature increases”
Is it unreasonable to suppose that in the short term, air temperatures are affected by all sorts of factors, because of the way that stuff is sloshing around all over the planet, but that in the long term air temperatures are driven by ocean temperatures? Note that oceans are a far larger heat body than the atmosphere, so are the place to look (after radiation from/into space) to confirm the Earth’s heat budget. Certainly air temperatures changing less than ocean temperatures would be consistent with that idea, but possibly be inconsistent with the idea that temperature changes start in the atmosphere (greenhouse theory).
Smokey (10:29:16) :
Amazingly, most, if not all of Hansen’s adjustments result in what looks like increasing temperatures. What are the odds, eh? click
Colin Aldridge (11:23:04) :
. . . Have you got this blink chart the wrong way round? It seems to show the adjustments are all up for old temperatures with no adjustment for recent ones
David S (11:34:38) :
That blink comparator is interesting. At first I thought the recent high temperatures were simply shifting the average up which would have the effect of making the anomaly go downward in earlier years. But the 1880 to 1890 timeframe shows an upward change between the 1999 graph and the 2008 graph.
Ed (a simple old carpenter) (12:47:26) :
Colin, I think the blink chart is okay. Put your mouse on the chart at about 1965. Right around there the chart pivots, Hanson made temps before that cooler and temps after that hotter. In this way he makes current temps seem hotter when compared to past temps.
Ahem (pride of authorship, here). I’ve done blink charts for all stations in three states so far, IA, IL, WI, and the adjustments break pretty evenly both warmer and colder. (I’ll post the rest on ClimateStations.org as the stations get surveyed).
The Racine blink shows an upward adjustment of the past, which reduces the warming slope. It would be just as easy to find a station adjusted the other way. Were GISS to make All adjustments in one direction, that would be obvious manipulation, and it is not the case.
What I’ve found was some stations were left alone, some tweaked a little up or down, some wildly displaced. Overall, the GISS homogenization algorithm produces a tangle, with no clear adjustment trend. One would have to average all the adjustments to the yearly numbers to find the real trend.
I have seen that chart on WUWT in the past (but I haven’t been able to find it) and it shows a clear, gentle rise, mainly from adjusting past temperatures downward. The variety of individual results lets one fiddle with the weighting of different adjustment variables to produce the desired overall result, without being overtly manipulative.
Our work on the Climate Station survey will let us find the stations that Should be adjusted, and remove the malign fiddling with the more pristine (I hate that word, but it applies) stations.
From the ‘documentation’ file of the GISSTEMP code, per Step2:
Step 2 : Splitting into zonal sections and homogeneization (do_comb_step2.sh)
———————————————————-
To speed up processing, Ts.txt is converted to a binary file and split
into 6 files, each covering a latitudinal zone of a width of 30 degrees.
The goal of the homogeneization effort is to avoid any impact (warming
or cooling) of the changing environment that some stations experienced
by changing the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the
long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term
monthly and annual variations. If no such neighbors exist, the station is
completely dropped, if the rural records are shorter, part of the
non-rural record is dropped.
Result: Ts.GHCN.CL.1-6 – before peri-urban adjustment
Ts.GHCN.CL.PA.1-6 – after peri-urban adjustment
It looks to me like ‘step2’ is where the ‘magic’ happens. Interestingly enough, the docs claim that both an adjusted and a non-adjusted output file are produced… wonder when the ‘straight stuff’ goes…
I also wonder if there is an accidental bias in the rules. Stations either get their slope adjusted to match their neighbors or they are dropped. Looks like a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ to me.
Hansen never ceases to amaze.
Have you read the other kind of global warming -direct heating from power stations and cars. This one won’t cause as much trouble though. The numbers are more simple. If you’re a fan of peer review, this will change your mind.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/another-kind-of-global-warming/
You know, he’s just like Mann. There’s no fear at all of unreasonable comments. The media keeps eating it up like the messiah has spoken.
Philip McDaniel — A more correct concept would be ‘…trying to understand the climate changes on earth and whether or not anthropogenic changes influence those changes.’
Nonsense. OBVIOUSLY humans alter their environment, and have done so with increasing ability for the past 10,000 years. This isn’t in dispute. Hansen is looking for the amount of human influence on climate. This is a perfectly legitimate thing to study. In fact that makes him pretty smart for being among the first to seriously attempt to answer at least part of the question.
It’s one thing to note that the climate is changing and dispute signal levels (natural vs human) but it’s bordering on silliness to suggest that humans have no measurable influence whatsoever. Unless of course you’re suggesting (laughably) that the effects of deforesting an entire continent (Europe) is something that could never be quantified (just for one example.)
There are those of us who are skeptical that humans can cause ENOUGH change to be problematic in the future (i.e. tipping points where runaway conditions occur) and/or that any such negative change is solely due to CO2. This is completely different than attempting to argue that humans cause no changes whatsoever.
As “ad” says above this site is turning pathological. A few days ago there was a claim that Hansen was fudging numbers and some sort of magical statistical analysis could prove it (it can’t tell the difference between equipment issues or rounding or anything else, much less malign intent.) Now this.
Can’t we simply be skeptical that Hansen is right? It it truly necessary to pillory the man for his every utterence?
Hansen does seem to be fond of massaging the data, but I’m not altogether convinced that it really has had much of an effect on the long-term GISS data trend, if viewed from a big-picture perspective. Small-scale yes, long trends, not so much.
As an example, check out Bob Tisdale’s blog. He has a really terrific post where has has taken a synthetic temperature anomaly dataset that he created from a number of climate-forcing variables and compared it to the historical HADCRUT, NCDC and GISS datasets. The synthetic dataset compares really well to them all, even GISS, with it’s Hansenizations.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html
This isn’t to say that I approve of Hansen’s actions, I do not. I just think that it has done more to cast a shadow over Hansen’s integrity than it has done to undermine the utility of the GISS dataset, in terms of long-term trends.
Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder
Who is Zapruder?
(Other than the tourist whose 8mm film proved Kennedy was shot by Castro sympathizer Oswald ?)
I’m with those who think there was no sense of data tweaking intended in Hansen’s statement but that it does show he conceives himself as having to act politically in a political bureaucracy and also believes he has a just cause in the interests of defending the planet against AGW.
None of that is news.
James Hansen would not come under anywhere near the current level of criticism if he simply provided transparency of his data and methodologies. He does not. He deliberately refuses to provide what is necessary to falsify his catastrophic global warming hypothesis. That refusal contradicts the scientific method, and it is a slap in the face to the taxpaying public that pays his salary.
Instead, Hansen makes highly inflammatory public statements like this:
In other words, James Hansen is 100% right, and no one has the right to challenge him in any way. And the accusation of payola comes from from Hansen, who has taken upwards of a million dollars from organizations with views identical to his. Anyone who does not have a problem with taking piles of advocacy cash when on the public payroll needs to revisit the meaning of ethics.
If Hansen’s predictions were anywhere near accurate, he might get away with his arrogance. But he has been uniformly and consistently wrong, going back to the 1970’s. And he knows it; thus his stonewalling.
James Hansen brings the criticism on himself by his statements, which include his demand for the jailing of law-abiding company directors, and by volunteering to testify in foreign courts on behalf of admitted lawbreakers, while he is being paid by American taxpayers.
Mr. Hansen has the right to these opinions — but not as director of GISS. If he wants to demonize anyone questioning his one-sided views, he should run for elective office. But it is a travesty that the head of NASA GISS acts the way he does and says the things he says.
I am going to do a set of toxicological studies on human derived cells from families that have an individual with a gene-related disease. I will have one affected individual and three controls (twin/sib and unrelated age matched) x 11.
During all the trials I will not know which is the affected/twin/sib. I will do the while study without knowing and do all the stats within families without knowing.
This is standard, as it is VERY easy to round-up or down, as it were, based on bias. You don’t even have to be deliberately cheating, it is something innate for people to influence the outcome. The most common problem for young scientists is that they throw away data sets that are ‘wrong’, and do so until they get a good data set with a good n-number. Throwing away outliers may improve your error bars, but it is not science.
E.M.Smith (16:43:26) :
Any group that like Python can’t be all bad, I use it for all sorts of stuff. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to help out at the moment. You can contact me through contact.html on my web site with questions. I’ll look a bit, but it’s approaching 2300 here.
Are you familiar with the Climate Audit folks playing with GISTEMP? I’m not, but http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3090 is one step on the way, you may want to move discussion about this over there. Actually, go to http://www.climateaudit.org/ and search for GISTEMP. Lotsa relevant info.
I thought you were looking at ModelE. GISTEMP is certainly an easier thing to port.
“… the danger that we face is the Venus syndrome. There is no escape from the Venus Syndrome. Venus will never have oceans again. … If the planet gets too warm, the water vapor feedback can cause a runaway greenhouse effect. The ocean boils into the atmosphere and life is extinguished.”
Obviously, the most exciting planetary research involves making models that blow up and predicting the End of Creation. Now that’s science!
Jeff Id
re direct heating from power stations and cars.
This has long been one of my contentions, that we should employ the most efficient means for producing power — it reduces waste heat into the atmosphere and prolongs the life of natural resources. That is why a combined cycle natural gas plant is superior — it wastes only about 30 percent of the fuel as waste heat, compared to roughly 60 percent for coal, and around 80 percent for nuclear.
As for cars, hybrids will help reduce fuel consumption. And today’s news states that this week, Obama will direct agencies to cease blocking states’ rights to implement their own vehicle efficiency standards. California will once again have cars that will be different from many other states. Although, 13 other states also want the same mileage standards as California.
Roger E. Sowell
Two sentences stand out to me in those paragraphs. The first is:
“…understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.”
His current actions are an embodiment of an existing belief structure. If he already believes that humans are affecting climate through changes they are causing in the atmosphere then it’s a small step to convince himself the change is there whether it is or not.
The second is:
“…development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans’ potential impacts on climate.”
As someone who worked with computers for over 8 years on 3d and 6d orbital and sub-orbital trajectory reconstruction, I can tell you that computer models make lousy predictors of the future. They are great at helping us understand events where we’re modeling between known end-points. But with any type of future projection they suck. The reason is because very small errors in inputs lead to very large errors in output.
Computer models are iterative by nature. Small errors are compounded into large errors over time. These are not additive errors. They are multiplicative. And with no way to constrain the results they will lead to wildly divergent outcomes.
Given the set of unknowns in solar, earth and climate modeling I don’t know how anyone can purport to predict accurately. What they are doing is fudging the inputs to deliver the results they believe should be correct. That is not science. Where I come from that is called science fiction.
Roger Sowell — As for cars, hybrids will help reduce fuel consumption.
Not as much as diesels. BMW has a 55 mpg model. Observations:
1. I’m not sure why I’d want to drive something like a Prius when I can get better mpg out of a vehicle that I’d actually want to drive.
2. Even if better/faster/funner hybrids come out, the diesel surely has to be cheaper to maintain and the end to end energy budget — from construction to recycling — *has* to be less expensive.
Are you married to hybrids as an idea or were they an example? Any other thoughts?
Time Mr Hansen was “retired”.
his position as I understand it is a political appointment and subject to the kinds of pressures associated with that. Put the right pressure in the right places Goodbuy Mr Hansen.
REPLY: I think you might be confusing the director of NASA with his position, which is not a politically appointed one. – Anthony
G Alston re high-mpg cars
LOL, I am not married at all! (been there, done that, etc ) I favor economics, and let the geeks and engineers develop technology that will survive in the marketplace. It took German engineers to develop diesels that can be sold in the U.S. Hats off to them! I think you are referring to the BMW 116d, a three-door hatchback. It appears to be a hot car; probably will fly off the showroom floors and be back ordered, if the price stays around $24,000.
My statement on hybrids holds for any car, whether powered by gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or bio-fuels. The concept of hybrid, as currently used, means recovering energy from friction braking that would otherwise be wasted as heat. So, even a diesel car could have a hybrid system installed. Most will not because the cost is prohibitive.
And, you don’t have to drive a Prius to get hybrid benefits. There are lots of choices now. Most do not achieve the mpg of a Prius, but still they do better than non-hybrids. I have a couple of friends with Toyota Camry hybrids and they are very happy with them. One guy carpools about 40 miles each way, with 3 large men. The extra weight does not reduce his mpg much, as the hybrid system compensates. A heavy car generates more power when stopping than a lighter car.
Another thought is that T. Boone Pickens is correct, that it is an excellent idea to generate power where and when possible via wind, and use the natural gas saved thereby in vehicles. I would go one better, though, and have it burned in a CNG plug-in hybrid car. We then have a win-win-win solution, less imported oil, renewable power to the grid, and cars that achieve high mpg. With the AFS Trinity design, the car runs on battery for 40 miles then the gasoline engine kicks in. They demonstrated a Saturn Vue with 150 mpg, although most of those miles were achieved on batteries and a nano-technology ultra-capacitor that were recharged through a plug-in system.
Batteries are getting much better, and very quickly. Some research at University of Texas at Austin produced a nano-sheet of carbon that will improve capacitors, too.
As E.M. Smith and I have swapped comments on a lot of this on other threads, the key will be what the Saudis do in regulating oil production and thus the price of oil. The Saudis are of course acutely aware that hybrid cars are now available, and will likely do all they can to keep oil price low so that hybrids are not economically attractive. I am on record as predicting oil price will not exceed $80 per barrel for the next four or five years. But, there is likely to be significant disarray in the OPEC ranks, as member nations begin running out of oil.
If President Obama is as smart as some of us hope he is, he will ask for, then authorize, a mechanism to greatly encourage hybrid vehicles, perhaps an instant rebate upon purchase and not having to wait until tax return time to realize the benefit of a tax credit. Then, car makers can confidently make the hybrids in mass quantities, driving down the per-unit cost and including them on most if not all new vehicles. He could also use government funds to pay for half the cost to convert existing vehicles to hybrid with an after-market system. The new car federal rebate program could be kept simple by having the car dealers reduce the price, then send in all their rebate requests once per month.
I wrote about some of this on my energy blog, if you are interested click here:
http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/search?q=hybrid
http://earthsciences.gsfc.nasa.gov/organization.htm
I stand corrected Anthony its clear from the organisation chart where the pressure needs to go.
Franco.Einaudi@nasa.gov
It seems this is the person who is finally responsible for keeping Hansen in his position .
Joseph: Thanks for the compliment in your comment. My favorite part of that post was finding what appeared to be a 0.3 deg C discontinuity (step change) in either the HADCRUT or the HADSST-based NINO3.4 SST anomaly data (or both) around 1903/04.
http://i43.tinypic.com/rl01nb.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/fnhhrd.jpg
And for those wondering what the (red) Reproduction curve is, it’s a scaled running total of NINO3.4 SST anomalies that have been adjusted for solar, volcanic aerosols, and “ENSO Noise”.
Needless to say, I was very pleased with how well that reproduction turned out.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html
I hope to have the second part written up today. The graphs are done. Just have to provide the narrative for them.
No one can honestly look at the way GISS adjusts historical temperatures to better make their record match their theory, and not conclude that this is fraud. That GISS does not discard surface stations that are badly sited can be chalked up to incompetence or laziness, but the adjustments scream duplicity.
Hansen threw aside science for advocacy a long time ago. He’s paving a road to hell for us with his good intentions, and wasting trillions doing it.
Because of the current cooling trend, this fraud is being unmasked many years earlier than it otherwise would have been. What’s being exposed makes me nauseous.
Mike Jonas,
I suspect that changes in ocean heat output drive albedo changes via cloud quantities.
If oceans are in a warming phase then overall the air will warm so that it can hold more water vapour and cloud amounts will decline.
If in a cooling phase then the air will cool and can hold less water as vapour hence more clouds.
When ocean output is stable the albedo will be stable. Clouds only increase or decrease when a change is in progress because after a period of stability condensation matches evaporation again so cloud quantities stop increasing or decreasing.
That still leaves room for Svensmark but I think the cosmic ray influence if any will be a smaller player than changes in ocean energy output.
“On the same subject, if data for a drug approval was collected and documented as badly as temperature data appears to be collected and massaged (with no regulatory control, or even transparency), the drug would not be approved, and heads would roll for the abject sloppiness.”
OT but when that chemical was called Aspartame, then it did get approval. Sorry to nitpick. I accept your argument none-the-less.
I accept that Hansen is frustrated with not having enough data for his own specific needs. But everyone else has the same data to work with. IF he took an independent, unbiased view, then he might analyse the data objectively and report the information that is produced. Hansen is clearly deeply biased by his beliefs and that is making it more difficult for him to get the “answers” that he is looking for. This is why his department has been found out so many times using false and flawed data to back up their reports of continuing and accelerating heating, contrary to what the latest raw data suggests…
I can’t read Hansen’s mind, nor am I ordinarily one to defend him, but this smacks of a beat-up.
To me this could mean nothing more than trying to influence the kinds of sensors that are installed in satellites. There’s limited space, limited budget, and every scientist (understandably) thinks their measurements are the most important.
Hansen is a deeply disturbed, highly effective, charlatan.
Stephen Wilde has it asolutely right back at (11:11:32) when he says this is a Freudian giveaway. This is not some off the cuff remark, but his personal credo, a document anyone would naturally craft with particular care. Having already used the word “interpret” once, it would be natural to hunt around for a synonym. By making this spectacular unconscious admission, he then opens the way to expressing all that follows as assertions of facts instead of hypotheses. The true meaning of this Freudian slip is something like:- “Look, I’ve admitted what I’m doing in the most public fashion, so now I can say anything I like”.
I know this is all wildly ad hominem, but we’re talking politics, not science, and exploration of motives is therefore valid and necessary.
I also agree that Hansen should be “retired.”
Up until 2007 I trusted NOAA and NASA, and watched with alarm as temperatures were reported as “warmest month” and “warmest year.” (I like to believe I am a member of an informed public, and do not take kindly to being misinformed, whether it is about weapons in Iraq, or temperatures in 1901.)
In the summer of 2007 an obscure talk-show alerted me to an article in the Toronto Star, and the article in turn alerted me to the “Climate Audit” site. This was around the time Hansen “readjusted” his “adjusted” figures, and 1998 abruptly wasn’t the “warmest” year. This was before the figures were re-readjusted, and 1998 became “warmest” again.
Up to that point I had no idea, from press releases, that data was being “adjusted.” I felt data was data, and that data spoke for itself. Perhaps naively, I felt the data that the public was given was pure, and all interpretations and “spin” occurred after the pure data was released.
Once I became aware the data released to the public was “adjusted,” my opinion of Hansen sank to a level so low I can’t speak it. I have tried to speak my low opinion, but I always get snipped.
Therefore I am not going to speak of Hansen. I am going to speak theory, and about a hypothetical scientist.
Now, if you suppose the collection of data involves agreed-upon “laws,” wouldn’t a scientist who broke those “laws” be committing ( by definition)a “crime?” And wouldn’t this make the scientist (again by definition) a “criminal?”
If the “crime” involved little things, such as .05 degrees, you might call it a “petty crime,” but if the “crime” involved trillions upon trillions of dollars, you might call it a “crime against humanity.”
Lastly, would not a person who goes along with such a “crime” be (once again by definition,) an “accomplice?” (The amazing thing is that such a person might be utterly blind to the fact they are “an accomplice to a crime against humanity,” and instead think they were “saving the world.”)
I am only speaking theory here, and only about a hypothetical scientist.
However I will state that, in actual fact, in the fall of 2007, when I first ventured the suggestion that NOAA and NASA data might be fudged, and Global Warming might not be as extreme as the public was told it was, I was told, by people I respect, that I myself was an “accomplice” to Big Oil, and that I was “committing a crime against humanity.”
I confess to being something of a hot-head, and my reply to such people, even people I respected, was laced with language worthy of snipping.
I must say I admire the moderators of this site, (and also the Climate Audit and Accuweather sites,) for keeping hot-heads like myself under control, and keeping dignity in the discussions.
However I do believe the discussion about Global Warming is bound to become more heated (pun) before we are done with it. And the one individual who is most responsible for enflaming things is Hansen himself. Therefore he should retire, for the good of NASA, the USA, the World, and Science in general.
Ken Hall (03:46:07) :
“On the same subject, if data for a drug approval was collected and documented as badly as temperature data appears to be collected and massaged (with no regulatory control, or even transparency), the drug would not be approved, and heads would roll for the abject sloppiness.”
OT but when that chemical was called Aspartame, then it did get approval. Sorry to nitpick. I accept your argument none-the-less.
———————————————-
I won’t argue with that, except to say that, although FDA-regulated, an artificial sweetener is technically not a drug.
Did you also know that the company that made it was taking forever to get it on the market (I actually had a close connection to the company back then), but upon hiring a new CEO and Chairman (if I’m recalling the positions correctly) things seemed to go a lot faster ?? I’m not suggesting that there was any impropriety there, but there was definitely an increase in the “personality quotient”, shall we say. The individual they brought in was Donald Rumsfeld !!
Philip McDaniel — A more correct concept would be ‘…trying to understand the climate changes on earth and whether or not anthropogenic changes influence those changes.’
G Alston – “Nonsense. OBVIOUSLY humans alter their environment, and have done so with increasing ability for the past 10,000 years.”
Looks like you missed the statement completely. Notice the words CLIMATE CHANGES? No one disputes whether humans have altered their environment or not. The question really is, ‘have environmental changes affected the global climate and if so, by how much?’
To so answer the question one first has to understand climate changes. To assume that anthropogenic changes ARE influencing climate changes and then set about finding the facts that support this is not science. The statement as I postulated it originally IS a scientific question. What Hanson stated is not.
G Alston – “Unless of course you’re suggesting (laughably) that the effects of deforesting an entire continent (Europe) is something that could never be quantified (just for one example.)”
Which deforesting event are you referring to? The one that occurred during the time of the Roman Empire or the one that occurred just prior to the Industrial Revolution? And what effect to you believe that had on the world’s climate?
G Alston – “Can’t we simply be skeptical that Hansen is right? It[sic] it truly necessary to pillory the man for his every utterence[sic]?”
““Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.”
I am not pillorying Hansen. His derangement speaks for itself.
David Corcoran (03:04:23) :
No one can honestly look at the way GISS adjusts historical temperatures to better make their record match their theory, and not conclude that this is fraud.
So you assert not only that Hansen is a fraudster but that anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest!
Do you assume that the folks at Hadley and RSS are also fraudsters, since there is so little divergence in their trends? –
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dzp3n6
UAH shows the least warming there and is clearly the most divergent – does that make them the only honest ones?
You are aware, I presume, that all satellite analysis makes adjustments to measurements in generating a temperature record? Does that make them all fraudsters in your view?
Check Lucia’s site. She actually asked Hansen what he meant
Simon Evans (07:33:29) :
You are aware, I presume, that all satellite analysis makes adjustments to measurements in generating a temperature record? Does that make them all fraudsters in your view?
From Hansen: “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
As hard as I try to understand his comment as “influence the instrumentation used,” or “influence the kind of data collected” … that isn’t what he said. I, like many on this forum, have a problem when the nature of the “adjustment” is kept secret. His comment isn’t reassuring.
Furthermore, Hansen’s professional background is in Astronomy. He is, or should be, keenly aware of the importance of presenting experimental setup and conditions, assumptions and methodology in analysis, and making raw data available for independent review.
I don’t know whether human activity is leading to climate warming over and above that which is natural. I will make two assertions:
1. Those who do assert AGW have not provided convincing data in any sort of conclusive manner. (I.e. setup, collection, analysis, etc. details.)
2. I, personally, do not consider Hansen a fraud because I disagree with him. I, personally, consider his behaviour fraudulant because he adamantly refuses to follow the most basic principles of ethical scientific behavior, while tossing ad hominum attacks at those who call his methods and conclusions into question.
Perhaps I’m unfair to him. Perhaps I’ve simply picked the wrong search terms or failed to follow the right set of links. Perhaps you could post links to:
1. Hansen’s description of what data he uses and his rationale for selecting it; what data he omits and his rationale for omitting it; and his discussion of the possible errors eliminated and introduced because of his choices.
2. Hansen’s posted data base of the raw data used as input for his analysis.
3. Hansen’s description of analysis approach, including assumptions.
Please, no argumentation. Just a simple set of links that allow me to look at what the man has done, evaluate it, and reconsider my opinion.
Couldn’t the problem below simply solved by Cern scientists adjusting their models so this problem goes away? If the data is not matching what they expected their models to predict, why aren’t they adjusting their data?
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0901.2948: “On the Possibility of Catastrophic Black Hole Growth in the Warped Brane-World Scenario at the LHC”
“There is absolutely, positively, definitely no chance of the LHC destroying the planet when it eventually switches on some time later this year. Right?
Err, yep. And yet a few niggling doubts are persuading some scientists to run through their figures again. And the new calculations are throwing up some surprises.
One potential method of destruction is that the LHC will create tiny black holes that could swallow everything in their path including the planet. In 2002, Roberto Casadio at the Universita di Bologna in Italy and a few pals reassured the world that this was not possible because the black holes would decay before they got the chance to do any damage.
Now they’re not so sure. The question is not simply how quickly a mini-black hole decays but whether this decay always outpaces any growth.
Casadio have reworked the figures and now say that: ” the growth of black holes to catastrophic size does not seem possible.”
Does not seem possible? That’s not the unequivocal reassurance that particle physicists have been giving us up till now.
What’s more, the new calculations throw up a tricky new prediction. In the past, it had always been assumed that black holes would decay in the blink of an eye.
Not any more. Casadio and co say: “the expected decay times are much longer (and possibly ≫ 1 sec) than is typically predicted by other models”
Whoa, let’s have that again: these mini black holes will be hanging around for seconds, possibly minutes?”
At the CA, there was an article “Slicing the Czech salami”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2017
about what the GISS algorithms are doing with missing values in two scribal versions of the same record for Czech station Praha-Libus instead of plainly and simply combining it. A warming about 0.1 C was produced. The station belongs to the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute:
http://wikimapia.org/3561668/cs/Meteorologick%C3%A1-observato%C5%99-Praha-Libu%C5%A1-11520
There’s no need to make the adjustments from scribal versions of GHCN as a homogenized official result can be obtained. Also other Czech stations are mostly institution-kept and surveyed in various studies and theses. If they are homogenized and/or adjusted in these studies, then with knowledge about their relationships to other stations and history. Surely the situation is similar in other developed countries, so why not to give the GHCN a thorough revision, based on history and local research, asking the respective national institutions?
Simon Evans,
No-one has demonstrated that the satellite data is adjusted in such a way to show a smooth trend up or down. But the blink comparator in the article above is damning of GISSs adjustments to the historical record. It reminds me of the “throbbing” memo, that fake National Guard memo that Dan Rather produced just before the 2004 US presidential election. I saw that the use of Microsoft Word style kerning in 1972, the conclusion of deliberate fraud was obvious. I used to work in printing.
GISS tracks higher than Hadley or RSS last I checked, and is typically the highest of the four. And RSS tracks much more closely with UAH than with GISS.
HadCRUT is still lower than GISS, but I’ll have to analyze Hadley’s record against GISS before saying more.
John W. (09:05:38) :
Well said.
John W.,
Please, no argumentation. Just a simple set of links that allow me to look at what the man has done, evaluate it, and reconsider my opinion.
Whatever you say :-).
1. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1996/Hansen_etal_1.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/Hansen_etal.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html
2. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
3. As 1 above, but also here’s the programing: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
That’s a start anyway.
Incidentally, if you consider Hansen ‘fraudulent’, would you agree with me that he’d have to be an extremely incompetent fraud, given that he’s not been able to get the GISS temperature record to diverge significantly from the majority of others (see link in my last post)?
Please pardon some awkward language in my last post, I’m a bit rushed today.
“” Roger Sowell (23:45:42) :
<<>
Batteries are getting much better, and very quickly. Some research at University of Texas at Austin produced a nano-sheet of carbon that will improve capacitors, too. “”
So Roger, what is it that YOU know about the periodic table of the elements; that has escaped the purview of evry chemist and physicist on earth.
Chemists do know how to make Lithium based batteries that have higher energy densities (any way you want to measure that) than the types of batteries in modern electronics.
They also know how to make other kinds of bombs, that are even more impressive.
You can make a battery by putting a couple of wires of different metals into an orange; or a lemon too. I’ve even run a transistor radio off such a battery. Then I ate the orange, after I had done the experiment.
But as the batteries get more energetic; they also get more obnoxious; both safetly wise and environmentally.
There simply is no such thing as a green battery; and there also is no such thing as a safe way to store large amounts of energy in a small space. Well we do know one way; you can store a whole lot of energy: in hydrogen or deuterium nuclei; which you can get out by converting that to Helium in a battery. Fortunately we haven’t learned a safe way to do that yet; so the battery is quite safe, but you can’t get access to all that lovely energy.
Better batteries and electric cars are a Tom Swift pipe dream.
Perhaps if I said there are laws against those things, you will understand.
George
“…if you consider Hansen ‘fraudulent’, would you agree with me that he’d have to be an extremely incompetent fraud, given that he’s not been able to get the GISS temperature record to diverge significantly from the majority of others…”
As we see, GISS diverges significantly from the others: click
“”” Mike D. (21:12:53) :
“… the danger that we face is the Venus syndrome. There is no escape from the Venus Syndrome. Venus will never have oceans again. … If the planet gets too warm, the water vapor feedback can cause a runaway greenhouse effect. The ocean boils into the atmosphere and life is extinguished.” “””
Hey Mike,
Why don’t I just give you free and clear; your very own “Venus Syndrome.”
Using my very own Playstation II ; much like Peter Humbug uses, I’m going to heat up the top layers of the ocean to just below 100 deg C; or just over if you like; but I’m only going to heat enough to cover the whole earth from pole to pole with saturated water vapor say from ground level to 10 km depth about 30,000 feet.
I’ll leave the rest of the ocean at its present temperature, and leave all the other GHGs in the atmosphere as they are.
Now I turn the reality (real physics) switch back on.
Now its all your to deal with; a real Venus situation.
So now, you can figure out what happens next.
If you like the result; then you can try the reverse experiment, where you cool the surface down to zero C, and then pick every last water molecule out of the atmosphere with tweezers, before you turn reality back on.
So now what happens.
After you have thought these disaster scenarios through; you can write a short opinion on “Tipping Points”.
During these Experiment, we can transport all life on earth to Mars for a short vacation.
George
Philip McDaniel —
To assume that anthropogenic changes ARE influencing climate changes and then set about finding the facts that support this is not science.
That humans are changing their environment is fact.
That humans are changing the local climate via changing the local environment is also a fact. UHI (e.g.) wouldn’t exist otherwise.
To posit that humans are changing the world climate and then looking to see if this is correct is science.
Obviously there’s little point in further discussion here.
JohnW —
Perhaps you could post links to:
Dr. Hansen’s data is online including the source code for the Fortran routines that massage it. There have been links posted on this site was well as on ClimateAudit run by Mr. McIntyre. Much of the discontent with Dr. Hansen is that he’s overtly political; I’m not convinced that either his data or methods are inherently incorrect. I certainly disagree with his politics: hamstringing the US serves no real purpose. Most of us who visit this site probably agree with me re his politics; some of us seem to want to try to prove that his data is wrong. It’s perfectly reasonable to accept that his data etc is correct (or at least correct enough) and that his conclusions aren’t. Conclusions aren’t data.
Roger Sowell —
What I don’t see addressed in your stuff is the End To End energy budget data. I’m well aware that hybrid tech saves the vehicle operator money for fuel not consumed. My point was that it appears that hybrid tech is energy intensive in construction, i.e. where do you get the materials, and how much energy is used for getting and processing these over and above a diesel; and it appears that proper recycling/disposal also eats energy over and above a more conventional engine (diesel) technology.
My own back of the envelope calcs suggest that hybrids are more energy intensive throughout the entire lifecycle, therefore to “beat” a 50 mpg diesel driven an avg number of lifetime miles (say 200k for argument) a hybrid would have to get something like 90 mpg because of the hidden up front and disposal costs.
Thus you have the basis of my question. Do you have data suggesting otherwise, or is this conjecture, or are your calcs based on the cost only at the driver experience end of things?
George E. Smith — “There simply is no such thing as a green battery; and there also is no such thing as a safe way to store large amounts of energy in a small space.”
Gasoline is nothing more than energy storage. It is reasonably safe when treated properly. I think modern automotive infrastructure (e.g. gas stations, fuel trucks, etc.) is testament to that. I’m thinking gasoline at this point seems far safer than any sort of exotic battery as a storage medium.
IMHO of course. 🙂
George E. Smith —
I invite you to keep a close eye on things. You might be surprised…
Do you doubt that the Texas researchers produced what they claim they did?
Btw…I followed along behind a brand-new Tesla car a week or so ago in Los Angeles. 100-percent electric…but I didn’t get the driver’s name…perhaps it was Tom Swift?
Then again, I did not get to personally drive a Saturn Vue with AFS Trinity’s hybrid system on it…but I am sure the guy who did the demonstration run in January 2008 was named Tom Swift…
The Aptera is another car that Tom Swift might have designed and built…
As to what ‘cannot be done,’ you might consider that Einstein himself was skeptical about quantum mechanics…said that God does not play dice. But others went right ahead anyway, and now we have such things as computers and cell phones.
I know about geeks and engineers, and what they can do. I are one.
Roger E. Sowell
I observed during my career that many successful “leaders” were in fact sociopaths. They had no qualms or guilt whether they destroyed people who got in their way or altered facts and rewrote history to justify their personal agendas.
If they are extremely good at their art, they can continue accumulate and wield power for very long periods of time, even well after a majority of people have caught on. In fact, they usually have to do something extremely stupid or fall victim to an extraordinarily bad event during their watch before anyone within the power structure will dare to call them out. However, once others are of the opinion that their power has diminished and they are no longer threatening, there is a massive piling-on effect as a large number of individuals seek personal retribution for past abuses.
It is quite an amazing process to watch, particularly when you are not stuck in the middle.
“”” Mike Jonas (17:53:50) :
>>my deletions<<
George E. Smith (12:31:54) : “the air temperature increases were only about 60% of the water temperature increases”
Is it unreasonable to suppose that in the short term, air temperatures are affected by all sorts of factors, because of the way that stuff is sloshing around all over the planet, but that in the long term air temperatures are driven by ocean temperatures? Note that oceans are a far larger heat body than the atmosphere, so are the place to look (after radiation from/into space) to confirm the Earth’s heat budget. Certainly air temperatures changing less than ocean temperatures would be consistent with that idea, but possibly be inconsistent with the idea that temperature changes start in the atmosphere (greenhouse theory). """
Mike I think you completely missed the point.
1/ The end result of the network of "temperature stations", those things Anthony has been showing us; is to monitor and report on the AIR TEMPERATURE, at some fixed height (60 inches or whatever) above the surface; not to monitor the SURFACE temperatures.
2/ For much of the last 150 years, this process was carried out for the 73% of the surface that is oceans by measuring THE WATER TEMPERATURE; and it started by tossing a bucket over the side, to collect a sample of water from some completely uncrontrolled depth, and measuring its temperature with a thermometer on deck with the wind blowing and water evaporating from the bucket. Apparently around 1929, this practice was somewhat replaced by picking up the water from the cooling system intake, once again taking water from some depth that varies from ship to ship, and the thremometer was moved generally to the engine room, which typically is a quite hot place on a ship.
3/ The water temperature thus measured, was taken as a proxy for the near surface AIR TEMPERATURE; it was taken as gospel that most of the time they were the same. I’m not concerned with whether air or ocean temperatures govern climate changes; the point is what GISStemp purports to monitor is the lower tropospheric temperature; not the ocean water temperature.
4/ for the period those buoy results were gathered, there was some warming, but the data shows that the MEASURED air warming, was about 60% of the MEASURED water warming; for those years, and those buoy locations; so the reported mean global lower tropospheric temperatrure had an upward error bias, because they measured the water and not the air over the ocean.
5/ The important result for posterity, was that the measured water temperature and the measured air temperature, at the same time and location ARE NOT CORRELATED.
6/ That means that the TRUE historic valiues for all those oceanic temperature measurements, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE from the recorded WATER temperatures.
Ergo, the entire global temperature record prior to about 1979/1980 is bogus/garbage/rubish/useless nonsense.
That is the point; not whether the oceans are the drivers of climate or the atmosphere; but that if you want to measure the temperature of something; stick the thermometer in the thing you want to measure the temperature of; do not stick it somewhere else; and infer some relationship between that and what you are really trying to measure.
Isn’t that exactly the problem that Anthony has beens howing us with these esoteric installations that purport to feed raw information into Hansen’s AlGorythm; that he uses to create his mayhem.
George
David Corcoran (09:17:23) :
Simon Evans,
No-one has demonstrated that the satellite data is adjusted in such a way to show a smooth trend up or down. But the blink comparator in the article above is damning of GISSs adjustments to the historical record.
Are you aware of the extent of USHCN adjustments, the data provider upon which GISS analysis is based? Are you aware that, in its refinement of USHCN, GISS reduces the USHCN warming trend? And that GISS applies a greater negative correction for urban warming than USHCN? Given that, why are you damning GISS rather than USHCN?
Even if these adjustments were all GISS’s rather than USHCN’s, why would that be ‘damning’? If they had only applied corrections for urban warming with the result of reducing the warming trend analysis, would that be damning? I don’t think you would be saying so! As it is, corrections are also applied to remove time of observation bias, station history bias, bias in instrumentation changes. The net result of all adjustments has been ‘positive’ in the US, with a miniscule effect upon the global record (time of observation bias, for example, is not corrected globally). The analysis sets out to remove biases, not to introduce them.
It reminds me of the “throbbing” memo, that fake National Guard memo that Dan Rather produced just before the 2004 US presidential election. I saw that the use of Microsoft Word style kerning in 1972, the conclusion of deliberate fraud was obvious. I used to work in printing.
How does it remind you of any such thing? GISS is open in describing what is done and the effects of such adjustment – see links in my last post here.
GISS tracks higher than Hadley or RSS last I checked, and is typically the highest of the four. And RSS tracks much more closely with UAH than with GISS.
Did you look at my link? Here it is again: http://preview.tinyurl.com/dzp3n6. Your statement is not supported by the evidence. As you can see, UAH is the most divergent trend over the period.
HadCRUT is still lower than GISS, but I’ll have to analyze Hadley’s record against GISS before saying more.
If you do so, please consider the whole temperature record (and, of course, take account of their different baselines). You will see that HadCRUT shows slightly more warming than GISS since 1880. They diverge one way or another at various times, which is unsurprising since they don’t have quite the same coverage (and GISS, for further example, employs satellite measurements in deriving its sea surface temperatures). GISS will report a higher anomaly figure, but that is because their baselines are different (HADCRUT3 Jan 1961 – Dec 1990 (30 years) GISTEMP Jan 1951 – Dec 1980 (30 years)). If your baseline is a decade later in a warming period then your anomaly readings will inevitably be lower.
The evidence that GISS is not biased warm against HadCRUT is thus there to be seen. Here are the trend lines, from WFT again, offset to an 1880 base:
http://tinyurl.com/c9v52t
In the face of such evidence to the contrary, how can you assert fraud?
Whilst I’ve been writing this, I see that Smokey has posted a link to a cherry-picked 11-year trend (that’s an interesting choice of timescale, don’t you think?). Here is another cherry-picked 11-year linear trend comparison which shows exactly the opposite – GISS is a ‘cooler’ trend than all the others, including UAH! –
http://tinyurl.com/a9kzjc
Whenever someone’s cherry-picking I’d advise some scepticism, an attitude that many here seem to claim as a description for themselves without showing much evidence of applying it.
Hansen’s work at GISS is tax-payer funded and everything should be available to the public. Notes, emails, raw data, adjustments to data, source code for the models, etc., etc., that doesn’t have any national security implications.
Anybody up for a Freedom of Information Act request?
Hansen is writing Gores hymn sheet, the point that all are missing is our new President going to become a member of the choir? I think that no matter which end of the thermometer you read from we are going to be in for some very frosty times.
——————————————————————————–
Perform your original search, how much more rain will global warming bring, in Science Search
Originally published in Science Express on 31 May 2007
Science 13 July 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5835, pp. 233 – 235
DOI: 10.1126/science.1140746
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
Frank J. Wentz,* Lucrezia Ricciardulli, Kyle Hilburn, Carl Mears
Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades.
Remote Sensing Systems, 438 First Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95401, USA.
I see that in the paper itself; it does say that the 1-3% precipitation predicted by the models applies to evap too.
My apologies to GCM; which I guess still gets &% more water from 1% more evaporation (or 3% depending on which bias you want to choose); That would have to imply that it takes from 2 /13 to seven times longer for the change to take place.
But still the models can’t model evaporation better than a factor of 2 1/3 to 7 from reality. That’s really great physics. They apparently don’t model clouds very well either.
When they can get both of those things right, I’ll start paying attention to them; well of course by then; the things they will be predicting will likely be quite different as well, and may also agree with reality; namely that nothing much of any consequence is happening.
George
PS. I read one paper from England (modelling) where they doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (on their Playstation of course), and clouds evaporated, which would let more sunlight in and lower albedo; hence positive feedback global warming. There was one problem though; they copmpletely short circuited the feedback circuit; so the surface temperature didn’t change one atto K while they doubled the CO2.
It’s not nice to make up your own physical laws.
George
[snip]
REPLY: Please don’t use that word. – Anthony
Anthony, understood.
Simon Evans (10:36:48):
I tend to use the charts at Junkscience.com, I like looking at less-smoothed data when comparing datasets.
I’ll analyze the HadCRUT vs. GISS data you suggest… I can’t get to it ’til later.
Individuals like Hansen have always existed in our form of government, and always will. Using a position of power and high profile to make money/advocate for one’s own beliefs is nothing new. Gore is a master at the technique.
What’s new in this day and age is the power of the media to influence masses of gullible people with prounouncements of doom that can’t be easily refuted. It’s a perfect story, as far as the editors are concerned. Running headlines with a prediction of disaster far in the future is a wonderful way to get attention and to sell whatever they are selling. By the time any legitimate refutation of the story of looming doom can occur, they probably won’t be around.
The bright spot in the picture, however, is that there are still a few folks around who have, and use, common sense. They don’t buy the ‘scientists have the answer to everything and can’t ever be wrong’ brainwashing we’ve all been subjected to in the last couple of decades. And they have a way to make their veiws known, as this blog demonstrates. Thanks to Anthony for bringing a little corner of sanity to the current ‘run for the hills, the sky is falling’ syndrome that many of the world’s governments seem to be suffering from.
I recommend that all claimants to the title ‘climate scientist’ have their offices relocated to the great outdoors, so they can experience the climate personally. Maybe it will then become more obvious to them what’s really going on.
an opinion of a non scientific observer
mr hansen is probably more innocuous than we are imagining . Is not he putting up a show like Frank Sinatra in Las Vegas ? Easy to listen to and distracting the crowd from the noise in the background ? In his own mindset he is not beyond reasonable doubt , but more likely above reasonable doubt . A highly questionable performance at his level . Or did he make up the figures deliberately and on purpose ? In both cases we should wish him well ……
George E. Smith — re chemistry.
While I am no Ph.D. chemist, I do have a degree in chemical engineering, from a rather good university. I believe I understand battery chemistry well enough to follow the research.
I am always amused when people say that certain things cannot be done. I am a firm believer in some limits, such as thermodynamics. It is pretty tough to violate Law Number 2.
But some statements just make me laugh, for example: “What goes up, must come down.” — Nope, rockets send objects up and out of Earth’s gravity well — some forever.
“Water always runs downhill.” — Nope, consider a tsunami. Then consider a syphon, like the one that brings water from the Colorado river to Los Angeles; it has several segments where water flows uphill.
“No person could ever have a use for a computer.”
“A thrown baseball cannot curve.” See Sandy Koufax on that one.
“Dunking a basketball is impossible.” See e.g. Dr. J, Michael Jordan, etc.
“We are running out of oil.”
“We are running out of water.”
“We are using up the earth’s mineral resources.” — Nope, just changing them to different forms. All the iron that was ever mined is still around, with some of it perhaps a bit more diffuse as rust. But the iron atoms did not run away.
“Using energy is a bad thing for humanity.” Ummm…is there anybody who actually believes that?
“We can control the Earth’s climate change by reducing man-made greenhouse gases.”
“An electric car is impractical and will never work.”
Roger E. Sowell
There are two satellites on the horizon that will hopefully take some of the guess work out of future measurements. This is a little off topic and may merit further discussion on its own.
Orbiting Carbon Observatory – is scheduled to launch February 23, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory
Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite GOSAT (or Ibuki which means “breath” in Japanese) actually launched on January 23, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases_Observing_Satellite
David Corcoran (11:32:46) :
I tend to use the charts at Junkscience.com, I like looking at less-smoothed data when comparing datasets.
I’ll analyze the HadCRUT vs. GISS data you suggest… I can’t get to it ’til later.
Fair enough. Obviously one can’t get more ‘smoothed’ than linear trends! I think they’re appropriate, though, to refute the false assertion that GISS has ‘outwarmed’ Hadley over the period of record.
There is no question that GISS (or Hadley, or RSS, or whatever) will show more warming over cherry-picked periods. That is inevitable, given that they’re assessing different things in different ways. There’s also no question, as demonstrated, that one can cherry-pick other periods to show the contrary. If there is a bias in any of the records then it would be systematic and thus sustained. The first suspect for that, on the basis of simply considering correlation over their whole record periods, would be UAH, though in saying that I am not asserting that they are humanly biased. UAH is the most consistently divergent record, however – there can be no intelligent quarrel with that statement.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of GISS being subject to the bias of human inclination. The corrections that have been made are extensively explained and analysed, the outcome of those corrections is trivial in terms of global record and the outcome of that record is in fact somewhat ‘cooler’ than HadCRUT over the full period.
If the outcome of the ‘surface stations project’ was to establish that a warming bias existed in the records (which I think highly unlikely, but never mind that), would you think it then appropriate to remove that bias? That is, would you think that corrections should be made following an Anthony Watts analysis revealing that the record was ‘over-reading’ warming? If you say ‘no’ then I guess that’s fair enough – you don’t want any reanalysis of the records with the intent of recognising and correcting for bias. If you say ‘yes’, however, then how on earth do you distinguish your accusation of fraud against Hansen from an approval of bias analysis promoted by others (and in passing, there has, of course, been no analysis as yet from AW in respect of the surface stations project).
Present some evidence of Hansen distorting the records rather than removing biases and you might have a case. Until you do, you and all those others here are just repeating articles of faith, it seems to me.
“” G Alston (10:01:43) :
Philip McDaniel —
To assume that anthropogenic changes ARE influencing climate changes and then set about finding the facts that support this is not science.
That humans are changing their environment is fact. “”
I believe that. Well Heisenberg teaches us that we cannot even observe the state of a single particle, without changing that state. And I also understand how those unpredictable changes occur. I have some nice properly functioning yellow LED lamps that simply would not work unless Heisenberg was correct, so I believe it.
Ergo; we cannot even take a photograph of the environment without changing it; so yes man alters the climate. Everything on earth has an influence on climate; and lots of other things that aren’t on earth. I think Heisenberg also teaches us that by observing, we change things in ways that are quite unpredictable.
Yet we still try to predict the outcome of the effect of our existence on climate. But most of what has been predicted to date, has not actually happened as it was predicted.
Right now, we don’t even seem to be able to observe the changes in climate; well at least we seem to change the results of those observations whenever we feel like it.
I would suggest that we need to be able to predict the past (that we can test), before we attempt to predict the future.
I’m not in favor of putting any shackles on what Dr James Hansen does or says.
But yesterday, I heard one of our local California politicians say that the polar ice was melting and would all be gone in a few years.
Now he belongs in an asylum for the criminally insane; because the scientific media have been reporting the fact that that is untrue for quite a number of years, and if the guy just read something each day, he would know his statement is a bald faced lie.
“” G Alston (10:07:02) :
George E. Smith — “There simply is no such thing as a green battery; and there also is no such thing as a safe way to store large amounts of energy in a small space.”
Gasoline is nothing more than energy storage. It is reasonably safe when treated properly. I think modern automotive infrastructure (e.g. gas stations, fuel trucks, etc.) is testament to that. I’m thinking gasoline at this point seems far safer than any sort of exotic battery as a storage medium.
IMHO of course. 🙂 “”
Well I would not recommend that you try carrying any of that safe gasoline on board an aircraft; not even the three ounces of liquids you are allowed to carry aboard.
And I hope Roger is investing heavily in those new super batteries from Texas. If there’s one thing I like, it is people getting rich doing good things; filthy rich even. Please don’t ask me to subsidize the development of those texas batteries; if they are as good as you say they are; they won’t need any help from the taxpayers.
Now I didn’t say such things are impossible; if you read what I said Roger; I believe I said “they don’t exist”. Now you’re a lawyer; you can tell the difference between “they don’t exist” and “it can’t be done”.
I try to say what I mean, and if I get it wrong, I apologize.
But whether it is the angular momentum of a flywheel, or the stored chemical energy in TNT, or the more controllable energy of diesel fuel or some Lithium batteries; when you get lots of it in a small space it is dangerous, and often quite obnoxious too.
And what is going to be the environmental consequences of minig all that Lithium to make those batteries; or whatever other molecular species you have in mind.
Lithium and Fluorine ought to make a humdinger of a battery; or maybe a Lithium Astatine battery. Hopefully it will be some sort of rechargeable battery chemistry.
At over $100k per copy, the Tesla is about one order of magnitude out of my price range; nice gadget for the silicon valley geeks though; they like gadgets.
A further thought on the Wentz et al paper, and the GCMs.
Wentz observations: global evaporation rate, total atmospheric water content, and total global precipitation rate increase at 7%K^-1.
GCM model predictions: global evaporation rate, and total global precipitation rate increase at 1-3%K^-1, and total atmospheric water content increase at 7%K^-1.
Now evaporation is a function of the molecular kinetics of the liquid, so it depends on the surface temperature, which is what the satellite measurments observed (surface warming is what the paper said).
Total atmospheric water content depends on the temperature of the atmosphere; not on the temperature of the liquid.
To me it seems a little weird that the atmosphere is able to suck up water faster than the surface is able to supply it.
The paper, appears to give no information as to the observed temperature of the atmosphere, or the GCM predictions of what that would be.
Seems to be some sort of regenerative process going on here if a 1% increase in evaporation rate, results in a 7% increase in the total water in the atmosphere. That also seems to say, that the atmosphere is in no hurry to precipitate all that extra moisture out bia cloud formation.
Yes I know I’m assuming that clouds form before precipitation happens.
Still sounds like a weird model result to me. It also suggests that the positive feedback gain of H2O in the atmosphere is large, unless the water absorption is so saturated that alot more water doesn’t give much surface temperature increase.
Would have been nice if Wentz et al had but a complete statement of the results in their abstract. the abstract says nothing about GCM model evaporation data.
Simon and George. Both of your last comments have been deleted, try not to antagonize each other. Please Take a rest – I have better things to do than moderate arguments. – Anthony
Ok, Anthony. I genuinely wanted to know what George meant, but never mind then :-).
I was listening to one of my Great Courses lectures from the The Teaching Company and heard this:
Particle Physics for Non-Physicists.
Professor Steven Pollock University of Colorado at Boulder
“To physicists, when a theory is well established, it doesn’t mean you quit thinking about it. In fact, physicists are the most skeptical, cynical and aggressively
challenging conservatives that you can imagine. If you say a theory is out there and it is correct, all the experimentalists want to do is prove you wrong, and they
are working really hard to try to find some data that will prove you wrong.
Of course, in the process, if they keep agreeing with the theory, it just stronger and stronger and stronger evidence that in fact the theory really is correct.”
That is the true scientific mind.
I think Dr. Hansen should return to the fold, act like a true scientist, and no longer make statements like the science is settled and that people should be incarcerated when they disagree with him.
George E. Smith,
I would quibble over “does not exist” and “it can’t be done.” Existence has many forms, from lab bench to demonstration prototype to commercially available.
As I am no expert in battery research, I must rely on information received from others. A common malady, I might add! Therefore, I turned up an interesting comparison of theoretical limits on chemical battery technologies, site shown below.
Per that book, from 2002, Li-ion has a 320 Wh/kg limit, and the Al-S (aluminum-sulfur) has a 910 Wh/kg limit. For comparison, the lead-acid battery is limited to 170 Wh/kg.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10595&page=23
As to taxpayer dollars for the graphene research, the Science Daily site has this to say: “Funding and support was provided by the Texas Nanotechnology Research Superiority Initiative, The University of Texas at Austin and a Korea Research Foundation Grant for fellowship support for Dr. Park.”
From another site, “The Texas Nanoelectronics Research Superiority Initiative, … is a joint venture between the State of Texas Emerging Technology Fund, The University of Texas System, UT Dallas, UT Austin, UT Arlington and private industry to make Texas a leader in nanoelectronics research.”
http://ecs.utdallas.edu/newsandevents/Chabal.html
So, since the Universities involved are public universities, there are likely some tax dollars involved, not to mention the State of Texas.
IMHO, it is far better to spend tax dollars on things like nanotech for vehicle batteries than some other things I could name. But, I would likely get the SNIP for that, so I won’t.
Besides, President Obama just today signed another executive order allowing the states to make their own rules for vehicle mileage standards. Improved batteries will be one means to achieve those new standards.
And for disclosure, I do have a modest investment in a battery company stock, Ener1 ticker HEV.
As to the $100,000 Tesla electric, no need to pay that much. The Electric Vehicle Association has many members, and they likely do not pay nearly that much for an EV. One guy’s car was featured recently in the Los Angeles Times; it was a Porsche 914 modified for electric only.
http://www.eaaev.org/
Folks, let us all get back on topic please.
I could post something here that would get me censored, and quite rightly so, by the moderators because we cannot attribute to intention that which is quite explicable by folly.
Smokey (09:46:50) :
“…if you consider Hansen ‘fraudulent’, would you agree with me that he’d have to be an extremely incompetent fraud, given that he’s not been able to get the GISS temperature record to diverge significantly from the majority of others…”
“As we see, GISS diverges significantly from the others: click”
Smokey,
I think it is perfectly clear what is happening.
The AGW Doctrine has it’s servants backed by huge funding.
As time goes by and their mission is almost accomplished they become sloppy.
Hanson’s open support to the Greenpeace members that demolished a coal plant in Britain provides a perfect example that he is backed by establishment.
Hanson clearly has become “carte blance” to support the AGW doctrine with all means available and he is rewarded for his efforts.
In the mean time he has lost his integrity as a scientist.
Something of interest to the ‘followers’ of Dr James Hansen is his appearance on :”Supreme Master TV” a world wide satellite network.
Particularly this link:
http://tinyurl.com/82b8xr
One of a few interviews with Dr Hansen.
If you browse around you will also find Australia’s Dr Barry Brook amongst others.
From the looks of Supreme Master TV, it appears that these broadcasts are for remote areas, to people that possibly have very little schooling and and no understanding of basic science. There is also a lot of reinforcing of the dialogue by drastic event graphics.
Ron de Haan (15:57:37) :
Hanson’s open support to the Greenpeace members that demolished a coal plant in Britain provides a perfect example that he is backed by establishment.
ROTFLMAO! They painted “Gordon” on the side of a chimney, but you have transmuted this into demolishing a coal plant!
Honestly, how ridiculously detached from the truth can the anti-Hansen smears become?
My apologies Anthony. I thought my comment was written in plain English; that didn’t need any expansion; which is why I declined to comment further since it was generally off topic anyway, and I had no idea in what way Simon wanted further elaboration.
Folks here might be curious to know that Susan solomon of NOAA Colorado, is now projecting the climate for 3000 AD, a full 1000 years from now.
So Hansen is not alone in making claims that seem off the wall.
What I see strange about Hansen’s GISS temp, is why he keeps a graph with only a five year running average; why not simply average all the previous data,a dn the new annual number, and give us a new average number for GISStemp anomaly. The way he does it implies that the way he gets from one data point to the next is meaningful.
I still maintain that “Climate” is the integral of “weather”, and not the average of weather.
George
REPLY: I just want to head off clashes that result in extra work for myself. Economic times have reduced what used to be a mderator staff of 5 to two people, one of whom is me. The volume of comments is large, and keeping fights from breaking out pays me back in time saved. – Anthony
Steve Hempell says:
Of course, all scientific knowledge is tentative but, unfortunately, some people will always use this fact to prevent any public policy action…i.e., they will demand “proof”, a standard that science can never provide. This is, for example, what the tobacco companies did very successfully for many years, first in regards to the dangers of smoking to the smokers and then regarding secondhand smoke.
But, science can only provide evidence…never proof. There will always be some uncertainty.
And, Hansen did not say people should be incarcerated if they disagree with him. He made a particular comment about fossil fuel company executives and his point was, as I understand it, was analogous again to the cigarette case: If it can be shown that they knew the scientific evidence was saying one thing but continued to claim otherwise and thus delayed action and caused harm then they should be held liable.
I personally think that Hansen went over the line with that comment. For one thing, I think that sort of thing would be difficult to prove anyway, although I suppose in the case of the tobacco companies they have been able to demonstrate it to a sufficient extent to win civil suits.
Simon Evans (16:14:39)
“Professor James Hansen has flown to the UK to appear at Maidstone Crown Court to back protesters charged with criminal damage at a giant power station in Kent. “(KingsNorth)
The protestors where painting “Gordon, bin it” on the power station, but where stopped during the excercise.
What was a scientist doing defending vandals? Closing the gap between science and politics? If you or I painted graffiti on a public utility, we would be charged – unless we where Greenpeace members Then it appears to be OK.
NOAA tells us we are doomed (at the costs of the tax payer)
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html
JeffT (17:23:50) :
Simon Evans (16:14:39)
“Professor James Hansen has flown to the UK to appear at Maidstone Crown Court to back protesters charged with criminal damage at a giant power station in Kent. “(KingsNorth)
The protestors where painting “Gordon, bin it” on the power station, but where stopped during the excercise.
What was a scientist doing defending vandals? Closing the gap between science and politics? If you or I painted graffiti on a public utility, we would be charged – unless we where Greenpeace members Then it appears to be OK.
The ‘Kingsnorth Six’ were found not guilty by a UK jury, therefore they are not guilty of any criminal actions. That’s what happened, and you won’t change it by describing them as vandals.
I was responding above to the ludicrous distortion that suggested they had destroyed a power plant!
Personally I think it would be a very good idea if all chimneys were given names, although ‘Gordon’ would not be my first choice ;-).
Hansen testified on the impact of climate change. He didn’t say anything whatsoever in the trial which suggested judgment of chimney painting. You may, by all means, dispute his view of climate change, but I am rather taken aback that you think he shouldn’t express it. Personally, I value the right to speak one’s mind, and value the opinions of those who are studied in a field, even if I don’t agree with them.
I didn’t particularly want to get diverted into this, but the distortion of truth (which I rather think was unlikely to be challenged by any of the ‘anti-warmists’ here) was too much to swallow. Might you not just say “Fair enough, you clarified the truth of the matter – thanks for that, the truth is what we’re interested in here”?
The “fire the guy” comments trouble me. Yes, Hansen is akin to the bearded geek on the street corner carrying a sign that says “The End Is Near.” And yes, he is a higly paid public servant. It might follow that tax dollars are better spent on the non-crazy.
But… too many of my friends have been fired or defunded or pushed out for daring to speak the skeptic line. The propensity to unemploy those we disagree with, over matters of science, is deplorable no matter which side of the fence you are on.
I can tolerate Hansen, and even enjoy his data manipulations and silly prophesies, if the Alarmist crowd could please extend a similar toleration to people they disagree with, who happen to be friends of mine, and who are exceedingly wonderful, smart, responsible people.
Joel
Why do you haul out that worn out talking point regarding the tobacco companies? It is not relevant to the science here and I would think most people here are tired of it being hauled out by the more “lets bring up the red herring” AGW types.
The CO2 causes catastrophic climate changes “hypothesis” is very tentative to say the least and is being very legitimately scrutinized and questioned by many people. We don’t need Phd scientists going off the deep end when these people question the science.
Perhaps you would like to view the lectures. Especially the one titled “The November Revolution of 1974” and get an insight into how careful, meticulous and rigorous science is done . Only costs $70 ($35 for the downloaded audio) A very worthwhile investment.
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=1247
Dear Smokey (18:53:52) : ,
You wrote so eloquently with great reference!
I have to agree with you. I believe some here are misplacing these words that Hansen writes, or simply placing in narrow focus, when in fact this is simply Hansen’s personality. I believe this is only a peek into the psyche of the individual, not an admission of malice, but an insight into unconscious psychological intent. I find it difficult to believe that Hansen would consciously and deliberately sabotage his own credibility in such fashion, more, this is an unconscious revealing, quite inline with his other writings and speeches. His position and bias is quite clear, and could perhaps affect his work, most probably unintentionally however. He in fact “believes” what he says, and “believes” he is doing well for the greater good, no matter how misplaced that may actually be.
OT: To the people who have spoken about various energy sources and hybrid vehicles, I would like to propose an idea to ponder. This is something I am very interested in pursuing in the very near future.
1) Rather recently, a company has successful begun the manufacturing of a solar film that is extremely efficient by comparison to typical silicon, and much cheaper. They are beginning to incorporate this technology into several products, including roofing and siding materials.
2) Researchers at MIT recently discovered a polymer that very efficiently separates H and O from H2O with very low electrical power consumption.
Now, the idea. Take #1 to collect electrical power and couple that to #2 to produce hydrogen that one could store almost indefinitely. Obtain an efficient hydrogen combustion electrical generator, and Viola! One could theoretically run their entire household off of the sun in a practical and affordable manor. Then, purchase an electric car, or plug-in hybrid, and you have essentially provided for all of your energy needs indefinitely.
I am seriously considering pursuing this idea myself and will continue to watch developments in these technologies until such time that it becomes feasible, which I predict is only 2-4 years away.
Mike D. (18:06:17) :
I completely disagree with you. I too think he should go, for no other reason than level of confidence. A person in his position has to maintain a very high confidence level throughout the public and scientific communities. I don’t care what he proves or disproves, I just want to be confident that he is doing the science and not just injecting his own biases. He himself, for me (and I suspect many many others), has completely shattered that confidence level. Time to go…
These are interesting biographical notes on James Hansen.
http://audubonmagazine.org/global.html
Excerpt:
“….In 1976 he was happily working as the principal investigator on the Pioneer Venus Orbiter experiment when a Harvard postdoctoral researcher asked his help in calculating the greenhouse effect of manmade gases in the earth’s atmosphere. “It didn’t take long until I was captivated by this greenhouse problem,” Hansen says. He resigned from the Venus project to work on the earth, “because I thought it was even more exciting to study a planetary atmosphere that was changing-scientifically exciting and also of practical importance…”
It appears that James Hansen has only ever been interested in so called ‘greenhouse gases’ and their supposed effects on the earth’s climate to the exclusion of all other factors.
John Galt (10:55:12) :
Hansen’s work at GISS is tax-payer funded and everything should be available to the public. Notes, emails, raw data, adjustments to data, source code for the models, etc., etc., that doesn’t have any national security implications.
Anybody up for a Freedom of Information Act request?
I have the source code and input data. It is freely downloadable (and I’ve posted how to get it on other threads on this site, as have other people).
I am in the early stages of a source code review. I have completed a general overview pass and summary description at a top level. I have also completed an in depth review of STEP0 (out of 0,1,2,3,4_5).
So far, it has been interesting. Leaving aside the ‘style’ issues (like: why recompile the FORTRAN each time you use it?) I have found some ‘odd’ behaviours. It’s too long to put in a comment, but a sample might do:
From: gistemp.txt
Replacing USHCN-unmodified by USHCN-corrected data: […]
The latest common 10 years for each station were used to compare corrected and uncorrected data. The offset obtained in way was subtracted from the corrected USHCN reports to match any new incoming GHCN reports for that station (GHCN reports are updated monthly; in the past, USHCN data used to lag by 1-5 years).
End gistemp.txt quote
This makes it sound like a simple swap of corrected data for uncorrected, with the only adjustment being to match the tail end of the data a bit better to any very recent (months time frame) data that might be in GHCN, but not yet in USHCN. But when there are data for a given station for a given year in both USHCN and GHCN, the reality is much different. Over time, I would expect ever more of the data to be in both GHCN and USHCN, no? What happens then:
The ‘USHCN-unmodified’ data are NOT replaced by ‘USHCN-corrected’; they are replaced by:
USHCN_corrected(year,month) – (average of up to 10 of: [
USHCN_corrected(semi_randomyear,month) –
USHCN_unmodified(semi_randomyear,month) ] )
How does that make any sense? How are these created data any better than valid data from USHCN? Why are these changes applied over a large number of years?
In particular, if a recent TOB bias has been removed, that forms the basis of the ‘correction’ that is then ‘removed’ from all the USCN_corrected data even from before the TOB began. What sense does it make to remove a recent TOB from past data (from before it existed)?
This might explain the tendency for the past to change ‘randomly’ in modified GISS data… And since TOB can be a degree or two, the magnitude match the observed variations.
While many have been trying to analyze Hansen’s statements in the post, there’s no mistaking what he’s saying in this NASA Q&A: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
Especially telling, at least to me, are:
Yet GISS makes adjustment to sites based on other sites as much has hundreds of miles away…
So, if he can’t answer the question, what’s all the fuss about? He can’t quantify the current measurement techniques as being in any way meaningful, yet we’re supposed to believe there’s a catastrophe going on.
Added emphasis is mine. So, guesses in computer models are ok, because after a while the initial conditions won’t matter. Riiiight. And of course a complete guess won’t generate garbage, no, that can’t happen.
Again I ask, of you can’t give me an accurate answer to the question, why are we worried about a few tenths of a degree change (up OR down)? And “Most trusted models” which contain “guesses”. Isn’t that an oxymoron?
Also meant to add, for the following:
Such models are demonstrably erroneous after only a few days, so why should we trust them for anything beyond that time?
Steve Hempell says:
You brought up this whole issue when you claimed that Hansen had expressed that “people should be incarcerated when they disagree with him”. I was merely correcting you by pointing out what he actually said and making the analogy to the closest analogue that I believes exists in regards to his idea of prosecuting fossil fuel company executives. (I also noted that I was not a big fan of this comment of his at any rate.)
Those lectures sound great and it sounds like Professor Pollock does a really nice job. However, I think I understand how “careful, meticulous and rigorous science is done”, having worked in the field of physics for over 20 years now.
Tangentially, I might also mention that within the physics community there is actually some grumbling about the directions that particle physics has gone off in during the last 20 years or so. If you want to talk about a field in which theory has been relatively unconstrained by actual experimental data, alas string theory et al is unfortunately a rather good example! (If you want to learn more about this, the book “The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next” by Lee Smolin -which I have to admit I haven’t read- looks like the place to start.) Hopefully, the new CERN collider coming on line will help to provide more experimental constraints on some of the theorizing!
Jeff Alberts (08:18:23) and (08:20:51):
You are missing the whole point of that page which is that the reason to study anomalies rather than absolute surface air temperatures is exactly all of these problems that exist if you try to look at absolute surface air temperatures. This is well-explained on the main GISTEMP page from which the link to the discussion of the problems with absolute SATs that you quoted from originates ( http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ ):
Joel,
I can’t decipher what of the above was a citation of Jeff Alberts, or what is a citation from Hansen, and which is your own statement.
But if I understand the bottom line, GISStemp anomalies don’t pretend to be representative of the “average” or “mean” value of the temperature of the globe, or any subset of it, such as the surface, or the lower troposphere, which might be a constant 60 inches off the ground (which itself could be 29,000 feet above sea level).
In that case, GISStemp tells us even less about whether the planet is warming or cooling, in the sense that it is radiating the right mount of electromagnetic radiation energy to combat the constant influx from the sun.
And just what is meant by correlated out to distances of 1000 km. Does that mean that what happens here in down town San Jose, a quarter mile from the international airport, is representative of what is going on in the Sea of Cortez off Santa Rosalia, or meybe even Loreto Bay ?
What does correlated mean in the sense used in that statement ?
George:
The first paragraph (i.e. the unindented one) is my words and the second paragraph (i.e. the indented one) is Hansen’s.
The bottomline as I see it is this: If you plot absolute surface temperatures as a function of location, this 2-dimensional field will not have very “nice” characteristics. For example, if you are in a mountainous region, the surface temperature will vary wildly with location. Think of such a plot near Mt. Washington: the weather station at the top of the mountain will have a vastly different temperature than one located in a valley only a few miles away. Even if surface topography is not strongly varying, you can still get other effects, e.g. due to a nearby body of water or river.
However, the temperature anomaly, i.e., the surface temperature minus the average surface temperature (over some, say, 30 year period) will have much nicer characteristics. Hence, this is the variable that one should focus on.
Well, I would recommend reading the reference that Hansen cites if you want to get the full scoop. However, what I assume he means is that, yes, there is a positive correlation between the temperature anomaly at one place and the temperature anomaly at another place within a distance of roughly 1000km. That doesn’t mean that stations separated by distances less than that agree perfectly but it does mean that, over such distances, the correlation in the temperature anomalies between two stations tends on average to be positive and statistically significant.
See, for example, here for a general tutorial on measuring such correlations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation Tamino had a couple of posts about these correlations in temperature anomalies, the latter of which is here (with a link to the earlier one): http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/temperature-records-of-the-week-shelby-county-tennessee/ I seem to also recall a very nice correlation map presented somewhere…I thought it was at Tamino’s blog but I can’t seem to find it.
Joel you said
“And, Hansen did not say people should be incarcerated if they disagree with him. He made a particular comment about fossil fuel company executives and his point was, as I understand it, was analogous again to the cigarette case: If it can be shown that they knew the scientific evidence was saying one thing but continued to claim otherwise and thus delayed action and caused harm then they should be held liable.”
This is a quote from Hansen’s PDF document :
Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near James Hansen
“In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf
I understand this as – It is his opinion, that if these CEOs disagree with the science he presumes to be correct, then they should be incarcerated.
There are many scientists with credentials more pertaining to the study of Climate than he is (He is a astrophysicist) who disagree with the science of CO2 causing catastrophic climate change. Who is he to make such a asinine statement!!
I guess we should agree to disagree. Believe it or not, I am agnostic on this and I am tying to be patient enough to see where the data takes us. However, that may not be until after I’m pushing up daisies.
Regarding particle physics. Ya, string theory seems a little flaky to me too. However, the Standard Model (as Pollack says should be Standard Theory) seems pretty solid to me being that the mathematics seems capable of making predictions and gives accurate results.
No, I understood the point of the page. My point is that the underlying methodology for obtaining the anomalies (via absolute temp measurements) can’t even be quantified by Hansen. So the anomaly starting point is flawed in the first place.
This is what gets me about people complaining that Steve McIntyre isn’t a climatologist, or that Anthony is “Only a TV meteorologist”, and therefore their opinions don’t matter.
Thanks Joel,
And thanks for the clarification on the reason for anomalies. I can’t say I agree with the concept though.
If the mean global surface temperature (if you could measure it) were plotted on a graph with a temperature scale that goes from -90C to +60 C as does the local instantaneous surface temperature on even one day in the real world; perhaps we wouldn’t have all this ruckus of people trying to make us believe that something untoward is actually happening.
But I’m also concerned that since radiative cooling of the planet’s surface follows along a generally 4th power of temperature relationship, and that the relative importance of any single GHG particularly CO2, relates more to the peak of the spectral emittance curve rather than the integral of it; which goes as the 5th power of the temperature, and invokes the Wien displacement of that peak from the GHG absorption line as well; then I can’t look on it as a quantitative science to fall back on changes in small differences; which is a differential process, well known for increasing noise in signal.
Thanks for the references.
George
Steve Hempell says:
I think if you read the full q
(Anthony, my previous comment was sent prematurely by an errant keystroke.)
Steve Hempell says:
I interpret it differently in the context of the full quotation, which is this:
The keys to me are the comparison to the tobacco companies and the statement that the “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual”. The presumption Hansen is making, presumably, is that this knowledge on their part and willful deceit can be proven in court as it could for the tobacco companies. So, what I think he is trying to say is that they don’t really disagree with him on the science but, just as with the tobacco companies, they know what the science really says but are actively distorting it anyway.
At any rate, we don’t disagree that much because I have said that I don’t like this statement by Hansen either. But, I do think it is important to interpret it in the full context of what he actually wrote so that one doesn’t claim he said things that I don’t think he really said.
G Alston said Not as much as diesels. BMW has a 55 mpg model. I had a 1981 pkup truck that got 50 MPG.
Want to get rid of a lot of “excess human heat sources”? Get rid of the pollution standards and all the excess government red tape that produces nothing useful. Only 11% of employed Americans produce the rest shuffle paper or sell Chinese goods. Sounds like a good place to start making humans more efficient doesn’t it.
Joel
Again – that is his opinion. I think he would have a tough time proving his statements in a court of law. So the context doesn’t change my opinion. Others can decide for themselves as the link is there to the letter.
Anyway, the heat is on – see the latest post. No statement here as I will have to see the context. :]
“”” Mike D. (21:12:53) :
“… the danger that we face is the Venus syndrome. There is no escape from the Venus Syndrome. Venus will never have oceans again. … If the planet gets too warm, the water vapor feedback can cause a runaway greenhouse effect. The ocean boils into the atmosphere and life is extinguished.” “””
Mmmm, now let’s compare Earth’s situation to that of Venus:
1. Avg distance from the Sun for Earth = 93,000,000 miles, for Venus = 67,000,000 miles; so Venus is around about 26,000,000 miles closer to the Sun than we are…now that’s going to give you one hell of a sun tan.
2. Earth’s rotation about its own axis (an Earth day) approx 24 hours, or 1/365th of it’s year. Keeps things nice and fresh. Venus’ rotation about its own axis (a Venutian day) approx 240 (earth) days or approx one Venutian year. What does this mean? Effectively Venus presents the same side to the sun all year (almost), now that’s going to cause some interesting weather effects with one half baking and one half not…
Cheers
Mark.
“interesting weather effects with one half baking and one half not…”
Sounds like a cheech and chong movie! lol
Hehe, Sorry just a silly joke. 🙂
Off topic, here’s one to ponder,
It’s said that the moon controls the tides and gets it’s reflection from the earth and is always facing the one side to earth, it’s just the angle you look at it that makes it a full moon/new moon on it’s cycle.
That doesn’t make sense to me, and like Venus, I belive the moon bright side always points toward the sun. You can see it just with impact craters from dark to bright side. Tons of deep impacts holes on the dark side and smoothed out craters on the bright side. The sun controls the moon and pulls it away at 1/2 inch(or so, or was it 1cm?lol) a year.
Ever wonder why there is two tides in a day, one small and one large?
A smaller lunar and a larger solar tide, extreme tides happen on the full moon/new moon.
That pesky sun trying to control us again. ; )
Oh and yes, I’m a fountain of useless knowledge . lol
George E. Smith (11:42:01) :
And just what is meant by correlated out to distances of 1000 km. Does that mean that what happens here in down town San Jose, a quarter mile from the international airport, is representative of what is going on in the Sea of Cortez off Santa Rosalia, or meybe even Loreto Bay ?
What does correlated mean in the sense used in that statement ?
As near as I can tell from the source code, it means that Hansen is quite happy to use the temperature ‘anomaly’ from 1000 km inland to ‘adjust’ the real data from San Francisco. So yes, Loreto Bay tells you everything you need to know about temperature changes in San Jose at the airport…
I’m only about 1/4 through the detailed source review, but the rough pass through the anomaly code looked like they were doing just that kind of thing.
Sidebar: The guy who wrote the only section in Python (STEP1) seems to have a clue how to write production code. IMHO, he ought to have been given a contract to re-write all of it. He even had ‘pride of authorship’ enough to put his name in the comments in the code that GISS publishes.
The name was found in the “C” extension (also well written) for Python in that section. Assuming he’s the guy who wrote all of it:
Kudos to: Jay Glascoe, SSAI, NASA/GISS
Professional job.
(That does not mean I endorse the ideas that the code embodied. It does mean that he writes good, clean, tight code and I’d hire him in a heartbeat.)
Now if only the FORTRAN were as well done… and the ideas behind it…
For those wondering where that 1000 km is in the code; notice the line that says “rad=1000 ;”… Notice that this can be passed as a parameter so one can ‘play with’ the value to see if the output changes in ‘interesting’ ways…
From Step2, PApars script:
if [[ $# -lt 1 ]]
then echo “Usage: $0 source (e.g. GHCN.CL) radius(km) overlap_cond(20)”
exit; fi
rad=1000 ; if [[ $# -gt 1 ]] ; then rad=$2 ; fi
lap=20 ; if [[ $# -gt 2 ]] ; then lap=$3 ; fi
i=”./ANN.dTs.$1″
echo “inputfiles: $i.1-6 rural neighborhood radius:$rad km overlap_cond:$lap”
Also, from the FORTRAN program PApars.f (one of the best commented and best written parts of the FORTRAN code) we have:
C*********************************************************************
C *** unit#
C *** Input files: 31-36 ANN.dTs.GHCN.CL.1 … ANN.dTs.GHCN.CL.6
C ***
C *** Output file: 78 list of ID’s of Urban stations with
C *** homogenization info (text file)
C *** Header line is added in subsequent step
C*********************************************************************
C****
C**** This program combines for each urban station the rural stations
C**** within R=1000km and writes out parameters for broken line
C**** approximations to the difference of urban and combined rural
C**** annual anomaly time series.
Joel Shore (12:36:24) :
Well, I would recommend reading the reference that Hansen cites if you want to get the full scoop.
No, I would read the source code to ‘get the full scoop’… Oh wait, I did that already! … see below…
However, what I assume he means is that, yes, there is a positive correlation between the temperature anomaly at one place and the temperature anomaly at another place within a distance of roughly 1000km. That doesn’t mean that stations separated by distances less than that agree perfectly but it does mean that, over such distances, the correlation in the temperature anomalies between two stations tends on average to be positive and statistically significant.
The problem I see in the code is that it doesn’t use ‘correlated’ it uses ‘linear’. That is, there is no scaling for non-linear correlation, a fixed slope is subtracted. This comes in one of two flavors. A single line, or two line segments with a ‘knee’. This, IMHO, is a lethal flaw in GISStemp and explains a lot of the ‘rewrite history by a degree or two in strange ways’ behaviour; especially as it relates to coastal urban areas moderated by the seas when compared to more volatile inland areas. “Damning” doesn’t even come close (IHMO, of course…)
Since most folks don’t really want to see the FORTRAN, I’ll include the comments in it (that do reflect what the code acutally does.) I’ve bolded a couple of interesting bits…
From STEP2 PApars.f file:
C**** The homogeneity adjustment parameters
C**** =====================================
C**** To minimize the impact of the natural local variability, only
C**** that part of the combined rural record is actually used that is
C**** supported by at least 3 stations, i.e. heads and tails of the
C**** record that are based on only 1 or 2 stations are dropped. The
C**** difference between that truncated combination and the non-rural
C**** record is found and the best linear fit and best fit by a broken
C**** line (with a variable “knee”) to that difference series are found.
C**** The parameters defining those 2 approximations are tabulated.
C****
C**** Note: No attempt is made to find the longterm trends for urban
C**** and rural combination separately; using the difference only
C**** minimizes the impact of short term regional events that
C**** affect both rural and urban stations, hence cancel out.
Squidly (22:11:06) :
1) Rather recently, a company has successful begun the manufacturing of a solar film that is extremely efficient by comparison to typical silicon, and much cheaper.
Yeah, very promising. Saw projections of 5 cents / kWhr. IF they can hit the numbers, this is a serious ‘game changer’.
2) Researchers at MIT recently discovered a polymer that very efficiently separates H and O from H2O with very low electrical power consumption.
Interesting. Had not heard about it. I presume it is this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-power-on-the-cheap
turned up in a google search. For a ‘downer man…’ point of view, see:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/5/143320/8009
Now, the idea. Take #1 to collect electrical power and couple that to #2 to produce hydrogen that one could store almost indefinitely. Obtain an efficient hydrogen combustion electrical generator, and Viola! One could theoretically run their entire household off of the sun in a practical and affordable manner. Then, purchase an electric car, or plug-in hybrid, and you have essentially provided for all of your energy needs indefinitely.
The issues I see:
1) It’s all new. Often the road from idea to product dashes many hopes.
2) You don’t want hydrogen combustion, you want a hydrogen fuel cell. Much better though more expensive.
3) There is an engineering question of what’s more efficient: Plug in HEV or a direct H fuel cell vehicle. Implementation nit at most.
Generally, yes. IFF what they project is valid, you can do this. IF. Hydrogen is not an energy source, but it is an ‘ok’ battery. (Bit low on density and storage either takes BIG tanks, fancy hydrides, or one heck of a lot of pressure or cold. Better for stationary than for vehicles; but workable for both.)