UPDATE 1/28: Full text of Dr. Theon’s letter has been post on the Senate website and below.
This is something I thought I’d never see. This press release today is from the Senate EPW blog of Jame Inhofe. The scientist making the claims in the headline, Dr. John S. Theon, formerly of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Arlington, Virginia, has a paper here in the AMS BAMS that you may also find interesting. Other papers are available here in Google Scholar. He also worked on the report of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident report and according to that document was a significant contributor to weather forecasting improvements:
The Space Shuttle Weather Forecasting Advisory Panel, chaired by Dr. John Theon, was established by NASA Headquarters to review existing weather support capabilities and plans and to recommend a course of action to the NSTS Program. Included on the panel were representatives from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Air Force, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
For those just joining the climate discussion, Dr. James Hansen is the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and is the man who originally raised the alarm on global warming in 1988 in an appearance before congress. He is also the keeper of the most often cited climate data.
EPW press release below – Anthony
Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.
“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! – See: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom – Get the Facts on James Hansen – UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says ‘lock up the oil men’ – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for ‘high crimes against humanity’ for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]
Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.
“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book “Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.” [Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]
Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. [See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges ‘notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming’ & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears ]
“Vice President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless claims that the “debate is over” appear to be ignoring scientific reality,” Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee.
A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 details over 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of the scientists profiled are former UN IPCC scientists and former believers in man-made climate change that have reversed their views in recent years. The report continues to grow almost daily. We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report. A chemist from the U.S. Naval Academy is about to be added, and more Japanese scientists are dissenting. Finally, many more meteorologists will be added and another former UN IPCC scientist is about to be included. These scientists are openly rebelling against the climate orthodoxy promoted by Gore and the UN IPCC.
The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ ( See full reports here & here ] In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices.”
The scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering climate claims are the key reason that the U.S. public has grown ever more skeptical of man-made climate doom predictions. [See: Global warming ranks dead last, 20 out of 20 in new Pew survey. Pew Survey: & Survey finds majority of U.S. Voters – ‘51% – now believe that humans are not the predominant cause of climate change’ – January 20, 2009 – Rasmussen Reports ]
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.”
On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick“; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.
# # #
ORIGINAL FULL TEXT LETTER SENT VIA EMAILS:
From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXXX]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:05 PM
To: Morano, Marc (EPW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:50 PM
To: Morano, Marc (EPW)
Sponsored IT training links:
Best quality 640-553 dumps written by certified expert to help you pass 642-456 and 70-536 exam in easy and fast way.
You know, bottom line
the planet is getting warmer, whatever we can do to curb this trend is a good thing.
So models don’t work, well duh…. the whole of science is a compramise, to fit models.. this is hardly news. The map will never be the territory, but an aproximation is an aproximation….
Seems to me this is just republican backlash or fuel companies etc. and those that are growing fat on contributing to climate change, for example all the Petrolium producers.. Perish the thought that things be made cleaner and more efficient!
Literalism…. this is what it gets you
John Philip:
“rather than cherry-pick your period to suit, if you simply graph all the available data it looks like this.”
You mean like this?
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/IrradianceVsTemp.gif
Awesome.
Gore is supposed to address the US Senate about climate policy today (1/28). (http://www.turkishweekly.net/other-news/82615/gore-to-address-us-senate-panel-on-climate-cnn.html)
The forecast in Washington DC today is: Winter Storm Warning until 6pm.
You can’t make stuff up this good….
While looking on http://www.solarcycle24.com at the report that yesterdays cycle 23 sunspeck was gone already… I visited their discussion boards to see what they were thinking about it. Where I ran into:
http://www.solarcycle24.com/graphics/comic.jpg
Giggle
National Post picks up the story, with original emails / bio:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/01/28/james-hansen-s-former-boss-on-james-hansen.aspx
Mike S.
Neil Crafter:
“As its your theory, you have to prove it, not the other way round. Assume its all natural processes first and foremost.”
Nicely said – you hit the nail on the head.
The null hypothesis is that we are seeing random noise (natural variability). I have not read a single peer-reviewed article in the climate litrature or otherwise that disproves this null-hypothesis (and believe me I have read a lot of papers).
AGW alarmists – wheres the beef?
Bruce Cobb (09:49:10) :
The Sun a weak driver? No, sorry, it’s the “big Cahuna” of drivers.
Robert Bateman (10:16:26) :
The Sun is the ultimate source of heat or lack of it on the Earth. Go stand on the ground with your thermometer in the path of a total Solar Eclipse and tell me the Sun doesn’t warm the Earth
Both of you use the oldest trick in the book: “turn off the Sun if you don’t think the Sun is the driver”.
when it’s active
And then slip in that innocent statement. I have done precisely what you suggest for both solar minimum and solar maximum eclipses and I tell that there is no difference I could feel.
So, live up to being on ‘the best science blog’ and realize that what we should be talking about are the minute variations in the solar output. There is no evidence for those controlling the climate in a big way.
Mike Abbott (09:38:52) :
Dr. Theon says “you could say” he was Mr. Hansen’s supervisor. However, in his original email he also said “I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation.” That authority defines the supervisor-employee relationship. I think it is a stretch (at the minimum) by Dr. Theon to call himself Hansen’s “supervisor” and a mistake by Marc Marano and Anthony Watts to keep repeating that term. It doesn’t significantly weaken Dr. Theon’s message, but Hansen’s supporters will jump all over the issue and use it to discredit Theon.
Mike: one has to be careful when translating gov speak into english….
The person who is directly above me, and writes my performance reports, is my supervisor…my ” Immediate Supervisor”…but for at least two levels above that are individuals who include supervising me in their job descriptions…and who could legitemately refer to themselves as my supervisor…
just input from the swamp….
cdl
As more and more top-level administrators/scientists weigh in on the side of skepticism, I begin to wonder why the diehard CO2-induced climate changers stick with their increasingly dubious belief. Convincing data to make anyone a believer in CO2-caused climate change just isn’t there.
There has to be another reason–could it be that the pro-green brainwashing that they get in our schools is finally bearing fruit, as they move out into the work force and become journalists, scientists, administrators, etc.?
They’ve been led to believe that we are, and have been destroying the environment since time began. When you’ve been fed that hogwash for most of your existence, it’s got to be very difficult to let go of an idea that reinforces that years-long indoctrination.
It’s going to take a lot of blogging and the re-establishment of independent thinking back into our culture to reverse this trend. We are only at the beginning, and it’s going to take a lot more ice storms, cooling, unintended results, and statements by experts like Dr. Theon before we can call it a day.
😀 😀 Ahh Thanks Flan-man! *Accepts award, smiles and waves*
….
Anyways back to the normal discussions…
Interesting link someone put up here about a warm start to 2009… The latest ENSO report published 28 Jan shows that conditions are slipping back into neutrality… perhaps 2009 may be warmer…
No, no dear skeptics, I am not joining Flan-man team… just pointing out that 2009 may be normal not hot or cold…
Anthony, Simon Evans…
“Climate models are useless” is the Subject line of the second email.
Simon Evans (09:56:45) wrote:
“I note that the release quotes Theon as follows:
Theon declared “climate models are useless.”
However, this statement does not appear in the emails from Theon which have since been published.”
Actually it’s the subject line Theon chose for his e-mail.
Sven,
Atmospheric temps tend to fluctuate widely. I expect it to come back down soon.
It’s a religion. Don’t expect the “warmers” to forsake their god. Better that they driven from the public square much as other religions are treated nowadays.
Flanagan (03:58:33) :
I’m a bit surprised by the claims that “there’s no proof” that CO2 is causing the observed warming. What would you consider a proof? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that it absorbs and reemits IR? That the troposphere is warming more rapidly than the upper layers of the atmosphere? Numbers about the amount of energy CO2 is capable of reinjecting back? This is all given in the IPCC ARs and in many independent publications.
I will refrain from usage of the word proof. The most basic tenet of the AGW hypothesis is that CO2 causes significant warming in the atmosphere. What I would consider evidence suggesting the effect of CO2 is more than trivial at best is: experimental data from a non-containerized, replicated, open air study subject to convection etc., where all other GHG’s are held at a constant concentration while the concentration of CO2 is varied, resulting in a statistically significant effect on ambient temperature. Failing that, the assumption that CO2 acts in a similar fashion in the atmosphere as it does in a greenhouse is just that ie. an assumption used in computer generated time trials with flawed inputs.
Joel Shore (09:09:42) :
PaulHClark:
Is this empirical evidence or modeled – the abstract of the paper you cite appears to suggest it is the latter Until someone can show empirically that this so called ‘forcing’ is showing the effect real I cannot see why I should believe it.
The value of the forcing is even accepted by “skeptical” scientists like Richard Lindzen and, I believe, Spencer and Christy. You are welcome to disbelieve it if you wish but just don’t expect to find much company in the scientific community.
The value of the forcing accepted by the scientists you mention is not attributed to CO2.
[snip, imagery too graphic]
Off-topic, but from a link in the comments:
Correcting Ocean Cooling
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page3.php
Am I reading this correctly? My take is that, when it was found that the Argo floats showed unexpected cooling, the floats showing cooling were thrown out, another source of data showing warming was substituted so that the cooling trend would go away.
I guess good science today is defined different from what I was taught. If the results don’t match what you expect, find another data set that does!
Psi:
there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit…”
Can someone explain what this means?
Meteorological models divide the atmosphere over the world into three-dimensional grid cells, where each cell is a rectangular solid, generally a few kilometers long horizontally, and maybe 50 or 100 meters high vertically. They input current conditions (as well as they are known) for each cell, and then try to solve the mass, momentum, and heat balances around each cell simultaneously in order to predict the future weather.
A “sub-grid scale process” is a local process that occurs in some locations WITHIN a grid cell, and not in other areas within a grid cell. Some examples of this can be upward lifting of air upwind of a mountain (which tends to cause cloud formation in humid conditions), downsloping winds downwind of a mountain (which tends to heat and dry the air), and “sea breezes” in coastal areas when land temperatures are warmer than water temperatures. There can also be man-made effects, such as heat loss from buildings in winter, or local hot spots over sunlit asphalt pavement, such as roads or parking lots.
Most of the models used for short-range (5-10 days) forecasting use grid cells only about 1 to 10 km on a side (horizontally), meaning that not too many small-scale phenomena are overlooked, but the predictions of even these models tend to diverge from eventual reality after about 5 days or so.
There are gaps in the input data, because ground weather stations are often 50 to 100 km apart, and upper-air stations (for data high above the ground) are several hundred km apart, and data for in-between cells needs to be interpolated, which is guesswork at best.
The fact that predictions from short-term weather models diverge from reality after about 5 days is not a major problem, because input data to the models are constantly updated, and 5 days’ warning for a major storm are usually enough to evacuate people from the affected area, or allow people to take cover in case of danger.
In order to attempt to predict climate over the next 100 years, which would require tremendous computer time with small grids, “global” climate modelers try to reduce computer time by using much larger grids, such as 100 km on a side. But this means that local effects of mountains, lakes, cities, and seacoasts are ignored within a 100 km grid–what are the “average” conditions in a grid cell containing Palm Springs, CA in the desert near sea level, and mountains over 11,000 feet high, which is treated as a single point in a global climate model? If a short-range model based on finer grids diverges from reality after 5 days or so, how can a long-range model with coarse grids be good for a 100 years?
There are other problems with long-range models, based on time-dependent parameters. A short-range model, made to predict the weather 5 days from now, can realistically assume that solar energy output and ocean currents will remain roughly the same for five days, without going too far wrong. But there are many time-dependent cycles in tides, sunspot activity, ocean currents, volcanic activity, and other phenomena which vary over decades, whose effects on climate are poorly understood and quantified because they have not been extensively studied over many cycles. Who can predict NOW how many sunspots or volcanic eruptions there will be in 2030, or whether there will be an El Nino in 2050? Yet the effects of these cycles can be many times greater than the effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but they are conveniently ignored in “global climate models”.
The GCMs have a very low “signal-to-noise” ratio–a very small CO2 “signal” with lots of variable “noise” of unknown size swept under the rug.
It is a well-documented fact that the Romans tended vineyards in England, where it is now too cool and wet for vineyards, and the Vikings raised sheep in pastures which gave Greenland its name in medieval times, while it is now too cold. What caused those warmer periods in history, when man-made CO2 emissions were much lower than now? Why did the climate get colder since then? When someone can explain the causes of those historical climate cycles, which had nothing to do with man-made CO2, and incorporate their predicted effects into the future into a model, MAYBE the models can be useful. Unless, of course, the predictions run counter to the political agenda of the modelers!
Flanagan
May I suggest you ?
Humm. Click on the ? above to follow the link:
The paper is entitled:
“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO² Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”
The worm turns. It is a slow turn, but a significant one. I personally feel quite elevated and even optimistic about the state of climate science with just this one piece of news. My dread has long been that AGW adherents would drag science through the mud and irrevocably damage adherence to the scientific method.
We will never be able to take politics and ego out of science. After all, it is a human endeavor fraught with human fallibilities, but AGW proponents apparent aim (intentional or inadvertent) to take the science out of science is too much for me to bear cheerfully.
I am indeed pleased!
Reading some fragments of this thread…
It strikes me how some people can type with a straight face that the sun has no influence on climate…
Seriously,,, try looking at it from a common sense point of view… like a child, just try it. Don’t dig into the science for one minute, as the more you dig, the more questions, uncertainty ,etc arise and you increasingly deviate from the truth and reality is blurred…
Common sense will tell you that day is warmer than night, and mercury is warmer than pluto.
Ask a child why is this so, and they will point to the sun’s influence.
It must be noted that the entire biosphere and indeed the entire solar system is in it’s current formation and state because of the sun’s influence. If there were no sun there would be no life and no climate.
The sun IS the driver of climate, so no matter how many “ghgs” you pump into the atmosphere, if the sun would go you would freeze to death very quickly.
It is a worthwhile exercise to try using common sense because it applies to reality, not opinion.
The sun’s influence is direct but more often indirect. We just don’t exactly know how it does it, but it does…
Since 2006 we have been told by “experts” that sc 24 will be huge and should arrive very soon… dates have been pushed forward time and time again and 2009 is here and we are still waiting… They tell us that everything is normal. Of course it is. Because if they admitted that something’s up then they would run into some trouble big time.
If the sun goes quiet, well then we freeze over. It might or it might not. Right now it looks like a Dalton event is on the cards… but we will see.
People will always look for a false science to cause panic and hysteria and so it is useful to go back to basics and use a little common sense… which doesn’t seem to be too common…
sigh… just my 2 cent philosophies
Underground coal fires in China reportedly emit as much CO2 annually as all light trucks and passengers cars in the USA. Why isn’t that a concern? Not only do those fires emit CO2, but they also emit a great deal of soot and the energy is wasted instead of put to good use. There seems to be little concern about that by Hansen or anyone else.
In fact, how can reducing our carbon footprints make any difference in the global climate unless it’s a global reduction in carbon emissions? (There’s a misnomer. CO2 is not a pollutant, but CO is, and so is soot.) Are we really trying to make a difference or do we just want to feel better about ourselves?
I don’t know if you have seen this, but the economic stimulus package have been made public, and in it it has $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. Whatever that is…I guess the AGW crowd is winning the PR war…..
Jeff Alberts says:
In fact, that is not a problem at all. Our current understanding of temperature responses to past events (such as those to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption or to the changes that occurred between the last glacial maximum and now) in fact seems to require such positive feedbacks.
Note that positive feedbacks do not necessarily lead to instability as you imply. They can just lead to magnification if the feedback are positive but not too strongly positive. Mathematically, the distinction is between converging and diverging infinite series. For example, if feedbacks add an additional half-a-degree warming to any 1 C of warming, then you get an infiinite series like 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + …, which does not diverge but rather converges to the value of 2.