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.
Well, to all:
I can give tens of references showing that the increase in temperatures is above natural variability. The Medieval warm period has nothing to do with that… And noone ever said CO2 is the only factor affecting climate!
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.
On top of that it is also almost certain that the CO2 released by ocean warming in the past (you know, the 800 years delay) accelerated the warming through the greenhouse effect…
So what do you need?
I’d like to second Craig’s comment re the use of hyperbole in our dialog. I have been told by objective bystanders listening to my debate with Alarmist that I immediately lose credibility when resort to hyperbole. If you ever saw the play or movie West Side Story remember the song “Keep Cool”. Bringing it to mind helps.
Craig, if you read this check me out on Twitter – TheSlyFox
Craig (17:42:46) I agree completely. for my part I am guilty of name calling amongst parts of my criticism of the AGW proponents. We on the logical and scientific side of the argument MUST let time and real science settle this, one way or the other.
I think if nothing else, this debunking of Hansen et al, by his former supervisor will, (or should) utterly finish, destroy and kill off the absurd notion of consensus within the serious and relevant scientific community about AGW.
There are serious and decent eminent scientists, specialising in climate sciences (atmospheric, oceanographic, geological etc) that agree with AND others within that same community that vehemently dispute the AGW thesis.
I think my last paragraph sums up one of the few facts that we ALL should be able to agree with. There is NO scientific consensus.
Flanagan said:
There’s not much argument that CO2 has a slight effect on temperatures, in theory. But to claim that CO2 ‘is causing the observed warming’ is contradicted by by the facts: click
It is increasingly apparent that any effect on the temperature by CO2 is so tiny that many other factors overwhelm it. On balance, the effect of CO2 on life on Earth is so beneficial that the planet needs much more of this highly desirable trace gas, not less.
Flanagan: “On top of that it is also almost certain that the CO2 released by ocean warming in the past (you know, the 800 years delay) accelerated the warming through the greenhouse effect…
So what do you need?”
How about one example of an IPCC computer projection based on the computerised climate models that accurately predicted the earth cooling? Or even any model that with the same raw data, manages to model the cooling in spite of continuing increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2….Just for a start? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Let us be clear that what drives the AGW mantra in statutory quarters is not climate concern but, in the EU anyway, the intention to minimise dependence on fuel imports from ‘unstable’ or ‘unreliable ‘ neighbours. In the UK it is now not uncommon to hear senior politicians discussing ‘security’ of supply amongst the major drivers for renewable energy strategies, while GW is tagged in only at the end …’Oh yes, and our environmental targets, ahem’.
Accordingly the outlandish claims made by AGW campaigners and energy developers are allowed to pass unchallenged even when the evidence is to the contrary because it serves the governments purposes to have the like of Gore and the environmental lobby whipping up hysteria. Ignoring the critics conveniently leaves the impression that the criticism was unfounded.
Meanwhile a multi-trillion dollar industry in carbon trading and renewable energy develops, which is actually achieving virtually nothing in terms of reducing carbon emissions. In fact, despite the alleged ‘fact’ that AGW is going to trigger a global catastrophe in near future, there is absolutely no evidence, if you look carefully, of any meaningful global effort to reduce emissions, within the timescale which is apparently required.
What we see is the birth of a new economy, which truly is based on hot air, which effectively imposes further taxes consumers and industry, and in the long term will probably make the sub-prime fiasco look like a tea party. The major problem, as with sub-prime, is that while interested parties cash in to the tune of billions there is no incentive for anyone to listen to reason, including our politicians.
Smokey:
Alas, typical… So where’s the scientific publication asserting that the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect is “tiny”. Looking at a graphic is not science. Moreover, and this is quite funny, both the CO2 and temperature increase in your graph. What is the problem? The lines are not parallel? I’m sure we can arrange that we proper rescaling if you want. But actually it makes no point.
OT
I have read somewhere that all the frequencies of em spectrum that are absorbed by CO2 are already being absorbed in the atmosphere and that any extra CO2 cannot absorb any more at these frequencies as all the energy is already being absorbed. Is this true does anyone know?
I should have thought if it were true that more would have been made of it in the arguments about greenhouse gases.
I found this at Bad Astronomy, The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm
Flanagen says:
“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?”
CO2 is a GHG – so what? The AGW rests on the argument that the climate system is dominated by positive feedbacks and a small CO2 induced warming will result in a large change in climate. There is no proof of that claim.
So what you need to provide is proof that these net positive feedbacks exist and the only way to do that is with experimentation. i.e. make a prediction and verify that the prediction can true.
Unfortunately, we cannot conduct these kinds of experiments in a lab so we really have no option but to wait and see. So far, the evidence collected since the last batch of IPCC models strongly suggests that these positive feedbacks do not exist and the effect of CO2 is much less than claimed. Obviously we are in the grey area right now and we cannot rule out the possibility that the climate models are still correct despite the cooling trend.
Ken Hall (04:12:48) :
I think my last paragraph sums up one of the few facts that we ALL should be able to agree with. There is NO scientific consensus.
That is correct. Debate rages with the same ferocity as the ice storms sweeping across the heartland toward the East Coast, snapping power line, downing trees, crashing airplanes & wrecking cars.
Only, one side is trying to commandeer the public while at the same time getting political ears to propose thier corrective measures. Claiming 1000 yrs for the Earth to clean out the evil C02 and seeking the green light to implement Doomsday Measures. When it all goes wrong, what will they then do?
Flanagan said;
” I can give tens of references showing that the increase in temperatures is above natural variability. The Medieval warm period has nothing to do with that… And noone ever said CO2 is the only factor affecting climate!”
Please give your references and clarify why the MWP has nothing to do with that.
TonyB
Flanagan (23:45:52) :
I’m tired of all this… Has someone else noted that that the main “scientific” opposition to the AGW theory is made of op-eds and vague declarations?
I’m still waiting for a paper showing in a coherent and (loosely) proved way that something else could be responsible for the observed warming…
I’m still waiting for the proof that the AGW theory you are promoting is shown in a choerent and proven way that is responsible for the obeserved warming. I think that there is still a lot of science to be done on this subject to identify and disqualify the theoretical drivers of the climate systems.
Whilst I currently sit firmly on the sceptic side, I am open to suggestions of human induced drivers, but they must be clear, coherent and sufficient enough to disqualify natural drivers. An open mind is currently the correct mind set to have, in my opinion.
This poor and honest soul will be relegated to spend his dying days in the Arctic with a thermometer and a (frozen) ball point pen.
The battle is over folks -they have propagandized sufficiently to alarm the masses raised on Captain Planet and Bambi to bring about the control of people and the loss of US sovereignity. Obamination will use it to force us into international submission.
Flanagan says:
“I’m still waiting for a paper showing in a coherent and (loosely) proved way that something else could be responsible for the observed warming… Svensmark? He’s still spending his millions of public-funded euros to try and prove his theory, for which we don’t even know how much would be the impact on climate.”
The Svensmark effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover is sufficient to explain all the warming of the 20th Century, and also the mid-century cooling and the present flatterning. This theory is not just coherent but tightly verified and it is far more secure scientifically than the AGW models.
Here are the main references.
Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, ‘Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage – a Missing Link in Solar–Climate Relationships’, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 59, pp. 1225–32, 1997
Henrik Svensmark, ‘Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate,’ Physical Review Letters, Vol. 81, pp. 5027–30, 1998
Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, ‘Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays’, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 85, pp. 5004–07, 2000
Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, ‘Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate’, Space Science Review, Vol. 94, pp. 215–30, 2000
Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerhøj, ‘Experimental Evidence for the Role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions’, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Vol. 463, pp. 385–96, 2007 (released online 2006)
Henrik Svensmark, ‘Imprint of Galactic Dynamics on Earth’s Climate’, Astronomische Nachrichten, Vol. 327, pp. 866–70, 2006
Henrik Svensmark, ‘Cosmic Rays and the Biosphere over 4 Billion Years’, Astronomische Nachrichten, Vol. 327, pp. 871–5, 2006
Henrik Svensmark, ‘The Antarctic Climate Anomaly Explained by Galactic Cosmic Rays’, eprint http://arxiv. org/abs/physics/0612145, 2006
Henrik Svensmark, ‘Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges’, Astronomy and Geophysics, Royal Astronomical Society, London, Vol. 48, Issue 1, 2007
Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, ‘Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The Persistent Role of the Sun in Climate Forcing’, Danish National Space Center
Scientific Report, 3/2007, September 2007
Other papers are pending. There is also a plain-language book:
Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder,: The Chilling Stars, Icon Books (Totem in USA) 2007, updated edition 2008
Flanagan’s remark about “millions of public-funded euros” is inept. Svensmark has had very little public funding and has had a ten-year battle to keep his very small team going.
E.M.Smith (22:10:47) :
‘I’ve driven from SJC airport at 105F (50 miles south) to SF at 60F within 1 hour, then back to SJC and it was still 103F… So much for ‘local reference station method’ ! And I’ve been in SF when the fog rolls in and it drops 15F almost instantly.’
And yet alarmists want us to believe water vapor is a postive feedback to “heat”.
Is there any place in nature where water vapor is a positive feedback to “heat”?
Why do crop pickers in the Southwest, US wear a couple of layers of clothing?
What happens if we stop sweating while working in the “heat”?
Why would nature change her game plan when it comes to the heating and cooling the earth?
Flanagan (00:12:22) :
If Anthony limited discussion here only to people who are published scientists who are willing to use their full name would we have to listen to you?
It doesn’t take another astrophysicist to realize that Hansen is an embarrassment. A backfilling algorithm that adjusts decades-old data each month makes it difficult to reproduce GISSTemp studies. Testimony to congress over the inpending catastrophe ignores his own data that currently shows the temperature fell between June 1988 and 2008 is irresponsible. Testifying in defense of Pamela Gray’s recent ecoterrorism on a restroom air freshener is simply made up.
——
Congrats on passing the 8,000,000 hit count!
Flanagan…….. You got all backwards and inside out with you Tropical Troposphere example there mate.
You said. “That the troposphere is warming more rapidly than the upper layers of the atmosphere?” …. You got it wrong. The TT is supposed to warm at a faster rate than the surface.
The AGW hypothesis is based on modeling that shows that the TT was supposed to warm at twice the rate of surface temperature change…. However, that is not what is observed….
A recent study tried to use windshear as a measurement for temp in the TT, which was grasped at by the AGW proponents, for it offered a possibility of re-explaining the low temps that were observed by both satellites and radiosondes…. However this study, http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-342.pdf
shows that, that is not the case. Dr Pielke Sr says this…. “In our paper we examine evidence for this conclusion from a variety of directions and find that evidence for a significant tropical tropospheric warming is weak.”
There is no smoking gun that shows that CO2 is causing significant warming….. Indeed, Global Temperature as defined by the IPCC, has been static or cooling for over Ten years.
Climate Audit has a good thread going on TT trends at the moment too.
PPV – “The problem is the media, and not the scientists. It was never the scientists. There have always been far far more sceptical scientists that believer scientists…”
It is the media plus … this is a complex social phenomenon, the “scare phenomenon”. It relies of a closed loop between advocates (pushers) politicians and the media. The pushers feed the message in, it is picked up by the media, the politicians respond to the media, the media reports the politicians, the pushers respond to that media, and the polticians then respond to the media, which is then again reported in a continous cycle.
The public, in the scare dynamic, is always the spectator, not allowed into the cycle – for them, the scare is a spectator sport.
This is why science and “being right” is not enough. The truth will not prevail of its own accord. You have to understand that the scare phenomenon has its own dynamics and rules. To defeat it, you have to break the cycle.
obviously Hansen is being censored/muzzled…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/03/nasa-press-office-is-criticized-on-climate-reports/
Flanagan,
The fact that there has never been a run away greenhouse effect is a pretty good falsification of AGW.
The fact that not one of the AGW community’s predictions have come true is pretty good falsification.
The fact that there is not ‘troposphere hotspot’ as predicted by the aGW community is pretty good evidence.
The fact that the AGW promotion industry has to constantly rewrite history of climate and their own predictions in order to maintain the level of fear.
The very fact that AGW process is based on fear of an apocalypse should, in the normal course of events, show that its promoters are not rational.
BTW, I got a lot of white condensed “positive feedback water vapor” falling on my drive way right now (we are expecting 12” of the stuff) on top of the clear hard “positive feedback water vapor” that came down last night. The body shops are going to be very busy.
Smokey says:
Yup…That graph shows quite strong evidence that the transient climate response for doubling CO2 is not around 9 C. Of course, since the IPCC estimate is that it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 C, I am not sure exactly who you think you are arguing against.
How many read this low down the page?
Why didn’t Dr. Theon denounce Obama while he was still active at NASA?
Despite the growing evidence against AGW, with Barak Obama now in power, it appears the US is about to commit another major economic blunder, by implementing a series of actions to fight AGW. Cap-and-trade will be the worst, with brokers taking commisions on so-called “carbon” transactions. Of course, sophisticated financial products will have to be put in place to hedge against risk… Sounds familiar?
“Money for nothing”, as the Dire Straits song goes. Money that could be spent on solving real problems.
Why do people talk about CO2 as though it is a heat reflector? CO2 can absorb long wave energy and reradiate it, no question. But it radiates in all directions, up and down and horizantally. Horizantal radiation cancels out leaving up or down, these two paths have to be equal, therefore CO2 can only reradiate HALF the energy it absorbed back to the surface. Also CO2 can only absorb 8% of the available energy radiated from the surface, thus only 4% of the available energy could possibly be reradiated back to the surface.
Stand outside any where on the planet on a clear calm evening and note how rapidly the temperature drops as the night passes.