NASA’s Dr. James Hansen once again goes over the top. See his most recent article in the UK Guardian. Some excerpts:
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
And this:
Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. Carbon dioxide would increase to 500 ppm or more.
Only one problem there Jimbo, CO2 has been a lot higher in the past. Like 10 times higher.
From JS on June 21, 2005:
One point apparently causing confusion among our readers is the relative abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere today as compared with Earth’s historical levels. Most people seem surprised when we say current levels are relatively low, at least from a long-term perspective – understandable considering the constant media/activist bleat about current levels being allegedly “catastrophically high.” Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years.
Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that’s a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current ‘guesstimations’ of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO2 equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol’s irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now?
Adjacent graphic ‘Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time’ from Climate and the Carboniferous Period (Monte Hieb, with paleomaps by Christopher R. Scotese). Why not drop by and have a look around?
MarkW (09:50:53) :
“Now, putting CO2 to work in greenhouses, coupled with the heat from the exhaust anyways, is a great idea. Produce electricity, produce food.
Waste not, want not.
Life is good.
———–
I saw a story a few years ago, where these guys made a deal with the local power plant. They diverted a small amount of the waste water going into the cooling pond, and used that warm water to grow tropical fish.
They got free hot water, and the power company was able to skip an expansion of their cooling ponds”.
MarkW,
i know the project you are talking about.
It is in the Netherlands.
The project is running for a few years now.
The Refinery is also feeding CO2 to the nearby Greenhouses.
Despite these applications they still have a huge surplus wich is vented off.
These are all nice projects if everything adds up and people can make money with it.
You are both wrong. The samples are dated to the nearest 10,000 years which means you can not tell what leads what. However, since the ice core samples show temperature leads CO2 its reasonable to assume this is also the case in the study.
Paul Shanahan (08:03:06) :
Fair enough Paul. The point isn’t to win arguments but to establish the veracity of the data and its interpretations. Clearly the sketch isn’t accurate in relation to what we know from scientific analysis (I’ve showed you a more scientifically-accurate temperature evolution). Likewise it doesn’t bear much of a relationship to what we know of scientific analysis of proxy CO2 data.
One might as well point out that Berner’s CO2 model has also had it’s uncertainty ranges denuded in the crude sketch in the top post. Berner recognised that his model is a very broad-brush interpretation of how the atmospheric CO2 concentrations might respond on the multi-million year timescale in response to what we know of continental migration, mountin building and weathering. So his actual data is presented as a broad envelope of possible values that evolves in time. While the start of the sketch in the top post starts apparently precisely at around 4800 ppm, Berner’s actual analysis considers that the CO2 vales were somewhere in the range 2,500-10,000 ppm at this time…..and so on…
It’s worth knowing these things if one wishes to make valid interpretations in respect of what the science tells us…
One estimate shows coal fires release more CO2 than all the cars and trucks in the USA. Don’t forget the fact that all of the mercury and other toxins in the coal are released into the environment.
I think the goal is to feel better about ourselves for caring so much. Yes, relief of green guilt is a big factor.
Rachel (11:57:02) : Apart from that graph being pure fiction, you’re missing the point, spectacularly. Sure, CO2 was higher, millions of years ago. Millions of years ago, Earth was not “the planet we know”.
But, Rachael, it is YOU missing the point. If CO2 levels were high and temperature low (Ordovician ice age) then CO2 causing warming is falsified.
In re fabrication: JS lists the source as here which lists its source as the GEOCARB III model.
foinavon:
Your citations appear to show correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and climate change in the distant past but still do not demonstrate causality. Perhaps causality is just not provable through Phanerozoic reconstructions.
As for claiming “there’s a substantial amount of empirical data that supports a climate sensitivity near 3 oC (plus/minus a bit) per doubling of atmospheric CO2”, you didn’t cite any references. Not that I expect you to be an expert in all the many aspects of the subject, it is consuming enough just to be an expert in any one aspect.
It is my understanding that the 3 degrees C for CO2 doubling primarily comes from climate modeling. The 3 degrees is the parameter required to make the models conform to modern temperature records. In other words, one assumes that the increase in temperature in modern times was caused by the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 and calibrate your model to reproduce the temperature record. Hence, the skepticism about the vaunted GCMs.
Hmmm… my last post didn’t link properly. I see what I did wrong but I also see that Anthony also gave the link.
I don’t understand the logic of using the CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa as the sole measurement of CO2 for the entire planet. What is the scientific basis for this? Would it also make sense to use the temps on Mauna Loa as the sole measurement of climate change?
BTW: There are probably thousands of recorded measurements of atmospheric CO2 going back to the early 19th century. Why does the IPCC not use that data in calculating changes to atmospheric CO2?
Mr originalliy today aren’t we!
Due to the size and shape of the flower the only effective pollinator is the long-tongued orchid bee. Bombus and other bees visit the flowers, as they do other long tubed flowers but obtain the nectar by ‘cheating’, chewing a hole to get to the nectar. This doesn’t of course result in pollination. Other Bombus species do that here on foxgloves quite regularly. Bats would also tear open the flower to get to the nectar. Therefore visiting a flower does not result in pollination.
Virtually 100% of Brazil nut production is in the rainforests of South America, mostly Bolivia. Brazil nut trees to indeed grow around the world but they do not set fruit as a rule, certainly in no way to be either comercially viable or to perpetuate the species.
With all due respects that is a ridiculous question. Optimum levels of atmospheric gases depend on the species, its environment (underground, overground, marine, freshwater…you get my drift). Different species have different tolerances to changes to any aspect of their environment. the geological past has shown us that when conditions change rapidly mass extinctions occur.
I don’t use my real name. Why? Because the world is full of crazies and cyberstalkers. I don’t want some deranged Natural Global Warming Denier I’ve angered harassing me at work or at home.
And yes, I should be working right now, so I guess that’s another reason.
These sites should require registration with email verification to cut down on trolls, but please, let me keep my anonymity!
TerryS (10:27:48) :
In that case, a short term chart [1960 – 2008] will help in showing that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature: click And another click
This makes clear once again that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, not vice-versa. Unless someone can show why human activity would ramp up five months after temperature increases, then it seems pretty clear that changes in CO2 are natural and temperature dependent, and therefore CO2 does not lead to, or cause, AGW. Rather, the mild, natural warming of the planet results in higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
hunter (09:53:00) :
foinavon,
Did I miss where you described the difference between logarithmic functions and linear in reference to GHG’
If I remember correctly, foinavon already stated directly that a doubling of CO2 leads to a 3oC increase in temperature. This means a logarithmic nonlinear relationship between temp and CO2. As far as I have read all scientists are expressing CO2 senstivity in such a nonlinear manner
foinavon (09:45:39) :
During the Carboniferous the solar constant was around 3% lower than now, and as a result higher greenhouse gas concentrations were required to maintain the the Earth near any given temperature, than would be required now with a “hotter” sun.
Given that there was no ‘energy czar’ around back then to dictate to the earth what temperature it had to maintain, and given that it has maintained it’s temperature within narrow limits while the sun has changed its output by 3%, isn’t this a tacit admission that the earth has huge negative feedbacks built into it’s climatic systems?
What makes Hansen think 400ppm co2 is going to cause catastrophic heating with positive feedbacks?
Genuine question, I hope you answer.
“I see that Mr. Hansen remains as just as stifled & muzzled under President Obama as he was under the Bush administration.”
Everyone should be so stifled & muzzled, as for Hansen he’s had his 15 minutes, time to move on and leave that left wing luddite wack job alone.
Just in case? That’s the ‘precautionary principle’. Environmentalists love to use it when it suits their goals. It’s always been a specious argument. How many of us would purchase an insurance policy of $1000 a year for a car worth $1000? Would you — just in case?
There has to be a reasonable assessment of risk v. costs and benefits. Lomborg does an analysis that indicates the attempts to stop AGW through controlling carbon emissions is one of the most expensive things we can do and with the lowest payback. Adapting to climate change is much less costly and allows us to better spend our time and treasure on real problems, such as hunger, poverty and pollution.
B.C. (12:28:00) : I see that Mr. Hansen remains as just as stifled & muzzled under President Obama as he was under the Bush administration.
In the long run, Hansen’s excesses will do him in. He could very easily find himself lumped with the “end is nigh” crowd and other gloom and doomers.
Bill D (11:05:10) :
If I remember correctly, foinavon already stated directly that a doubling of CO2 leads to a 3oC increase in temperature. This means a logarithmic nonlinear relationship between temp and CO2. As far as I have read all scientists are expressing CO2 senstivity in such a nonlinear manner
Modeled co2 sensitivity gives 3C for a doubling
Real world empirical measurement gives around 1.8C
List of new terms, so you can translate:
For the children = The greater good (good for whoever is greater, rest of us are acceptable losses)
Transparency = Watch the right hand, no, no dont look at the left.
Accountability= No One has a clue
Tipping Point= When no one will believe any more
Settled Science=Dark Ages
Catastrophie= Lack of Funding
Oversight=Not seeing the tree thru the forest.
and last but not least ……
Bi-partisan = he who has the most votes rules.
Carbon Credits= Indulgences
Kyoto Treaty = Biggest Pyramid scheme ever.
“How can people distinguish between top-notch science and pseudo-science?”
Hmmm Well if Hansen would step down we might have a good start 🙂
The man has a concentration camp fixation if you ask me.
tallbloke (11:05:41) :
I think you’re right…there is a certain degree of ” feedback regulation”, ‘though I don’t think one can support the statement that the Earth has maintained it’s temperature within limits that are all that narrow.
A degree of regulation is produced by the temperature-dependence of weathering. So if CO2 levels rise, and the earth warms as a result, there will be an enhanced weathering whhich will tend to speed up the rate at which CO2 is drawn out of the atmosphere.
However this is a very slow process, and it certainly can’t compete with very rapid increases of atmospheric greenhouse gases that produce rapid and marked warming. So the tectonic events that gave rise to the massive release of greenhouse gases at the Paleo Eocene Thermal Maximum resulted in a rather deadly warming. Likewise the end-Cretaceous greenhouse-induced warming.
I think if you want to address Hansen’s statements you should do so in the context of what he actually says. I’m not such a “Hansen-watcher” as many here seem to be, so I don’t know exactly what his views are in relation to discrete scenarios. However I doubt he considers 400 ppm to be catastrophic in terms of warming. That’s the long term level that we should aim for eventually in order to maintain long-term stability of the Greenland ice sheet. Isn’t that right?
Rachel:
Come on Rachel, grow up a bit. You know full well that you strongly implied that humans would find it difficult to live with elevated CO2 levels. This kind of back-pedaling is all too common among alarmists. It’s infantile.
Partly because colder countries are more prepared for the cold, partly because winter fuel is relatively unaffordable in the UK, partly because of other things. But this detracts from the point that, worldwide, cold weather kills far more people than warm weather.
Smokey (11:04:23) :
TerryS (10:27:48) :
The samples are dated to the nearest 10,000 years which means you can not tell what leads what. However, since the ice core samples show temperature leads CO2 its reasonable to assume this is also the case in the study.
In that case, a short term chart [1960 – 2008] will help in showing that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature: click And another click
This makes clear once again that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, not vice-versa. Unless someone can show why human activity would ramp up five months after temperature increases, then it seems pretty clear that changes in CO2 are natural and temperature dependent, and therefore CO2 does not lead to, or cause, AGW. Rather, the mild, natural warming of the planet results in higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Smokey:
How can the recent increases in CO2 be described as “natural” when they are fully accounted for by burning fossil fuels and other, mostly anthropogenic sources. We can measure the amount of CO2 being released by humans. While it’s true that the oceans are taking up a good part of the excess CO2, the CO2 released by burning fuels accounts for the increase in atmospheric pCO2. We need to agree on the basics before we can consider more potentially controversial issues.
Forget about the death trains…what about the killer cows?
Maybe it’s time for a push instead of pull strategy…IF AGW is to be taken at face value and the IPCC is credible then Beef and Dairy industries should be the #1 due to methane which is 23 times as potent of a greenhouse gas as CO2!
Anyone that’s checked the historical levels of methane will see that this is the gas that’s skyrocketed in the last 100 years way beyond anything in the ice core record.
An article out today puts it in breath taking terms: “Switching to no red meat and no dairy products is the equivalent of (cutting out) 8,100 miles driven in a car … that gets 25 miles to the gallon,” http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e36a67d49c1127a8c17cc38ed4a4c27e.211&show_article=1
Since methane only stays in the environment for 8.5 years, shouldn’t this be the primary target of the environmentalists?
I propose the following PUSH campaign to bring this to the forefront – file a lawsuit in the same San Francisco district where the Federal Government just caved and settled in an AGW lawsuit. Name as plaintiffs the american beef and dairy industries, McDonalds, Burger King, Jack in the Box and Wendy’s. If there is enough evidence for the Fed’s to settle on CO2 then the same standard should apply to Methane.
This should be enough to bring the radical agenda of AGW to the forefront now ahead of schedule…you know this is in the works but Hansen and others won’t go there until they’ve softened up the public for another 20 years. Forcing their hand today would bring an outrageous backlash from the general public and bury AGW for good.
TerryS (10:27:48) :
whoops, I messed up my blockquote again in foinavon (12:21:24). The skinny end section is my response to TerryS. It would be great if there was a preview facility here, for those with clumsy thumbs….