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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
On the topic of CO2 from breathing compared with the CO2 from fossil fuels (e.g. Ron de Haan (00:19:41) “a car driving at a speed of 30 mph produces the same amount of CO2 as a cyclist at full speed” )
I don’t think these can be compared (unless the cyclist is eating coal) since the CO2 we breathe out was captured from the air very recently by plants whereas the CO2 from petrol is releasing currently ‘trapped’ carbon into the air. So the cyclist is running on ‘biofuels’ (more-or-less carbon neutral, since the plant material will release its carbon into the atmosphere whether we eat it or something else does – bacteria for instance) but the petrol-driven car is not.
Apologies if this point has already been made.
Morgan Porter,
You are correct, sir. Cows are a double threat since they produce CO2 AND methane. The only reasonable thing to do, at this point is to sequester every cow in the world, except India of course. The world’s cows must be herded into caves, coal mines and other holes. Then the entrances must be sealed. Of course coal mines are the perfect place to put the cows since we do not need coal any longer, what with the abundant wind and solar energy available to us.
You, sir, are a friend of the earth.
Thanks,
Mike Bryant
Morgan Porter (12:04:56) : said
“Forget about the death trains…what about the killer cows?”
Hmm… killer cows or death trains-I don’t think you’ve got the hang of alarmist pr yet Morgan 🙂
tonyB
One would think that Hansen, now a magnet for harsh skeptic criticism, has outlived his usefulness. And as is typical of movements and agenda-driven organizations – he would be relieved of his duties. Except that might draw more attention, as the architect of AGW falls.
Either way the AGWs would do well to consider putting Hansen on ice. His continued outbursts are giving powerful fodder to the other side. Meaning the side that science adheres to.
“With Hess’s enthusiastic backing, the “green wing” was able to achieve its most notable successes. As early as March 1933, a wide array of environmentalist legislation was approved and implemented at national, regional and local levels. These measures, which included reforestation programs, bills protecting animal and plant species, and preservationist decrees blocking industrial development, undoubtedly “ranked among the most progressive in the world at that time.”60 Planning ordinances were designed for the protection of wildlife habitat and at the same time demanded respect for the sacred German forest. The Nazi state also created the first nature preserves in Europe. ”
CLICK
Ruth (12:32:48) :
On the topic of CO2 from breathing compared with the CO2 from fossil fuels (e.g. Ron de Haan (00:19:41) “a car driving at a speed of 30 mph produces the same amount of CO2 as a cyclist at full speed” )
I don’t think these can be compared (unless the cyclist is eating coal) since the CO2 we breathe out was captured from the air very recently by plants whereas the CO2 from petrol is releasing currently ‘trapped’ carbon into the air. So the cyclist is running on ‘biofuels’ (more-or-less carbon neutral, since the plant material will release its carbon into the atmosphere whether we eat it or something else does – bacteria for instance) but the petrol-driven car is not.
Apologies if this point has already been made.
Ruth,
You have not understood the point the point.
We are talking about emissions here.
If a single person on a bicycle driving at full speed produces the same amount of CO2 as a car, why should you stop driving the car?
In regard to your argument that people do not run on coal (carbon fuels)
Do you really think that all the food products a human eats do not produce CO2?
Our modern processed foods, vegetables, fruits all have a carbon footprint, some of them a very big one. (oranges flon in from Spain, home made apple pie, which is heated in your electric oven etc. etc.
But this is al besides the point here.
We are talkin emissions here and human emissions from breathing dwarf carbon fuel emissions, anyhow according to the author of the video.
If we burn all our fossil fuels we would expect co2 concentration of “500 ppm or more” according to Hansen. Who knows what “or more” means but 500 ppm doesn’t begin to approach a doubling of current co2 levels and doubling (740ppm) wouldn’t occur until well into the 22nd century at current rates of increase.
If he’s right wouldn’t we be looking into replacing fossil fuels as a source of energy long before co2 has approached doubling? The empirical studies showing 1.85C increase as an upper limit for a co2 doubling (740ppm) make the most sense to me and I can accept that there may be a warming component from industrial co2 emissions. I just don’t think it will be catastrophic and may well be beneficial.
I’m comfortable with an upper limit of 1.85C further warming but I don’t think we’ll ever get there. The next 50 to 100 years will see technology explode exponentially and certainly the problem of clean power generation will be solved.
But doesn’t exercise cause us to expend, and therefore consume more calories? Wouldn’t we release less CO2 if we all became sedentary?
Perhaps we should each have a lifetime carbon ration and when we use it up, it’s time to report to the Soylent Green factory for reprocessing?
Bill D,
I’m not disagreeing with your view; you may well be right. There is a strong correlation between higher levels of CO2 and that produced by human activity.
However, there is also a strong correlation between increasing levels of CO2 and the increasing temperature that causes carbon dioxide levels to rise. The fact is, we don’t yet know enough to be sure exactly what proportion is man made, and how much is entirely natural.
The two main questions here are, where is the line between the natural rise in CO2 emissions, and the human contribution? And: what, exactly, is wrong with adding more CO2 to the immense natural production of the planet? By geological standards the atmosphere is starved of CO2. Plants grow faster with more CO2. And of course, CO2 continues to rise, even as global temperatures stay flat or decline, thus falsifying the scary AGW scenario. Where is the problem?
It is an undeniable fact that modern technological/industrial society, and the associated greatly enhanced health, wealth, food production, and longevity is based directly on processes that produce [beneficial] CO2. That is a fact. But now, we are being told by an irresponsible and unaccountable elite who hide out from debating their hypothesis to cease being successful and having long and healthy lives — with no concern whatever about the devastation and reduced living standards that their demands will certainly bring about.
Coal, for instance, is a very inexpensive way of heating. People die from lack of heat. And although coal is mostly carbon, hydrocarbons such as oil and natural gas also produce water vapor, which is also a primary “greenhouse” gas. Why then is coal being demonized, and why are coal cars labeled “death trains”? In fact, stopping the use of coal will certainly cause deaths to rise.
Alarmists’ always-scary “…what if…” scenarios come straight out of computer models, rather than from the real world, which is not reacting at all as they predicted. We are being told that we must literally destroy our civilization, which has provided such an amazing increase in health, sustenance and wealth in a very short time — based only on the pronouncements of a wholly-political cast of UN characters and others who benefit from alarming the populace.
I for one am skeptical of radical doomsday scenarios. Contrary to the repeated pronouncements of various non-governmental organizations [NGOs], the planet won’t self-destruct if we just wait a few more years until we have a better handle on the science.
I would feel more confident in the assertions of the UN, James Hansen, Al Gore, Michael Mann and the rest of the climate alarmists if they would simply agree to engage in a series of moderated, televised debates over their CO2/AGW hypothesis in a neutral venue, such as at a top-tier university. The fact that they will not publicly defend their AGW/CO2 hypothesis is telling.
Taxpayers are expected to pay really enormous amounts of money to save the world from CO2 — while the UN/IPCC parties on lobster, caviar and champagne on the beaches of Bali, and Al Gore travels between his five mansions by private jet, and Jim Hansen has multiple residences and takes piles of cash from NGOs promoting the AGW mantra. Is it so unreasonable to be skeptical of their talk of imminent tipping points, runaway global warming, and death trains?
Anyone who tells you that you had better sign on the dotted line right now, or it will be too late, is trying to sell you a pig in a poke.
Unfortunately, we need David Archibald’s temp. predictions for this year to be close, to to keep up the growing healthy scepticism. It seems to me that there has been a number of CO2 doomsday media articles lately.
Perhaps, after the winter we’ve had, these people need to up the anti. After all, if you say something often enough, people will believe it.
But I’m not looking forward to Archibald being right!
The coal train and the grim reaper will be the major part of the econamy in the State of West Virginia for years to come
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
Either Hansen is completely demented, or he’s a pathological liar, or both.
As usual, like all AGWers, he has things completely backwards, upside down, and inside out. Indeed, it’s an Alice in Wonderland type world they seem to live in.
Our lives of course depend on the energy which coal (and other “fossil fuels”) provide, and as such, are life-giving. Attacking that energy source, and attempting to shut it down, then is an act against human life. The “factories of death” are, in reality, the AGW propaganda machines, of which Hansen is one important cog. An example of the AGW “death trains” would be the stream of some 8,000 governmental representatives, NGO’s, journalists and other greedy, power-hungry “greens” headed for the IPCC Climate Conference in Copenhagen next November who will be attacking our life-giving sources of energy worldwide.
If someone would look at the article I gave a link to earlier in this discussion. you will see that C02 was higher in 1942 than now.
I am worried that the nutbars will manage to take enough C02 out of the atmosphere and get it below the minimum amount required for plant life. That would mean no plant life, no food and no oxygen. Some nutbars set out from Europe to dump iron in the ocean. Thankfully their government made them turn back. We do not need anyone lowering the C02 level or throwing stuff in the ocean.
The environmental death toll is at 200 Million and rising. People are dying in the UK and Europe because they cannot afford to heat their homes.
John Galt:
Mauna Loa is in the middle of the warmest part of the Pacific Ocean, which has constant CO2 outgassing during warming. It’s also a volcano.
The reason this is the standard is that it produces the desired outcome.
I just went to yahoo weather and did a little quick back of the envelope arithmetic. The monthly average spread from record high to record low for where I live is 77.5 deg F with a low range of 63 and a high range over 100 deg. Considering that I live in the semi-Siberia of Minnesota these numbers may be somewhat extreme, but I doubt that few places outside the tropics would exhibit ranges less than 50 deg. At present human populations, from Inuit to Bedouin inhabit places with extremes of temperature that exceed 200 degrees. To suggest that a variation in global temperature average of 1 or 2 degrees is something that humanity will be totally unable to adapt to is beyond insanity. It is well past time for people everywhere in this country to phone, write, and or e-mail their representatives in Congress, the Senate, and the White House to demand Mr. Hansen’s removal from the public payroll. In addition to this lastest load of bilge, he has in the last year appeared in a foreign court in support of ecoterrorist vandals, suggested war crimes tribunals for anyone who dares challenge him, and basically embarrassed his country and all of science every time he opened his mouth or put pen to paper. I fully support Mr. Hansen’s right to spout his nonsense to whomever is willing to listen, but not while he continues to suckle at the public teat. Mr. Hansen must go, but that will never happen unless enough of us are willing to rise up and resoundingly demand it.
Bill D,
We are not going to double CO2 to ~740ppm in any of the scenarios out there.
Except for Hansen & co. models there is no evidence that we are going to see GMT’s go up 3oC.
My favourite quote of the day from Prof James Lovelock in the Telegraph online:
“To continue business as usual will probably kill most of us during the century.”
You don’t say!?!
Mike D. (15:07:20) :
Rachel, re Wiki graph of Holocene temperature
Mike, superb post. Worthy of a guest blog.
-psi
Rachel (15:32:50) :
Mike D – what a wonderful fantasy, in which any time it’s hot, wonderful things happen. Shame that the real world doesn’t remotely work like that.
Rachel, you’re very creative in putting down reality with labels like “fantasy.” Do you deny that Mike’s reconstruction is essentially factual? As someone with a fairly solid knowledge of past human history (having a masters in Anthropology and many years studying the past), I’d love to hear your detailed defense of your prefered adjective.
I think Mike’s response was pretty apt: There seems to be a definite correlation between periods of human progress and strong warming, and an inverse correlation with periods of cooling. Its not simple or uninfluenced by other factors (in Europe, science continued to progress, despite higher death tolls, during the Maunder), but as far as I can see, the thesis has merit.
Either face the music or respond with reason, not put downs.
Thanks,
-psi
What about the CO2 and methane emissions of the American Bison herds?
Their population dropped from 60 to 100 million in the mid-19th century to a few thousand by the 1880’s.
According to the information I have found, the current American cattle herd size including dairy cattle is approximately 97,000,000 which means that today’s cattle herds are approximate analogs of the “natural” wild bison herds of the 1870’s and earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extermination_of_bison_to_1889.png
I suspect that if you looked at reductions in wild ungulates as the modern world expanded and world wide cattle populations you would have a net change near zero over the last century or two.
In short — nothing to see here, please move along.
Larry
CodeTech (14:26:06) : I see the japanese are planning on launching a satellite to measure greenhouse gases…
Dave Wendt (14:52:10) Yea, it takes about two too three weeks to acclimatise, ive gone from zero-low single digits C(winter in new zealand) to high 40s low 50s, back in the day with a tour o east timor(suai valley is very hot!)… those first few weeks a few guys drop, and yah get good at putting IVs in, but after that its all good. I was going through about 12-18litres a day, but this is humping 50-60kgs in that heat, for two, three week patrols. So in that i dont see people having a problem acclimatising over a century, or decades, or years.
Ive seen documentaries on nat geo and the like that have no problem claiming the “great dying”(Siberian tectonic rift) was caused by global warming, they did exclude the probable effect of the sulfur dioxide, no mention of it, just co2 and hydrogen sulphate. And no problem comparing a rift in the crust the size o russia spewing co2 and sulfur into the atmosphere for 100 o thousands o years with human industry … if its alright to use the data to claim effect i think its a little bit hypocritical too claim its less than useless when it dosnt suite.
Eve (13:57:17) : If someone would look at the article I gave a link to earlier in this discussion. you will see that C02 was higher in 1942 than now […]
Dear Eve,
thank you very much for that highly interesting link. In fact, it’s a meta study, covering ~175 studies between 1812 und 1961 statistically, much like big medical meta studies do. And it shows that even in our times the CO2 concentration follows temperature in time.
Here is again the link:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
Eve (13:57:17) : […] I am worried that the nutbars will manage to take enough C02 out of the atmosphere and get it below the minimum amount required for plant life. […]
There is reason for getting worried. Not exactly because of a somewhat lower or higher CO2 concentration, but because we all will have to pay the bill for the bailout of the supposedly rotten banks (and whatnot). One way or another: I suspect the money will be streamed into these pockets primarily via energy taxes — a giant and highly organized robbery which will likely depress our living standards.
CO2 measurements were discussed
There is also a link to the AIRS satellite. Much surprise that the CO2 is not well mixed.
Sorry, my link
screwed up
foinavon (11:48:47) :
tallbloke (11:05:41) :
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 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?
=============================================
Thanks for replying. The graph at the top of the post (I know you don’t like it but there it is) would seem to suggest the earth stays within a range of around 12C +/-3C – ish. That it has done so despite a 3% increase in the suns output is remarkable, and is a central theme in Jim Lovelock’s ‘Gaia Hypothesis’. Why does the earth tend to a certain band of temperature? Negative feedbacks.
Clearly, plenty of life survived the ‘rather deadly’ temperature fluctuations caused by increased solar activity and major volcanic and impact events. The earth seems self regulating. I don’t accept the causality you imply, because the ice core records of both antarctica and greenland do not show your alleged cause – co2/greenhouse leading the alleged effect – raised temps. Maybe you could post a greenland ice core graph link because the graph I’ve seen doesn’t support your case. the antarctic ones certainly don’t, showing an 800-2800 year lag of co2 rise behind temperature, even after being tidied by Cuffey and Vimeaux.
Jim Hansen bases his WAG’s on models giving a co2 sensitivity of 3C/doubling. I don’t accept that either, as empirical studies suggest 1.85C is nearer the mark. At this value, 8000ppm gives +9C which seems to fit better with the Scotese et al graph above. The greenland icesheet sits in an anticline under it’s own weight and isn’t about to fall off the side. It would take thousands of years to melt even if co2 went well above 400ppm, assuming temperatures stay as high as at present.
Presently, co2 in the atmosphere is rising from a 500 million year low of around 200ppm. 6000 years ago, the sahara was a damp humid place, supporting giraffe, hippo, and other large fauna. What was the co2 level 6000 years ago?