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.
tallbloke (11:37:49) :
“Modeled co2 sensitivity gives 3C for a doubling
Real world empirical measurement gives around 1.8C”
Unfortunately Tallbloke the above link did not work. Could you please post it again. It’s the empirical bit that interest me.
Thanks….David
Mary Hinge (01:03:32) :
This is why he refers to coal trains as death trains, nothing more. To try and put it as a direct comparison to the Nazi’s is typical of the paranoia present amongst many of the sceptic crowd and again smacks of conspiracy theorists. Since winning the blog award I notice the activity of the conspiracy theorists seems to have increased considerably. A shame, but once the readership increases, inevitable.”
You are kidding me aren’t you? You can’t seriously believe what you wrote here. Hansen’s “death trains” reference was something he just made up, without any reference to concentration camp trains?? Yeah right. Pull the other one Mary. And we are the paranoid ones?
I also notice the number of CO2 conspiracy theorists has increased since Anthony won his award, at least you’ve got company now with Foinavon, Flanagan et al.
K.W. Hanneman,
I seem to recall that termites were right up there with buffalo when it comes to emitting methane. I’m too lazy to become a 10-second google expert on it ay 3:30 a.m. though.
David Porter (01:48:46) :
tallbloke (11:37:49) :
“Modeled co2 sensitivity gives 3C for a doubling
Real world empirical measurement gives around 1.8C”
Unfortunately Tallbloke the above link did not work. Could you please post it again. It’s the empirical bit that interest me.
Thanks….David
here you go. Credit is to Bill Illis of this parish.
http://s463.photobucket.com/albums/qq360/Bill-illis/?action=view¤t=LogWarmingIllustrated.png
To foinavon,
The CO2 numbers don’t match up with up with other temperature estimates either.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Bill Illis (04:13:59) :
Bill, please could you tell David Porter and I more about your graph I linked above. Where did the empirical readings come from?
Mary Hinge,
From Climate Progress:
“Hansen stands by coal train/death train analogy
In his final testimony submitted to the Iowa Utilities Board on the proposed coal-fired power plant in Iowa, NASA’s James Hansen used a very provocative metaphor about the trains that deliver coal:
If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains — no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.
The President and CEO of the National Mining Association wrote Hansen a letter (posted here by Hansen with his response) complaining:
The suggestion that coal utilization for electricity generation can be equated with the systematic extermination of European Jewry is both repellent and preposterous…. I believe you owe the hard-working men and women of the coal mining and railroad industries an apology and respectfully request that you refrain from making such comments in the future.
Hansen’s reply was:
There is nothing scientifically invalid about the above paragraph. If this paragraph makes you uncomfortable, well, perhaps it should.”
Apparently Hansen’s metaphor about “death trains” and “crematoria” are provocative, and evocative of the Nazis, to everyone but you…
Mike Bryant
Mary Hinge, sorry, ‘death trains’ is a literal nazi reference. You can make an alternate argument when another generation or two have passed on, and people have forgotten. Also, it’s not that nazis have been linked to environmental programs, rather it is the environmental programs that are linked to nazi-like activity.
Judging by your answer to this, yes, you are.
So how can accepting the mainstream ideas of AGW, backed up the leading scientist, governments and organisations etc. be defines as ‘conspracy theory’?! I think you need to actually read a definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theorist…actually you had better just read, start with good solid and peer reviewed scientific papers instead of the usual tin hat CT brigade references you quote.
Jimmy has, of course, used his “death trains” analogy before – in a presentation before the Iowa Utilities Board, in Oct. ’07. Link
“Coal will determine whether we continue to increase climate change or slow the human impact. Increased fossil fuel CO2 in the air today, compared to the pre-industrial atmosphere, is due 50% to coal, 35% to oil and 15% to gas. As oil resources peak, coal will determine future CO2 levels. Recently, after giving a high school commencement talk in my hometown, Denison, Iowa, I drove from Denison to Dunlap, where my parents are buried. For most of 20 miles there were trains parked, engine to caboose, half of the cars being filled with coal. If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species. ”
The link to Nazism, as with the use of the term “Denier”, making the comparison of Skeptics with Holocaust Deniers is unmistakable and deliberate, as is the intent.
Sorry Mary, having a hard time with your response. I have to side with Mr. Crafter on this one. It is quite clear what Dr. Hansen meant when using the phrase “death trains”. I find it funny at how appalled you were that someone used a reference like this, yet it is ok when used for your side of the discussion. Death trains CANNOT be misconstrued as anything but a Nazi reference. Directly! Also, it is quite clear that the doom you spout is NOT coming to pass. Yes, all species are interconnected, but clearly nature is not just the fluffy bunny or the pretty flower. It is also the pack of wolves tracking you in the forest at night, or the shark swimming beneath you, or the 3 days of freezing rain in Montreal, Canada. Mankind is not the bad guy here. In fact, there is no bad guy. Just the natural order of things. The media talks of all the species that are disappearing, yet never seems to mention the new species that are discovered every day. The fossil record gives a minute view into the number of species that have gone extinct throughout the earth’s history. How does this factor into your statement? Nature is a harsh mistress and we are still subject to her whims. I have spent a great deal of my life in the forest, and am humbled at every turn by her power and majesty. I never forget when I am there that I am likely being tracked by a cougar for the last mile or so. Would you be able to survive if civilization were to collapse? Careful what you wish for. I, for one, prefer my comfortable, little house (68f inside) and neighborhood with the Safeway just down the block. My future will be bright, for it is what we make it. Try to envision a positive future if you can. Then we can work together towards that. Not the future that Hansen sees for us.
Regarding the increase of conspiracy theorist. This is true, but is the negative view, once again. The populace of this site has increased, and logically you will bring both good and bad readers and responders. In my view, the number of intelligent , well read and studied posters has increased more than the number of fringe posters. Cudos to Anthony and moderators. Your comments in this regard sound more like “sour grapes” as the Co2 driver theory is clearly out the window. You are welcome to keep at it though.
Not to belabor Hansen’s pathological obsession and bizarre connection of coal with nazi’s, but the larger reaction of AGW true beleivers is interesting as well.
On nearly every forum, the AGW true belivers vehemently deny that Hansen is employing nazi-esque imagery in promoting the climate of fear he depends on.
Yet the AGW faithful buy in completely into the idea that skeptics are ‘deniers’ or ‘denialists’. The more extreme attribute dehumanizing traits to skeptics- “pseudo skeptics’, etc. More often than not, when true belivers are confronted with the apocalyptic/catastrophic nature of AGW belief, they feebly try and turn it back on the skeptics and claim it is the skeptics who are alarmists. That last is obviously just feeble rhetorical gymnastics, as any small search of quotes by AGW opinion leaders will show.
So the faithful denies the legitimacy of skeptics, and seeks to dehumanize the skeptics. The AGW leadership calls for criminalization of AGW dissent, and accepts extreme over the top imagery of death trains, planetary emergency, pending catastrophe, etc. where literally nothing is happening.
And the AGW faith is so strong, the faithful do not even question it openly.
This is an amazing social phenomonon we are living through.
Mary Hinge (01:03:32) : denies Hansen’s reference is related to Nazi death trains.
Mary, thank you for a prime example of cognitive disonance.
Bill Illis (17:00:22) :
For those who are saying we shouldn’t sequester CO2 or what is the scientific basis, My answer is we should just in case.
Ah… that old chestnut. I hate the ‘precautionary principle’, it tends to make for a very one sided argument… considering only the ‘negatives’ of a situation, and disregarding any rational consideration of the ‘positives’.
Mary Hinge (05:57:24) :
Neil Crafter (03:25:02) :
You are kidding me aren’t you? You can’t seriously believe what you wrote here. Hansen’s “death trains” reference was something he just made up, without any reference to concentration camp trains?? Yeah right. Pull the other one Mary. And we are the paranoid ones?
Judging by your answer to this, yes, you are.
The BBC even uses the phrase ‘Death Trains’ in the headline to this article about nazi death camps. Give it up Mary, Hansen is bang to rights on this one. Admit it, you’ll feel better afterwards.
And breathe….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7208939.stm
Under UK terrorism law, using language likely to incite hatred is an imprisonable offence.
I will write to the Police Commissioner, citing the death threats against Tim Ball, and ask what action they intend to take against Hansen next time he sets foot on UK soil.
Richard M (08:31:37) : Mary Hinge (01:03:32)
Mary Hinge (01:03:32) : denies Hansen’s reference is related to Nazi death trains.
Mary, thank you for a prime example of cognitive disonance”.
Mary, Richard,
Hansen was interviewed about this subject and he has confirmed that it was indeed his intention to shock people so they would buy the message.
See details here:
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2007/11/hansens_holocaust_global_warmi.shtml
It would be much better to adopt the medical dictum “first do no harm”.
The violation of that principle has given us antibiotic resistant diseases because too many doctors and house wives thought — “it can’t do any harm to put some antibiotic ointment on that cut can it?”, or “You have a virus but you insist on getting medicine so I will prescribe you an antibiotic ‘just in case’!”.
Taking action without understanding the problem and the results of that action can in many cases be the worst possible thing to do.
We see it all the time in naive solutions to problems. The natural instinct of a pilot flying into a down burst while landing is to do the wrong thing to correct the problem. He has to be trained to take an action that is counter to all his instincts to avoid flying into the ground as he exits the downburst.
As he approaches the down burst he will experience a strong headwind and increase lift, causing the plane to gain altitude. His instinct is to lower the nose to return to his glide slope.In the down draft of the down burst he will have a sudden drop of altitude and then as he exits the downburst he will experience a strong tail wind and loss of lift. If he had followed his instinct to put the nose down, he flies into the ground on the other side.
I am much more comfortable waiting and watching, than stumbling around in the dark crashing into furniture “just in case” the boogy man is there.
Larry
foinavon
Regarding this quote
(although CO2 changes lead the temperature change in Greenland cores). The Antarctic cores allow us a very nice way of determining the atmospheric CO2 response to changing temperature.
Could I have a reference for this please? One that addresses how this was determined. I attended an American Chemical Society regional meeting in 1991 in one of the presented papers Greenland ice core data was used to plot carbon dioxide against temperature reconstruction with the implication that the Carbon Dioxide change was causing the warming. However, simply laying a ruler on his graphs it was immediately obvious that the time correlation was backwards and that there too the temperature was rising first.
The difference was not the 800 years of the antarctic but was still substantial, I think 160 years for the most noticeable spot.
I do know the presenter left after having absorbed a rather less than positive response. After noting to the presenter what I did with my little ruler, little physics grad student me, just sat quietly while the Chemistry profs from the midwest really jumped on it.
I was expecting that I had misunderstood and he couldn’t possibly have made such a silly mistake. No, he indeed did not understand, he was ok with effect being followed by cause.
Ron de Haan (09:40:23) :
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2007/11/hansens_holocaust_global_warmi.shtml
Quote from the report;
“When Hansen panics and goes all “death train” on us, he destroys his credibility as a scientist.”
How many times is his credibility going to be destroyed? :o)
Tallbloke,
Thanks for the info. Actually I have seen it before and I think it was via a thread that Bill did on WUWT. I’m not sure though how this info is designated empirical. Any assistance would still be welcome.
David
R Stevenson (01:48:29) :
Physics of CO2 absorption bands precludes global warming. Insuffient heat is absorbed from ground IR. Even with double the conc of CO2 to 700ppm no more heat is absorbed; it is absorbed in a shorter disstance thro the atmosphere (see Hoyt C Hottel charts for CO2 emissivities in The Chemicl Engineers’ Handbook.
Afraid not, care to produce the chart?
“Mary Hinge (05:57:24) :
Neil Crafter (03:25:02) :
You are kidding me aren’t you? You can’t seriously believe what you wrote here. Hansen’s “death trains” reference was something he just made up, without any reference to concentration camp trains?? Yeah right. Pull the other one Mary. And we are the paranoid ones?
Judging by your answer to this, yes, you are.”
Please take a long walk through the hall of mirrors Mary and take a good hard look at yourself, that is if you are a “Mary”. Do you have a real name I wonder? I think any reasonable person that was approached on the street and asked about this would see that Hansen was using the Nazi death trains in his comment about coal trains and for your to deny this obvious linkage is true ‘tin foil hat’ material on your part.
The title seems an exaggeration, but it is right.