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?
foinavon:
Thank you for your contributions. I for one appreciate your efforts.
I have am dubious of the ability of proxies to give us good data about the temperatures and atmospheric conditions of the very distant past. On the other hand, if one really is able to show correlation between CO2 and temperature, one has not proved cause and effect. Your expectation that 500ppm to 600ppm CO2 would lead to loss of most of earth’s ice would appear to depend on substantial positive feedback in the GCM’s. I do not think the science to date justifies assigning any particular feedback number. Without positive feedback, CO2 is a spent force beyond present concentrations due to the logarithmic absorption relation.
Sekerob said
“You might want to check out what little flicks Dubaya left in last minute paybacks to the lobbyists of the mining industry. Check up on the sludge how it pollutes ground water, streams, rivers, lakes and sea. Of course it’s not happening IYBY, you’d think.”
Well Sekerob, you might like to check out the real danger to marine life. It’s farm run-off of fertilier that poisons the area areond river mouths. Oil seeps naturally out of the seafloor everywhere around the world, but chemical fertilizer does not. Your green fuel ethanol is now creating a massive new flood of death for our oceans.
But you don’t seem to think it important enough to mention it when you speak of the lesser threat of oil.
Another response the the Guardian Publication of Hanson can be found here:
According the author, Hanson suffers from authoritarianism and megalomania
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-political-philosophy-of-james-hansen-4961
foinavon
“(i) There is zero paleoCO2 data in the graph. The CO2 representation is a calculation of the broad evolution of CO2 modelled according to the evolving positions of the continents, weathering rates and so on. Although a scientist would wish to see the data points, there aren’t any. The model output is calculated every 10 million years, interpolated every million years and the points joined up. It’s a very nice model. But paleoCO2 data it ain’t!”
So models using data are unacceptable but models projecting future based on no data ARE acceptable?
As for Rachel: Heat kills the dying, cold just kills!
DaveE
Rachel (13:28:14) said:
Mike D – “Warmer is Better” is just banal nonsense. Tell that to the families of the 35,000 who died in the European heatwave of 2003. And please look at this graph:
I’ve found that many, if not most, of those who believe that GW is inevitably catastrophic have a vast gap in their knowledge of history and, in particular, archeology. I’d strongly suggest that you should fill that gap with some university level ancient history, archeology and geology courses. And a LOT of reading.
This is not my quote, but taken from a recent email exchange with a metorologist – it’s historically true whether you believe it or not:
my motto is Celebrate warming, do not curse it because it is better than the alternative and throughout History we can see how civilizations advance when they are warm and can grow food; and how they collapse when it turns cold and food supplies are difficult.
BTW – if memory serves, “excess deaths” due to cold average 7500 per month in the US. And a recent UK Met Office release claimed 35,000 per year in Britain.
Ignorance is a terrible way to spend ones life. It puts one at such a great disadvantage in so many situations.
A question was asked up post about when Dr. Hansen has to retire or can retire. I would assume at his age he has the minimum 10 years of service to retire at 60 so could retire at anytime. There is no maximum age in the US government at which you have to retire except for a couple of special positions. So as long as he is in good health and likes working and does not fall below minimum performance standards, or his position is eliminated he can stay as long as he wants. Even in case of position elimination he has a lot of options to bump someone else out of their job to stay employed.
Forgot to mention.
Has anyone else noticed that 1934 is no longer the hottest year in the US recorded history?
Last time I looked it was tying with 1998 but I wouldn’t be surprised if it had become cooler.
DaveE.
I fear that ‘forcing’ (Dr.) Hansen to retire would just give him a bigger ‘I was muzzled’ platform to stand on 🙁
DaveE.
Rachel:
Rachel isn’t up to speed. Maybe this will help: click
Human civilization always does better when it’s warmer.
30 coal trains a day go through Denver every day. I work on a light rail line that parallels the main line.
Never occurred to me that they are death trains!
Rachael:
“Come on people, grow up a bit. You know that I was talking about global average concentrations of CO2, not the concentration in your kitchen when you’ve got the stove lit and you’re holding your breath and burning coal. This kind of wilful misunderstanding is all too common among deniers. It’s infantile.”
Anyone else notice the irony? We “deniers” are “infantile” and must cease from our “wilful misunderstanding” immediately. The beatings will continue until morale improves! Cognitive disonance perhaps?
I do concede nevertheless, that if we had no Rachaels, it would be neccessary to invent some. Nature abhors a vacuum.
I for common sense security reasons, do not use my full name on the internet except for rare exceptions. I am “blessed” with a name sufficiently unique that a google search will turn up less that 35 people with the same last name, and no living person with the same first and last name.
Part of my choice to use a handle is bred from many years working in environments that required security clearances, and 20 odd years in the computer industry and fully understanding the power of data mining. You can get a lesson on that, on any large forum where certain members go on a mission to run down all the public record information on an individual. It is quite scary how much information is able to be gathered by those means, even by those using unsophisticated methods.
I likewise appreciate that Anthony allows “handle” identification. My full name is readily available to those who have an need to know it, but I would no more post under my full name on the internet, than I would run bill boards in every major city in the world with my name, picture, address, phone number and SSN on them.
Letter frequency for name selection could also be a function of the human tendency to have a limited ability to remember long complex strings of letters. That is why phone numbers in the U.S. are limited to 7 digits, and computer passwords are rarely required to be more than 8 characters, as most people have difficulty with short term memory of longer strings. If you look at letter counts of dictionary words you will also see a very strong tendency for words to cluster in the range of 50% of U.S. electrical production is coal based generation, as is the case with many countries.
Any diligent 8th grader given an assignment to find 10 bad things that would happen if coal was suddenly eliminated would have little difficulty working up a report on the subject. The fact that the MSM does not do so indicates a willful lack of curiosity, an intentional effort to mislead the public, or gross incompetence for their chosen line of work, (or at best a poor understanding of ethics in journalism).
Larry
I wonder if the American Meteorological Society is embarrassed enough to rescind Hansen’s award:
http://www.ametsoc.org/awards/2009awardrecipients.pdf
“For outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena.”
Yep – “clear communication of climate science in the public arena.” = comparing coal fired power plant to Nazi crematoria…way to go AMS!
correction:
If you look at letter counts of dictionary words you will also see a very strong tendency for words to cluster in the range of 50% of U.S. electrical production is coal based generation, as is the case with many countries.
Should read:
If you look at letter counts of dictionary words you will also see a very strong tendency for words to cluster in the same range.
In the case of Hansen’s comments I find it astounding that the MSM does not note that about 50% of U.S. electrical production is coal based generation, as is the case with many countries.
Some how I manged mangle that section on edit and did not catch it.
Larry
“Wally (18:37:49) : So as long as he is in good health and likes working and does not fall below minimum performance standards, or his position is eliminated he can stay as long as he wants.”
Maybe you haven’t been paying much attention to James Hansen’s department output the past few years. Maybe you’re not aware of data corrections it has had to make. But as DaveE points out above one of them is mysteriously disappearing, like it never happened, all gone now, i.e., 1934/1998. So maybe his other instances of poor performance, October 2008 being the most recent, (that is if you don’t want to count the entire 2008 data set) will be disappearing soon too.
It looks like there is no “minimum performance standards” for him. I can only think that there are political strings to Washington that preserve his job.
Maybe one way to put a stop to Hansen’s testimonies in court and his hysteria in interviews, conferences, and articles is to always have John Christy present. It seems James Hansen is allergic to him. 😉
“The blanket authoritarian collectivist approach that underlies the Alarmist agenda is the most horrific death train in history, as proved by the bloody inhumanity of the 20th Century. If there ever has been a time when we need to learn from history, this is it.”
Post of the millenia! (And bear in mind that I never, ever exaggerate.)
Just for the record, my name is Mike Dubrasich. I am a private, practicing, professional forester and forest biometrician in Oregon. I am also Exec Dir of the Western Institute for Study of the Environment.
http://westinstenv.org
Sometimes I use my full name, sometimes not. If I don’t, it’s generally because I don’t wish to appear to be fishing for web visitors on someone else’s site.
Mr. Watts is a friend of a dear friend of mine. I was aware and supportive of his weather station audit project long before Watts Up With That. His achievements in both endeavors are remarkable and admirable. I am very grateful that he allows me an occasional comment here, and try not to wear out that welcome.
They have not gotten to my climate zone, which has persisted for 21,000 of the last 22,000 years. For 2 stations going back to the 1890’s, 1920’s to 1930′ still rule the roost hand down for unbroken strings of 105 degree + max temps. Pretty much the whole year, 1933 being king. 1933-1934 brought 6-7 foot of snow, and 1933 had many days of 110+ temps. As for 1988 and 2003, they are but a few lines in late Aug & Sep.
Only the Younger Dryas saw climate change here.
Yes, the 1920’s & 30’s were both sizzling hot in the summer and buried in heavy rain & snow in the winter.
Lotsa water, abundance.
I saw a very interesting observation in another post I can’t recall at the moment….but it’s simple enough that it doesn’t need vetting. Humans today live (quite successfully, I might add) in environments with temperatures spanning more than 175 degrees F in North America alone.
(e.g. Fairbanks/Phoenix)
Now that the IPCC has admitted only minor ocean rise as a result, how is it that a few degrees change then brings man’s obliteration?
I suspect there’s a continuous hot gas microburst exceeding all AGW estimates in the vicinity of Gore’s breath at any given moment. But, alas, no deaths there…
An Ode to Coal
I celebrate Coal, and sing of Coal,
And what I assure, you shall know,
For every atom belonging to coal is good and belongs to you.
I warm myself by coal,
I lean and loaf at my ease observing an indoor spear of grass.
Coal, every atom of it, formed on this planet, in this air,
Born here of life, and the lives of millions which lived and bred and took in the unceasing energy of Sol,
And the life and the energy of our sun waited below.
Creeds and schools in abeyance,
Retiring back a while sufficed at what it is, but found anew by man,
Coal harbors only good, it brings back only what it took away,
Nature without check with original energy.
For those concerned about fly ash, here’s a link you might find interesting – a company trying to do something useful with it & make a buck a long the way (nothing wrong with that, right?):
http://www.icastmarketplace.com/ccbi.html
As for the overview of this post, the real theme here is “geology has something to offer to this debate”. If we can’t understand the past, what the climate was & what caused it to be that way, it is hard to image we can realistically predict what it will be in the future. As a geologist, this is what attracted me to this debate initially (that & having a minor in meteorology). As a geologist, you understand that over geologic time, climate variation has been the norm. Why is that? What forcing mechanisms drive these changes? Is there any reason to believe those forcing mechanisms aren’t still at work? Unfortunately, probably the only one of these questions we can answer is the last one – we have no reason to believe that what forced the climate in the past still isn’t at work today. So, why would we assume that CO2 is the only forcing mechanism? From a geologic perspective, it is hard to see that this hypothesis is supported from the data.
Another unfortunate situation is that a large % of geo-scientists are employed by energy companies – energy deposits are found through an understanding of geology. But, the irony of this situation, is that the group of professionals which probably have the best scientific, historical perspective of climate are deemed to have a conflict of interest & thus are written off as “tools of big oil”. At the same time, characters like Hansen are given a free pass , never considered to have a conflict of interest or labeled “tools of big green”. It is really a unfortunate situation that doesn’t do any one any good. I guess it is human nature, but separating cold, dispassionate science from politics seems to be a very difficult thing to achieve in this area of study. When politics & science have mixed historically, the result always seems to be bad – regardless of which side of the political spectrum you are on (anyone care to add a list of political-scientific disasters?). Those who dont learn history are doomed to repeat it. Why would AGW political-scientific mix be any different? We should all strive to be as scientific (ie what does the data say) & dispassionate as possible – & get the best possible answer we can – for the best results for all.
The flip side of this is that people are not as stupid as Hansen & Big Green think. The more outrageous statements that are made, the easier it is for the average Joe to see that something is running amok. Ultimately, I think this will drive the conversation back to the rational middle position – which is – we don’t have all the answers, we need to keep looking for the answers, we need to consider both a sustainable environment & the needs of people & work to optimize both.
Of course, if one’s agenda is purely political, doing what’s best isn’t really a concern – only doing what fits your political agenda matters.
Ah yes, the 2003 heatwave killing lots of people.
“The heat wave occurred in August, a month in which many people, including government ministers and physicians, are on holiday. Many bodies were not claimed for many weeks because relatives were on holiday. A refrigerated warehouse outside Paris was used by undertakers as they did not have enough space in their own facilities. On 3 September 2003, fifty-seven bodies still left unclaimed in the Paris area were buried.”
Ooops, perhaps social factors did something for this high deathtoll? Anyway, 3 years later France (like much of Europe) experienced a similar heat wave like that of 2003, yet i never hear anyone say “the heatwaves of 2003 and 2006 killed a lot of people”
I wonder why?
No one seems to have made a simple clear statement about how harmless C02 is in the overall scheme of things to humans. (Some of this below borrowed from Lubos Motl):
1. CO2 is a critical trace molecule in the nature, which all plants need to survive.
2. There is no ‘ideal’ level, and current levels (about 380ppm) are historically low.
3. Most modern buildings have a C02 level of about 600 to 700ppm, which is a healthier level for vegetation & perfectly safe for humans.
4. It would take hundreds of years to reach this level in the atmosphere (on current emmission rates).
5. We would need levels of 10,000ppm before it began to adversely affect humans.
6. It would take 5,000+ years (on current emission rates) to reach that level, assuming natural sinks and sources don’t adjust in some way.
7. Therefore to class C02 as a ‘pollutant’ or dangerous to humans, or to claim that we must do something urgently purely on the basis that C02 concentration itself represents a problem to humans is wrong and it’s a lie.
End of Story.
CO2, as miners are taught, simply displaces oxygen.
It’s the CO, NO2, S02, H2S that are the deadly ones we need concern ourselves with. As long as you have ventilation, CO2 is never a problem to displace O2.
It just is not toxic.
Isn’t the positive feedback of increased co2 levels dependent on heat generated by the increase? If so, then wouldn’t the feedback decrease as the co2 became saturated at some point? Could the leveling of temperatures over the last decade be a sign of co2 reaching a saturation point?