Here’s a blast from the past. Dr. James Hansen’s view in 1989 seemed a lot more temperate than it does today. Back then, he’s ready to accede to a study that says something counter to what his theory predicts, saying “I have no quarrel with it”. Today, he uses labels like “deniers” (see here) when such contradictory essays and facts are made public. What a difference 20 years makes.
And even back then, with no firm evidence in hand, Gore was pushing to cede White House environmental policy to “world policy”.
U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25—
After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.
The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.
Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ”cast doubt” on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.
Readings taken by other scientists have suggested a significant warming worldwide over the last 100 years. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980’s are the highest on record.
Dr. Hansen and other scientists have said that that there is a high degree of probability that this warming trend is associated with the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases that absorb and retain radiation.
But other scientists, while agreeing with this basic theory of a greenhouse effect, say there is no convincing evidence that a pollution-induced warming has already begun.
Dr. Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at Oregon State University who studies climate models, said there is no inconsistency between the data presented by the NOAA team and the greenhouse theory. But he said he regarded the new data as inconsistent with assumptions that such an effect is already detectable. More Droughts Predicted
Many of the computer models that predict global warming also predict that certain areas, including the Midwest in the United States, would suffer more frequent droughts.
Dr. Hanson of NOAA said today that the new study does not in any way contradict the findings reported by the NASA scientists and others. He said that his study, in which he was joined by George A. Maul and Thomas A. Karl, also of NOAA, looked at only the 48 contiguous states.
Dr. Hanson said that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect might have been countered by some cooling phenomenon that has not yet been identified and that the readings in his study recorded the net effect.
”We have to be careful about interpreting things like this,” he said. What About Urbanization? One aspect of the study that Dr. Hanson said was interesting was the finding that the urbanization of the United States has apparently not had a statistically significant effect on average temperature readings. A number of scientists have theorized that the replacement of forests and pastures by asphalt streets and concrete buildings, which retain heat, is an important cause of rising temperatures.
Dr. Hansen of NASA said today that he had ”no quarrel” with the findings in the new study. He noted that the United States covered only 1.5 percent of Earth. ”If you have only one degree warming on a global average, how much do you get at random” when taking measurements in such a relatively small area, he asked rhetorically.
”We are just arguing now about whether the global warming effect is large enough to see,” he added. ”It is not suprising we are not seeing it in a region that covers only 1.5 percent of the globe.”
Dr. Hansen said there were several ways to look at the temperature readings for the United States, including as a ”statistical fluke.”
Possibililty of Countereffects
Another possibility, he said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.
Dr. Hansen suggested that at some point there could be a jump in temperature readings in the United States if the measurements in the new study were a statistical aberration or the result of atmospheric pollutants reflecting heat away from Earth. He noted that anti-pollution efforts are reducing the amount of these particles and thus reducing the reflection of heat.
Several computer models have projected that the greenhouse effect would cause average global temperatures to rise between 3 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. But scientists concede that reactions set off by the warming trend itself could upset these predictions and produce unanticipated changes in climate patterns.
Legislative Action Sought
Coincidentally with the new report, legislation was introduced in the Senate today prescribing actions for addressing the threat of global warming. Senator Al Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, introduced a bill that calls for creating a Council on World Environmental Policy to replace the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality. This change would emphasize the international aspects of environmental issues.
The bill would also require a ban on industrial chemicals that not only are depleting the atmosphere’s ozone layer, which blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation, but are believed to be contributing to the warming trend. It would also require stricter fuel-economy standards for automobiles to reduce the consumption of gasoline to reduce carbon dioxide.
Gareth Phillips (01:00:09) :
I note the Arctic ice has stopped expanding, maybe to show we sceptics are objective and even handed this should be highlighted.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
– Before much can be said about the current Arctic ice extent a few obvious matters must be considered:
1)a stronger El Nino effect, 2)winter ice extent not a predictor of summer extent, 3)AMSR-E extent data has current extent about average since ’02, 4)other data sets (as elsewhere noted), 5)wind, etc.
I haven’t followed much closer, just glancingly observing. There doesn’t seem to be enough of any trends to comment on. And, as a “skeptic” I’m not sure I would like the Arctic to “continue” to expand much anyway – the Antarctic expanding may be more than enough! Nuances are interesting, but plenty of other more dramatic things have provided much to consider.
I hope not too OT…..
Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy” blog usually reflects a sceptical point of view. Certainly regarding vaccination and other medical matters. So I was surprised to find that he appears to have been completely taken in by Al Gore. This is from today’s blog:
*****
Gore vital
I know mentioning Al Gore, let alone linking to him, is like throwing red meat into the pit of denialists, but Gore’s Op Ed in today’s New York Times [dead hotlink here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html%5D is really quite good. I wonder if he reads my blog? He hits a lot of the points I have the past few days… though he doesn’t mention the troglodytes in the South Dakota and Utah legislative bodies [dead hotlink here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/21/you-cant-resolve-away-climate-change/ ].
The only point he makes I’m not sure about is the capping of carbon emissions, simply because I haven’t looked into the issue. One more thing on my to-do list.
Anyway, I will be much amused, I’m sure in a schadenfreudelicious sort of way, about the comments that will ensue below. I know! Let’s make it a game! Score ten points for every comment that makes fun of “Inconvenient Truth” without addressing the content of the Op Ed, 20 points for anyone who clearly didn’t read the Op Ed but comments anyway, 30 points for a comment thoroughly rebutted by science (either previously known or pointed out in a subsequent comment) but ignored by the commenter, and 100 points for someone who comments making fun of Gore’s name. First person to 1000 points wins!
What do you win? A planet 1° Fahrenheit warmer than it was a century ago! Hurray!
*****
I sent a reply to Phil asking if he reads WUWT, but I don’t know if he will see it. It was worth a try, anyway.
The second hotlink leads to text from Phil showing that he is a card-carrying believer in AGW.
It is sad to see one of one’s icons crumple to dust before one’s eyes!!
IanM
“Fred (07:15:35) :”
Have you been following E. M. Smith’s input to this blog about thermometers, their placement (As well as Anthony’s surface stations project) and the change in which stations actually get inputted to the official database? Interesting read indeed.
Short story; rural (Read “cooling”) out, urban in (Read “hot”).
I just wrote out a posting, clicked Submit, and it appears to have vanished. Usually there is a note saying that the posting is subkect to moderation, but I see nothing. This posting is a test to see if that happens this time.
IanM
LIVE INQUIRY NOW!: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979
Apparently as the amount of money enlarged on the table, scientist’s opinions changed.
A show last night “Prehistoric New York” on the Discovery channel talked about the sea levels going up and down from today’s level as climate changed. They even mentioned that 22,000 years ago, during the last ice age, sea levels were 300 feet lower. Sure would be good if they would give that film to schools to show their kiddies and their parents.
MODS: TYPO:
The middle of the article contains a heading that should be dis-embeded: “More Drought Predicted”
The fix was in on this being a “belief system” rather than science, even then. Parsing this quote from Hanson [not “Hansen”] in the article:
“Dr. Hanson said that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect might have been countered by some cooling phenomenon that has not yet been identified and that the readings in his study recorded the net effect.”
It clearly shows that the a priori premise is that “global warming cause by greenhouse effect” is indisputable – that they are only arguing over what might mask it, not what causes it.
A New CARBON TAX BILL is being finalized by Sen’s Graham(R), Lieberman(I) & Kerry(D):
INHOFE EPW PRESS BLOG:
Monday, March 1, 2010
Democrats Say Game On For Global Warming Legislation
Associated issues: Commitment to Independent and Verifiable Science, Global Warming, Cap-and-Tax Opposition Resource Center; Impacts of Costly Climate Bill Exposed, Commitment to Oklahoma, Commitment to Cost-Benefit Analysis
The Senate trio at the center of talks on a comprehensive climate and energy bill will present a draft proposal this week to their fence-sitting colleagues and high-profile interest groups amid warnings from Democratic leadership that the window for action is closing.
“It’s time,” said a Senate aide close to the process. “Game on.”
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) have been working for months behind closed doors on a plan that promotes domestic energy production while putting a first-ever price on greenhouse gas emissions. Aides say they have settled on a relatively short but detailed list of ideas that are ready to be turned into formal bill language, but first they want to get feedback from key blocs of Democratic and GOP senators with a stake in everything from coal to natural gas, manufacturing and transportation.
Kerry this week is scheduled to have at least eight climate-related meetings with senators and other interest groups. Graham and Lieberman have talks lined up with critical voices from both parties in the debate, including Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).
The overall goal, Kerry’s spokeswoman Jodi Seth said, is to jump-start talks that can help pave the way toward 60 votes.
“Dozens of meetings and scores of decisions and negotiations still have to happen before anyone knows what a bill would look like, but every day we are making progress,” Seth said.
The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman draft to be circulated this week starts with an overall goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gases by 2020 in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels.
To get there, they will propose a significant redesign of the carbon pricing mechanisms of the House-passed climate bill, H.R. 2454, and a Senate counterpart authored by Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), S. 1733. Rather than include all major industrial sources of greenhouse gases in one broad economywide cap-and-trade system, the Senate trio will propose different types of limits for different sectors of the economy, beginning with electric utilities and then turning later to manufacturers such as chemical plants and pulp and paper mills.
“The bottom line with utilities is they’ll assume a compliance obligation from day one of the program,” the Senate staffer said, adding that no decisions have been made on how to allocate valuable emission allowances to the power companies except to incorporate an industry recommendation to shuttle revenue toward consumers to help pay for higher energy bills.
Transportation fuels can expect a carbon tax that rises based on the compliance costs faced by the other major emitters. Several major oil companies, including Shell Oil Co., ConocoPhillips and BP America, floated the original idea on Capitol Hill, and the Senate trio has evolved their plan by funneling revenue toward transportation projects, reducing fuel consumption and lowering domestic reliance on foreign oil. The Highway Trust Fund is also a potential recipient of the carbon tax revenue, Senate aides said.
Manufacturers would face a series of greenhouse gas limits after power plants, but talks are still ongoing over when the phase-in begins and what specific industries fall into the suite of restrictions. …….
“Cap and trade as we know it is dead, but the issue of cleaning up the air and energy independence should not die — and you will never have energy independence without pricing carbon,” Graham said in yesterday’s New York Times. “The technology doesn’t make sense until you price carbon. Nuclear power is a bet on cleaner air. Wind and solar is a bet on cleaner air. You make those bets assuming that cleaning the air will become more profitable than leaving the air dirty, and the only way it will be so is if the government puts some sticks on the table — not just carrots.”
Climate bill supporters said the shift in legislative approaches could offer a chance for success even amid in the current political climate on Capitol Hill. …
Dan Weiss, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, said “the most important element” of the upcoming Senate plan involved a carbon price capable of curbing emissions by at least 17 percent by 2020.
“The method in the bill to achieve that call — whether it’s cap and trade, cap and dividend, carbon tax, or a hybrid system — is much less important as long as it can meet the goal while attracting 60 senators’ votes,” Weiss said.
(complete … )
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs
paullm – Is there really a need to increase taxes and subsidize a non-profitable wind/solar industry to address the non-problem of a slight increase in historically low levels of plant nourishing CO2 while temps have not tracked CO2 levels as predicted by alarmists like Hansen? The EPA is under attack following Climategate fallout and the continuing IPCC implosion, so what’s with a new Cap/Tax bill? Are your politicians as anxious to increase subsidizing the Chinese and Indian economies as Graham, Kerry and Lieberman are?
Has our ability to forecast short-term climate (weather) improved significantly (by orders of magnitude) since 1989?
Calling weather “short-term climate” is like calling a planet a “super-size atom.”
It doesn’t really require specialized knowledge to be able to discern the difference between events and statistical trends. The whole “how can we project future climate when we can’t even predict weather” canard has been beat into the ground. Please.
Tarpon, I don’t know any climate scientists that would deny that in the past, the Earth has been warmer and colder and that sea levels have been low (and higher, too). The sea level lowering during ice ages is the result of vast volumes of ice being shored up in continental ice sheets – if you’re interested in the investigation of ice volume in past climates, you should look into “d18O”, or isotope analysis of ice cores and ocean sediments. This same isotopic ratio is used to estimate ~local temperatures near the ice core deposition sites (the ocean sediments do not provide any approximation of this IIRC).
None will dispute that carbon dioxide has fluctuated significantly in the past, and that one of main mechanisms proposed for how the Earth escaped total glaciation (‘Snowball Earth’) is the greenhouse effect. A simple stability analysis of an ice/albedo radiative earth model will show you that both ice-free, partially ice-covered, and totally ice-covered regimes can exist given the current solar constant (look up the Budyko model). Even given large changes in solar output, the ice-free and ice-covered regimes remain equally likely and equally stable. The slow accumulation of greenhouse gases from volcanic activity (which can neither be absorbed by the ocean, because it was likely covered in ice, nor scrubbed by plants since far fewer would exist in a mostly ice-covered world) is the most plausible factor proposed in how earth escaped such a stable state.
There is a perception that, apparently, the same community of folks doing paleoclimate reconstructions ignore them. That’s not the case.
Phil Plait is the new head of the James Randi Foundation.; i.e., he is a capital-S “Skeptic.” I.e., he is a reflexive and adamant “believer” whenever Science Has Spoken. (Curiously, Randi himself is a heretic on this issue.)
That’s a bad link (the terminating “l” was clipped). Here’s the right one:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/state-of-fear-not.html
The US Government is broke and it needs taxes for any cause and claim……..let’s face it, the truth is no longer an issue at DC. The system is broke and you cannot fix it with lies and fraud.
my thoughts….
Steve
Seems Hanson got the AGW religion, see
http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif
Interesting from a historical and social perspective, and I suppose a psychological one– if one cares to guess what was gong on in someone’s mind back in 1989. But much more data has been collected since then…and 2010 isn’t 1989.
“…a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period…The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration…”
“…other scientists have suggested a significant warming worldwide over the last 100 years. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen…”
______________________
Note this is a “government” study done by NOAA! Meanwhile, Hansen, James E. is at NASA ISS.
“Government” studies will say whatever the study-ers are told to say. The first law of government service is that you never say anything new or original or different that what the 450 lb. Jerk in the front office believes. These are trying times in ‘climate science’.
Al Gore has only recently invented the Internet.
An OMB study concluded many years before that the best way to get money out of Congress was to have conflicting reports form two or more federal agencies. This was merely a typical ploy to get more paper, pencils, pens, and TDY money; and a new teletype.
What has happened since 1989 to the data that changed its tune?
“Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980’s are the highest on record.”
I didn’t know that the ’80’s were the hottest decade on record? See a pattern here with Dr. Hansen. This year is the hottest ever, next year will be hotter, and so on ans so forth. What I fraud this guy is. And to think, Obama is cancelling our space program so we can give this guy more money to study “global warming.”
We have had little increase in emissions (1977-2009) which indicates our
environment has not changed since 1998 to cause any such spike in temperature. CO2 concentration has increased about 22 parts per million
but our last large temperature change was El Ninos in 1997/1998 and 2002.
The trend since 1998 has been slightly cooler. over a “down-up-down” range.
Like the previous 100 years.
Over at The Resilient Earth ( http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/cherry-picking-black-swans-and-falsifiability ) I found the following comment:
>Science and decision-making
>Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 03/01/2010 – 09:53.
>Dear Doug,
>I have been considering the problems of scientific vs legal proof for a number of years and I think that what you are discussing here is another example of this trend.
>In a legal argument, there are two sides and each one presents evidence in support of its position. This – in and of itself – is cherry-picking, but is made even worse by the whole process of casting doubt on both the other side’s evidence as well as the motives of the source of that evidence.
>You have nicely summarized the scientific method so I wont repeat that, but the whole approach taken to most issues in the modern world is a legal one – develop a case by picking evidence, disparage the source of conflicting evidence and appeal to some form of inherent moral value that the jury should uphold.
>This is not science.
>In no way can it be compared with science.
>In no way should it be construed as being science.
>Of course the world is not and can not be run as a scientific experiment – decision-making is the art of determining a course of action in the absence of proof and leaders nearly always make decisions following this legal/debate approach. But by trying to justify their decisions by invoking scientific proof they are hiding behind the scientists (looking for someone else to blame if it turns out they have made the wrong decision) and as a consequence they are degrading science as an approach to understanding the natural world. Even worse, a number of scientists have forgotten their role in this and begun to act as direct advocates – lawyers, by another name – thus debasing their work and removing their claim to be treated as scientists.
>In the fight for free speech, it is often quoted that “I abhor what you say, but I will defend your right to say it”. Right now, we need a defense of free science, that says “I disagree with your findings, but I will attempt to disprove them, not prevent them being published or impuning your motives”.
>If the climate debate can do one good thing for science it would be to remind people of the proper role for science and scientists – to inform decision-makers not to take responsibility away from them.
>Thanks for your article and I hope you feel my comment has added to the debate.
>For the record, as a scientist, I do not believe in AGW. But then again, I try to believe in very little. That is the point. As a human being, I trust in our ability to adapt as a species and to cope with any issues that a changing climate may throw up. Reducing our ability to adapt has to be the worst possible response to these circumstances.<
****
I don't believe I've seen a similar argument here, but was intrigued by "Anonymous's " observation that scientific debate has been replaced by a kind of "courtroom antics". Lawyers, who have no regard for the truth, but only care about winning their case, use guilt-by-association and cherry-picked evidence, and attempt to suppress conflicting evidence. This analogy sure fits with post-normal science. I suppose this drift in scientific standards and the rules of scientific debate is the consequence of Marxist contamination of modern life, by which every facet of life, including, the weather, has become politicized. Truth is the casualty.
If only the perpetrators of this travesty of science could be forced to go back through all their former predictions and observations, and be forced to face their own record.
Several posters here have made the inappropriate logical leap that “since the 1989 paper showed no warming, and Phil Jones admits there has been no warming since 1995, all the warming must have taken place in 6 years.”
Okay, I’m going to scream at you to read more carefully. PLEASE!
DIFFERENT DATA SETS!!!
The 1989 NOAA-led paper was talking about the continental U.S. only–the lower 48 states. Phil Jones during the BBC interview was talking about an THE ENTIRE GLOBAL DATA SET since 1995.
GET IT?
Don’t talk nonsense, leave that for the AGW fanatics.
Herman L (06:22:41) :
“What a difference 20 years makes.”
Over five thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers (and that’s only counting those cited in the IPCC FAR) did not exist twenty years ago. That’s the difference.
Not to mention the trees used to print all that drivel, plus the man-hours and $billions wasted alarming the world over a non-problem.
Other than that though, yes, we do have those papers.
Robert E. Phelan (04:24:33) :
So, in 1989 there was no US warming (Hansen)…flat as a pancake.
In 2010, there was no warming the last 15 years (Jones).
That’s a 3 year overap of no warming.
The US still doesn’t show any warming.
What US/Global Warming?
And right now, the Arctic Ice isn’t growing because it’s too darn busy blowing cold down the back of the US from Canada.
Don’t you just love Climate Swap?
Jim Hansen tried to make it clear that a lack of a statistically significant trend in the data covering only 1.5% of the global surface (the USA) has little relevance to the statistical significance of the trend of data from more nearly 100% of the global surface.
That comment in no way amounts to a rejection, on his part, of the validity of multiple analyses of a century of GLOBAL data.
Anthony, you should be ashamed of yourself!
Chris R. (09:17:26) :
Great, let’s assign weight to those 2 datasets.
What % of the Global Data Set is the US data set from 1995 to 2010?
What % of the Global Data Set is the US data set from 1890 to 1989?