The motivation for this cartoon comes from this essay on The Hockey Schtick, which was prompted by a post on David Stockwell’s blog Niche Modeling, which I highly recommend bookmarking.
As just pointed out by an astute and disillusioned young climate scientist, James Hansen, the high priest of the global warming religion and defender of creation has recently produced a non-peer-reviewed paper finding that the net man-made effects on climate have been greatly exaggerated by computer models. Hansen claims most climate models have underestimated the cooling effect of man-made aerosols via cloud changes, although the fine print in the paper admits they really have no idea what is causing the cloud changes and resulting cooling effect. Hmmm, possibly the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al? Hansen also references estimates for climate sensitivity pulled out of the air by his brainwashed grandchildren in the amusing paper (p. 3).
Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications
James Hansen (1), Makiko Sato (1), Pushker Kharecha (1), Karina von Schuckmann (2)
((1) NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, (2) Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)
(Submitted on 5 May 2011)
Improving observations of ocean temperature confirm that Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum. The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 \pm 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period 2005-2010, provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change. Observed surface temperature change and ocean heat gain constrain the net climate forcing and ocean mixing rates. We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be -1.6 \pm 0.3 W/m2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large [negative] forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change. A recent decrease in ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era can readily be accounted for by thermal expansion of the ocean and ice melt, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate a near-term acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.
Sorry Jimbo, near-term sea level rise is decelerating
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What this really means is that Hansen et al in the Climate Scientology world just need MORE money, for BIGGER computers to run ever more complex MODELS.
Eventually, if they spend enough money they will find what they think the believe is happening.
After all, what’s a couple of $Trillion $dollars between the taxpayers and Jimbo?
As the IPCC, Hansen, and the Real Climate type group have spent the last 15 years telling the world the science is settled and trillions of dollars must be spent to remove or limit CO2 in the atmosphere it is difficult for them to admit that observation evidence indicates that are completely incorrect. Increases in atmospheric CO2 is positive for the biosphere and humans, further increases in atmospheric CO2 will not cause catastrophic warming, warming in general would be beneficial to the biosphere and humans, and lastly the planet is now about to cool.
20th Century Warming & 2000 year Paleo Climatic Record
The 20th century warming has stopped. That is not possible if the mechanism was CO2 (Hansen’s last ditch hypothesis to explain the lack of warming is a cooling mechanism the caused an increase in the amount of solar radiation reflected to space. During the warming period however there was as measured by satellites a reduction in solar radiation reflected into space which is evidenced in the regions of the oceans and planet that were warmer during that period. Hansen and company chose to ignore that inconvenient observation as it completely invalidates the extreme AGW hypothesis.
The Real Climate crowd and cohorts have altered the paleo climatic record to remove the evidence of past cyclic warming and cooling as past cyclic warming and cooling could not have been caused by atmospheric CO2 changes as there was no significant increase and decrease in CO2 levels in the last 2000 years (ignoring the last 40 years). The obvious question is what caused the past cyclic warming and cooling? As there are concurrent with the paleoclimatic record of cyclic warming and cooling and the extreme rapid cooling events cosmogenic isotope changes, the answer is changes in the solar magnetic cycle and different states of the sun.
commieBob says:
May 20, 2011 at 5:38 am
> What is the meaning of: “0.59 \pm 0.15 W/m2″ ?
As noted by another person, the \pm was supposed to turn into +/-. Or better:
0.59 ± 0.15 W/m2 to display as 0.59 ± 0.15 W/m2.
I hope I got the ampersands right.
@Patrick Davis : I cannot imagine anything more threatening than the risk of dying very young because the home’s kitchen (and only room) is always full of soot.
Soot is a known problem that is killing little children as we speak and incidentally is also endangering the fabled Himalayan glaciers. Its emissions could be greatly reduced for very little money. But since it’s not CO2 few take it seriously.
Also I have a lingering thought that some people don’t want to improve Third World health too much, lest those children become adults and make even more children…
Talking of oceans here are some gems from a press release related to a recent Nature paper published on 18 May, 2011.
Let’s hope the models have already factored this in. It looks like Hansen is slowly realising the awful truth.
This is indeed the crap they are going to pull from their behinds. Soot effects today, no soot effects yesterday. Delayed effects of Mount Pinatubo. Bollocks to that my friend. If cooling accelerates it’s going to be great fun watching the Team perform somersaults.
Anthony,
Norton (antivirus program) says that the link to David Stockwell’s blog is a known malicious website. Is the site safe??? Is the link wrong?
REPLY: it is just fine. I know him personally and I visit his website. Try a different brand of paranoiaware. My choice is AVAST – Anthony
He’s worse than we thought!
So we can now scrap the geoengineering projects. Noooooo! Too much money to be made.
Why are we paying Hansen to put out non-peer-reviewed papers?
Why are we paying him at all?
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning of Hansen’s repositioning.
Well he’s got to protect his pension (or should that be payoff) hasn’t he?
Orignal quote Sir Winston Churchill.
I consider this a major crack in the facade of CAGW that indicates foundational issues. That Hansen would dare to say that the models overestimated warming due to cloud cover is amazing… this would have been unthinkable 2 years ago.
Actually, the joke is on us. In spite of all Hansen’s antics, he remains on the public payroll.
William says: May 20, 2011 at 5:55 am
“… Hansen’s last ditch hypothesis to explain the lack of warming is a cooling mechanism … The Real Climate crowd and cohorts have altered the paleo climatic record to remove the evidence of past cyclic warming and cooling … the obvious question is what caused
This is all so reminiscent of the end of the global cooling scare of the 1970s. They are so keen to trumpet the Wallace Broecker’s paper on global warming, but do they ever mention the contents?
Just like Hansen, Broeker’s paper was an attempt to mend a failed theory by postulating another counter force to explain why the theory had failed to predict the real climate. In short Broeker postulated global warming as an explanation for the lack of global cooling.
And perversely, the paper’s whole premise was that the camp century cycles (i.e. climate variation) must be real and therefore as there must be a cyclic and at that time cooling force which was not materialising, so there must be a hidden warming force.
So, we have gone full circle, from massive climate variation predicting cooling having to be explained away by a mystic warming force, to a mystic warming force predicted by hitherto absent climate variation having to be explained away by a mystic cooling force.
These people are worse than despicable. They just make it up as they go along!
I am starting to read Hansen’s paper (thanks very much for posting it). I’m confused. In the abstract he says that the strong offset to GHG has been aerosol-induced cooling and he mentions the “delayed rebound effect” from the Pinatubo eruption. Which was, what? Well over a decade ago? So his suggested mechanism is that the dust from volcanoes goes into the atmosphere and lingers for years and years.
But then in the paper he says this: “Global warming has been limited, as aerosol cooling partially offsets GHG warming. But aerosols remain airborne only several days, so they must be pumped into the air faster and faster to keep pace with increasing long-lived GHGs.”
Which is it? Decades? Or days?
US military goes to war with climate sceptics
Nice to know they are on our side! Though I suspect this is another Guardian banana skin.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/20/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
Thanks for the explanation Ric.
If we take the incoming solar radiation at 1361 watts per square meter, and take Dr. Hansen’s inferred planetary energy imbalance at 0.6 watts per square meter, and take the ratio, we get about one part in two thousand (1/2000). I am astounded that they can measure that accurately, I sure can’t.
Has anyone seriously looked at the accuracy of the satellite energy measurements? If we have trouble measuring light in the lab with one percent accuracy, how is that they can do it from a satellite twenty times better?
“Improving observations of ocean temperature confirm that Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum. The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 \pm 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period 2005-2010, provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change.”
Am I missing something here, how does this in any way shape or form prove that any greenhouse effect is “human made”?
And is the following true?
“Improving observations of ocean temperature” The figures at last say what we warmists want them to say or they are derived in such a way that sceptics cannot question them
“even during the recent solar minimum” the warmists have always denied that any global warming is caused by variations in solar output.
“The inferred planetary energy imbalance” an inference is not a proof.
Like I have said many times this is not science it is bigotry
Two technical points:
1. Hansen issued a white paper about 5 years ago saying that NASA made lab mistakes when evaluating the effects of burning fossil fuels. Several years later the tests were rerun and they found that carbon particles emanating from the flue reflected enough heat to cause slight cooling overall instead of their previous conclusion of considerable warming from carbon dioxide emissions. This white paper was quickly “hidden”. I suspect that this new paper is a return to the second set of lab findings indicating cooling instead of warming.
2. I have always thought that the “missing aerosols and energy” are from evaporative cooling towers that are used in many processes such as refineries, power generation plants, gas processing plants, large air conditioning units, etc. The process plant evaporative cooling towers operate 24 hours per day year in and year out. The air that is drawn through the internal contact surfaces leave the tower as essentially 100% water saturated air, aerosols and about 2% solid water that is called drift. Most of the towers are forced or induced draft but most nuclear power plants use natural draft towers that emit 300 to 400 feet above ground level. The normal towers emit about 40 to 60 feet above ground.
JFD
I see no pivot on Hansen’s career-spanning position. This draft paper is just another effort to justify the lack of warming in recent years, without damaging the CO2 forcing and the water vapor 3x positive feedback that is settled science in Hansenville. Note that he claims the catastrophic cloud cover increase is due to anthropogenic aerosol cooling, not natural feedback or natural cyclical effects. Doing something to reduce anthropogenic aerosols (aka carbon pollution) will expose the catastrophic anthropogenic warming (due to carbon pollution) that lies beneath.
Hansen’s explanations are starting to read like the old epicycles theory of planetary, lunar and solar motion.
It is interesting that he introduces the idea that the long solar minimum has had an impact on net energy imbalance. That may have been a mistake on his part.
Hansen’s claim that Pinatubo cooling is still in the pipeline is specious drivel. As we all read in Gavin Schmidt’s recent article in Physics Today, the Pinatubo cooling event is well-understood settled science that the GCM’s have perfectly hind-casted. Gavin singled this event out to display the success of the models! 🙂
@ur momisugly chris y says:
May 20, 2011 at 8:40 am
Chris, that is my thought exactly!! Considering the interesting and new cosmic ray/atmosphere interaction results coming out of Aarhus University and CERN, Hansen may have opened a door that he will soon regret opening.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/17/new-study-links-cosmic-rays-to-aerosolscloud-formation-via-solar-magnetic-activity-modulation/
As others have noted, Hansen’s mention of solar flux variations is hardly consistent with the warmists’ interest in keeping us all focused on the shiny thing: CO2.
Pinatubo’s aerosols = Hansen’s epicycles.
So which is it – the models are right, and it’s worse than we thought, or the models are wrong and it’s worse than we thought.
“…We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols…”
They dump all their data into a blender, and toss out any output that doen’t show CAGW. Now they say they need a cheaper blender that still leaves chunks?
It’s May and Hansen surrenders. Whoda thunk it?