Friday Funny – Hansen's Horror Scopes

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jimbo
May 20, 2011 10:38 am

Global warming has been solved! Co2 is not as bad as previously thought!

Dr. James Hansen et al. – PNAS August 29, 2000
“A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties. ”
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.abstract

Dr. James Hansen et al. – PNAS January 13, 2004
“Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ~2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature. This indirect soot forcing may have contributed to global warming of the past century, including the trend toward early springs in the Northern Hemisphere, thinning Arctic sea ice, and melting land ice and permafrost.”
“We suggest that soot contributes to near worldwide melting of ice that is usually attributed solely to global warming. Measurements in the Alps reveal BC concentrations as large as 100 ppbw (34, 35), enough to reduce the visible albedo by ~10% and double absorption of sunlight (21).”
“The soot albedo effect operates in concert with regional warming in most of the world, hindering empirical distinction of climate and soot contributions. However, there has been little warming in China, including Tibet, over the past 120 years (Fig. 3), yet glaciers there are retreating rapidly (37).”
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.long

wayne
May 20, 2011 12:15 pm

DJA says:
May 20, 2011 at 3:30 am
Can someone please tell me what “delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols” really means? Why was this effect delayed? (from 1991 to 2005?)
Sounds like rubbish to me, but I am willing to learn.
———-
Well, “delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols” is closely related to “back-radiation” but no one seems to know who the father is. Some say they have no father at all and are conjured up from the dust and the light by “mad climate scientists”. I do hear they are both unruly teenagers now.
/sarc

Eyal Porat
May 20, 2011 1:14 pm

The new BUZZ word should be now: AMW:
Anthropogenic Model Warming.
It seems humans do have influence indeed – on the models.
GIGO.

Al Gored
May 21, 2011 1:06 am

Eyal Porat says:
May 20, 2011 at 1:14 pm
“The new BUZZ word should be now: AMW:
Anthropogenic Model Warming.
It seems humans do have influence indeed – on the models.
GIGO.”
Dr. Porat, I accept your theory of AMW.

May 21, 2011 3:14 am

The troops seem to have gone into damage control, accusing us of misrepresenting climate science and Hansen. Response planned. See http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2722486.html

Pascvaks
May 21, 2011 4:18 am

Ref – Claude Harvey says:
May 20, 2011 at 7:32 am
“Actually, the joke is on us. In spite of all Hansen’s antics, he remains on the public payroll.”
That’s true! But we legally can’t be selective of just one person, so let’s close NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies AND Columbia University Earth Institute!!!! We have to start somewhere!!!

Gary Pearse
May 21, 2011 4:39 am

This man is switching horses, or a horse for a jackass. He will not have the guts, after his very noisy activities took him across too many lines, to simply say gee I may have been somewhat over the top. Its telling that the alarmists weren’t wrong in any case – those pesky models did it! Never turn your back on a model! Also, even if its global cooling, its human’s fault, and its still the death trains with their cargo of aerosols hiding in evil coal. In fact really “I haven’t been wrong at all.

May 21, 2011 3:15 pm

I recommend reading some of the comments at Unleashed http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2722486.html

Not only does this appear NOT to be “well understood”, it appears to be highly questionable if you read the comments in the link you provided. EG:
RALPH ALEXANDER – “The ‘big problem’ I referred to comes at the end of ice ages. Yes, the slight initial warming from the Milankovic effect could not have continued unless the temperature rise was amplified by positive feedbacks, including CO2 feedback. But my contention is that when the ice age was finally over, the temperature suddenly stopped going up and leveled out, yet CO2 continued to rise for another 600 or 800 years before plateauing.
This behavior is well-documented in the historical record and represents a major stumbling block for the CO2 hypothesis of global warming. How can rising CO2 in the atmosphere be the cause of escalating temperatures today, but not at ice-age terminations, when the mercury stood still as the CO2 level kept ascending?”
GEOFF DAVIES – “I don’t know the answer to your point about the end of warming, and it deserves to be investigated. Perhaps clouds became more important, for example.”

Jimbo
May 21, 2011 4:26 pm

Gary Pearse says:

May 21, 2011 at 4:39 am
Never a truer word said. Hansen is trying to gently dig his way out of his FAILED scenarios – A, B and C. ;O) Expect more fun and hilarity over the coming few years.

ferd berple
May 21, 2011 5:30 pm

“a delayed rebound effect from”
the “dead cat bounce” of climate science predictions.