This came out some days ago, but I never got around to posting it, this corrects my oversight. The description of the TED video reads:
Top climate scientist James Hansen tells the story of his involvement in the science of and debate over global climate change. In doing so he outlines the overwhelming evidence that change is happening and why that makes him deeply worried about the future.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the “Sixth Sense” wearable tech, and “Lost” producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at http://www.ted.com/translate
The video is below:
It appears Hansen has been too busy protesting to keep up with the science.
There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record that correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes. The cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
It was quite difficult to push the catastrophic global warming when there was no warming. It will be interesting to hear how the same crowd tries to push that agenda if the planet cools.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
Independent of the normal solar cycle, a decrease in the sunspot magnetic field strength has been observed using the Zeeman-split 1564.8nm Fe I spectral line at the NSO Kitt Peak McMath-Pierce telescope. Corresponding changes in sunspot brightness and the strength of molecular absorption lines were also seen. This trend was seen to continue in observations of the first sunspots of the new solar Cycle 24, and extrapolating a linear fit to this trend would lead to only half the number of spots in Cycle 24 compared to Cycle 23, and imply virtually no sunspots in Cycle 25.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amet/aip/543146.pdf
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10–12 years. The relations between the length of a solar cycle and the mean temperature in the following cycle are used to model Svalbard annual mean temperature and seasonal temperature variations.
These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 to 2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009–‐20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6C.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000PA000571.shtml
On the 1470-year pacing of Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events
The oxygen isotope record from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core was reanalyzed in the frequency and time domains. The prominent 1470-year spectral peak, which has been associated with the occurrence of Dansgaard-Oeschger interstadial events, is solely caused by Dansgaard-Oeschger events 5, 6, and 7. This result emphasizes the nonstationary character of the oxygen isotope time series. Nevertheless, a fundamental pacing period of ∼1470 years seems to control the timing of the onset of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. A trapezoidal time series model is introduced which provides a template for the pacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Statistical analysis indicates only a ≤3% probability that the number of matches between observed and template-derived onsets of Dansgaard-Oeschger events between 13 and 46 kyr B.P. resulted by chance. During this interval the spacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger onsets varied by ±20% around the fundamental 1470-year period and multiples thereof. The pacing seems unaffected by variations in the strength of North Atlantic Deep Water formation, suggesting that the thermohaline circulation was not the primary controlling factor of the pacing period.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
Oh dear!
He sounds like a bad actor reading a prepared script that means nothing to him. And he puts ‘commas’ in his delivery in very Gleickian places. This is very very poor.
Entirely unconvincing that this is a man who actually understands his stuff.
SPreserv says:
He looks like an Amish Climate Worrier, is his horse cart parked outside ?
———————-
If Hansen and other Climate Worriers went Amish, I’d be at least slightly more likely to respect them. It would at least show that they believe their own nonsense.
@Larry Cullen
‘When you compress a gas it gets hot’
Umm
I think that you need to put in work to compress a gas, and it is the work you put in that heats the gas.
Or you can think of it as a lot of particles jiggling about more closely together when compressed. More jiggling = same amount of energy but in a smaller space = hotter (inside the smaller space) but colder outside (where once the jigglig was going on but isn’t any more)
Well; against my gut feeling I watched the video…
all I can say is that there was nothing in that presentation that convinced me it was based on any real science or prompted me to have doubts about my denialist attitude – and was promoted in such a fashion as to be wholly alarmist.
I came, I saw and I call BS.
pesadia says: March 25, 2012 at 10:10 am
POSSIBLY A VERY GOOD POINT, BUT NEEDS MINOR CORRECTIONS – IN CAPS BELOW
“There seems to be general agreement (dare I say a consensus) that CO2 lags temperature by approximately 600-800 years. should we not be looking at the TEMPERATURE level 600-800 years ago in order to calculate its influence on our current ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATIONS.”
_______________________
Not coincidentally, 600-800 years ago was approx. the time of the Medieval Warm Period.
Not coincidentally, CO2 also lags temperature in the modern data record by ~ 9 months on a shorter temperature-time cycle.
Are there other such CO2-after-temperature lags related to other temperature-time cycles? We don’t know.
Some are arguing that references to Hansen’s hat are ad hom attacks. Well, it surely isn’t the most important issue here, but it does give some sort of insight into the man’s vanity and preening self-importance.
Anyway, if your going to put such a dumb thing on your bonce, you’ve made yourself fair game, I say.
The reason Hansen wears a hat. He’s just a public servant doing his duty. And don’t make fun of him!☺
Satire, Humor, Ridiculousness follow:
—————————————-
Wow, I was so wrong about there being no life on Venus….
I found this:
http://www.world-famous.com/Alternate-Venus/Alien-Life-On-Venus-2.html
This Venusian Christina should meet with Dr. Indiana H..
I guess the 900 degree F heat isn’t all that bad…
it must be a “dry” heat.
Aside from the buffoon wearing a hat indoors, Hansen makes the claim that a modest warming resulting from the earth’s orbital (Milankovich) variations leads to the release of carbon dioxide which greatly amplifies the initial warming over a period of several centuries. Putting some numbers to this extraordinary claim suggests that the periodic 60 ppm variation in carbon dioxide seen in the ice-core record over a period of many hundred thousand years is amplified to a slightly delayed 6 degrees Celsius temperature change.
So, how can he resist the conclusion that the 120 ppm increase in carbon dioxide seen since the industrial revolution must have already locked in a 12 degrees Celsius temperature increase.
“I think that you need to put in work to compress a gas, and it is the work you put in that heats the gas. ”
It is the incoming solar irradiation that heats the gas, not the initial act of compression. No solar input no heating because no ongoing compression.
Once compression has occurred the fact that there are more molecules per unit volume nearest the surface means that there will be more interactions with the solar incoming at the surface thus more heat generated and in the case of non GHGs the heat is conducted from the surface first.
Hansen doesn’t seem to know any of that.
The Hat…
I posted a detailed comment earlier dealing with the substance of what Hansen has stated in the video. Now for the “Feel”.
Hats… why does a person wear a hat?
Hats are important. The Pope has a hat. It is a big white and gold miter. It is a symbol of his office, that he is the leader of an organization of 1.1 billion people. The Queen has a hat. She wears the crown of several nations, and she is the monarch over 100’s of millions of people. When you become a Bachelor in academia….you get a hat… then a different one when you become a Master or PhD. Cops have hats. So do native American chiefs. Military leaders have hats too. Usually with shiny metal insignia. They betray the soldiers rank etc.
The bigger the hat, the more important the office. (I recall a Carlin skit like this so credit to Carlin if appropriate but I am not sure.)
So what is Hansen saying with his hat?
My dad taught me to remove my hat should I be wearing one in the presence of a lady, at a meal, upon entering a building and in a place of worship. etc.
Nowadays, people are less aware of the role of the hat and how to behave when wearing one. Etiquette is for another discussion. . But subconsciously, we pay attention to the guy with the biggest hat.
Hansen knows about hats. He also needs an office befitting his ego and a hat.
But he no longer holds an office so he had to create a hat of office and an office. His hat is a sloppy one. One that appeals to his new office. The green office of the king of the earth worshipers…. a soft hat… an imprecise hat.. a noncommittal gooey hat.
Notice the style of his chosen hat… You often see academics wearing it, or archeologists… or hikers….It is a sloppy hat implying non-conformity. Opposite of the Queen’s crown, and the complete opposite of the Pope hat!!! Hew would NEVER were a military hat, for then he would look like a mindless robot Nazi. But he still needs a hat. With a hat you have a crown and therefore you are king… of something.
So he picked a sloppy hat of the earthy left and crowned himself the king of the greens.
His hat is important to him, especially when he is holding court amongst the greens like at a TED talk.
Don’t underestimate the hat. it is a device of power. Hansen is telling us that he is powerful.
Without his hat he is just a guy telling lies. With his hat, he is a king!
[My bold emphasis]
Whatever happened to global warming? I thought there was no debate. There is a consensus.
Climate change is certainly happening as always. These people are just weasle word using con men pure and simple. Keep your eyes, as always, on global mean temps as well as the increased use of ‘climate change’ and ‘extreme weather’ events.
Allan MacRae says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:21 pm
“Not coincidentally, 600-800 years ago was approx. the time of the Medieval Warm Period.”
And we have a warm period about every 1,000 years… Minoan Warm period, Roman Warm Period, MWP, now… could be a resonance within the system, maybe synchronized by Solar cycles.
“So the statement “to create the lapse rate AND warm the surface “, does require the GHGs”
Not so.
The surface of Earth is warmed by solar incoming, the entire mass of the atmosphere becomes involved and greater pressure at the surface leads to greater acquisition of heat by conduction from the surface because the higher pressure packs more air molecules closer together at the surface.
If there are no GHGs then circulation is set up between poles and equator and between nightside and dayside with a purely conductive exchange between atmosphere and surface.That leads to a lapse rate.
Hot air on the dayside or at the equator would rapidly rise and take heat away from the surface but on the night side and at the poles it would descend and return heat conductively to the fast radiating surface. There would be intense winds and atmospheric turbulence.
If the conductive exchange failed to bring the system to equilibrium then heat would accumulate until the atmosphere is boiled off to space.
GHGs help in radiative energy loss to space thus assisting the energy exchange and making it less likely that the atmosphere will be boiled off.
It is the thickness and total mass of the atmosphere that leads to a heating effect. GHGs only help in redistribution of energy horizontally and in faster radiation out to space than would be achieved from the surface in their absence.
Downward IR has no effect on surface temperature because the atmosphere simply expands instead which reduces density (but not pressure) at the surface to reduce the heating at the surface proportionately to the extra energy retained by the GHGs in the air.
All established science 30 years ago but forgotten or never learned by Hansen and his cohorts.
Paul Westhaver says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:02 pm
The Hat…
———————————————-
Green Hats should be made from palm fronds, pine cones, or recycled truck tires.
David Ross says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:02 am
Anthony, or anyone with a good physics grounding. Is it not the case that gases absorb more radiation the higher the pressure?
_________________________________
There were a couple of WUWT threads on that and Venus.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
Now we know his motive. It’s for the children, specifically his grands.
Twice he framed their images in the cutest possible, heart-tugging poses.
He, as all crusading liberals, is driven by his emotions, not by the reality of the evidence.
He is insufferable.
Please, no more hat comments! Anyway, Hansen certainly stands up for what he believes in, and I must take off my hat to him for that…oops. Start over.
Now, some of you may think he’s talking through his hat, but….oops.
Just because he may have a Messiah Complex, doesn’t mean he’s mad as a hatter….oops.
Anyway, I think it’s time he had his hat handed to him.
aaron says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:43 am
His carbon tax that is fully and evenly redustributed isnt a bad idea though. Give some credit.
_________________________________________
It is a very bad idea. All any redistribution scheme does is make sure some well paid bureaucrats (related to the politicians) get big fat pay checks and pensions. Currently 21% of the US budget is PENSIONS the third largest single expense. <a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_by_state.php?units=p"<(Salaries & Wages)
So after salaries, pensions and office expenses how much money do you think actually manages to trickle down to the “Great Unwashed”? In today’s governments “social welfare schemes” are con-jobs devised by the Regulating Class to rip off the soft hearted.
It is a redistribution scheme alright. It redistributes the wealth to the bureaucrats. Remember bureaucrats are not wealth producers they are wealth destroyers.
@ur momisugly dp, johnh and other purists
I think you are missing a point here. The thing is that, however regrettably, Hansen’s talk is ~20% science and 80% opera (buffa). In opera it is permissable to critique the production as well as the music–hence the instinct to jeer at the hat. You may be trying to have a rigorous scientific debate, but people like Hansen and Mann have moved on…they are not giving serious scientific presentations, but have become “communicators”, mostly of emotionally weighted propaganda (those grandchildren). So for something like this it may be more appropriate to lighten up, throw an egg, and save the heavy intellectual artillary for a serious target. Having said that, I did enjoy reading the more factual comments and the link Greg House kindly posted…thanks.
Stephen Wilde says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Interesting. But there’s the other problem that the surface of the moon at noon gets very hot (123C), which makes me wonder how the tropical altiplano surface stays cool. Cooler air for sure (but why?), and I suppose greater convection–I think whirlwinds are more common at higher elevations. Can you enlighten me?
For what it’s worth, the average lunar T is colder than the earth’s (as I’m sure you know). –AGF
Stephen Wilde says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Downward IR has no effect on surface temperature…
=================================================
Yes, it has, the sun delivers IR too. But the crucial question is, whether the downward IR radiation coming from the “greenhouse gasses” can cause a significant increase of surface temperature. The scientific answer was given long ago in 1909 and it was “no”.
What a lot of people do not know is, that the theory of “greenhouse gasses” and climate sensitivity of CO2 is very old and was debunked by a well known physicist professor R.W.Wood: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html .
The reading is easy, but can be very frustrating for both radical and moderate/sceptical warmists.
About R.W.Wood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood
I don’t see the point in making energy more expensive and then giving the higher costs back to us.
In addition, higher energy costs are a drag on the economy and could lead to a recession as many have been saying the last month or so.
For the life of me, I can’t understand the economic reasoning behind the claims that if we switch to even higher (and intermittent) priced green energy, we’ll be in green economic bliss…
I really wasted 18 minutes watching this mendacious Hanson video. I think that he does not believe, any more, a word he is saying.
If he believed ‘The Science’ were true he would not have had to adjust the historic thermometer record of the World as he has. He believes in re-writing history only.