Note: This will be a top post for a day or two, new stories will appear below this one – please scroll down.
============================================================
No, this isn’t a joke, it isn’t a fake document, and it isn’t a misinterpretation. It is a paper published by Dr. James Hansen (and the GISS team) in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). In the paper (published in 2000, but long since buried) they make these two bold statements (emphasis mine):
..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..
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.
Basically what Hansen is saying is that we should focus on air pollution, and some CO2 reduction, but not exclusively on CO2 alone. This is of course at odds with his famous 350ppm CO2 “safe level” upon which the activist organization 350.org is formed, along with many other pronouncements made by Hansen. I post the abstract and excerpts from the PNAS paper below. Be sure to note the item in red. – Anthony
Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario
James Hansen*†, Makiko Sato*‡, Reto Ruedy*, Andrew Lacis*, and Valdar Oinas*§
+ Author Affiliations *National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, ‡Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, and §Center for Environmental Prediction, Rutgers University, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025 Contributed by James Hansen
Abstract
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.
The global surface temperature has increased by about 0.5°C since 1975 (1, 2), a burst of warming that has taken the global temperature to its highest level in the past millennium (3). There is a growing consensus (4) that the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs).
GHGs cause a global climate forcing, i.e., an imposed perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance with space (5). There are many competing natural and anthropogenic climate forcings, but increasing GHGs are estimated to be the largest forcing and to result in a net positive forcing, especially during the past few decades (4, 6). Evidence supporting this interpretation is provided by observed heat storage in the ocean (7), which is positive and of the magnitude of the energy imbalance estimated from climate forcings for recent decades (8).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (4) has considered a range of scenarios for future GHGs, which is further expanded in its Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (9). Yet global warming simulations have focused on “business as usual” scenarios with rapidly increasing GHGs. These scenarios yield a steep, relentless increase in global temperature throughout the twenty-first century (4, 10) with warming of several degrees Celsius by 2100, if climate sensitivity is 2–4°C for doubled CO2, as climate models suggest (4, 11–13). These figures can give the impression that curtailment of global warming is almost hopeless. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which calls for industrialized nations to reduce their CO2 emissions to 95% of 1990 levels by 2012 (14), is itself considered a difficult target to achieve. Yet the climate simulations lead to the conclusion that the Kyoto reductions will have little effect in the twenty-first century (15), and “30 Kyotos” may be needed to reduce warming to an acceptable level (16).
We suggest equal emphasis on an alternative, more optimistic, scenario. This scenario focuses on reducing non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon during the next 50 years. Our estimates of global climate forcings indicate that it is the non-CO2 GHGs that have caused most observed global warming. This interpretation does not alter the desirability of limiting CO2 emissions, because the future balance of forcings is likely to shift toward dominance of CO2 over aerosols. However, we suggest that it is more practical to slow global warming than is sometimes assumed.
…
Climate forcing by CO2 is the largest forcing, but it does not dwarf the others (Fig. 1). Forcing by CH4 (0.7 W/m2) is half as large as that of CO2, and the total forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4 W/m2) equals that of CO2. Moreover, in comparing forcings due to different activities, we must note that the fossil fuels producing most of the CO2 are also the main source of aerosols, especially sulfates, black carbon, and organic aerosols (4, 23). Fossil fuels contribute only a minor part of the non-CO2 GHG growth via emissions that are not essential to energy production.
Aerosols cause a climate forcing directly by reflecting sunlight and indirectly by modifying cloud properties. The indirect effect includes increased cloud brightness, as aerosols lead to a larger number and smaller size of cloud droplets (24), and increased cloud cover, as smaller droplets inhibit rainfall and increase cloud lifetime (25). Absorbing aerosols cause a semidirect forcing by heating the atmosphere, thus reducing large-scale cloud cover (5). In addition, absorbing aerosols within cloud drops and in interstitial air decrease cloud brightness.
Forcing by atmospheric aerosols is uncertain, but research of the past decade indicates that it is substantial (4, 26–28). The aerosol forcing that we estimate (6) has the same magnitude (1.4 W/m2) but a sign that is opposite that of the CO2 forcing. Fossil fuel use is the main source of both CO2 and aerosols, with land conversion and biomass burning also contributing to both forcings. Although fossil fuels contribute to growth of some of the other GHGs, it follows that the net global climate forcing due to processes that produced CO2 in the past century probably is much less than 1.4 W/m2. This partial offsetting of aerosol and greenhouse forcings has been discussed (29–31). Offsetting of global mean forcings does not imply that climate effects are negligible.
A corollary following from Fig. 1 is that climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4 W/m2) is nearly equal to the net value of all known forcings for the period 1850–2000 (1.6 W/m2). Thus, assuming only that our estimates are approximately correct, we assert that the processes producing the non-CO2 GHGs have been the primary drive for climate change in the past century.
…
An Alternative Scenario
Let us propose a climate forcing scenario for the next 50 years that adds little forcing (Fig. 5), less than or about 1 W/m2, and then ask whether the elements of the scenario are plausible. The next 50 years is the most difficult time to affect CO2 emissions, because of the inertia of global energy systems, as evidenced by Fig. 4. The essence of the strategy is to halt and even reverse the growth of non-CO2 GHGs and to reduce black carbon emissions. Such a strategy would mitigate an inevitable, even if slowing, growth of CO2. By midcentury improved energy efficiency and advanced technologies, perhaps including hydrogen-powered fuel cells, should allow policy options with reduced reliance on fossil fuels and, if necessary, CO2 sequestration.
…
Summary
Business-as-usual scenarios provide a useful warning about the potential for human-made climate change. Our analysis of climate forcings suggests, as a strategy to slow global warming, an alternative scenario focused on reducing non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon (soot) aerosols. Investments in technology to improve energy efficiency and develop nonfossil energy sources are also needed to slow the growth of CO2 emissions and expand future policy options.
A key feature of this strategy is its focus on air pollution, especially aerosols and tropospheric ozone, which have human health and ecological impacts. If the World Bank were to support investments in modern technology and air quality control in India and China, for example, the reductions in tropospheric ozone and black carbon would not only improve local health and agricultural productivity but also benefit global climate and air quality.
==============================================================
So the strategy should be to focus on air pollution, not CO2
Think I made all this up? Read the paper at PNAS here.
(Big hat tip to WUWT reader Nick.)
Backup link in case it disappears like so many other things is here.
Now for the other shocker. This paper was published in the year 2000. So what happened to Hansen since then? He’s totally lost the plot from then, which from my perspective, seems reasonable, and one I could get behind.
Instead we have pronouncements like this:
2008 from a non peer reviewed paper published on Hansen’s personal website –
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
2009 in a article in the UK Guardian. Hansen says –
“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.
May 10th, 2012 Game over on Climate, New York Times op-ed –
Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
No mention of the other GHG’s, carbon soot, and aersols in that op-ed.
Clearly he seems to have abandoned the idea that seemed so reasonable and workable in his 2000 paper for the idea that CO2 reduction and removal of fossil fuels from the energy equation is the only possible scenario.
I think he was affected by the money, power, and hoopla surrounding Al Gore’s success with the alarming fabrications in An Inconvenient Truth as well as the hoopla and fame associated with the Nobel prize for the 2007 IPCC report. (Added: it is important to note that all of this backpedaling occurred after Hansen’s 1988 Senate testimony where he and sponsoring Senator Tim Wirth were so sure of the science blaming CO2 saying “that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.” that they had a thermostat malfunction in the hearing room, it came after Rio Earth Summit 1992, and the subsequent Kyoto protocol. Now Hansen has flip-flopped again with more recent CO2 pronouncements.)
When you go from scientist to arrested activist, the reasonable path just doesn’t get people stirred up. It seems Dr. Hansen has gone over to the dark side of the forcings.
Ask Dr. Hansen’s acolyte Bill McKibben how well reasonable approaches work in all the wailing hippie protests he organizes. You can connect the dots.
UPDATE: graph added, thanks to Joshua Halpern of Howard University who says:
Eli Rabett on 2012/06/03 at 10:42 am says:
That was 2000, this is 2012. As that paper said, the alternative strategy would buy time, not solve the problem. We didn’t follow it and are now running out of time. Twelve years is a while.
REPLY: Yes as noted clearly in red, that was 2000. Twelve years without warming is a while.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/trend
What’s the rush? Meanwhile:
NOAA: Carbon dioxide levels reach milestone at Arctic sites
NOAA cooperative measurements in remote, northern sites hit greenhouse gas milestone in April
– Anthony
UPDATE2: It gets stranger. WUWT reader Jimbo points out in comments, that Hansen wrote a paper blaming soot for the Arctic ice melt, calling it twice as effective as CO2.
Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos James Hansen* †‡ and Larissa Nazarenko* †
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 Wm2 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.
Global Warming. Soot snowice albedo climate forcing is not included in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change evaluations. This forcing is unusually effective, causing twice as much global warming as a CO2 forcing of the same magnitude. This high efficacy is a straight-forward consequence of positive albedo feedbacks and atmospheric stability at high latitudes. Our estimate for the mean soot effect on spectrally integrated albedos in the Arctic (1.5%) and Northern Hemisphere land areas (3%) yields a Northern Hemisphere forcing of 0.3 Wm2 or an effective hemispheric forcing of 0.6 Wm2 . The calculated global warming in an 1880–2000 simulation is about one quarter of observed global warming
Source: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Hansen_Nazarenko.pdf
Happens sometimes when you have a mild stroke. You suddenly develop obsessive thoughts and/or act out of character. Not joking. Seems to me a very reasonable explanation.
This is a shell game.
Kurt in Swizerland
But the models can’t be wrong, can they? This is just a recycling of old ideas with the new flavor of the day. It is still driven in by faith in numeric models not scientific logic. I think it also demonstrates an ignorance of geologic history too.
Hanson: So CO2 is bad, but this other stuff is worse, we must focus on panicking, that is how we can save the world. /s
Goodbye to anaerobic digesters… those things leak CH4 like crazy. Once again, the farmers will get blamed for the N2O and CH4 their operations emit.
They realize the data has negated CO2 as a major temperature variable. But they still want deindustrialization and relevance. So they slowly change the cue cards.
Twenty percent of the references he cites are papers primarily authored by — oddly enough — Hansen, J.
But, but but….what of the “Coal Trains of DEATH”????? Oh, the HUMANITY!
PS: And the boiling oceans?
The backpedalling has started.
REPLY: No, note the date – Anthony
a) Somebody did a considerable “tighten up” on Hansen
alternatively
b) Waiting for the other shoe to drop
or
c) He’s lost it
Will James Hansen be put on The Black List now?
REPLY: Note the date, now embellished in red so people don’t miss it – Anthony
They are changing horses in mid stream. They realize that even the common man now has a firm grasp on the CO2 debacle and knows it to be a hoax. Now they switch to something that the public most likely has no education on, the other trace GHG’s. The key is to make them own their false CO2 narrative, publish it, and make sure the MSM acknowledge it publicly. Their loss in credibility will help to bury their future efforts. Then we can get back to real science.
IIRC, Hansen also wrote several papers on aerosols, especially black carbon, and the loss of ice in the arctic and glaciers.
At some point, though, he made a sudden left turn onto the activist freeway.
But, I agree with this approach. Stop the pollution, and there will be benefits other than reducing warming.
This is a quite old paper, isn´t it?
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long
Published online before print August 15, 2000, doi: 10.1073/pnas.170278997
PNAS August 29, 2000 vol. 97 no. 18 9875-9880
REPLY: You, like a few others, missed the two references I made to it being published in the year 2000, so I beefed up the notice to “in your face levels” – Anthony
Hansen’s views on warming continue to “evolve”….. or flip flop, depending upon your political persuasion.
Wow – what is going on with this man? The resurfacing of this paper is not going to be too popular with your EPA, nor with our Department of Energy and Climate Change (nor our Moonbat at the Guardian, nor our Jarvis Cocker “I’m not an expert” airhead). It is surely time that Hansen was brought to task by NASA – it would appear that his mist recent pronouncements (on CO2) might possibly be driven by some political masters..
Thanks
Michael
As of 2:09PM NDT, Hansen hasn’t posted a link to this paper at his website:
http://fromjameshansen.blogspot.com/
Simple strategy. Never, ever admit you were wrong.
Just smoothly brush that all under the rug, then move on to the next stage of the research, and hopefully remain at the forefront.
I’ve seen this in biological sciences. I was at a conference years ago where a lead researcher in one field (probably regarded as the world’s leading expert) was openly mocking what we all thought was some very good research coming out of Europe. Within a year or two he realized the Europeans were correct, smoothly changed horses, did some similar reasearch of his own, and is still the highly respected world expert in the field. At no stage have I heard him apologize or mention that he was, for a time, mistaken.
However, good people, from the point of view of ‘science’, this IS all progress.
“It seems Dr. Hansen has gone over to the dark side of the forcings” – you’re using the humour weapon on them again. Bounder that you are …
Pointman
My first reaction was that this was a freshly minted, non peer-reviewed paper, because it presents the case for banning the use of natural gas. It also reinforces the call to ban the use of coal. It also presents the expanded regulatory framework as an ‘in addition to banning CO2’, so I don’t see any backing down on demonizing CO2.
In other words-
coal trains are death trains.
natural gas wells are death wells.
natural gas vehicles are death vehicles.
natural gas pipelines are death pipelines.
tar sands are death dirt.
oil shale is death rock.
Has Hansen ever published anything containing verified physics, or has his entire career consisted of parametrized curve-fitting, fiddling with historical temperature measurements within the measurement error bands, extrapolating exponential curves into the future, and advocacy for energy policies?
After all, when he testified in 1988, he already had his own pair of well-used alligator shoes.
Same story, “You are at fault. We are in charge”. Sun? Cosmic influence? Clouds? No, it is humans.
Sometimes, once a scientist becomes established as a big “name” in a field, they can often publish opinion-pieces essentially at will, claiming what they like, where they like, when they like, without let or hindrance.
They may become listed as co-authors of papers they have not read, never mind written.
They can publish, and take credit for, speculation that may only later be shown as correct by the work of others. If they are wrong they can be almost immune to criticisms that their theories were not well supported, or were contradicted by the rigorous work of lesser mortals.
Apparent self contradiction provides no obstacle to such occurrences.
Did I read the first figure correctly? Land use changes have a cooling forcing? Really? Would Pielke agree with that? Have our cities grown smaller over the past 150 years?
Talk about a reading skills issue or is it that nobody ever gets past the first paragraph?
Pointman
I published a humour piece some years ago that may explain what happened:
Climatologist; I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?
Physicist; The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.
Climatologist; Well what if I change the composition of the system?
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Perhaps you don’t understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?
Physicist; There would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.
Climatologist; But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.
Physicist; There would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.
Climatologist; That can’t be true. I’ve been measuring temperature at thousands of points in the system and the average is rising.
Physicist; The temperature rise you observe can be due to one of two factors. It may be due to a cyclic variation that has not completed, or it could be due to the changes you alluded to earlier resulting in a redistribution of energy in the system that affects the measurement points more than the system as a whole. Unless the energy inputs have changed, the long term temperature average would be… see above.
Climatologist; AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would increase temperature.
Physicist; Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the planet is?
Climatologist; Uhm… no.
Physicist; Rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet… see above.
Climatologist; Methane! Methane absorbs even more than CO2!
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Clouds! Clouds would retain more energy!
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Ice! If a fluctuation in temperature melted all the ice less energy would be reflected into space and would instead be absorbed into the system, raising the temperature. Ha!
Physicist; The ice you are pointing at is mostly at the poles where the inclination of the radiant energy source is so sharp that there isn’t much energy to absorb anyway. But what little there is would certainly go into the surface the ice used to cover, raising its temperature. That would reduce the temperature differential between equator and poles which would slow down convection processes that move energy from hot places to cold places. The result would be increased radiance from the planet that would exceed energy input until the planet cooled down enough to start forming ice again. As I said before, the change to the system that you propose could well result in redistribution of energy flows, and in short term temperature fluctuations, but as for the long term average temperature…. see above.
Climatologist; Blasphemer! Unbeliever! The temperature HAS to rise! I have reports! I have measurements! I have computer simulations! I have committees! United Nations committees! Grant money! Billions and billions and billions! I CAN’T be wrong, I will never explain it! Billions! and the carbon trading! Trillions in carbon trading!
Physicist; (gasp!) how much grant money?
Climatologist; Billions… Want some?
Physicist; Uhm…
Climatologist; BILLIONS!
Climatologist; Hi. I used to be a physicist. When I started to understand the danger the world was in though, I decided to do the right thing and become a climatologist. Let me explain the greenhouse effect to you…
The problem with that strategy was that aerosols have a short lifetime in the atmosphere, so their forcing only increases while the rate of fossil fuel burning increases (accelerates), and stays flat for a constant rate of burning, and decreases as fossil fuel burning decreases. Note that CO2 is long-lived and is still increasing in the meantime, so things are worsened by the reduction of aerosols. This is the Faustian bargain Hansen speaks of regarding sulphate aerosols from fossil fuels, which means basically that you pay for it later unless you continue to accelerate fossil-fuel burning, which is also not practical past the 21st century.
So in your face that I did not notice it the first 3 times I scanned the article, (memo not everyone sees red as a high visibility color! In fact I had to look hard to find it by color as in thin lines like this text font it is almost indistinguishable from the black font.)
Like many people who visit here, I do not have the time to read every article in depth, so I scan articles quickly to determine if they are of sufficient interest and worth digging into them in detail.
Otherwise with this a few other forums I would never do anything but eat sleep and read your blog.
Much better if that notice was in bold or even better yet was stated up front in the opening paragraph such as below.
“No, this isn’t a joke, it isn’t a fake document, and it isn’t a misinterpretation. It is a paper published by Dr. James Hansen (and the GISS team) in the year 2000 issue of PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). In it they make these two bold statements (emphasis mine):”
Larry
REPLY: OK I’ll bold it for people that don’t see red – Anthony
As I remember, when this came out the first time (in 2000) there were cries of outrage from the environmental activist community… the very idea that we might get by without destroying the world economy was complete heresy. Hansen was in grave danger of losing his guru status! I have long suspected that this very danger may well have had a hand in shaping his subsequent behavior.
New Strategy, time to dump Global Warming down the Memory Hole. We’re at war with Human Caused Pollution and Land Use Changes now. We’re allies with Climate Change. We’ve always been at war with Human Casued Pollution and Land Use Changes, and we’ve always been allies with Climate Change.
Time for the Two Minutes Hate.
[REPLY: “New Strategy“? You did notice the date of the paper, right? -REP]
By now the global warming movement has morphed into a pseudo-religion. It really does not matter whether CO2 is bad, good or neutral. The beliefs have been established. Coal is dirty and bad. Alternate energy sources are good regardless of cost or reliability. I doubt if there are any arguements that will make a difference to the believers. Only time and disenchantment with the accumulated failures will erode support. Meanwhile the beneficiaries of the movement will continue to milk what they can get out of it. It is surprising that Hansen was proposing such a thing in 2000 but by then the CO2 gravy train had considerable momentum.
There are indeed some interesting differences between the most probable anthropogenic forcings calculated in Hansen PNAS 2012 and as reported in IPCC AR4 of 2007, most notably CO2 and CH4.
— CO2 down from 1.66 w/m^2 to 1.4 (-16%)
— CH4 up from 0.48 to 0.7 (+46%)
But also significantly Hansen shows net solar forcing of 0.4 w/m^2 vs. AR4’s listing of 0.12.
Taken together these three alone shift forcing away from CO2 by a total of about 3/4 w/m^2 out of an IPCC claimed anthropogenic forcing of 1.6 w/m^2 — almost 50%!
I totally agree that Hansen (and probably Mann) have been seduced by the tantalizing fantasy of their own Nobel Prize.
It was not possible to get 1.2 bn USD a year for his employer NASA with the air pollution argument so he got the order to find something more in line with the UNIPCC’s mission, would be my guess.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/12/nasa-abdalatis-response-to-50-esteemed-professionals-is-managerial-negligence-an-embarrassment/#comment-92515
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf
GISS – distorting science since 1971 (at least).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Schneider
“In 1971, Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. I. Rasool titled “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” (Science 173, 138–141). ”
Schneider’s prediction: 3.5 degree C cooling through air pollution.
Maybe Hansen was correct. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Has anyone attempted to study the correlation between the production/presence of non-CO2 greenhouse gasses and the the temperature anomaly? Or is the effect of those man-made non-CO2 greenhouse gases simply swamped by the natural variations in H2O vapor levels?
davidmhoffer says:
June 3, 2012 at 10:00 am
I published a humour piece some years ago that may explain what happened:
================================
May I steal this?
To quote British actor the late great Trevor Howard, playing the part of Royal Air Force Air-Vice Marshall Park, in that wonderful movie, Battle of Britain, “the bastards are up to something!”
Watch out, that Hansen he is a tricky devil if ever there was one!
Well we got through the first Jubilee celebration finishing in rain here in the UK State of PDRofEU, our poor pointless Consitutional Monarch, with our pathetic government & corrupt politicians, but it was a jolly good show & she is wonderful (God forbid that eco twit of a son of hers succeeds her, he will make a dreadful King!), if only she hadn’t conceded to us joining Europe, it is the only blemish on her remarkable 60 year reign! You colonials really have nothing to compare it with. Damn it we lost the Virginian Colonies, nearly lost Canuckistan, Australia wasn’t revolting afterall apparently it’s very nice with it, we lost Bordeaux through the 100 Years War, we lost the Jewel in the Crown – India! Why don’t we Brits learn to hang to things we owned! Drat it all. 😉
Hansen wrote a whole chapter about this “shocker” in his book Storms of my Grandchildren. Interested readers can learn a lot about the contexts. A sideline: 10-15 years ago there were rather good chances for smooth solutions, solutions which don’t work in 2012 any more.
Hansen and GISS have lost their minds. They’re getting desperate from lack of response from the public and are throwing every thing against the wall hoping something will stick and galvanize people to act in favor of his crazy theories.
That was 2000, this is 2012. As that paper said, the alternative strategy would buy time, not solve the problem. We didn’t follow it and are now running out of time. Twelve years is a while.
REPLY: Yes as noted clearly in red, that was 2000. Twelve years without warming is a while.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/trend
What’s the rush? – Anthony
Matthew says:
June 3, 2012 at 10:37 am
davidmhoffer says:
June 3, 2012 at 10:00 am
I published a humour piece some years ago that may explain what happened:
================================
May I steal this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why steal it when you can just make a copy? 😉
davidmhoffer says:
June 3, 2012 at 10:00 am
=====================
excellent David!!…………………LOL
So, just like the computer climate games…..no matter what happens they are covered….and can say they said that
warm/cold….wet/dry….snow/rain….drought/flood………………….
I just farted, should I turn myself into the Police?
The last reality was from a parallel universe and anyone who would call it a lie is just totally lacking in nuance and understanding of the issues. And so very……judgemental.
[snip off topic, also off policy – Anthony]
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
June 3, 2012 at 10:10 am
“Much better if that notice was in bold or even better yet was stated up front in the opening paragraph such as below.”
===========
Maybe, but let’s not deprive Anthony his fun ?
The Climate Change Chant
Global Warming is real
But it’s no big deal
As any plain fool can see
The waters go up
The waters go down
The levels stay the same at the sea
When I go swimming
I keep thinking
It’s the heat of the day for me
We know it’s not smart
In the pool to fart
Or to jump in the water to pee
The temps go up
The temps go down
I think we can all agree
To shut the hell up
About the climate
It’s as good as climate can be
Capo says:
June 3, 2012 at 10:41 am
“Hansen wrote a whole chapter about this “shocker” in his book Storms of my Grandchildren. Interested readers can learn a lot about the contexts. A sideline: 10-15 years ago there were rather good chances for smooth solutions, solutions which don’t work in 2012 any more.”
“good chances for smooth solutions” – I love warmist humour. You mean solar panels worked so much better in 2000?
Capo says:
June 3, 2012 at 10:41 am
Are you referring to scientific solutions? Or political solutions?
Thanks for the stunt, Anthony. I’d already blasted a “Crazy James Backpedals” message out to everyone I know when I read your subsequent “hints” to responders. My entire day was both “made” and “unmade” in a period of about 20 minutes. I’ll be reading your future pieces with considerable and suspicious attention to detail.
I would love to see a professional psychiatrist analyze Hansen’s behavior and post the results here. I think the guy may be a sociopath, but I’m no psychiatrist so I’m just guessing. But one doesn’t have to be a professional to know the guy is a NUT.
It is interesting that the second paragraph below “ABSTRACT” states
“The global surface temperature has increased by about 0.5°C since 1975 (1, 2), a burst of warming that has taken the global temperature to its highest level in the past millennium (3). There is a growing consensus (4) that the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs).”
To me this is saying that you need to go back to 1012 to find either a faster temp rise or a higher temperature.
The Medieval Warm Period lasted from about 950 to 1250 AD during which time the Vikings colonized Greenland. This could not have happened if Greenland didn’t have an adequate length of growing cycle for crops provided by the warmer climate. Many are arguing that the MWP was a localized event that affected only portions of the planet but not on a global scale.
I am curious to see if anyone knows, with all the climate modeling that has been done to date, if any models have been run that can produce a Greenland warm enough to have a sufficiently long growing cycle for crops for the 400+ years that the Vikings colonies were there and still keep the warmth as a fairly localized event.
Capo says:
June 3, 2012 at 10:41
Capo’s point is Hansen dealt with the disconnect from 2000. Anthony, did you read Hansen’s book? I don’t want to buy his book if someone else can explain what he explained.
Something changed for him. He’s not stupid, though disingenuous may be a good descriptive term, so his reasoning should be interesting.
I suggest that we nominate Dr. Hansen for the prestigious Paul R. Ehrlich award, celebrating: “How Many Times Can You Be Epically Wrong And Still be Accorded Any Semblance Of Credibility”
All he wants is 50 years to implement his plans and move civilization to the 12th century.
No surprise that there is no link to the paper from Hansen’s own site, but I got to wondering, what about the co-authors? I followed up on a single one, Makiko Sato. Sure enough, in her list of publications, that paper is listed. So, I skimmed the abstracts from the other papers she has listed (as co-author with Hansen) and came up with this gem of a quote from another paper in 1998:
“the index indicates that climate change should be apparent already, but in most places climate trends are too small too stand out above year-to-year variability. The climate index is strongly correlated with global surface temperature, which has increased as rapidly as projected by climate modelers in the 1980s. We argue that the global area with obvious global change will increase notably in the next few years.”
Wow. So, in 1998 they could NOT detect climate change over most of the earth, but predicted that this would change “notably in the next few years”. Except it hasn’t. The temperature trend over the glove since 1998 has been about zero.
The number of predictions made by the alarmists, in writing, that the march of time has falsified, is staggering.
[Snip – “A physicist” – rebranded]
The article may be the scientific foundation for “Climate and Clean Air Coalition” CCAC
This may be the long needed escape way for governments to get away from CO2 focus.
They may then focus on something more agreeable than CO2
http://www.unep.org/
and
http://www.unep.org/ccac/Portals/24183/docs/Press_release_Sec_Clinton_Announces_the_CCAC.pdf
and
http://www.forbes.com/sites/justingerdes/2012/05/30/g8-takes-on-short-lived-climate-pollutants/
shortname: SLCP
And CCAC at UNEP:
http://www.unep.org/ccac/Home/tabid/101612/Default.aspx
Hansen has successfully destroyed the coal industry, and is now preparing to go after natural gas.
BryanA;
I am curious to see if anyone knows, with all the climate modeling that has been done to date, if any models have been run that can produce a Greenland warm enough to have a sufficiently long growing cycle for crops for the 400+ years that the Vikings colonies were there and still keep the warmth as a fairly localized event.>>>>>
Why bother. There is a wealth of proxy studies out there that clearly show it was not:
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
Okay. So this paper was published in 2000.
How come it is only being talked about now?
REPLY: Because it has been buried, Hansen doesn’t include it (along with many of his older publications) in his list of publications on his website.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/publications.shtml
I had never seen it until today. – Anthony
oooops, forgot the link for that quote above
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha01100t.html
Controlling CO2 is vital to the international socialist agenda as the second step in a two step process to regulate global economics through international regulations. Step 1 is to eliminate nuclear power as an energy option in the developed economies such as Europe, Japan and the US. Once that is accomplished, the only viable source of large scale power generation is carbon fuel. Once fear of nuclear is firmly established, you create fear of CO2 in order to regulate carbon energy. When you regulate energy, you directly regulate economic output. For every unit of change in GDP, there is a corresponding amount of change in energy consumption. If you make energy more expensive and/or more difficult to obtain, you put a direct restraint on economic growth.
In the meantime you place no such restrictions on nuclear and fossil power in the areas where you desire growth such as China. They are then able to greatly expand their energy production and therefore their economic output. The US is now in a situation where if we needed to build steel mills for defense, we wouldn’t be able to.
If it wasn’t for Gore and the NGOs feeding at the public trough, this entire debate would have turned a corner long ago.
So why would Hansen choose to continue his rant for all these years? Why is he contributing to the creation of a Carbon phobia instead of logical solutions?
“… we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs),”
More evidence that those behind AGW should face criminal prosecution under: RICO, disturbing the peace (spreading F.U.D.), conspiracy, fraudulent use of Federal funds, and any other applicable Federal or State laws.
As a Taxpayer who was forced to fund this AGW SCAM, I want to see those who received funding loose all their retirement, be terminated from their positions, and their personal holdings be confiscated as reparations to Taxpayers. The same reparations should apply for customers being forced to pay higher utility bills due to bogus Carbon claims. Same goes for companies negatively effected, the should get a piece of the AGWers assets.
And they *still* left out water vapor as a Greenhouse Gas…. 😉
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/hansen_pnas_forcings_fig1.png
Anthony-what I am seeing in my education research, which like climate change, essentially became a statist tool to gain control over the economy without saying so, is the international schemers wanting to plan and live at our expense expected Gore to win in 2000.
When that didn’t happen you got name changes, more aggressive declarations, but the same old functions in the end. I agree with Vaclav Klaus on this. What’s going on is fundamentally about human freedom. And the schemers and those addicted to grants will come up with whatever theory it takes. Unfortunately.
Only one possible answer: He really believes it. Which to my mind reinforces my earlier observation he’s had probably a TIA which caused his thoughtpatterns to go haywire. It all fits. The sudden out of character behavior, the inconsistencies, the total ignoring of reality.
George A says – “I totally agree that Hansen (and probably Mann) have been seduced by the tantalizing fantasy of their own Nobel Prize.”
Perhaps, but I see two more likely seductions for them, Egos and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
The shocker is that Hansen approaches a common-sense position. It still targets our primary and most important industrial sources of energy, but these various sources of pollution are largely agreed-upon by all parties as a problem, and unlike CO2, they are susceptible to realistic amelioration strategies: scrubbers, etc.
In fact they HAVE been susceptible to such, and industries in the West have managed dramatic reductions in all of these through somewhat, but not prohibitively, expensive technological solutions. The problem countries are the rapid-developers in Asia and Africa. I think the reason this got buried was that Hansen et al realised that if this narrative prevailed it would mean that the focus must be changed to deal with China, India and a few other developing nations. There simply wasn’t the will to go there.
Also — hmm, hasn’t Hansen been saying that black carbon has DECREASED the effect of CO2 warning? This seems inconsistent with his position at other times.
Yes Anthony, remember the date. Thanks.
Hanson & Co? Aerosols?
Will this receive a life-time sticky at the top to honour the inventor of AGW?
REPLY: No, but probably a permanent sidebar entry – Anthony
I always wanted to say that my A/C unit saved the planet when CFCs were banned. Actually the decline in their use worldwide coincides with the flat temp line. All China has to do to save the planet now is clean up flue gasses and ban outdoor burning and that will remove any arctic amplification that is skewing global temps.
As funny as it sounds your air conditioner may have really made Al Gore irrelevant (as if he needed help toward irrelevance since he can only publish in that prestigious journal of climate “Rolling Stone“ http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622) and at the same time saved the planet. In a largely ignored paper (here: http://journalofcosmology.com/QingBinLu.pdf) titled “What is the Major Culprit for Global Warming: CFCs or CO2 ?” Dr. Lu argues that CFCs and other chlorofluorocarbons used as aerosols and refrigerants beginning in the 1950s have had a larger role in the observed surface warming since 1950. That role is their action on the spectrum where most of the infrared radiation escapes to space. As their presence in the atmosphere declines, (atmospheric lifetime ~60 years; as CFC-11 and CFC-12 and others were phased out under the Montreal Protocol), we should see more infrared radiation escaping to space through this less opaque window. This “experiment” will show what the actual climate sensitivity is to additions of CO2 to the atmosphere. Professor Lu thinks it is much smaller than most.
crosspatch says – “Controlling CO2 is vital to the international socialist agenda as the second step in a two step process to regulate global economics through international regulations.”
Your not supposed to discuss that outside the circle of the AGW Cabal. You had better keep an eye-2-sky for E.P.A.’s circling (soon to be armed) surveillance drones.
“A spy in the sky over Nebraska and Iowa has gotten under the hides of some livestock producers and their representatives in Washington. The Environmental Protection Agency’s aerial photo surveillance of livestock feeding operations in both states flew under the radar for nearly two years.”
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120530/NEWS01/705309904/0
“The US military has revealed … MQ-9 Reaper drones, are being fitted with missiles and other explosive ordinances as part of a deployment of 30,000 drones authorized to fly over the US by the NDAA and the armed drones will now be operating inside the United States.”
“The news comes as law enforcement agencies announce plans to weaponize their drones with “less than lethal” weapons such as tasers, tear gas and rubber bullets.”
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/05/30/announces-plans-to-arm-domestic-surveillance-drones-missiles-139411/
So, the whole ACGW issue is a load of aerosols?
Sounds about right.
When you get paid by the word and not by the content it doesn’t matter what you say.
Hot$$ cold$$$wet$$$dry$$$CO2$$$$methane$$$clouds$$$sunshine$$$coal$$$$cheese$$$jail$$$pink$$$nevermind$$$paycloseattention$$$retiretoTahiti$$$wheresmyhat$$$hiofficer$$$WAGTD$$$nextyear$$$by2100$$$glaciers$$$$
>>Twelve years without warming is a while.<<
Actually Anthony, I make it fifteen. By three different datasets, to boot..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend
REPLY: Well you know if I’d used 15 yrs, “Eli” would whine and say no fair!, So I used his numbers. So far silence – Anthony
The key quote that explains Hansen’s anti-CO2 crusade comes at the end of the paper:
“CO2 will become the dominant climate forcing, if its emissions continue to increase and aerosol effects level off. Business-as-usual scenarios understate the potential for CO2 emission reductions from improved energy efficiency and decarbonization of fuels. Based on this potential and current CO2 growth trends, we argue that limiting the CO2 forcing increase to 1 W/m2 in the next 50 years is plausible.”
This suggests that Hansen is radicalized by what he perceives as the _coming_ threat. But the public doesn’t respond well to future hypothetical threats (otherwise we’d be seriously investing in asteroid detection and deflection!). So Hansen has to spin up a convincingly scary _current_ threat to frighten the public into “correct” action. Unfortunately, his choices of scary threats have not materialized, which makes him sound like a lunatic alarmist.
Good Find.
I think you’ve found a policy we can get behind.
Heartland, take note. Take the lead. You’ve got Hansen’s endorsement
Babsy says:
June 3, 2012 at 9:28 am
But, but but….what of the “Coal Trains of DEATH”????? Oh, the HUMANITY!
PS: And the boiling oceans?
============================================================
The “Coal Trains of Death” now run on “Bio-coal” so they’re OK.
As far as the paper goes, I guess the Wizard of COz determined there was more green in CO2 back in 2001. It seems chlorofluorocarbon and “The Ozone Hole” weren’t sticking to the wall.
Medical saying: “Whatever gets pushed-down in one place, pops-up in another place“.
Seriously, Anthony, editorially protecting the peace-of-mind readers in the short-term, can serve only to cultivate their ignorance in the long-term. Surely *that* is not what skeptical forums like WUWT are all about, is it?
Hansen et al. really don’t care about the science, do they? This is just more evidence that their conclusions are determined by the desired social controls, which at the current time is control of civilization by control of energy consumption. The goal in 2000 was, apparently, to reduce pollution, but since that was happening anyway and no climactic social upheaval was required, they decided that CO2 should by the designated bogey man. Hansen won’t quit trying until he has us all living in thatched huts and caves.
Their target of 350 ppmv CO2 SHOULD have been 3500 ppm–that’s a level above which I’d be uncomfortable, but not until. It would be amazing to see the earth’s biosphere with that much available CO2.
But my prediction is this: In less than 20 years when practically no fossil fuels are being burned because all energy forms are derived from LANR, many nations will encourage the mining of coal for the sole purpose of burning it to replenish an atmosphere dangerously low in CO2 as biosphere uptake exceeds supply. It will be today’s official policies topsy turvey.
Perhaps having grandchildren sent Hansen over the edge of rationality, hence the title of his first book relating to his grandchildren. His publications are here at the NASA site:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
In 1999 Hansen and Sato published, Anomalous Atmospheric Absorption? Or Aerosols:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_06/
“Climate models — the computer simulations used to study problems such as global warming — seem to be under perpetual attack. Scientifically, this is healthy as it leads to continued testing, verification and improvement of the models.”
Andrew Lacis commented on the basic science of human-driven global warming for IPCC AR4. This was picked up by Bishop Hill and WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/hansen-colleague-rejected-ipcc-ar4-es-as-having-no-scientific-merit-but-what-does-ipcc-do/
Lacis wrote:
“There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact.
“The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the I.P.C.C. Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda.
“Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.”
It appears that over the years they have moved the goal posts so many times that they have completely lost them.
crosspatch wrote @11:20 above:
^Repeated for effect.^
So now that “carbon” is not the threat that has been claimed incessantly by the climate alarmist crowd, we can forget the ‘carbon credit’ nonsense. Right? Or am I missing something? Something like the [anti-U.S.] international socialist agenda. Because that also seems to be James Hansen’s unspoken agenda.
I got sucked in. You should have put right off the bat it was from 2000. So I sent this out after reading the first part to alot of people and looked like a fool, cause I was one. But I never would have thought something like this, akin to a bait and switch, would show up here. It should have been made clear from the start the intention, that this was from 2000. When does WUWT ever have something like this. I have no one to blame but myself but I am wiser now.
REPLY: I made three separate notations in the post about the year 2000, one in bright bold red, and now after your comment a fourth at the top. Bait and switch was never the intent, and I think it is unfair to characterize that (given the three notices in place at the time you read it, plus the link to PNAS has the date) and I’m surprised at how many missed those first three notices. Hopefully this will be the last update I have to make.
But the point is that after his 1988 session with congress, Rio, Kyoto, etc, to have Hansen backpedal in 2000 with a “CO2 is not the main cause” statement is pretty big news. This paper was buried a long time, I’d never heard of it and I’m betting you didn’t either. – Anthony
Is therr a consensus on this?
A fan of *MORE* discourse says:
June 3, 2012 at 12:08 pm
=============
“Forum”, is the operative word.
sorry guys, but we’re already all dead. Measurements are showing 400ppm of CO2 and it is a consensus that 350ppm is the end of the Earth and all living things. Too bad. I kind of liked Friday happy hour.
Anthony had better modify the lead-in to this post ASAP, and in BIG RED LETTERS.
Otherwise he will have just shot himself badly in the foot.
REPLY: I do have it in bold red letters, I guess people aren’t reading the whole thing. I’ve made a second notation in red at the top now. – Anthony
This isn’t the first time that some compelling inanity in a post has caused me to go all- in reactionary before getting to the switcheroo punchline.
Too late for a mulligan?
A fan of *MORE* discourse says:
Please advise: How do you get both of your feet in your mouth when your head is up your arse? Please explain how your clown shoes fit in there also?
REPLY: This guy is just troller “A physicist” repackaging himself – Anthony
Getting a bit passive aggressive ain’t we Tony? Does you almost as proud as Stevie M.
More, although not much, seriously, there appears to be a trend here with respect to folk like Eli and the Weasel. WUWT is getting almost as offensive as Kloor,
REPLY: You should read some of your own writing sometimes, Dr. Joshua Halpern. A lot of the time you come off even worse at RR. For example, in every comment you make you try to juvenilize me (and just now Steve McIntyre) by calling us “Tony” and “Stevie” from behind your facade. I’ve asked you to stop on several occasions over the years, yet you persist.
So I’ll make it simple for you. Every time you comment here you will be held accountable for your words, by naming you (since you have been known to the climate community for a long time), and linking to your Howard University website. Don’t like that? Then change your behavior. – Anthony
Seriously people? Blaming Anthony because you didn’t read the whole post before running with it? I thought we had a more thoughtful group here.
REPLY: I do have it in bold red letters, I guess people aren’t reading the whole thing. I’ve made a second notation in red at the top now. – Anthony
===
Sometimes you can’t win for losing 🙂
Noblesse Oblige said on June 3, 2012 at 10:16 am
On May 21, 2012 at 11:32 pm, I posted the following in Tips and Notes:
12 years without warming is impressive but, in an honest world, an earth temperature almost the SAME as it was 20 years ago ought to be enough to get people like Hansen thrown out on his tin ear. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992
It looks like they didn’t care what they blamed it on just as long as global warming was the new save-the-earth topic of the time (in the 80’s, it was nuclear power plants). It seems their agenda has always been linked to energy production. Or rather, denying that energy production from everyone and transferring wealth from industrialized nations to third world countries without enabling them to be energy independent (or anyone at all really).
AGW is fiction. It’s been known to be fiction by the very people promoting it. Now that it’s out in the open, it’s just sad that they continue the charade.
This is classic junk science/propaganda spam. Everything causes global warming, we produce 1,000 papers claiming as such… we can never be proven wrong because we just cite the papers that we currently need and bury the ones we don’t. If proven wrong we change to a different set of papers and wait for people to forget the old stuff.
Its also why steven goddard’s site of finding old newspaper and science reports is insanely important. By showing off the old and buried research you force the propaganda makers to fight themselves and hopefully screw up their web of lies.
Heh, Its not Anthony’s fault I did not read the whole thing. I just got so fired up after I read the first part I sent the link off cause I thought it was huge. But as Reagan said, Trust, but verify. I was the fool. I guess Anthony assumes his readers are not fools, and would have read the whole thing.. Which is what I should have done first.
Now it is fool-proof. My own dang fault
BTW, I dont think its a big deal cause the MSM could care less what Hansen said then. He hasnt been held to anything so I thought when I read shock, it was new.
Sorry not a shocker for me because I’ve read that before. Here is something else that’s also not a shocker.
Since then he went all quiet about soot and warming and onto coal and co2 and warming. What changed?
Sorry I forgot to mention that the last paper was from no other than
Dr. James Hansen and andLarissa Nazarenko, PNAS, November 4, 2003
I think this was a brief interlude after Hansen had read that the key to being a successful forecaster is to forecast many and often times, and contradict yourself. You can big-up and people will remember you for your correct predictions.
The Dollar’s finished. The Euro’s finished. No they’re not.
The Japanese will eat our lunch. The Chinese will get there first. I feel a bit full now.
The oceans will boil. The oceans will rise. The oceans will freeze. The oceans will fall.
CO2 is a bitch. No, it’s the other gasses that are bitches. All the gasses are bitches and will kill us. No they won’t..
Hansen’s trouble is he got forgot the rule, and got stuck in a CO2 groove.
Sorry, I forgot. The oceans will bob about and generally not do much.
The one thing Hansen has remained consistent on is the complete absence of natural variability in all of his work. He may give it occasional lip service, but it is not in his calculations.
Real climatologists, who study the climate beyond just the human influence, easily recognize natural cycles. If these natural cycles are included in the calculations of the atmospheres sensitivity to human influences, the sensitivity is reduced to the point of being inconsequential. Whether it is 2000 or 2012, papers that do not recognize natural climate variability have no hope of being anywhere near scientifically accurate.
Hansen is simply living the mime of the modern environmental movement in which humans are unnatural and bad for the planet. As long as he adheres to that party line, he can flip flop all he wants on just how the evil of you humanity will manifest.
Grandpa Boris June 3, 2012 at 12:01 pm is the only one who was smart enough to read the paper.
This paper isn’t buried or whatever: It is still there for all to see: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
And the whole paper can be read here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2000/2000_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
Nothing to hide. Just read it whole. Hansen doesn’t hide it somehow.
“Carbon Dioxide. CO2 will become the dominant climate forcing,
if its emissions continue to increase and aerosol effects level off.
Business-as-usual scenarios understate the potential for CO2
emission reductions from improved energy efficiency and decarbonization
of fuels. Based on this potential and current CO2
growth trends, we argue that limiting the CO2 forcing increase
to 1 Wym2 in the next 50 years is plausible.
Indeed, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use declined slightly in
1998 and again in 1999 (71), while the global economy grew.
However, achieving the level of emissions needed to slow climate
change significantly is likely to require policies that encourage
technological developments to accelerate energy efficiency and
decarbonization trends.”
The intentions of the paper are wildly misinterpreted here on this page. And it really strikes me how many people just don’t take the time to read it and come up with all kinds of wild accusations. What Hansen and team are saying (well proposing) is the fact that Non-CO2 GHGs have a stronger forcing than CO2 had so far (in 2000). Thus he and his team proposes an alternative strategy to reduce the forcing effects of increasing CO2 by trying to reduce Non-CO2 GHG emissions for the coming 50 years. But this was 12 years ago. Climate science has gained so much more knowledge since then.
Now people: How do we measure these Non-CO2 GHGs in the atmosphere? In ppm or in ppb or even less than that? This is really nothing to see here. Just movin’ on.
Anthony,
About that graph you added. Why not use the more up-to-date and seemingly more accurate HADCRUT4? You might see something different:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend
REPLY: You mean the one with the “value added adjustments” to fix the non-warming problem of HadCRUT3?
Susan Solomon et al. (2010) state that the DECLINE in stratospheric water vapor REDUCED the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000-2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Susan Solomon et al. Science Fol. 327 5 March 2010 1219 (2010). It has been cited 139 times.
The following simple equation explains all:-
False Prophet = Real Profit
Simples
An alternative viewpoint:
Has no one realized that James Hansen has gasophobia? Some people are scared of snakes, some spiders, some the dark, for James it is the invisible gases that he breathes. Got to feel sorry for that fellow. Long ago, about college age, he saw a thick haze in the atmosphere as the sun set (volcanic dust and gas at the time) and he has never recovered since from what he viwed, terrifies him to this day and you can read that between his words.
First it was nature’s fault (paper above), now it is mankind’s fault (recent papers), but always Hansen suspects it is really God’s fault for burying it in the first place… just look at the “death trains” that create the gas he is forced to breathe!
You should just ignore his manifestos (passed as ‘science’) via NASA. Just how he rose to his position as the loudmouth-piece for NASA on atmospheric gases is still a bit of a mystery.
I suspect someone pulled Hansen aside and explained the monetary ramifications of a slight change in his direction.
@”REPLY: Because it has been buried, Hansen doesn’t include it (along with many of his older publications) in his list of publications on his website.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/publications.shtml
I had never seen it until today. – Anthony”
I suppose if you don’t keep up with the scientific literature this and many other things would seem shocking. The paper is listed on Hansen’s web page. It is not on the first page because the first page only goes back to 2004. But at the bottom of that page there is a link to earlier publications: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html#2000
So, it was hidden in plane sight all along. In fact the debate about short term climate fixes while awaiting the longer term solution is pretty well known.
I don’t see how anyone could miss the date of the publication along with the associated text.
I viewed it with enough emphasis that I tried to click on it.
Must have been one hell of a Saturday night for some.
———-
@ davidmhoffer says:
June 3, 2012 at 10:00 am
A lot in that post, buy one would have to actually read it.
REPLY: You mean the one with the “value added adjustments” to fix the non-warming problem of HadCRUT3?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just plot Hadcrut4 starting in 1998 instead….
Really, there is no trend to speak of, you can only create one by cherry picking start and stop dates. Since 1998 was widely touted as the hottest ever at the time, the tip of the hockey stick in graph after graph after graph, should it not be included?
Of course, I’m of the opinion that trying to assign a linear trend to a cyclical system is just plain silly in the first place. But if they want to play… well then, let’s play!
Is this related to the measurements of NOx at varying altitudes, conducted just a few years ago? The study that showed that previous assumptions about the amount of NOx in the atmosphere were inaccurate and the following consequences.
@Alan the Brit says: June 3, 2012 at 10:40 am
“Well we got through the first Jubilee celebration finishing in rain here in the UK State of PDRofEU, our poor pointless Consitutional Monarch, with our pathetic government & corrupt politicians, but it was a jolly good show & she is wonderful (God forbid that eco twit of a son of hers succeeds her, he will make a dreadful King!), if only she hadn’t conceded to us joining Europe, it is the only blemish on her remarkable 60 year reign!”
Hi Alan – I’m wondering what is it about the phrase “Constitutional Monarch” that you don’t understand? Parliament is sovereign, and – ha bloody ha bloody ha – expresses the will of the people.
I have done a comparison table of Hansen/GISS estimated forcings with the UNIPCC estimates just seven years later.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/06/03/forcings-hansen-et-al-2000-v-unipcc-2007/
My observations are:-
So he want(ed) to remove 03 “precursors”?
Like O2 for example?
“These scenarios yield a steep, relentless increase in global temperature throughout the twenty-first century (4, 10) with warming of several degrees Celsius by 2100, if climate sensitivity is 2–4°C for doubled CO2, as climate models suggest (4, 11–13).”
First of all, the climate models do not ‘suggest’ this sensitivity. It is a number that is hard wired into the model by the assumptions made in the program. There are two primary assumptions:
1. The warming of the second half of the 20th Century is due almost entirely to increasing levels of CO2.
2. The water vapor feedback is positive and will double or triple the effect of CO2 warming.
The above 2000 paper has the interesting impact of cancelling out the CO2 warming with man-made aerosol cooling! In which case, calculating the climate sensitivity to CO2 using 20th Century temperatures becomes impossible! If none of the warming was actually due to increasing CO2, than how can we use that warming to calculate climate sensitivity to CO2? That is like using the temperature above your toaster to see how much heat the stove is giving off. This paper undermines all credibility in the models (as if they ever had any).
We still have yet to find any indication of a water vapor feedback of the proposed magnitude. The idea before all of this AGW nonsense started is that the water cycle acts as a brake to any perturbations in global temperature. Hansen himself points out that a runaway greenhouse event has never happened on this planet, despite CO2 levels many times the current value, then apparently argues that it will happen this time. Is the physics of the atmosphere different today? No, and all indications are pointing to the water cycle dampening temperature fluctuations in the global atmosphere…just like we thought it did.
The cognitive dissonance in Hansen’s work is astounding! Why is he relevant, much less revered?
So what is the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 in the light of this paper?
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIcAjXjKsyQ&w=420&h=315%5D
Taphonomic says:
June 3, 2012 at 11:06 am
I suggest that we nominate Dr. Hansen for the prestigious Paul R. Ehrlich award, celebrating: “How Many Times Can You Be Epically Wrong And Still be Accorded Any Semblance Of Credibility”
Ha ha! I love it. I have often wondered how Ehrlich still gets away with it.
Rattus Norvegicus says:
June 3, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Anthony,
About that graph you added. Why not use the more up-to-date and seemingly more accurate HADCRUT4? You might see something different:
====================================================
Ah. HadCRUT4, can you please explain the following? I have tried asking in the UK to no avail.
“Global-average annual temperature forecast”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/glob-aver-annual-temp-fc
At the bottom of the page is:-
“Figure 3: The difference in coverage of land surface temperature data between 1990-1999 and 2005-2010. Blue squares are common coverage. Orange squares are areas where we had data in the 90s but don’t have now and the few pale green areas are those where we have data now, but didn’t in the 90s. The largest difference is over Canada.”
Why did the MO not have the Canadian land surface temperature data 2005-2010? I am not aware of any of the stations being closed during that period? And obviously they are operating OK now. But if they were closed during that period could somebody please point me in the right direction?
How can a data source that portrays to be representative appear to chop and change what stations to include/exclude and or subsequently re-introduce?
Hansen et al, 1999
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha03200f.html
The cooling trend in the United States, which began after the 1930s and is associated with ocean temperature change patterns, began to reverse after 1979. We suggest that further warming in the United States to a level rivaling the 1930s is likely in the next decade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Methinks that one didn’t happen either.
Why couldn’t the astronomer Dr. James Hansen just stick to his beloved astronomy and leave Earth’s climate alone? For that matter why doesn’t Pachauri stick to railway engineering and Gore stick to theology? Just kiddin’. 😉
Robbie says:
June 3, 2012 at 2:10 pm
“But this was 12 years ago. Climate science has gained so much more knowledge since then.”
Really, Robbie? What knew knowledge have we gained in regards to this 2000 paper? Have we accurately determined the impact of human aerosols on climate? Have we directly measured the climate sensitivity to anthroprogenic sources? Have we solved the problem of clouds? Have we discovered why ozone is increasing when CFCs should still be tearing it apart (according to the theory)? Have we discovered why the models, which unanimously predicted acceleration in the warming trend over the last 12 years, have been unanimously wrong?
If there is SO MUCH more knowledge in regards to this paper, it will be very easy for you to share some of it. I look forward to being enlightened.
Joseph Bastardi says: – “I got sucked in. You should have put right off the bat it was from 2000.”
If you “got sucked in” as you claim; by this “Shocker” posting, then you likely get suckered in by everything. Start taking responsibility for your own failings, and quit blaming others.
Anthony’s REPLY – “I made three separate notations in the post about the year 2000, one in bright bold red, and now after your comment a fourth at the top.”
Redundant and unnecessary. Some of the people whining about the age of the article are doing so as perusal AWGer misdirection (aka playing cover for Hansen).
I thought “this has to be an April fool” … “there’s bound to be a catch” .
2000!!! … before they invented the consensus?
“There is a growing consensus (4) that the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs).”
This sentence was the big tip-off for me that the paper couldn’t possibly be recent. “Growing consensus”? Heh!! Remember – the science is now “settled”… (double Heh).
So in essence Hansen says we have had 12 years of mainly co2 driven warming. Climate is defined as 30 years or more of weather data according to the IPCC and the WMO. Why should I listen to anything Hansen has to say about the ‘climate’ (read weather) over the past 12 years? Am I nitpicking?
Robbie – “What Hansen and team are saying (well proposing) is the fact that Non-CO2 GHGs have a stronger forcing than CO2 had so far (in 2000).”
What you are missing is that one Non-CO2 GHG’s will always have a stronger forcing than CO2. As has been pointed out numerous times before and in comments here; Water Vapor is “THE” GHG.
Water Vapor is responsible for 95% of Green House Gas effect. Man made CO2 insignificantly results in a mere 0.12% of GHG effect.
Odds are Hansen, Jones, Mann, Gore, … (all) have known that fact for decades, but that was an Inconvenient Truth that would have interfered with their funding, pro-socialist, or anti-America scheme. For them to ignore that CO2 levels are going up, while global temperatures are going down; only goes to show Hansen, Jones, Mann, Gore, … are deceivers and deniers.
davidmhofer says
Physicist; The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.
————
The problem with attempted humor and faking the point of view of a physicist is that it falls flat when you don’t understand the physics.
Please wrap your head around the concept of an atmosphere and the temperature gradient between top-of-atmosphere and bottom of atmosphere. The energy in does nominally equal the energy out, as you say, but the temperature gradient can change as the effective thermal impedance of the atmosphere changes.
An electrical analogy is a circuit with a constant current source attached to a resistor. Increase the value of the resistor and the voltage increases. Associate current with thermal energy flow, voltage with temperature and resistance with a bunch of stuff including green house gases and someone with a decent technical background should be able to get the idea.
What a rotter that Hansen is, eh? Suggests a hypothesis that you might just about be able to bring yourself to agree with, and then the devil goes and changes his mind. Probably just to spite you!
If this paper was “buried” then it was a very shallow grave, because it’s been cited over 500 times according to google scholar. One of those citations comes from a 2006 paper also by Hansen.
fossil fuel CO2 emissions now substantially exceed those in the alternative
scenario… defined [by] Hansen et al., 2000.
I’m suprised that Hansen isn’t changing his underjocks because of this:
http://researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/arcticCO2.aspx
James Hansen, Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy authored Perceptions of Climate Change:
The New Climate Dice, in which trees on Hansen’s property are cited as evidence of climate change:
“However, as an anecdotal data piece suggesting the possibility of more widespread effects, consider that several tree species (birch, pin oak, ash, some maple varieties) on the eastern Pennsylvania property of one of us (JH) exhibit signs of stress. Arborists identify proximate causes (borers and other pests, fungus, etc.) in each case, but climate change, including longer summers with more extreme temperature and moisture anomalies, could be one underlying factor.”
Hansen et al’s solution is to place “a rising price on carbon emissions that moves the world to a clean energy future fast enough to limit further global warming to several tenths of a degree Celsius. Such a scenario is needed if we are to preserve life as we know it”…Jim.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120105_PerceptionsAndDice.pdf
Leonard McCoy: I knew it was wrong, I shouldn’t have done it.
James T. Kirk: What’s that?
Leonard McCoy: I should have never reconnected his mouth.
Ray says June 3, 2012 at 9:25 am
…the farmers will get blamed for the N2O and CH4 their operations emit
The EPA is already onto the farmers with their UAV flights.
Derek;
If this paper was “buried” then it was a very shallow grave, because it’s been cited over 500 times according to google scholar. One of those citations comes from a 2006 paper also by Hansen.>>>>
So I went to the bibliography section of Hansen’s site on GISS and sure enough, the paper is there. Hidden in plain view so to speak. That doesn’t change the main point, which is that in 2000 Hansen said something rather shocking in light of everything else he has said.
I suppose Dr. Hansen et al can solve the conundrum by simply withdrawing their 2000 paper. “Oops, we were sucked in by the lavishly funded evil climate denier machine then, but Gaia showered her wisdom upon us and now we see the [sustainably generated] light.” 🙂
Does anyone remember when the science became “settled”? Was it before or after the year 2000? With all the flip-flops on the cause of climate change, I’m having a hard time keeping up with this most settled of all sciences. I’m not even sure anymore if the villain in this story is wearing a white hat (CO2) or a black one (soot).
Now just wait for all the word torture, argument adjustments and various other squirming pronouncements that will be forthcoming no doubt. Carbon pollution is the current catch cry in Oz because it gives the Govt a way of weaseling out of the CO2 causes global warming argument that they rammed down our throats years ago. I’m guessing that within 4 weeks the CSIRO and our climate commissioner will be making utterances about soot and dirty coal and smoky diesel and within a year “CO2 causes catastrophic global warming” will be a forgotten mantra and “we never actually said that” will be the line we have to swallow. Of course they can still cling to bashing fossil fuel companies, especially those that seem to have a lot of money.
Picking up on Jim Clarke’s comments:
“The one thing Hansen has remained consistent on is the complete absence of natural variability in all of his work … Real climatologists, who study the climate beyond just the human influence, easily recognize natural cycles. …”
I realised that all this stuff was bunk for the above reasons.
Not from studying climate, but from work on things like retail gravity modelling, small area demographics, housing market dynamics, construction activity. All have cycles: you start collating the stuff, and the sine waves appear.
So if conscious human activities have such cycles, how can they possibly be absent from a study of climate?
This paper was published in 2000. Did the other CAGW alarmists miss it or did someone “disprove” the assertions? What I’m getting at is why hasn’t this paper come up before? It most certainly appears useful for skeptics to throw in the face of CO2 CAGW alarmists in any debates or discussions.
Globally speaking, it is obvious that the unprecedented warming of the last . . . uh . . . 10,000 years has been caused by very small spheres covered in dimples which humans keep trying to drive into shallow holes in well-manicured lawns. But in any case, it couldn’t possibly be that giant ball of fire up there. No way, Hose-A.
“An international team of scientists says it’s figured out how to slow global warming in the short run and prevent millions of deaths from dirty air: Stop focusing so much on carbon dioxide.
They say the key is to reduce emissions of two powerful and fast-acting causes of global warming – methane and soot.”
…
“A 2007 Stanford University study calculated that carbon dioxide was the No. 1 cause of man-made global warming, accounting for 48 percent of the problem. Soot was second with 16 percent of the warming and methane was right behind at 14 percent.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/soot-methane-reduction-global-warming_n_1202440.html
The global surface temperature has increased by about 0.5°C since 1975 (1, 2), a burst of warming
That is Hansen’s error. Surface warming isn’t evidence of climate warming. It depends on what causes the surface warming. If it is caused by increased solar insolation, particularly early morning insolation raising the minimum temperature (as I maintain), then combined with increased outgoing LWR from the same cause, decreased aerosols and aerosol seeded clouds, the net climate warming will be close to zero.
Now to read all the comments.
Another shocker, the monkey Royal Society dances to the British Government piper’s tune. 68% Grant in Aid…………… No wonder the science is settled. “On no one’s word” my jacksie. AGW is science results purchased via funding – this causes a mountain of AGW pal reviewed ‘science’.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/the-royal-society-that-serves-the-government-does-not-serve-the-people/
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/royal-society-funding/
Rattus Norvegicus says:
June 3, 2012 at 2:12 pm
=====================
Change the start year to 2001 and voila no temp rise! Amazing what you can do with a chart isn’t it?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend
LazyTeenager says:
June 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm
“[Buncha stuff omitted…]
Please wrap your head around the concept of an atmosphere and the temperature gradient between top-of-atmosphere and bottom of atmosphere. […more stuff omitted]”
And where in that temperature gradient is the predicted hot spot? Word on the street is everyone is still out looking for it.
This thread is funny for all the trolls who turn up. Shows that the name “Hansen” is catnip aka troll bait. They turn out to worship at the feet of their idol. Anyone who dares to question the basis for Hansen’s activism over the years will get the trolls really stirred up.
James Reid:
We can show anything using WFT: add just 9 more months, and the trend is negative.
Chris says:
“My first reaction was that this was a freshly minted, non peer-reviewed paper, because it presents the case for banning the use of natural gas.”
Mine too. Some counter-fire promoted by coal and oil against NG. Why not? NG has been hammering at coal and oil for years, and control the Obama regime.
But the article appeared around 2000. Around that time methane concentrations stopped increasing, but CO2 remained on its upward path. Also, temps stopped warming. Ergo, it was methane!
http://www.eoearth.org/files/113201_113300/113293/620px-Aggi_2009.fig2.png
There is more to this story in that this paper came in for sufficient criticism at that time for Hansen to write “An Open Letter on Global Warming” (published by naturalSCIENCE). He fends off criticism and misrepresentation from, as I recall, the journal Nature, one or more of the newspapers and also the UCS (Union of Concerned Sciencists).
If this paper were buried, I think you may look to others who attacked it for being off message rather than Hansen who tried to defend it.
I have never managed to find all the comments made but here are some links that I found and put up on Collide-a-scape a while back.
Hansen’s Open Letter: http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let25.html
From UCS:
Review of Hansen et al.: Global Warming in the Twenty-First Century: An Alternative Scenario
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/archive/ucs-review-for-alternative.html
Their main charge being that the paper would feed contrary opinions. They seem to consider that Hansen was off message.
The paper is well worth reading for its review of the science at that time (2000) as well as for the spectacle of Hansen being attacked for producing a scenario where other reductions come first.
Personally I think that Hansen came out of this pretty well at that time. Perhaps if it had been better supported we might be in a better place.
If someone could find the actual criticisms that lead him to write the open latter you might find that there are others who sought to have this buried and perhaps succeeded. The point being that action could have been taken on other emissions as a priority and coal sorted out progressively. That was not a popular message at that time.
Alex
LazyTeenager says:
June 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm
WOW! I wish I’d thought of that…
These may help to inform Hansen et al’s frantic attempt to find other anthropogenic bogeymen.
The threads below were disappeared from judithcurry.com April. Someone snagged a copy of them before they were flushed down the memory hole. Have plenty of popcorn handy and treat them gently because they are on the endangered species list.
I have this to say to Hansen in the meantime about what does the heavy lifting keeping this third rock from the sun 33K warmer than its moon: It’s the ocean, stupid.
Slaying a greenhouse dragon
Slaying a greenhouse dragon. Part II
Slaying a greenhouse dragon. Part III: discussion
The articles below, which were deleted in April from judithcurry.com, may explain why Hansen is desperately searching for a new anthropogenic bogeyman. Fortunately someone had the forethought to snag them before they were stifled so treat them gently as they are an endangered species at the moment.
I have just one thing to say to James Hansen about how this third rock from sun keeps itself 33K warmer than its own moon: It’s the ocean, stupid.
Slaying a greenhouse dragon
Slaying a greenhouse dragon. Part II
Slaying a greenhouse dragon. Part III: discussion
I guess there just wasn’t enough money in making suits for cattle to contain their CH4.
Jimbo says:
June 3, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Since then he went all quiet about soot and warming and onto coal and co2 and warming. What changed?
At least 2 things changed. Methane levels stopped rising around that time and better data on BC and aerosols became available that showed they have a net cooling effect.
He may also have come to the realization that as BC and other aerosols have declined across most of the world since around 1970, they provide a good explanation of the post 1970s warming.
I agree with Hansen that BC deposition is an important cause of ice/snow melt. But the solar irradiance scattering and cloud seeding have a bigger effect on the climate. Albedo to top of atmosphere is more important than surface albedo.
Don’t you just hate no preview function? Below are fixed hrefs.
Slaying a greenhouse dragon
Slaying a greenhouse dragon. Part II
Slaying a greenhouse dragon. Part III: discussion
Robbie says:
“But this was 12 years ago. Climate science has gained so much more knowledge since then.”
So it was wrong? You see you can’t just wave it away as old. It has to be either right or wrong. Which is it?
But we know it is right. It has that gold standard of peer review!
John Doe says:
June 3, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Don’t you just hate no preview function? Below are fixed hrefs.
_________________
Howdy John Doe-
Please see the “TEST” link at top o’ this page.
Joseph Bastardi says:
June 3, 2012 at 1:30 pm
“Heh, Its not Anthony’s fault I did not read the whole thing. I just got so fired up after I read the first part I sent the link off cause I thought it was huge. But as Reagan said, Trust, but verify. I was the fool. I guess Anthony assumes his readers are not fools, and would have read the whole thing. Which is what I should have done first.
“Now it is fool-proof. My own dang fault”
That reply showed a lot of class. Kudos to Joe.
In other words: the Warmist as Hansen started admitting that: CO2 has nothing to do with the phony GLOBAL warming – CO2 is increasing beyond anybody’s expectation = time is against them. B] ”rapid warming in recant decades” – is the MOTHER OF ALL LOADED COMMENTS!!! Truth: ”if you collect ALL the EXTRA heat that is today than 150y ago, or 1500y ago – with that extra heat wouldn’t be enough to boil one chicken egg!!! Extra heat in the planet’s troposphere is NOT ACCUMULATIVE!!! That’s why the CONSTANT deceit by the leaders from both camps, getting people’s attentions to sea-temperature, polar ice.. 1] polar ice has NOTHING to do with the global overall temp 2] sea temp increases by extra submarine volcanoes AND by oils / fat discharged by human from land into the sea. Those oils / fats spread on the surface of the water and DECREASE EVAPORATION – evaporation is cooling process, stupid!
The Fake Skeptics are on the other hand supporting strenuously EVERY PHONY GLOBAL warmings; because they were / are the ”Original Sinners” Anybody ”pretending” to believe that: it was any GLOBAL warmings in his / her lifetime, is a liar or a zomby / or both.
It always gets warmer than normal some place / places – but SIMULTANEOUSLY gets colder at other places – otherwise the winds would have stopped permanently. The phony GLOBAL warming is kept alive, by the life support from the fake Skeptics…
LazyTeenager says:
June 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm
The problem with attempted humor and faking the point of view of a physicist is that it falls flat when you don’t understand the physics.
It only falls flat with the humorless.
You mean Dr. Hansen et. al. were actually reasonable in there assessments at one time?! I still won’t give CO2 the driver nod, though.
Since temps have been flat for a few years, has there been a reduction or increase in air pollution as a probable cause?
Has Hansen acquired a numbered Swiss bank account in the last decade or so?
It is Hansen’s evolutionary science – Runaway greenhouse gases become global warming, that doesn’t sell, so CO2 becomes the poster child for climate change, but hell, the climate always changes (but not predictably), so now everything has to be controlled. I presume that will include water vapor as well as methane, etc. He just grew the circle of control to everything in life from ag to cow pharts, energy to manufacturing. And this time he’s serial. Expect big things from the EPA soon to put this into action.
Doh! Nevermind. Not funny, Anthony! 🙂
Ha ha. It is a good journalistic technique to lead into the story like that, but, I’m afraid the excitement got to me!
I thought we were finally seeing a major backdown. (Usually I read articles in detail before commenting … I think …)
Well Al Gore was Supposed to win the 2000 election…… But of course George Bush beat him in a cliff hanger.
It was probably decided then by the likes of Hanson and his Political buddies to make CO2 the issue since they couldn’t sneak their “reforms” in because they had failed to gain office…. They figured winning in 2004 would be a walk in the park …. and of course were sidelined by 9/11 and the rise and rise of George Bush.
The Hatred that consumed them has certainly disturbed the mind of Dr Hanson during that intervening period.
IPCC AR5 has the forcing increase from 2000 to 2011 of:
– 0.008 W/m2 for CH4 Methane; and,
– 0.025 W/m2 for N2O .
Given the temperature impact per W/m2 that is actually occuring, these two gases are as close to Zero as one can get over this period (Hansen exaggerating again – only 50 for 50 times in the last 20 years).
Basically, Methane is now flatlining and won’t add anymore to GHG forcing. N20 is a very small forcing (up to 0.17 W.m2 forcing now) and it is going to continue rising as long as we are using Nitrogen Fertiliizer (its primary source and that is not going to stop as long as people need food).
Robbie says:
June 3, 2012 at 2:10 pm
What Hansen and team are saying (well proposing) is the fact that Non-CO2 GHGs have a stronger forcing than CO2 had so far (in 2000). Thus he and his team proposes an alternative strategy to reduce the forcing effects of increasing CO2 by trying to reduce Non-CO2 GHG emissions for the coming 50 years. But this was 12 years ago. Climate science has gained so much more knowledge since then.
Now people: How do we measure these Non-CO2 GHGs in the atmosphere? In ppm or in ppb or even less than that? This is really nothing to see here. Just movin’ on.
Cr*p.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
You will note from the Global Radiative Forcing 1979-2010 table that CO2 was 60% of the total GHG forcing in 1979, 61% in 2000 and 64% in 2010. Non-CO2 GHGs have had a relatively constant forcing of roughly two-thirds of the amount of CO2 forcing.
Where do you get this misinformation from?
Correct me if I am wrong, but, the last data I saw actually showed CFC use up; just not in the ‘regulated’ countries like the US …
.
Oh brother … a pitch against the reality of the IR properties of bipolar molecules like CO2 and H2O and their ‘thermal’ role in the atmosphere?
Please, John, do a search on the term IR Spectroscopy sometime when you get a chance …
.
I would like to ask – Is it a coincidence that this paper has surfaced now? Just how did it surface?
I would be interested to know if this represents a change in direction away from CO2 to reintroduce other parameters that can be cranked up and move the scare in a new direction. Or it could be the beginning of the backpedal.
BLINKING text .. needs to be in BLINKING text …
.
.
/annoy
catweazle666 says:
June 3, 2012 at 12:00 pm
>>Twelve years without warming is a while.<<
REPLY: Well you know if I’d used 15 yrs, “Eli” would whine and say no fair!, So I used his numbers. So far silence – Anthony
Rattus Norvegicus says:
June 3, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Anthony,
About that graph you added. Why not use the more up-to-date and seemingly more accurate HADCRUT4? You might see something different:
You have to keep in mind that Hadcrut4 only goes to the end of 2010. So what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.005 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.004 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 5 months going back to December 2000. So it would not help much.(By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend
Lazy Teenager, your use of Ohm’s Law was not satisfactorily utilized to explain your opposition to David M Hoffer’s statement. That aside, tell me how, “…there will be cyclic variations in temperature…” (from Hoffer) is terribly different from, “…temperature gradient can change as the effective thermal impedance of the atmosphere changes.” (from lazy teenager)?
Well, it is pretty obvious that focusing on pollution instead of CO2 makes sense.
davidmhoffer says:
June 3, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Just plot Hadcrut4 starting in 1998 instead….
Here is what Hadcrut4 says about the last 15 years. Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of Hadcrut4 from April, 1997 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of Hadcrut3 from April, 1997 to December 2010. Then I got the slope of Hadcrut3 from April, 1997 to the present. The difference in slope was that the slope was 0.0037 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0077 from April, 1997 . So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like Hadcrut3, I conclude it would show a positive slope of 0.0040/year over the last 15 years. See the graphs below to illustrate this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.25/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.25/trend
Now as to whether 0.0040/year over 15 years is significant or not, I would like to quote Phil Jones from an earlier interview where he said: “I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.” So while the numbers are a bit different now, if 0.12 C per decade was not significant then over a 15 year period, there is no way that 0.040 C/decade is significant now over a 15 year period.
[snip – policy – links to LaRouche political document – Anthony]
LazyTeenager;
The problem with attempted humor and faking the point of view of a physicist is that it falls flat when you don’t understand the physics. >>>>
Well it wasn’t an attempt. It has been published in a couple of rags, posted on multiple blogs, sometimes by people who had been sent it in an email and didn’t know who to attribute it to.
LazyTeenager;
Please wrap your head around the concept of an atmosphere and the temperature gradient between top-of-atmosphere and bottom of atmosphere.>>>>
Yes lazy you are correct. Increasing CO2 cannot change the energy balance of the planet, thanks for stipulating to that. Much appreciate your support on the matter. By extension, CO2 cannot change the average temperature of the planet. What it can do, in theory, is change the temperature gradient from surface to TOA, just as you point out. One of the fundamental problems of the debate is that people have the impression that CO2 alters the energy balance of the earth, which you correctly point out is not the case. As for the temperature gradient changing, we have little or no data to suggest that this is the case, suggesting that the net of the feedbacks is zero.
Once again, thankyou for stipulating to the fact that CO2 does not alter the energy balance of the earth. I will treasure the opportunity to quote you on that matter in the future. Not as much fun as I had with getting Phil Clarke to stipulate to the fact that Briffa’s Yamal series could not possibly represent the temperature of the planet, or the bet I won with R. Gates about the physics behind Al Gore’s on air experiment, but a treasure nonetheless.
I really thought this was a new feature. The Sunday Funnies if you will, but it is real!
James Reid:
Except there is. Slope is ~0.003 (using 5/4 rounding). Not much and not significant, but there. However, I should point out that I was just using Anthony’s start and end points. I suppose I should have commented on the fact that the chosen period is too short to produce a statistically significant trend.
Alexander Harvey says:
June 3, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Link provided: Hansen’s Open Letter: http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let25.html
Quoted from that letter as follows:
The bottom line:
Our job is not to place any construction on the paper. Our bottom line is that in our letter to Nature: “Our aim is to produce the most objective quantitative analysis that we can. In the end, that is likely to serve the public best.”
===================
Thank you. What has happened with regards to Hansen?
Of course, there hasn’t been any “rapid” or any other significant warming since this was published. What a crock of………
Truly Lazy (or perhaps, not really familiar with anything more than simple DC circuits?); a better analogy would include an AC power source and the circuit topology would include one or more energy storage devices (e.g. a capacitor or an inductor) where ‘energy’ would be transferred from one reactive, energy-storage device (caps via electric and inductors via a magnetic field) to another (via electron flow) for small changes in time (dt). This would better analogize a planet possessing ‘rotation’ and illuminated/irradiated by a heat/’light source.
Then, over ‘steady-state’ conditions power in would equal power out, but start-up (where t=0) conditions or shut-down conditions as well as instantaneous conditions yield markedly different observed voltage and current values …
.
When Professor Curry asked for everyone’s best shot for a different GW theory, my effort was entitled ‘Global Warming in the _20th_ Century: An Alternative Scenario’ because I had read Dr Hansen’s paper. It was easy enough to find.
You quote the Prof: ‘Soot, snow, ice albedo climate forcing is not included in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change evaluations. This forcing is unusually effective, causing twice as much global warming as a CO2 forcing of the same magnitude.’
You, Prof Hansen, do not allow for the disruption of the usual negative feedback controlling climate response by our major pollution of the ocean surface. If you (OK, not you, others in climate science) stopped b***ering about with the data then it would stand out like a canine’s gonads: in WWII the oil pollution of the oceans bumped up surface temps by .5 deg C. This was caused by the Kriegesmarine offensive. A city of 5 million people spills the equivalent of a major tanker disaster every year, just from the oil drip from its vehicles onto the roads. The Kriegesmarine Effect is a direct result of our careless pouring of pollution into the rivers. We are preventing the CCN and DMs response of the oceans to warming.
Dump the adjustments. Look at the reality. Ask, with Tom Wigley ‘why the blip?’
JF
Meanwhile here in Australia, Crazy Julia the self proclaimed “reformed” socialist of old, has painted herself in a corner of her own making with a carbon tax that the drovers dog, knows will do nothing but collect tax and destroy industry.
The fact she lied on her intention to bring in the tax before an election, but had to sell out to the equally crazy anti industry greens and worse still independents who corrupted their principles for short term money and attention. Is history, as she will become after the next election.
Even more sickening is the spectacle of people (incompetents ?) who call themselves “scientists” who sold themselves (and science) to shore up a most dubious and highly paid Climate Commissioner known for his stupid and rabid predictions.
But never mind voters, its all in the name of saving the planet, that your energy and grocery prices will wise, and don’t worry that you don’t have jobs anymore, “our government” she says, will bribe you with cheques in the mail, and we hope you vote us back into power.
Just forget or put aside the fact that taxes are forever and you will get less and less as the carbon tax bites, but we are exporting more and more of that dastardly black coal overseas and even working on sending our abundant “dirty brown coal”? overseas too. And that is for the greater good, you might think of that, when you can’t afford electricity to heat your homes, because we can’t burn that brown coal to make power here in Australia any more.
Now shut up the whinging, its un Australian, and help Julia send all that dirty coal to China and India so they can burn it there…big time… Its the Green thing to do!!
So sad!
Perhaps he discovered it’s a lot harder to tax methane than CO2?
Tom in Florida says:
June 3, 2012 at 12:24 pm
It appears that over the years they have moved the goal posts so many times that they have completely lost them.
Perhaps they lost their goal posts in a boating acccident???
Very nice one, davidmhoffer. With a few more characters and a bit more fleshing out, this could be a riveting play.
Good grief, Anthony! You make the most misleading and misunderstood post you’ve probably ever presented “…a top post for a day or two”? Talk about “doubling down!
REPLY: It wasn’t misleading, but it was misunderstood by instant conclusionsists. Yes, lets use your fractured logic, and hide it it because a few people jumped the gun and didn’t apparently read beyond the read more line (including you). The story is important, like it or not. It stays. – Anthony
ntesdorf says:
June 3, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Very nice one, davidmhoffer. With a few more characters and a bit more fleshing out, this could be a riveting play.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ask and ye shall receive…
The Oil Tycoons and the Climatologist; Follow the Money
Part of the ridiculous premise posed by the global warming theorists is that CO2 concentrations of double the long term average will result in a 3 degree rise in temperature with most of the new CO2 coming from fossil fuel consumption. I always wondered why “Big Oil” didn’t jump in and explain why that assuming continued acceleration of oil consumption was impossible, but they seem to have been pretty quiet. I think they have met with the climatologists, and I am thinking I know how it went:
Tex; OK boys, settle down, I am calling this meetin’ of Big Oil together. Now we all know each other, but we got’s us a special guest, a climatologist from the IPCC. Now Mr. Climatologist, my name’s Tex and I reckon you can guess from that where I’m from. These here are some of my trusted colleagues. Over there is Fayad, buddy of mine from the middle east, and Sergei next to him is Russian. Next to him is Joe, he’s from Canada, and Jose here is from Mexico.
Climatologist; Pleased to meet all of you
Boys; Howdy/Salaam/Da!/How’s it going, eh?/Si, senor.
Tex; Now let me get right to the point here. We been hearing all about this carbon tax thing of yours, and we got to admit, we’re concerned. We got a way of life, and we kinda got accustomed to it. Like just this morning me and Sergei and Jose went car shopping. We each picked out a brand new Lambourghini and before me or Sergei could even blink, Fayad here paid for all of them.
Fayad; it was only fair Tex, you got breakfast.
Joe; Hey! Nobody invited me!?
Tex; No offense Joe, but you stick out something awful in that stupid hat of yours.
Joe; You guys all got stupid hats too….
Fayad; Infidel! You dare to insult the head dress of 200 generations?
Sergei; An insult! Vile capitalist dog, hat is made of mink. Yours is like sock puppet.
Tex; OK, OK everyone settle down. They got a point Joe. I’m wearing an $800 dollar Stetson, you got a knitted toque. Mr Climatologist, ya see what I got to put up with? Now point is, if you could explain to us how makin’ an honest living is messing with the climate, maybe we can work something out. Now our understanding is that this here planet we live on is up against a 3 degree rise in temperature because of CO2 doubling. Have I got it right so far?
Climatologist; That’s the estimate, yes.
Tex; OK, so how much more can she take?
Climatologist; huh?
Tex; How much more can she take before she comes apart? 5 degrees? 10?
Joe; I could live with another 10 I think. I’d even dump the toque.
Climatologist; It doesn’t work like that, we don’t know for sure.
Jose; Don’t listen to gringo Joe. They so cold up there they think snow is normal. Look Mr Climatologist, I’m listening to you. But the first three degrees, wasn’t so bad, si? We can go maybe six?
Climatologist; Uhm… I’m thinking you’ve misunderstood. We’ve only gone up about a half a degree.
Sergei; No… I am reading report. Look here. It says CO2 double, tree degrees. Tree!
Climatologist; Yes, but that’s an estimate. CO2 hasn’t doubled yet, and we’ve only gone up a half a degree.
Sergei; Vatt? Right here in report…
Fayad; Infidel dog lied to whole world?
Tex; Whoa up everyone. Let’s not pull out the hangin’ rope just yet. Now Mr Climatologist, you can see we’re just a might confused. What you’re saying is that CO2 doubling and 3 degrees is just a prediction?
Climatologist; well… its a scientific prediction.
Tex; Well now then we got something to work with if it ain’t happened yet. So how much CO2 is we supposed to have on this planet anyway?
Climatologist; 280 parts per million.
Sergei; Vatt means million? Is that the one smaller than billion? I don’t tink vee use millions anymore in Russia oil field.
Tex; You got it Sergei, but this is climate not oil. Now if 280 is what we supposed to got, how much we got up to so far?
Climatologist; We’re at about 380 parts per million.
(long silence)
Tex; We didn’t even start drilling for oil in a big way before 1920 or so.
Fayad; I heard western world using “new math”, I thought it was infidel plot to short pay invoices. Climatologist, it will take another 180 years at current production rates to get to double.
Climatologist; Well true, but we’re basing our scientific prediction on continued acceleration of fossil fuel consumption.
Tex; OK, you got me jiggered there. What the sam heck is continued acceleration?
Climatologist; Well, if we look at oil consumption from 1920 to 1990, we see that it about doubled every 15 years or so. We just extrapolated from there. We’ll be at four times 1990 consumption by 2020, eight times by 2035. It won’t take 180 years, it will be less than 20.
(silence)
(long silence)
(uproarious laughter)
Climatologist; What? What’s so funny?
(laughter, gasping for breath, more laughter)
Climatologist; WHAT?
Joe; Hate to break it to you buddy, but we can’t do it.
Jose; We want to….
Sergei; If vee could, vee vould. Trust me. Vit dat much money, vee buy you new planet.
Climatologist; Huh? What?
Tex; Pardner, I’m glad you explained, cuz I think we got your problem licked. You see, we ain’t got that much oil. If we put every cent we have into drilling from now on, and every hole we drill hits oil, we STILL couldn’t pump that much oil.
Climatologist; I don’t believe you.
Tex; Well I can understand, we ain’t got such a good reputation, and Joe in his stupid hat-
Joe; Itsa toque! A TOQUE!
Tex; Ok, toque….Makes him look pretty shady. Let me explain. You see, in 1920 oil was pretty easy to find. Well we done pumped out most of the easy stuff by the 1970’s. The stuff’s been getting harder to find, and what we do find is more expensive to get out. Joe here is getting it out of tar if you can believe it. Now we’ve been keeping up with demand, but just barely. The only reason we can keep up is because the prices have gone up. When the prices go up, it curbs demand because folks can’t afford like they used to and they cut back consumption. I can let you talk to my accountant, he calls it a negative market feedback.
Climatologist; We don’t believe in negative feedbacks.
Tex; Well this ain’t climatology son, this is the real world of business, and in the real world, when you are running out of stuff and what you got left is a lot more expensive to pump, you get a negative feedback.
Climatologist; Well it doesn’t matter, the science is settled. We’re going forward with the carbon tax. We need to save the planet. We’re going to tax you and use the money to reduce demand.
Sergei; Vait vun second capitalist pig-
Climatologist; I’m a socialist actually
Fayad; Actually you are an infidel dog, a thief, a liar-
Tex; Easy Fayad, you’ll spontaneously combust if you get any angrier. Now let me get this straight. You’re going to tax us to prevent us from doing something that we can’t do in the first place?
Climatologist; Have you seen the graphs? If we don’t do something the temperature will shoot up like a hockey stick-
Joe; I’ll show you what a hockey stick is good for-
Jose; Let’s call a press conference. Let’s expose lying thieving gringo-
Climatologist; Go ahead.
(silence)
Tex; Go ahead?
Climatologist; Who is the world going to believe? A bunch of greedy, filthy rich, selfish oil tycoons? Or a bunch of poor, hard working, UN climatologists trying to save the planet?
(silence)
Sergei; Vun Qvestion. Vatts in it for you?
Climatologist; Finally. I thought you would never ask. Let me bring my colleague in. You may already know him. Before he became a climatologist trying to save the world, he was a humanitarian saving children in Iraq while Sadam was still in power. You remember how the “oil for food” thing worked don’t you? I thought you might….
I always point to the sidelining of the ‘Hansen Alternative Scenario’ in my teaching and much of my published research on climate change policy. It was the ‘wrong problem’ because it did not demand immediate and rapid decarbonisation. The Union of Concerned Scientists excoriated Hansen over this. And then, of course, Bush was elected, so no easy solutions could be allowed.
The warming effects of the Asian Brown Cloud have, as I recall (I’m travelling), been confirmed by subsequent research.
I know there was a goalpost around here somewhere…
Some cat using the handle Dave S., an author at an intelligent design creationism website of all places, nailed the black carbon bandito way back in 2007.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22dave+s.%22+%22black+carbon%22+site%3Auncommondescent.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Actually I know Dave S.
Dave S. is a friend of mine. He’s a member here too. A member of the band that is…
Play it again, Sam.
And a wan and a too and a tree. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
“But this was 12 years ago. Climate science has gained so much more knowledge since then.”
Robbie, I think you meant to say: “But that was 12 years ago. ‘Climate scientists’ have profited so much from manipulating knowledge since then.”
@ Rattus Norvegicus says: June 3, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Be consistent: Either the period is too short or it is not regardless of HadcruT 3 or 4. Yet in your “Rattus Norvegicus says: June 3, 2012 at 2:12 pm ” comment you suggest using the HadcruT4 for the SAME period…
“The global surface temperature has increased by about 0.5°C since 1975 (1, 2), a burst of
warmingpencil whipping that has taken the global temperature to its highest level in the past millennium”Fixed that for ya!
Take away SHAP and TOBS adjustments to the raw data and the trend since ’75 is prit’near as flat as Stephen Schneider’s alpha waves are right now.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif
“4 eyes says:
June 3, 2012 at 3:55 pm”
It’s worce than I thought in Aus. We have ads on TV stating Tasmanian hydro power generation is green and clean, been that way for decades we are told (Must be something to do with Bob Brown and alient technology). And then one company featured in the list of 250 (Where’s the other 250 Gillard?) top “carbon polluters” is Snowy Hydro, in Victoria. You simply cannot make this stuff up!
If a company spends money reducing air pollution they claim a TAX DEDUCTION.
If CO2 is to blame, the company pays TAX.
It is not too hard to figure which theory a government is going to favour.
davidmhoffer says:
June 3, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Ha ha ha! David – that is brilliant! Bloody work of genius! Needs be filmed and put on Youtube!
So some people think they’ve found something new, something Hansen wants to hide? Let’s take a look in Hansen’s book “Storm of My Grandchildren” published 2009 (p.31 ff):
The context is that Hansen was invited to join the Climate Task Force to advice the government of G. W. Bush.
…it involved a faulty interpretation of our “alternative scenario” paper. The four senators stated in their letter: “In August 2000, Dr. Hansen issued a new analysis which said the emphasis on carbon dioxide may be misplaced. In his new report, he stated that other greenhouse gases – such as methane, black soot, CFCs, and the compounds that create smog – may be causing more damage than carbon dioxide and efforts to affect climate change should focus on these other gases” […]
In retrospect, I had made at least two mistakes.
The first was my wording in the alternative scenario paper. I aimed to draw attention to the importance of non-carbon-dioxide climate forcings, but only to give them a proper due, not to allow an escape hatch for CO2. My alternative scenario required, in addition to absolute reductions of the non-CO2 forcings, aggressive efforts to slow the growth of atmospheric CO2 […] in order to achieve the alternative scenario.[…]
My second mistake was my failure to emphatically state to the Task Force that the administration’s energy plans, as described by Abraham, were in dramatic conflict with the alternative scenario.[…]
My alternative scenario paper was controversial immediately upon its publication in 2000, in part because environmentalists recognized the possibility that it could be misused by those who preferred there be no restrictions on CO2 emissions.”
We already had the discussion in the year 2000 (recall for example Hansens’s open letter), we had it in Hansens’s book 2009, the paper is linked on Hansen’s homepage. Hence I’m surprised about the revival here in 2012, what’s new, shocking and sensational?
Although it is late there have been moves to adopt parts of Hansen’s alternative scenario
From the G-8, a bit late
“Recognizing the impact of short-lived climate pollutants on near-term climate change, agricultural productivity, and human health, we support, as a means of promoting increased ambition and complementary to other CO2 and GHG emission reduction efforts, comprehensive actions to reduce these pollutants, which, according to UNEP and others, account for over thirty percent of near-term global warming as well as 2 million premature deaths a year.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/19/camp-david-declaration
Oh yes, here is another shock
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2006/jul/13/the-threat-to-the-planet/
Eli Rabett says:
June 3, 2012 at 10:42 am
REPLY: Yes as noted clearly in red, that was 2000. Twelve years without warming is a while.
What’s the rush? – Anthony
=========
If the energy (CO2) taxes don’t get put in place soon, folks might just wake up to what such taxes will do to their lives. However, once Obama is re-elected, there will be no worries in that regard. The EPA will impose the taxes through administrative orders.
old44 says:
June 3, 2012 at 11:55 pm
If a company spends money reducing air pollution they claim a TAX DEDUCTION.
If CO2 is to blame, the company pays TAX.
It is not too hard to figure which theory a government is going to favour.
========
That worked well in BC, NOT. Schools taxes are going to buy carbon credits, and companies are cashing on on these credits for NOT building new factories that emit CO2. Instead they are using the money to relocate to China. All paid for by the BC taxpayers.
Sure the taxes cut down on CO2 in BC, by cutting down on economic development. However, it is accelerating development in China, paid for by the BC taxpayers. Luckily the CO2 produced in China returns to BC (and the US), so it isn’t a total loss. The jobs and investment never return however. Instead the funds that flow from BC taxpayers to China are then used to buy up property in BC for Chinese owners. All paid for by BC taxpayers.
Does anybody heard something about capturing CO2 from power stations and burying it under the seabed? It could be an important global warming fix..
One more interesting new is that studies show that our blood becomes more acidic when we breathe in CO2-laden air for just a few weeks..
Capo:
Your post at June 4, 2012 at 12:56 am echoed my thoughts exactly. But I lacked the temerity to say it.
Richard
richardcourtney:
I really had some trouble if I should post the quote. Maybe someone will find the next bombshell therein, e.g. Hansen admits: “In retrospect, I had made at least two mistakes.”
Julian Flood says:
June 3, 2012 at 7:30 pm
You, Prof Hansen, do not allow for the disruption of the usual negative feedback controlling climate response by our major pollution of the ocean surface. If you (OK, not you, others in climate science) stopped b***ering about with the data then it would stand out like a canine’s gonads: in WWII the oil pollution of the oceans bumped up surface temps by .5 deg C. This was caused by the Kriegesmarine offensive. A city of 5 million people spills the equivalent of a major tanker disaster every year, just from the oil drip from its vehicles onto the roads. The Kriegesmarine Effect is a direct result of our careless pouring of pollution into the rivers. We are preventing the CCN and DMs response of the oceans to warming.
Dump the adjustments. Look at the reality. Ask, with Tom Wigley ‘why the blip?’
Just posted in another discussion, a picture showing this peak reflected in Carbon Dioxide levels at that time:
Here, a real picture of carbon dioxide levels worth a thousand words:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evidence-var-corrRSCb.pdf
Evidence of variability of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 20th century
Dipl. Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck, Postfach 1409, D-79202 Breisach, Germany
Discussion paper May 2008
From page 9:
CO2 in Troposphere/Stratosphere 1894 -1973
“Figure 4 Tropospheric and stratospheric measurements of CO2 from literature 1894-1973 (see Table 2) graphed from 66 samples, calculated as 18 yearly averages.
Despite the low data density, the CO2 contour in troposphere and stratosphere confirms the direct measurements near the ground that suggest a CO2 maximum between 1930 and 1940.
The CO2 peak around 1942 is also confirmed by several verified data series since 1920 sampled at ideal locations and analysed with calibrated high precision gas analysers used by Nobel awardists (A. Krogh since 1919) showing an accuracy down to ±0.33% in 1935. Figure 5 shows the 5 years average out of 41 datasets (see Table 1).
Don’t know if that graph can be shown here, but would go nicely with http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/nat_geo_temps.jpg?w=640
In a Willis discussion in which I found your post on the birth of the Kriegsmarine Effect, with the Tom Wigley quote, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/18/more-on-the-national-geographic-decline/#comment-348011
mfo says:
June 3, 2012 at 3:36 pm
James Hansen, Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy authored Perceptions of Climate Change:
The New Climate Dice, in which trees on Hansen’s property are cited as evidence of climate change: “However, as an anecdotal data piece suggesting the possibility of more widespread effects, consider that several tree species (birch, pin oak, ash, some maple varieties) on the eastern Pennsylvania property of one of us (JH) exhibit signs of stress. Arborists identify proximate causes (borers and other pests, fungus, etc.) in each case, but climate change, including longer summers with more extreme temperature and moisture anomalies, could be one underlying factor.”
Borers, like most other insect pests in the Northeast Corridor, have natural cycles. They’ll leave your trees alone for five years (more or less, depending on the pest) and in the sixth, the population will explode. When it’s the gypsy moths’ turn, you can fly over areas of the Jersey Pine Barrens in early June and not see a single hint of green for a dozen square miles..
Natural cycles — for anything — appears to be an area in which Doc Hansen has an abysmal dearth of knowledge.
In an open letter at the time Hansen wrote about the “interpretations and representations” made about his paper which probably influenced the content of his future papers:
“Science and Nature. Science printed a brief factual summary of the contents of our
paper. In contrast Nature made several misstatements and quoted only critics of our paper. They described our “alternative scenario” as “Hansen’s assumption” and “his prediction”…”
“Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The UCS sent to its members an “Information Update”
discussing our paper, providing me with a copy the day before it went out. The essence of their
discussion seems to be that our paper is controversial, potentially harmful to the Kyoto Protocol, and not a helpful contribution to the climate change discussion as it “may fuel confusion about global warming among the public”. They describe “first reactions from within the scientific community”, which perhaps are accurate but they seem a bit like commissioned criticisms.”
“The New York Times. The first New York Times article on our paper (Aug. 19, 2000, ref. 8) was
not as far off as some other newspaper reports. But the first sentence implied that I had changed my opinion, and that I now said that “emphasis on carbon dioxide may be misplaced”.
“A second article aggravated the misunderstanding….it repeated the statement that we proposed to focus first on non-CO2 gases, and the entire article discussed only non-CO2 gases and black carbon. After the first article, I sent a “letter to the editor” of The New York Times to try to correct the mis-impressions, but it was not published.”
“The Washington Post and Rolling Stone. The most accurate summaries of our paper, in my
opinion, were an article in the Rolling Stone and an editorial in The Washington Post.”
The Washington Post editorial concluded “that climate issues are complex, far from fully understood and open to a variety of approaches. It should serve as a caution to environmentalists so certain of their position that they’re willing to advocate radical solutions, no matter what the economic cost.”
In the October 19, 2000 article in The New York Times a certain Andrew C Revkin wrote:
“Carbon dioxide is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200111_altscenario/discussion.html
Twelve years later, UNEP reported on May 22 2012:
“This year the G8 “during a meeting at Camp David in the United States, have thrown their collective support behind a new international effort to phase-down so-called short lived climate pollutants.” They agreed to join the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-lived Climate Pollutants.
http://www.unep.org/NewsCentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=2659&ArticleID=8958
http://www.unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=2683&ArticleID=9134&l=en
It does not trouble me when a man changes his theory. What troubles me is when a man “adjusts” the raw data.
We all change our theories as we grow older, although most of us call the change our “philosophy,” and do not pretend it is science. To some degree many of us are even guilty of putting a certain “spin” on facts, and seeing through rose colored glasses at times. However most of us recognize a line you step over, which seperates truth from a lie.
When Hansen “adjusted” raw data, he stepped over the line.
Something very weird is happening at DMI ice
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
and with the Gerbis paper they kept this tree out
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ld2_1kyr.png
Eli Rabett says:
June 4, 2012 at 1:08 am
Although it is late there have been moves to adopt parts of Hansen’s alternative scenario
From the G-8, a bit late
“Recognizing the impact of short-lived climate pollutants on near-term climate change, agricultural productivity, and human health, we support, as a means of promoting increased ambition and complementary to other CO2 and GHG emission reduction efforts, comprehensive actions to reduce these pollutants, which, according to UNEP and others, account for over thirty percent of near-term global warming as well as 2 million premature deaths a year.”
As always, they, like your friends, are just preparing the ground for when the CO² hypothesis is finally dismissed. They need another panic button to raise tax against.
Dare I say that shortly after writing this paper the realisation may have come to Hansen that simple CO2, a concept that the public can readily understand, was the favourite to win the money? It is difficult to construe honest and able actions that would explain this chain of events.
Philip Bradley says:
June 3, 2012 at 4:07 pm
The global surface temperature has increased by about 0.5°C since 1975 (1, 2), a burst of warming
That is Hansen’s error…..
_____________________________________
It is Hansen’s error alright.
Hansen et al are claiming an accuracy and precision in the data that allows 0.5C to be SIGNIFICANT.
People at WUWT are aware of the surface station project for the USA that shows US temperature measurement is shoddy.
In Australia…
In related news: “Vatican: Papal butler’s journey from trusted servant to accused Judas”
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Vatican+Papal+butler+journey+from+trusted+servant+accused+Judas/6723590/story.html
With George Soros as the Pope and Hansen as…, well, you know.
Darn I thought I corrected that link Here it is without getting fancy. More on the NZ adjustment down during the first half of the temperature record: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/new-zealands-niwa-sued-over-climate-data-adjustments/
Above Gerbis should be Gergis paper on SH Hockey sticks
But this group of trees 018 didn’t have one 018
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ld2_1kyr.png
Bill Tuttle says:
June 4, 2012 at 4:07 am
“Borers, like most other insect pests in the Northeast Corridor, have natural cycles. They’ll leave your trees alone for five years (more or less, depending on the pest) and in the sixth, the population will explode. When it’s the gypsy moths’ turn, you can fly over areas of the Jersey Pine Barrens in early June and not see a single hint of green for a dozen square miles.”
Sorry Bill, gypsy moth larvae feed almost exclusively on oak species, so the Pine Barrens (mostly pitch pine (Pinus rigida) in NJ are unaffected by this introduced insect pest.
A good paper you have brought up here Mr. Watts. This is the type of research your blog could use more links to to better help educate your readership. This paper is a quality step up from many of the papers usually discussed.
Myrrh,
I hadn’t seen that. Actually I still haven’t, I can’t get it to load but I’ve saved your post and I’ll try a bit later — Jubilee celebrations taking rather a toll at the moment. Thanks!
So it looks like unadjusted temps, near surface windspeeds and CO2 measurements all agree: only the bucket correction stands out as wrong….
JF
Anthony the same information contained in the Hansen study was explained to Al Gore by Gavin Schmidt and Veerabhadran Ramanathan as documented in a 2009 Newsweek article here on page 4. The article also highlighted that CO2 was only responsible for 43% of warming.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/10/31/the-evolution-of-an-eco-prophet.html
Recently Mark Serreze stated that polar ice melt could be stopped within 5 years with a global program to reduce black carbon. Hillary Clinton is pushing for a coalition of nations to agree to initiatives to reduce methane leaks and black carbon. The timing on this is interesting as these inexpensive alternatives (relative to carbon trading/taxes) as noted in the Newsweek article, are only now being recognized as Kyoto has failed to produce significant results and the carbon trading schemes are crashing and burning. I feel it’s because these alternative measures don’t involve the potential to control large sums of money and power the way carbon trading/taxing does.
mfo says:
June 4, 2012 at 4:17 am
“The Washington Post and Rolling Stone. The most accurate summaries of our paper, in my
opinion, were an article in the Rolling Stone and an editorial in The Washington Post.”
Ah yes – PEER REVIEW! heh!!
I just love Hansen. He cracks me up.
NASA’s Hansen appears to have been censored, but not by Pres George Bush’s administration, rather it seems that Hansen was censored severely shortly after 2000 by the world leaders of CAGWism after his widely publicized and controversial ‘CO2 isn’t very alarming’ 2000 paper. I think he was censored by CAGWists because his paper did not support the CO2 alarmist ‘science’ agenda.
He appears to have been sent to a re-education conference sometime in late 2000 or early 2001 to put him firmly back on track in support of the ideologically oriented ‘scientific’ agenda on CO2 alarmism. The late 2000 or early 2001 re-education apparently stuck to him all the way to the present.
Based on that then I will conclude Hansen has always been a mere ‘scientific’ lackey; a useful tool for policy informed science; not a leader.
John
Jim Clarke says: June 3, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Well let me enlighten you: The answer was in front of your eyes:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
And watch how many new studies appeared after 2000. And this is just one author of the many.
Darren Potter says: June 3, 2012 at 3:18 pm
“Water Vapor is responsible for 95% of Green House Gas effect.”
Really!
Just show me where you got that number from?
Billy Liar says: June 3, 2012 at 5:55 pm
This information is there in the paper by Hansen et al 2000. Just read it. It is not a misinterpretation. I interpreted the paper. That’s all.
Btw: Was that site http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ also there in 2000?
I think not. That’s what we gained at knowledge in the last 12 years.
Your terrible analogy proves that YOU don’t understand physics.
A constant current source is NOT a constant power source. The power output of a constant current source INCREASES as the resistance in the circuit is increased. Certainly, the power output of the sun doesn’t INCREASE due to any supposed increase in thermal resistance in the earth’s atmosphere.
Replace your constant current source with a constant power source (a better sun analogy), then the power dissipated by the resistor is exactly the same regardless of the size (resistance value) of the resistor. As a matter of fact, even if resistance approaches infinity (infinite resistance being an open circuit), then current approaches zero – which makes perfect sense. Current doesn’t flow in an open circuit even with a constant power source.
the real shocker is that it took you until 2012 to read this article from the year 2000
REPLY: what is even more of a shocker is the article itself, and the fact that Hansen does not list it on his page here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
Apparently there was a tiff with UCS and this paper got buried. Anthony
Looks like the same old standard CAGW line. Now that they’ve given up on explaining the recent lack of warming in light of continuing CO2 release, they have to dredge up old research that justifies a completely different position with the same conclusion. Much like when snow was going to be a thing of the past, and then when good old Mother Nature decided to drop a metric ton of snow on the planet, all of sudden they were citing research that said there would be more ‘precipitation’. You can’t falsify this junk because it’s not science; it’s religion. These people do more ret-conning than Star Tek writers. No matter what happens, CO2 and global warming will be to blame in their eyes. If the sun turned into a blueberry muffin tomorrow, before the death of the planet and all human life as we know it, Hanson et al. would publish a paper linking Betty Crocker to rising CO2 levels.
So he published this in 2000 and by 2005 realized he had gotten this wrong as well?
Appendix: Climate forcing scenarios
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html
Non-CO2 forcings Methane (CH4) causes the second largest GHG climate forcing. Hansen and Sato (Reference 1a) show that actual growth rate of CH4 is falling below all IPCC scenarios. In the past two years, the gap between the IPCC CH4 scenarios and reality has widened. Other large anthropogenic forcings are those of black carbon and O3. Unfortunately, neither of these is being measured well enough globally to determine its rate of change. I leave it to the reader to mull: do you believe that the amount of these air pollutants will be larger in 2050 than it is today, as it is in the IPCC scenarios? If it is not, their added forcing will be zero or negative. Finally, note that IPCC assumes that the net climate forcing by CFCs and their replacements will increase this decade. Observations show that the CFC forcing is below the IPCC scenarios and may shift to a small negative annual change by 2005.
It is reasonable to project that further change in non-CO2 forcings could be minimal in the 21st century. Small decreases in CFCs and some air pollutants could tend to balance modest increases in other pollutants and N2O. However, such a near balance will not happen automatically. It will require concerted actions and international cooperation.
Does his work meet the requirements of an argument after attempts to silence and discredit opposition have failed?
Official: the more scientifically illiterate you are, the more you believe in ‘climate change’
James Delingpole
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100161868/official-the-more-scientifically-illiterate-you-are-the-more-you-believe-in-climate-change/
Unless I’m missing something, Hansen and Sato pointed out in 2001, “The growth rate of climate forcing by measured greenhouse gases peaked near 1980”.
If it peaked near 1980, doesn’t this minimize CO2 from the warming scenereo as its been rising ever since?
Trends of measured climate forcing agents
James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
December, 2001
Abstract
The growth rate of climate forcing by measured greenhouse gases peaked near 1980 at almost 5 W/m² per century. This growth rate has since declined to ≈3 W/m² per century, largely because of cooperative international actions. We argue that trends can be reduced to the level needed for the moderate “alternative” climate scenario (≈2 W/m² per century for the next 50 years) by means of concerted actions that have other benefits, but the forcing reductions are not automatic “co-benefits” of actions that slow CO2 emissions. Current trends of climate forcings by aerosols remain very uncertain. Nevertheless, practical constraints on changes in emission levels suggest that global warming at a rate +0.15 ± 0.05°C per decade will occur over the next several decades.
source: http://www.pnas.org/content/98/26/14778.full
(Added: it is important to note that all of this backpedaling occurred after Hansen’s 1988 Senate testimony where he and sponsoring Senator Tim Wirth were so sure of the science blaming CO2 saying “that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.”
My emphasis.
I suggest you look at Fig 2 in Hansen’s 1988 paper, except for scenario C non-CO2 GHGs were expected to have a significant contribution, particularly scenario A where they would dominate.
John Whitman says:
June 4, 2012 at 7:14 am
NASA’s Hansen appears to have been censored, but not by Pres George Bush’s administration, rather it seems that Hansen was censored severely shortly after 2000 by the world leaders of CAGWism…
He appears to have been sent to a re-education conference sometime in late 2000 or early 2001 …
_______________________________________
NAH, they just sicced Mike Mann on him and Mann brought him back into line. Why do you think Mann is fighting tooth and nail to keep his e-mails from the public??? He doesn’t want people to realize he is the CAGW “Enforcer” /sarc
But in the summary iy goes on to say
‘Business-as-usual scenarios provide a useful warning about the potential for HUMAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE’
So changes must be made to stop runaway climate change!
REPLY: what is even more of a shocker is the article itself, and the fact that Hansen does not list it on his page here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
Apparently there was a tiff with UCS and this paper got buried. Anthony
It is on his homepage. How is that buried?
This link says:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
See Dr. Hansen’s bibliography webpage on the NASA GISS website for publications prior to 2004.
Click on his link here and there it is clear as day.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
REPLY: Yes buried. Seen any discussion of this paper since Al Gore let loose with AIT? Or since IPPC 2007? – Anthony
Robbie – “Really! Just show me where you got that number from?”
> Darren Potter – “Water Vapor is responsible for 95% of Green House Gas effect.”
From several places. But one place you might accept is from Skeptical Science where they attempt to counter the following: “Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. This is part of the difficulty with the public and the media in understanding that 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapour.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-basic.htm
Take careful note of Skeptical Science’s counter. – Despite all the blah, blah, blah (aka SPIN) Skeptical Science (SS) never says that the 95% is incorrect. SS merely tries to downplay or skip around the 95% fact. SS also plays the scare words of Amplify, Forcing, Feedback / Doubling. Along with going off on tangents such as “Empirical Observations” from Mount Pinatubo. (face palm)
Realize, most AGWers’ charts that show GHGs leave off Water Vapor (or leave out its % effect) so that CO2 and N2O appear to be the big evils.
Myrrh says:
June 4, 2012 at 3:52 am
Here, a real picture of carbon dioxide levels worth a thousand words:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evidence-var-corrRSCb.pdf
================
Thank you Myrrh.
I have never seen that shown in the link. I recommend anyone interested in CO2 take a look.
Interesting that research done prior to ‘politicized science’ could be so revealing.
Maybe Anthony could post this in ‘bold, red, and blinking’ along with some embedded sounds of bells. 😉
But even then some would not notice.
usJim says:
June 3, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Steven Hales says:
June 3, 2012 at 11:52 am
I always wanted to say that my A/C unit saved the planet when CFCs were banned. Actually the decline in their use worldwide coincides with the flat temp line. …
Correct me if I am wrong, but, the last data I saw actually showed CFC use up; just not in the ‘regulated’ countries like the US …
Jim, The most long lived CFCs have been banned and are being phased out worldwide. Total stratospheric loading has declined by over 10%. Certain refrigerant species are increasing but they are less damaging to the ozone layer and overall their pressence in the troposphere has had a negligible effect on global temps as they have a significantly lower GWP on average, some by a factor of 10 or more.
http://cienbas.galeon.com/04GW_Potential.htm — for a rundown of CFC species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ozone_cfc_trends.png — CFC trends
2000 was also the year Hansen made his “adjustments” to U.S. SAT effectively wiping out the 1930’s warmth. Perhaps he had a vision.
Another shocker??
“Solar Cells Linked to Greenhouse Gases Over 23,000 Times Worse than Carbon Dioxide”
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition, 1/7th the absorber of IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 80 times as many molecules captures 560 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
The Two Minute Conservative at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com for political analysis, science and humor. Daily on Kindle.
REPLY: Yes buried. Seen any discussion of this paper since Al Gore let loose with AIT? Or since IPPC 2007? – Anthony
Sure look in the literature. It has been cited in numerous papers almost every year since it was published. Google scholar brings up 547 citations.
REPLY: I’m aware of that, my point it has been buried by the press and in general public discussion. – Anthony
REPLY: I’m aware of that, my point it has been buried by the press and in general public discussion. – Anthony
– – – – – – –
Anthony,
But now there will be some public scrutiny. Thank you for doing that here at your wonderful venue . . . . the famous intellectual salons of ~ 1900 Paris and Vienna were mere shadows compared to this intellectual / scientific e-salon of yours Anthony. Nice place.
John
With apologies to Shakespeare/ Hamlet –
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Hansen,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
To put a crazy disposition on,
That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
With arms encumber’d thus, or this headshake,
Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
As ‘Well, well, we know,’ or ‘We could, an if we would,’
Or ‘If we list to speak,’ or ‘There be, an if they might,’
Or such ambiguous giving out..”
“Hansen/GISS team”
Maybe Josh can conjure up a “toon” that expresses just how well traveled around a “gas” chart these people have become. Maybe little pin flags…….”Yeah, yeah, that’s the gas…Who da gas? Dis da gas!”, or “Gas/Cause of da Month is…..(dramatic pause)….”Soot!”.
What a house of mirrors…..you would think it would be embarrassing after a while.
Perhaps (published in 2000, but long since buried) is a little harsh as it appears in the references for WG3 of the TAR (2001) – http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=67
Maybe stuck behind a filing cabinet or taped to the bottom of a drawer if it is not in a public listing of papers.
Either way, ‘The science is settled’ rings even less true, even if this is more than a decade old.
Has anybody else noticed that every year contradictory predictions are made based on “Man Made Climate Change”? (They came up with “Climate Change” to account for the lack of warming.) The prediction that gets the press is the one that seems to fit what actually happened.
I wonder if this paper was something along those lines? A “CYA” paper in case CO2 didn’t stick to the wall?
Many of you have followed and actually understand the science behind the details through the years. Does make sense?
The paper was not buried. All that we have here is confirmation that the blogsphere is not the best place to do science. Trying to buy time by looking at non CO2 factors is nothing new or radical.
REPLY: Well, that’s your opinion. Suitable for DK.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1) estimates
the global climate forcing by fossil fuel black carbon (BC)
aerosols as 0.2Wm2. Jacobson (2) suggests that the fossil fuel BC
forcing is larger,0.5Wm2. J.H. and colleagues (3–5) have argued
that the total anthropogenic BC forcing, including BC from fossil
fuels, biofuels, and outdoor biomass burning, and also including the
indirect effects of BC on snowice albedo, is still larger, 0.8 0.4
Wm2. Here we estimate the magnitude of one component of the
BC climate forcing: its effect on snowice albedo.”
Was this prior to WG3 and what did WG3 have for the BC forcing?
The strain to decive themselves must be expressed now in hockey stick to the groin pain levels.
[snip – policy violation – shape shifter – posting under many different names using proxy servers and fake emails – but how’s UoG ]?
Myrrh says:
June 4, 2012 at 3:52 am
Here, a real picture of carbon dioxide levels worth a thousand words:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evidence-var-corrRSCb.pdf
__________________________________
A second thank you for that link Myrrh. Beck never got the recognition he deserved.
Mike – “All that we have here is confirmation that the blogsphere is not the best place to do science.”
What we have is further evidence that AGW cabal is dishonest in that they loudly proclaim anything that even remotely suggests AGW; while being silent on anything that even remotely goes against AGW.
Need an example? AGW widely publicized picture of the lone polar bear on a small chunk of ice as proof of AGW. But the AGW never bothered to publicize the picture showed no such thing being it was used out of context of which it was taken, nor did the AGW cabal bother to report polar bear population was either stable or possibly slightly on the rise.
Maybe buried was too strong of a word, but there definitely seems be attempts to “disassociate” this paper.
What exactly is it “here” that confirms this?
Claiming that rapid warming over recent decades is mainly due to chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O while simultaneously claiming that rapid warming over recent decades is NOT the product of fossil fuel burning (CO2) is most certainly a radical claim for a warming alarmist.
Of interest from Myrrh’s posted pdf link:
“These atmospheric CO2 data show a flat contour during a period of about 50 years from about 1875 to 1925, but they also show the CO2 concentration has fluctuated 3 times since 1812 with maxima around 1825, 1857 and especially well documented a maximum in 1942 of up to 410 ppm. These fluctuations are not shown in the ice core reconstruction.”
How convenient for AGWers that Ice Cores flat line. Hide the Fluctuations!
Robbie says:
June 4, 2012 at 7:44 am
You said in your earlier post:
What Hansen and team are saying (well proposing) is the fact that Non-CO2 GHGs have a stronger forcing than CO2 had so far (in 2000).
When you read the paper you must have missed this line from it:
Climate forcing by CO2 is the largest forcing, but it does not dwarf the others (Fig. 1).
You said in your last post:
Btw: Was that site http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ also there in 2000?
I think not. That’s what we gained at knowledge in the last 12 years.
AGGI has been available since 2004 but all the data has been available since 1979 when NOAA’s global air sampling network expanded significantly. Do you seriously expect me to believe that Hansen didn’t have access to the NOAA data? He would be a very incompetent researcher indeed if he did not know that since 1979 at least CO2 has always been the largest component of GHG forcing. Indeed, in his paper he asserts that his Figure 1 applies since 1850. This is stated in the line under the heading ‘Climate Forcings in the Industrial Era’ on page 9875.
Are you reading the same paper as me?
just in case its pdf’d and saved here too
http://www.davemacleod.net/forums/topic/46370-pnas-paper/
Bah, you are telling me that Hansen and I actually sort of agree on something? (Black soot impacts the arctic more than CO2 does… It probably impacts glaciers as well)
I need a stiff drink now… I feel so…dirty…probably from the black soot.
Concerning the side-topic of gypsy moths brought up by LKMiller on June 4, 2012 at 4:07 AM:
When they get out of control, gypsy moth catapillers eat everything. Maybe they prefer oaks, but I recall a forest in Southern Maine around 1980 that looked like a war zone. If a leafless forest wasn’t strange enough, in the middle of summer, the forest also lacked any needles on the white pines. As white pines keep their needles in the winter, this forest looked like nothing I had ever seen before.
I think what they do now, when one of these situations starts to develop, is to hustle in some sort of fungus that spreads through the over-population, and causes all the catapillers to shrivel up.
LKMiller says:
June 4, 2012 at 6:10 am
@ me, June 4, 2012 at 4:07 am:
Sorry Bill, gypsy moth larvae feed almost exclusively on oak species, so the Pine Barrens (mostly pitch pine (Pinus rigida) in NJ are unaffected by this introduced insect pest.
As Caleb noted, when the GM reaches infestation stage, they’ll eat anything green, including pitch pine needles and laurel leaves. During one outbreak in the mid-’80s, the area between Chatsworth and Tuckerton looked like it had been a Ranch Hand practice area.
Aerial application of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is an effective caterpillar-cide — one year, the greenies in Princeton spread the rumor that Bt was harmful to toddlers, so the citizenry petitioned the state to forego spraying the township. By the time the residents realized they’d been had, the caterpillars had stripped all the trees in town and were eating the lawns.
****
Bill Tuttle says:
June 5, 2012 at 6:07 am
As Caleb noted, when the GM reaches infestation stage, they’ll eat anything green, including pitch pine needles and laurel leaves. During one outbreak in the mid-’80s, the area between Chatsworth and Tuckerton looked like it had been a Ranch Hand practice area.
Here in west MD, gypsy moths have received a knockout blow. When I first moved here in 2004, I saw a very few hanging on tree-trunks, infected by a fungus. Since then haven’t seen a single one, nor noticed any damage anywhere along my travels. I believe the fungus had been purposely introduced some decades before, but hadn’t taken hold until ~2000 or so.
In the ’70s, ’80s, GMs had defoliated entire mountainsides in w MD.
James Sexton says:
June 3, 2012 at 9:36 am
“Hansen’s views on warming continue to “evolve”….. or flip flop, depending upon your political persuasion.”
If you, and a number of other Hansen admirers participating, were totally convinced by his pre 2000 CO2 bugaboo and its consensus, and then by his switch over to a more benevolent attitude towards CO2 after having demonized and disrupted the energy industry, and then finally return to his CO2 death metaphors since 2000, what can you possibly base your absolute trust in this man’s work on? You have answered this clearly: you are ‘depending on your political persuasion’ – much of the concern by scientifically literate skeptics is precisely because of this political motivation of buying into a new world order. As is always the case, someone has to save people from themselves. Oh and by the way, Switching from belief A to B and back to A is the very definition of “flip flop” whether you are a socialist, dictator or anything in between.
I believe Hansen will find a lot of use for this paper in the coming years. Oh, and has he written any pithy papers on astronomy, his actual discipline, in the last 30 years?
Hansen’s buried paper has over 500 citations. See Google Scholar.
What’s the name on that policeman’s shirt? Is that ironic or what?
Bill Tuttle says:
June 5, 2012 at 6:07 am
Aerial application of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is an effective caterpillar-cide — one year, the greenies in Princeton spread the rumor that Bt was harmful to toddlers, so the citizenry petitioned the state to forego spraying the township. By the time the residents realized they’d been had, the caterpillars had stripped all the trees in town and were eating the lawns.
Nice story Bill, shame it didn’t happen!
I think I’ve worked it out. Developing countries are responsible for the ‘forcing’ due to lack of pollution control. Naturally this means that developed countries should immediately feel guilty and pay to clean up the developing nations mess.
Think that covers it.
Wow, you just discovered a 12 year old paper. I guess I’ll check back in two years when you find the response to the paper (Wuebbles,2002) and the response to the response (Hansen, 2002)