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
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.