UPDATE: 9:55 AM PDT 8/8/12 A graph of Palmer Drought Severity Index -vs- GISTEMP data has been added from Dr. Michaels. Looks like another “GISS miss”.
There’s a lot of blowback against James Hansen’s recent (non tested) PNAS paper, trying to link weather and climate, covered here on WUWT. Even NOAA scientist Dr. Martin Hoerling is panning it. This from The NYT:
Dr. Hoerling contended that Dr. Hansen’s new paper confuses drought, caused primarily by a lack of rainfall, with heat waves.
“This isn’t a serious science paper,” Dr. Hoerling said. “It’s mainly about perception, as indicated by the paper’s title. Perception is not a science.”
Here’s a short editorial by Dr. Pat Michaels, former Virginia State Climatologist:
Hansen is simply wrong.
Hansen claims that global warming is associated with increased drought in the US. This is a testable hypothesis which he chose not to test, and, because PNAS isn’t truly peer-reviewed for Members like him, no one tested it for him.
I have [examined] drought data [that] are from NCDC, and the temperature record is Hansen’s own. His hypothesis is a complete and abject failure.
[UPDATE: Graph added 9:55AM PDT 8/8/12:]
It is hard for me to believe that Hansen did not know this, and yet he went ahead with his paper. This must be true because Hansen has published papers on the Palmer Drought Index and future warming. Administrator Bolden is obligated to investigate the ethics of publishing a paper that the Director of the GISS laboratory knew could not pass the most simple test of hypothesis.
The following excerpt from his PNAS paper tells you everything you need to know about James Hansen’s paper:
“Although we were motivated in this research by an objective to expose effects of human-made global warming as soon as possible…”
– Dr. Patrick Michaels, via email
=============================================================
On the same day of one of NASA’s proudest achievements, the landing of the rover Curiosity on Mars, Dr. James Hansen and PNAS went on a media blitz to push a paper that is so technically flawed, that if it were a spacecraft, it would surely have burned up in the atmosphere due to a faulty understanding of that atmosphere. Unfortunately, as Dr. Michaels points out, it was never tested and Dr. Hoerling points out that it “isn’t science, but perception”. NASA used to deal in facts and testing, because if they didn’t, people died. Now NASA’s image has been tarnished on the day of one of its greatest triumphs by a rogue scientist with unsupportable ideas and a global media megaphone.
I have in the past, called for Dr. Hansen’s firing after his arrest episodes where he acts as an activist and protestor. I repeat that call today and will continue to do so. NASA administrator Bolden, fire Dr. James Hansen. He is an embarrassment to NASA, and an embarrassment to science. Show him the door.
Many of your greatest engineers, scientists, and astronauts agree that Dr. Hansen has overstepped his bounds with his advocacy, as I repost below. – Anthony
=============================================================
From this WUWT story:
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.
H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
Select excerpts from the letter:
- “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
- “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
- “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
The full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From Hansen’s PNAS paper
the temperature amplified by global warming and ubiquitous surface heating
from elevated greenhouse gas amounts, extreme drought conditions can develop.
The other extreme of the water cycle, unusually heavy rainfall and floods, is also amplified by global warming.
From his interview with AP’s Seth Borenstein:
Hansen’s study — based on statistics, not the more typical climate modeling — blames these three heat waves purely on global warming:
—Last year’s devastating Texas-Oklahoma drought.
—The 2010 heat waves in Russia and the Middle East, which led to thousands of deaths.
—The 2003 European heat wave blamed for tens of thousands of deaths, especially among the elderly in France.
The analysis was written before the current drought and record-breaking temperatures that have seared much of the United States this year. But Hansen believes this too is another prime example of global warming at its worst.
It’s bad enough the Rover landing happened in the middle of the Olympics, when most people were obsessing over pointless athlete trivia. Given the constraints of the mission there was nothing NASA could do to avoid that schedule conflict. But to have one of their own overshadow the Rover landing triumph with this useless drivel must really hurt in some quarters.
As some have commented above, it would be unfortunate if Hansen were fired. Hansen is well on his way to becoming a public buffoon, a la a certain former Vice President, internet inventor, and sex poodle.
On being fired Hansen would become a martyr for freedom of expression, aided by the media, no doubt. Where he is now, he is an embarrassment for the CAGW movement, an out front easy target.
“Although we were motivated in this research by an objective to expose effects of human-made global warming as soon as possible…”
PNAS will have to answer for permitting this “special pleading” paper to be published. The tarnish will take years to remove from their reputation.
Be nice if someone had taken the trouble to correct the basic grammatical error in the joint letter
“admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating “.
For the zillionth time, it’s “its” unless the intention was to write “it is the role” (i.e., meaningless) in this context. Or does somebody really think it doesn’t matter? Well, alright, arguably not – unless you’re demonstrating your credentials to an employer or college.
Lucy, we will have to discuss Tesla (oneheckovagoodengineer no doubt) in this context sometime, but now, this thread, is not the time …
.
Blaming various storms on America’s CO2 is just Leftists spitting in the wind. It is such whacko prognostications that should make every scientist very skeptical of the good intentions of global warming alarmists.
Coming in under the radar is apparent proof using MODTRAN that above ~10% RH, there can be no CO2-AGW: http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/07/epic-warmist-fail-modtran-doubling-co2-will-do-nothing-to-increase-long-wave-radiation-from-sky/
The climate models manufacture imaginary CO2-AGW and amplification by assuming UP and DOWN emissivity at the surface =1, also that DOWN emissivity at TOA = 1.
This increases absorbed IR by a factor of 5, offset in the hind0-casting by exaggerated cloud albedo, hence evaporation and heating rate is artificially increased. This is a clever fraud; took me some tome to woek out how they hid it so well.
could you clarify what’s in the scatter plot. temp vs pdsi isn’t really informative. that is: time-scales? and pdsi over which area of the US? link to pdsi data would help
jrinchart says:
August 7, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Oh, he doesn’t? He certainly implies it:
“With the temperature amplified by global warming and ubiquitous surface heating from elevated greenhouse gas amounts, extreme drought condi- tions can develop.
The other extreme of the water cycle, unusually heavy rainfall and floods, is also amplified by global warming. ”
So if there had been a correlation then he gets to crow that he was right. Of course if there is too much rain he can claim that too.
At the least, GISS should be disassociated with NASA, sort of like Disney spun off Hollywood Pictures to make adult oriented films. NASA’s job should be specifically space exploration. GISS could perhaps be incorporated into NOAA, but it has no business being in NASA. GISS is giving the space agency a bad rep, all the worse because it has nothing to do with NASA’s core mission.
Reblogged this on Truth, Lies and In Between and commented:
James Hansen should have been fired from NASA a long time ago. He gives NASA a bad name.
NPR, as usual, continues to serve as a broadcasting advocacy platform for this type of shoddy “science.”
Feel free to protest on the story comment page ( http://www.npr.org/2012/08/06/158215252/are-recent-heat-waves-a-result-of-climate-change?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:4d988d44-a566-4b0b-8941-b5d2bda3b004 ) or to their Ombudsman’s website ( http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2012/08/07/155501949/open-forum ).
What unique function does GISS provide today? There’s a whole herd of climate models and there’s several temperature databases. It’s all duplication and with the current debt there is absolutely no logical reason to keep funding this disaster.
[SNIP: You know why. -REP]
Not sure I agree with Dr. Hoerling about perception ‘not being a science’; it’s a fascinating and often very surprising area of study. As applied to Hansen’s perception manipulation, on the other hand … rat awn!
Allan MacRae says:
August 8, 2012 at 12:17 am
Right on. You said it.
I never thought about that acronym – good catch!
There’s the old phrase that say that his money isn’t worth the paper it’s printed upon ; in this case I would say that his paper is not worth the paper it is printed upon.
Hansen is not trying to conflate weather with climte. Everyone knows that would be silly. But he does have a point which is something like, being in love with the idea of something means never having to say you’re sorry.
“I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” Anon
But this entire line of “scientific” thought is being bandied about by many! Another example where the drought conditions and the new “normal” in higher summer time temps )aka global warming) at accuweather are linked:
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/july-2012-marks-hottest-month/69385
Brett Anderson is qutoed : “We’ve had a lot of extremes globally and in the U.S. We can’t say definitely that climate change is causing it, but it’s definitely a suspect,” where he is somewhat reasonable, then blows it with this comment:
“But the planet is warming; that’s unmistakeable. The frequency of extreme heat and drought events is likely to increase.”
@ur momisugly Allan MacRae, August 8, 12:17 AM
Oh, man, that last line of yours REALLY cracked me up. I wonder if they’ll change it?
The Hansen paper is so bad, that it is a shame that it gets so much attention. The statistics are so ridiculous, And it is published in PNAS? Poor PNAS.
It is not even pal reviewed.
Fire Hansen before he does more damage to a once good brand.
Jean Meeus says:
August 8, 2012 at 3:28 am
If I remember well, in 1988 Hansen said that, due to global warming and the subsequent rising of the level of the oceans, the building were he was working (was it Washington D.C. or New York?) would be reached by the sea. Well, now, 24 years later, where is the water?
Not really OT. My very thanks to your life work, especially in astronomical algorithms. One of my favorite books ever.
Volker
Have briefly read some of the comments – and the reference of Hansen to Homer Simpson is one heck of an insult to Homer Simpson – and I feel a retraction is in order!! /sarc
Kev-inUK,
Here you go:
http://i43.tinypic.com/somq83.jpg