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
With a shotgun blast like that, maybe we need Dexter to look at the blood splatter…
I have an idea about what to do with Hansen. Let’s put him on an experimental spaceship to Mars, to see how a human being can survive over 18 months in space. Give NASA a good idea of the problems involved before they gear up to develop a manned mission to Mars. /sarc
The methodology of the paper of Hansen et al is not scientific for the associated models make no falsifiable claims.
Placed on the HuffPost 20 minutes ago…….
William McClenney
4 Fans
20 minutes ago (12:00 AM)
Goodness gracious! A blocking high in the northern hemisphere? Well, the Russians got one last year. But that too could have been due to a trace gas. It isn’t like we are once again, at yet another end extreme interglacial, or is it? Anyone know how long the Holocene will last? The scientists don’t, they are all over the place on whether or not the Holocene will “go long” like MIS-11 did. Or will it end like all the other eccentricity minima interglacials did, with from 1 to 3 strong thermal pulses right at its end? But those were decades to centuries long global warmings. Just because it has happened before, several times, is no reason to think it could possibly happen again before the next ice age takes a grip! I know this simply because James Hansen says so, often, whenever he is out on bail. For the life of me I just cannot fathom why this rather normal, half-precession cycle old interglacial will not continue in perpetuity. I mean who give a feces that 5 of the last 6 interglacials have each lasted about half a precession cycle anyway? That’s just feldercarb! We KNOW this time it’s different for the simple reason that it has happened only once before in the past million years! In fact, we have actually mixed enough anti-freeze (CO2) in ye old atmosphere since the Industrial Age to make sure we will not tip into a glacial, right? /sarc off
Theo Goodwin says: “I think Hansen should be known as The Rouge Scientist. Though his self image is probably closer to that of Col. Kurtz from Apocalypse Now/Heart of Darkness.”
Actually, it’s more like a Messiah image. “Messiah complex: a condition where an individual believes himself to be the saviour of a group, time period, or in an extreme case, the world.”
http://www.energytribune.com/live_images/ET021609_main.jpg
Hansen IS wrong, but a couple more years of ‘increases’ until they get the world to reduce CO2; then when temperatures decline they’ll claim they saved the entire world. I wonder if Dr Hansen is paid by Greenpeace?
[SNIP: This does not seem to be apropos to anything on this thread and the wish is not appropriate. You may even thank me in the morning. -REP]
Lightrain says:
August 8, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Well, that WAS about the size of it. Imagine if Waxman-Markey had passed within the envelope of both major ocean circulations going negative…… Grand recession/solar minima/end extreme eccentricity minima interglacial or not, we could be sitting around now, swilling non-carbonated champagne, patting each other on the back, celebrating the FACT that we had quelled the heathen devil promulgated sea level rising to the AR4 worst case scenario of 0.59 meters, only to watch it go +6M etc,. anyway, because that is just what it tends to do………..
Well I am thinking that Patrick Michaels analysis might be a bit simplistic and that his claim that Hansen has not checked his claims might be false.
A quick google turns up this page on just this topic.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/pdsi.html
A quick read says maybe Patrick is wrong.
Any of you rah, rah, rah guys actually read what Hansen says, before shooting your mouths off.?
LazyTeenager says:
August 8, 2012 at 11:34 pm
“Any of you rah, rah, rah guys actually read what Hansen says, before shooting your mouths off.?”
Oh my goodness! You don’t “Hansen-said” pontifically mean that an anthropogenic end extreme interglacial thermal anomaly, could, in yet some possible peer-reviewed sense, be anything remotely analogous to anomalous, do you?
Hansen needs to be taken away by men in nice clean white coats as soon as possible.
I’ve just watched a vid by him on U-tube where he states in a calm, quiet voice that “Hundreds of cities will be underwater by 2100” and that; “All of Antarctica could melt within a century” but the coup de grais was his claim that “Over the next few centuries, the oceans will boil away, like they did on Venus”.
Is this crackpot YOUR hero?
Hansen cites the 2010 “blistering” Russian heat wave as evidence of AGW.
But in both 2010 and 2011, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Sciences Division said (in peer-reviewed papers) that:
“Analysis of observations indicate that this heat wave was mainly due to internal atmospheric dynamical processes that produced and maintained a strong and long-lived blocking event, and that similar atmospheric patterns have occurred with prior heat waves in this region. We conclude that the intense 2010 Russian heat wave was mainly due to natural internal atmospheric variability.”
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2010/russianheatwave/grlpaper.html
The scatterplot from Dr. Michaels shows the US drought index vs. GISS global temperature. Wouldn’t it be more relevant to use the US temperature when comparing with US drought index?
Hansen was wrong when when he added a fudged factor, climate sensitivity to CO2 to climate models to make them increase temperatures to match measurements.
Once in a while, the Russian Army’s ‘Vertical Stroke’ is appropriate (failed soldier and 3 levels up demoted or dismissed). General application kills all initiative, but once in a while…
Hansen is embedded in an organization where the Peter Principle has had more than enough time to do its work. He’s almost a poster child for the theory.
H0 strikes again!
I think we need a new grassroots organization: the Knights of Null! It’s standard would be a statue/carving of Trenberth Impaled.
Ugh. Typo: Its standard …
Cliff Mass has an excellent response to Hansen’s hot air on his blog:
http://cliffmass.blogspot.ca/2012/08/climate-distortion.html
(It would make a great guest post)
Toto:
Cliff Mass’s critique of Hansen’s article is well targeted. However, I’m surprised at Mass’s belief “…that human-induced global warming is both observed, real, and a serious problem for mankind.” This belief will remain untestable and thus unscientific until the statistical population underlying the model by which one reaches this belief is identified. So far as I’ve been able to determine, the idea of a statistical population is foreign to the field of climatology. IPCC Working Group 1, for example, references no statistical population in reaching its conclusions. Climatologists just aren’t into making their conjectures testable.
SRJ–
I’ll go you one better. What we are really interested in is how much US drought behavior is explained by global warming. So, first let’s regress global temperature anomalies and US temperature anomalies. The r-squared is .33 (adjusted).
Then we can use the temperatures fit by the regression and compare them to the national PDSI. The explained variance is ZERO.
Now, let’s regress the residual from the global-US fit–i.e., the NON-global warming component of the US recordm, on the national PDSI values. While the r-squared is low–.045–because of the sample size, that is signficant, indicating that it is the NON-global warming component of the global GISS temperatures that is related to drought here, and NOT the global warming component.
I caution you that the regression statistics are very smarmy due to obvious intercorrelation in the temperature history, and that the residual degrees of freedom are surely less than n-1-1.
Re SanityP says: August 8, 2012 at 3:58 am “We choose 1951–1980 as the base period for most of our illustrations, for several reasons. First, it was a time of relatively stable global temperature,..”
Whaaaaat?!
In the 1970s alarmists were crying wolf about global cooling, with magazines like Time worrying about the effect of colder temperatures on agricultural. Hardly stable in the minds of the alarmists of the day, some of who are today’s alarmists. Indeed, 1951-80 is most of the cooling period from the high of the 1930s-40s.
The claim is naked rationalization or worse.
BTW, didn’t the Russians conclude that the 2010 heat wave in _western_ Russia was just weather, nothing to do with global warming?f
Sorry, I did not make it clear that SanityP was quoting Hansen.
As far as mandatory retirement, likely there is none for Hansen, has not been for many years in the US. There’s a lady at Boeing who is far past 65 and intends to work until she drops.
There are jobs considered physically demanding that people leave, surgeons doing fine work stop early as fine motor skills deteriorate, but even airline pilot retirement age has been raised. It depends on individual health, and of course desire to work. Some people have diabetes or heart conditions, others are in there 90s and alert though perhaps somewhat fragile. People are living longer today.
Canada is now moving signficantly to removing barriers to retirement.