James Hansen: We Have a Little More Time After All (Whew!)
By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Contrary to the impression favored by governments, the corner has not been turned toward declining emissions and GHG amounts…. Negative CO2 emissions, i. e., extraction of CO2 from the air, is now required.”
– James Hansen, “Young People’s Burden.” October 4, 2016.
“The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts.”
– James Hansen, “We Hold Truths to be Self-Evident“ December 2, 2016.
What a difference a few months make!
Just in time for holiday season, and for the Trump Administration, the father of the climate alarm, formerly a climate scientist with NASA/GISS, and now a full-time scientist/activist, has ameliorated his grand climate alarm. The 10-year ultimatum announced in 2006, made more dire in 2009 and since, is now moderated.
This October, we were told that the net emissions of of man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must go negative. Now, “we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts.”
A climate scientist might want to see Dr. Hansen’s math and model simulation to understand the revision in the last sixty days.
Maybe the climate can survive Donald Trump after all!
Here is the history:
Old View (July 2006):
“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” he wrote in his July 2006 review of Al Gore’s book/movie, An Inconvenient Truth. “We have reached a critical tipping point,” he assured readers, adding “it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.”
Revised View–Worse Than Thought (2009)
Several years later, with the publication of his 2009 manifesto Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save the Planet, he shared “some bad news” (p. 139) with readers:
The dangerous threshold of greenhouse gases is actually lower than what we told you a few years ago. Sorry about that mistake. It does not always work that way. Sometimes our estimates are off in the other direction, and the problem is not as bad as we thought. Not this time.
“The climate system is on the verge of tipping points,” Hansen stated (p. 171). “If the world does not make a dramatic shift in energy policies over the next few years, we may well pass the point of no return.”
Also in 2009, he told the press:
We cannot afford to put off [climate policy] change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.
Revised View–Need to Go Emissions Negative (October 2016)
“Contrary to the impression favored by governments, the corner has not been turned toward declining emissions and GHG amounts. The world is not effectively addressing the climate matter, nor does it have any plans to do so, regardless of how much government bureaucrats clap each other on the back.…. Negative CO2 emissions, i.e., extraction of CO2 from the air, is now required.”
New View (December 2016):
“Stopping human-made climate change is inherently difficult, because of the nature of the climate system: it is massive, so it responds only slowly to forcings; and, unfortunately, the feedbacks in the climate system are predominately amplifying on time scales of decades-centuries.
The upshot is that there is already much more climate change “in the pipeline” without any further increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs). That does not mean the problem is unsolvable, but it does mean that we will need to decrease the amount of GHGs in the relatively near future.
The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts. However, despite uncertainties about some climate processes, we know enough to say that the time scale on which we must begin to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is measured in decades, not centuries. Given the fact that the fastest time scale to replace energy systems is decades, that means that we must get the political processes moving now. And that won’t happen until the public has understanding of what is actually needed and demands it.
Previous posts on the climate science and climate policy views of James Hansen can be found here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
unfortunately, the feedbacks in the climate system are predominately amplifying on time scales of decades-centuries.
Unfortunately?
“Unfortunately?”
I was wondering about that, too.
I guess he means it is unfortunate for him in his effort to prove his case, because it will take a long time before it becomes apparent that CAGW is true.
That also helps with his claims being disproved because it will supposedly take so long to show up because of the timescales involved. I can hear him now: “Just be patient, it’s coming. You’ll see that CAGW one of these days.”
He is trying to cover all his bases.
This is the problem. Temperatures increased from 56.3°F in 1910 to 57.4°F in 1945. CO2 increased from 300 to 310, for an increase in W/M^2 of 0.157W/M^2. In other words, trapping 0.157W/M^2 resulted in an increase of 1.1°F. Temperatures then increased an equal amount between 1977 and 2005. CO2 increased from 330 to 380. This resulted in an increase in W/M^2 of 0.66. 0.66 is 4.2x the energy of 0.157. How does “trapping” 4.22x more energy result in an equal increase in temperature? Clearly, there is a problem pointing a finger at CO2.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images09/CO2Temp.jpg
I have two questions about this graph set: 1) What global temperature dataset was used, and what version of it was used? (Or when was that version current?)
2) What is the justification for stopping at 2006? I suspect the reason is that the hiatus started in 2001-2005 depending on which one of reasonably honest analysis methods and 1997-1998 according to what I consider as less-honest ones abusing the greatest El Nino after 1878 (according to most sources including https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/17/is-the-current-el-nino-stronger-than-the-one-in-199798/), and the hiatus gradually got too great to ignore around 2009-2014.
“This is the problem. Temperatures increased from 56.3°F in 1910 to 57.4°F in 1945. CO2 increased from 300 to 310, for an increase in W/M^2 of 0.157W/M^2. In other words, trapping 0.157W/M^2 resulted in an increase of 1.1°F”
Nope.
That’s not a problem.
The +ve forcing of GHG’s did not counter the -ve forcing of aerosols until the 1970’s ….
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/Fe_H11.gif
Global dimming ….
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
And natural variation drove GSMT’s…..
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Fkg790Q3b8o/VMRGN17t2oI/AAAAAAAAHwo/GTCVnmku248/s1600/GISTempPDO.gif
So, as ever there are natural climate cycles, that are ocean driven, and, as ever, some here think you can extrapolate with one or the other but not both.
Both act together.
Which is why CO2 forcing is never NOT going to involve slow downs/speed-ups.
It’s actually quite simple if you just apply common sense, science really isn’t needed.
GSMT’s couldn’t accelerate away until CO2 became the dominant forcing, which it did by the 1980’s.
1) Temperatures didn’t accelerate post-1980, the slope is the same as between 1910 and 1945
2) CO2 only increased from 340 (290.042W/m2) to 400(289.288W/m2). Less than 1W/M^2.
3) Water vapor has increased over that time
4) Cleaner air/less particulate matter has allowed more radiation to reach the earth surface and most importantly oceans.
Bottom line, cleaner air, moister air and El Ninos/Ninas can explain the temperatures far greater than CO2. Temperatures simply don’t match CO2. They follow ocean temperatures which are due to visible radiation, not IR between 13 to 18µ
Aerosols were so accurately measured prior to the 1980s and provide a definitive argument for unexplained temp variations in the past. Lol. Pretty graph though.
One thing we do measure well is humidity. Guess what? Since 1974 it has increased from 10 to 10.75, a 7.5% increase in the most significant GHG. Plug that into MODTRAN and you get a change in absorption of 289.288 W/m2 to 287.718 W/m2 for a Δ of 1.57W/M^2. That is the equivalent of changing CO2 from 400 to 560. Bottom line, cleaner air, greater radiation reaching the oceans, warming oceans, more humidity can easily explain the warming. You don’t need CO2, all you need is the Clean Air Act.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Dang. James Hansen used to hang out with Daryl Hannah. Now, look at ‘im.
Things change. Even people.
Who is that skank? Did it used to be somebody?
2hotelnotell,
A mermaid once, me thinks.
Wow, having friends in the MSM, and suddenly loosing them, certainly effects the landscape.
The selkie has turned into a seal!
I guess Tom Steyer and George Soros can sick their climate Gestapo on Hansen like they did to Roger Pielke, Jr. They got to much money riding on the hustle to let Hansen keep saying that.
On the other hand, I’m not surprised. Jim Hansen can read a calendar and thus realize there will be a Republican President in the WH until at least Jan 20, 2021. So the point of no-return must politically be extended beyond that date to keep the perpetual hustle running.
Old wine but sweet to the taste
OLD DEATH TRAIN HANSEN
Always Good For A Laugh
More holy than thou
He warns you of Venus
The only thing now
That hardens his penis
He rants at the crowds
A coot with the hypers
His mind in the clouds
A load in his diapers.
He quotes from the Greens —
We work for the many
(But really that means
They’re after the money)
He quotes from the Reds —
Consensus is dictum
(Good socialist heads
Are all up one rectum)
A Fascist he cries
This Goebbels of weather —
The truth is in lies
The bigger the better
So just like a skunk
His sight is alarming
His science is junk
There’s no global warming
Eugene WR Gallun
*applause*
An oldie but goodie for sure.
Rather than dialing it back, James Hansen should simply turn it off. That would be the scientific (and sensible) thing to do.
“…we must get the political processes moving now.”
Hansen is still demanding an immediate political solution. That’s not a big change from what he’s demanded in the past. However, I think he’s come to realize that telling people “we’ve waited too long and now it’s too late to save the planet” tends to make them give up. If it’s already too late to stop climate change, why even try? Climate change is just the means to an end for Hansen. So now he’s saying, it’s not too late after all. We just have to get started immediately. Of course, if we continue to ignore him, he’ll repeat the same message next year, and the year after that, and the year after that…
The reality is that there in no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is not such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase and that is because warmer oceans cannot hold as much CO2 as colder oceans. There is no real evidence that the increase in CO2 ever added to the warming. After more than two decades of effort the IPCC has made no progress toward determing what the climate sensivity of CO2 really is. They have been unable to measure it. Others have come up with scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really some small number cllose to zero if not zero but the IPCC has intentionally ignored this rational for fear of losing their funding. If CO2 really affected climate one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The heat capacity of the atomosphere and gravity cause the surface of the Earth to be 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. This convective greenhouse effect, as derived from first principals is responsible for all 33 degrees C that has been observed and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected anywhere in the solar system including Earth and Venus. Without the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect the AGW conjecture is nothing but unsupported science fiction.
The primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere it H2O, not CO2. Removing all the CO2 that has been generated by Man’s burning of fossil fuel would have little effect upon the total amount of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Molecuel per molecuel, H2O is a much stronger absorber of IR than CO2 but all good IR absorbers are also good IR radiators so it is very doubtful weather the so called greenhouse gases provide any insulation what so ever. There are no engineering applications where CO2 has been used as an insulator. We must also take note that the primary means of heat energy transport in the troposphere is by conduction, convection, and H2O phase change. Heat energy via LWIR absorption band radiation is insignificant and has no effect upon the lapse rate.
Dr Hansen needs to realize that his predictions haave been wrong because his models have been wrong.
Will,
Hansen abandoned his veil of science methodology when he retired from NASA to become a full-time climate change advocate.
Retired Hansen no longer needs to be a scientist. That is someone carefully weighing projections against huge uncertainties. For Activist Hansn, it’s full-on projection, damn any uncertainty.
Does he mean the thermostat of the Congressional hearing room or the earth?
Elections have consequences. (causation)
To coin a phrase, ‘show me the money.’ I can adapt for the money!
I think maybe he sees trouble ahead in cooling and wants to start message modification early.
Does this mean J.Mann and J. Han are going to accept emails from citizens who actually witness “climate” change? Oh! Of course not! Only the chosen of god are allowed to have opinions.
Climate change can be controlled as easy as controlling a home a/c system you just need to know where the controls are located. And be able to pay the price requested.
So after 20 years of “we MUST act before [pre-2017] or it will be TOO LATE!”, we’ll now get “we MUST act before [next date for moving the goalposts] or it will be TOO LATE!”.
That about it?
I think Hansen is just trying to extend the time before he is held accountable. He is moving the goal posts farther into the future. It’s not quite a “never mind”, it’s more like an “I changed my mind”.
The Christmas gifts are just pouring in!
Greed Party, I mean Green Party, shill, I mean Jill, has just cancelled recounting in PA because a judge asked her to simply post a 1$ million bond. I don’t understand why she wouldn’t comply, seeing how she raised many times the amount necessary to recount the states she targeted. I mean, she now has around $7 million in the bank, so what’s the problem?
Her goal was $2.5 million, then $4.5 million, then $7.5 million, and it’s now been raised to $9.5 million. Meanwhile, Hillary is begging for unpaid VOLUNTEERS to recount! I get the feeling there is going to be a lot of money left over in a few days. Time for a three week “party business conference” in Aruba, right?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jill-steins-recount-fundraising-what-happens-to-leftover-money/
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/12/mrz120416_color.jpg
The Christmas gifts are just pouring in!
The Greed Party has just cancelled recounting in PA because a judge asked her to simply post a 1$ million bond. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t comply, seeing how Jill raised many times the amount necessary to recount the states she targeted. I mean, she now has around $7 million in the bank, so what’s the problem?
Her goal was $2.5 million, then $4.5 million, then $7.5 million, and it’s now been raised to $9.5 million. Meanwhile, Hillary is begging for unpaid VOLUNTEERS to recount! I get the feeling there is going to be a lot of money left over in a few days.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jill-steins-recount-fundraising-what-happens-to-leftover-money/
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/12/mrz120416_color.jpg
Using land only data to proof the globe has gone back to normal is not correct.
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/rss-land/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010
As you can see all over the timescale, the land temp is just more “nervous”, jumping up and down more than global with its lage weight of oceans with more heat storage capacity.
The differrence between max el Nino and now is 1.3°C for land only compared to global 0.6°C.
Some have claimed, that the ocean heat capacity is delaying the temperature drop, Therefore land only graphs show the cooling a bit earlier. But in the grap you see no lag. Just the amplitude is higher.
BTW, both curves went up a bit again…
Chicken Little Hansen, people are getting tired of it. You need to sing a different tune
Back in my father’s days, schmucks like Hansen would have been locked in an asylum where they were protected from themselves.
‘Asylum’ is just another word for ‘safe space’.
Put them all in an asylum, that’s what they want anyway.
“especially over land”
By far the most important three words. Steven Mosher, are you listening?
Meanwhile in other news …. I see Ivanka Trump is ready to fight against climate change.
Gonna be interesting dinner table chats.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-daughter-ivanka-eyes-climate-change-global-warming-father-a7451441.html
…LOL, an unnamed source claims she MAY have said something ?? ROTFLMAO !
That Russian mind control team can get to anyone!
What if though? It would explain DT softening his stance (which he did recently). Wouldn’t it just be intriguing?
“What if though? It would explain DT softening his stance (which he did recently). Wouldn’t it just be intriguing?”
Softening his stance? Have you been reading the New York Times, Simon?
I suggest we just wait and see what Trump acutally does instead of speculating on what he will do on this issue. It shouldn’t be long before we know one way or another. And if you read the transcript of the New York Times interview, you wouldn’t think Trump had softened on anything to do with climate change. Or at least, I didn’t.
Hey, if your crazy predictions reach their sell-by date you can either refine your ideas to match the world and it’s data or you can back the truck up and tow the goal posts ten more years down the road.
Jimmy obviously prefers his carbon belching truck to, you know, science and thinking and stuff.
Basically the “deniers” were 100% correct, aka Tony Heller, Steven Goddard, John Coleman and Co from the very start. Even the “lukewarmers” aka blackboard Julie are now backing off LOL
Folks,
Very entertaining/instructive/provocative info. THANKS.
Questions…
Does the ocean emit long wave IR, or just land?
Or, what frequencies of IR (if any) are emitted by the ocean that can be absorbed/re-emitted by CO2?
Or, what is the general pathway for shortwave insolation-caused ocean-warming to result in long wave radiation to space.
Thanks for whatever answers are given.
Anything not at absolute ZERO emits LWIR, even ice.
Hope this helps.
Sunlight aka short wave insolation dives into the water and heats also the lower layers, but longwave IR ist only radiated from the surface.
The higher the temperature, the higher the IR emissions.
IR backradiation from the sky can only heat the top layer of the ocean.
Regarding the thick black curve in figure 1: It looks like it was smoothed by a time period much shorter than 5 years, maybe around 1-2 years. Also, what is the justification of having the observation period ending 5 years ago in comparison to a 1988 forecast? Above the graph is a heading, “Models versus observations 1958 – 2011”.
Another thing, the observed temperature dataset is not noted, let alone its version. I tried my hand at using Woodfortrees to duplicate this, and I got a close approximation by smoothing HadCRUT3 twice by averaging periods close to a year and using begin and end times, as such: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:12/from:1957.5/to:2012.2/mean:11
Any comments please, such as what global dataset and what version thereof (or what time the version used was current) was used, and the specific smoothing algorhythm?
At this point, I don’t think it was necessary to stop at 2011, because global temperature continued its shortfall from the model forecasts until the spike from the recent El Nino.