New paper from the “father of global warming” argues reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not enough to combat climate change.
From a EurekaAlert press release:
According to a new paper in Oxford Open Climate Change, published by Oxford University Press, the strategies humanity must pursue to reduce climate change will have to include more than reducing greenhouse gases. This comes from an analysis of climate data led by researcher James Hansen.
Scientists have known since the 1800s that infrared-absorbing (greenhouse) gases warm the Earth’s surface and that the abundance of greenhouse gases changes naturally as well as from human actions. Roger Revelle, who was one of the early scientists to study global warming, wrote in 1965 that industrialization meant that human beings were conducting a “vast geophysical experiment” by burning fossil fuels, which adds carbon dioxide (CO2) to the air. CO2 has now reached levels that have not existed for millions of years.
Climate sensitivity
A long-standing issue concerns how much global temperature will rise for a specified CO2 increase. A 1979 study released by the United States National Academy of Sciences concluded that doubling atmospheric CO2 with ice sheets fixed would likely cause global warming between 1.5 and 4.5° Celsius. This was a large range, and there was additional uncertainty about the delay in warming caused by Earth’s massive ocean. This new paper reevaluates climate sensitivity based on improved paleoclimate data, finding that climate is more sensitive than usually assumed. Their best estimate for doubled CO2 is global warming of 4.8°C, significantly larger than the 3°C best estimate of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Aerosols
The authors also conclude that much of the expected greenhouse gas warming in the past century has been offset by the cooling effect of human-made aerosols – fine airborne particles. Aerosols have declined in amount since 2010 as a result of reduced air pollution in China and global restrictions on aerosol emissions from ships. This aerosol reduction is good for human health, as particulate air pollution kills several million people per year and adversely affects the health of many more people. However, aerosol reduction is now beginning to unmask greenhouse gas warming that had been hidden by aerosol cooling. The authors have long termed the aerosol cooling a “Faustian bargain” because, as humanity eventually reduces air pollution, payment in the form of increased warming comes due.
Prediction
This new paper predicts that a post-2010 acceleration of global warming will soon be apparent above the level of natural climate variability. The 1970-2010 global warming rate of 0.18°C per decade is predicted to increase to at least 0.27°C per decade during the few decades after 2010. As a result, the 1.5°C global warming level will be passed this decade and the 2°C level will be passed within the following two decades.
Policy
In a final section, Hansen describes his perspective based on decades of experience in trying to affect government policies. First, he believes that achievement of rapid phasedown of CO2 emissions requires a rising domestic carbon fee with a border duty on products from nations without a carbon fee, as well as support of modern nuclear power to complement renewable energies. Second, he argues that the West, which is primarily responsible for climate change, must cooperate with developing nations to help them achieve energy paths consistent with a propitious climate for all. Third, even with these efforts, Hansen believes that global warming will reach levels with dangerous consequences; he argues we should also carry out research and development for temporary, purposeful, actions to address Earth’s now enormous energy imbalance.
A decade ago, Hansen noted that Earth was out of energy balance by 0.6 W/m2 (watts per square meter). There was that much more energy coming in (absorbed sunlight) than going out (heat radiation to space). That excess – which is the proximate cause of global warming – is equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, with most of that energy going into the ocean. Now, largely because of decreasing aerosols, the imbalance has doubled to about 1.2 W/m2. This huge imbalance is the proximate cause of accelerated global warming and increased melting of polar ice, which is likely to shut down overturning ocean circulations and cause large, rapidly rising, sea level later this century.
The paper argues that such action will be essential to avoid the greater geotransformation that will occur in the absence of such action. Potential actions include injection of stratospheric aerosols, for which volcanoes provide relevant but inadequate test cases, and spraying of salty ocean water by autonomous sail boats in regions susceptible to cloud seeding.
Hansen suggests that young people focus on an underlying problem that has developed in western democracies, especially the United States: “The ideal of one person/one vote has been replaced by one dollar/one vote,” Hansen argued. “Special financial interests – the fossil fuel industry, the chemical industry, the lumber industry, the food industry, for example – are allowed to buy politicians. It is no wonder that climate is running out of control, environmental toxicity is in the process of exterminating insects including pollinators, forests are mismanaged, and agriculture is designed for profit, not for nutrition and the public’s well-being.”
“We live on a planet with a climate characterized by delayed response, which is a recipe for intergenerational injustice,” Hansen continued. “Young people need to understand this situation and the actions needed to assure a bright future for themselves and their children.”
The paper, “Global warming in the pipeline,” will be available (at midnight on November 2nd) at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008.
Direct correspondence to:
James Hansen
Director, Program on Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions,
Earth Institute at Columbia University
475 Riverside Drive (Room 401-O)
New York, NY 10115
jeh1@columbia.edu
So Happer is wrong?
No, Hansen is wrong. He pretty much assumes that all climate and atmospheric effects are human caused. Very myopic but he does have a political goal, to destroy the world’s economy by pursuing stupid policies. His favorite movie is probably “The World is not Enough.”
James Hansen is an embarrassment, not only to the NAS, but to the whole of science. His numerous, oft-repeated statements, including those mentioned above, show that he does not understand the scientific/mathematical concept of an “asymptotic limit”.
Happer knows, and is right on!
I was wondering why all the leftists including the climatistas are so in with Hamas/Muslima and it dawned on me that they both want to take the world back to the 1400s
Gloomier-than-thou is where it’s at — media accolades-wise. The more horrendous the predictions, the more attention you get, the more projects get funded, the more the fan clubs experience that delicious of teetering on the razor’s edge of doomsday.
Correction: My finger slipped before I was done. It’s supposed to read, “that delicious shiver of teetering on the razor’s edge of doomsday. Life would be so dull if we weren’t on the brink of oblivion.”
I don’t think Hansen even knows that one cannot divide by zero, let alone asymptotic.
I don’t know exactly when science started being essentially taken over by politics and political agendas, but Hansen certainly made the problem much worse in June of 1988 with his now famous Congressional testimony that started this climate alarmist era. His influence in government made the CAGW theory more or less official state policy on both sides of the Atlantic (along with the U.N.), and never mind the scientific soundness of of it (or lack thereof).
I will hazard a guess and suggest the Left and their environmental allies are particularly enamored with the theory because it provides a basis (and excuse) not just to demonize the much-hated fossil fuel industry, but also for more power and control over the economy, its energy infrastructure and the population. It would be difficult to find anything that would work better.
The day that Hansen and his CO2-climate belief system get totally and widely discredited in government, in the MSM and in the scientific community will be a day to celebrate. I don’t know if I’ll see it in my remaining lifetime.
And wasn’t Hansen the first to start fiddling with the temperature records?
(Cooling the past and raising the present.)
Somebody did according to what some people are saying (Tony Heller for one). Hansen certainly had the incentive to do it. And Gavin could very well be continuing the “tradition.”
Is there a federal law against fiddling with govt data without justification? What is the penalty if found guilty of doing so?
Penalty??? Certainly you jest.
Hansen started fiddling with the temperature record right after it started cooling after the 1998, temperature highpoing.
After 1998, temperatures started cooling and that didn’t fit the human-caused climate change narrative, the climate alarmists thought the temperatures should continue to climb after 1998, since CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere, so Hansen starts downplaying the warmth of the past.
At some point, Hansen changed from saying 1934 was hotter than 1998, to saying 1998, was hotter than 1934.
Hansen refutes his own temperature record which shows 1934 to be 0.5C warmer than 1998. Climate alarmists can’t have high temperatures in the past, otherwise, they couldn’t scare people today about the temperatures.
So they have adjusted the temperatues down turning the temperature record into science fiction.
Btw, one of Hansen’s colleagues, in a Climategate email, said he agreed with Hansen that 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, according to his data.
So, at one point Hansen and his colleague say 1934 was hotter than 1998, then, later, Hansen turns around and says 1998 is hotter than 1934.
I wonder what Hansen’s colleague thought about Hansen’s aboutface.
Here’s Hansen’s U.S. temperature chart (Hansen 1999). You can see where Hansen gets that 1934 is 0.5C warmer than 1998 (and today), but now Hansen says that temperature record is not accurate.
He wrote a paper that was the (fraudulent) basis for in-filling of the temperature record with magically eliminated uncertainty. He’s the devil.
It started when government began funding “science”.
It started when government began funding “science”.
Eisenhower warned us.
Not atomic bombs again?
Worse than nuclear war!
“Today, background radiation (natural radioactivity) in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is significantly lower than background radiation (nuclear radiation) in most other parts of the world. It has no effect on the human body.”
https://visit-nagasaki.com/hiroshimas-recovery-following-the-bombing/
Things can only get better!
Tsutomu Yamaguchi happened to be in each when the bombs were dropped and survived both detonations. He died of stomach cancer in 2010 at 93 years of age.
Probably due to climate change. /sarc
Just before the Arctic went ice free (/sarc)
Actually a higher background radiation is good as it has been found that it tends to keep our immune systems more active and on alert. It would be a good thing.
No wonder the oceans are boiling!
Let me know when the shrimp are ready.
You men, the shrimps, will be pre-cooked? 😊
400,000 per day! Proves that we are invincible.
Positively glowing!
That is just the “imbalance”. As a whole, the sun is devastating our planet with 230 mio atomic bombs a day, of which the albedo shields like 70 mio atomic bombs, so that there is a net devastation by 160 mio atomic bombs. Only some uneducated peasents call this.. sunshine.
omg let’s hope he doesn’t zero in on the fact that each human, each day emits 2 lbs. of CO2 – 15 billion lbs. of CO2going into the atmosphere each day – the obvious solution is for all democrats and leftists around the world to vanish
“reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not enough”. Might as well not bother then.
Hansen’s paper is still not available this morning.
As for “not enough”- there is a movement now to pull CO2 out of the air by planting trees and never cutting any more trees- called “proforestation”. This theory was invented by Dr. William Moomaw et. al. They make the claim that even after we reach net zero- that won’t be enough- we need to lower atmospheric CO2 back to the pre-industrial age. Moomaw was an author in the IPCC a few decades ago- back when a large group of those authors actually got a Noble Prize for it. He makes a big deal claiming he’s got a Noble Prize, not mentioning that it was part of a very large group- the same bogus claim that Mickey Mouse Mann makes. With proforestation, there will be no more forestry- no more wood products. Moomaw lives here in western Wokeachusetts and I’ve tried discussing this with him but he refuses. He thinks he knows more about forestry than I do, despite my 50 years in the forests and he with his PhD in physical chemistry.
Cull people, not trees. /s
This sounds like a tag line for your as yet unpublished book in the vein of Fahrenheit 451, where Lumberjacks go out on emergency calls to reduce the population of cities the world over. May I suggest Carbon 250 as the title?
Not being considered is that there is 50 times the CO2 in the atmosphere IN THE OCEANS. It is the influx and efflux of CO2 by the oceans that controls CO2 more than anything else. During the 1940s CO2 was higher than now and then went down when the oceans started to cool until 1979.
Volcanoes BTW emit more CO2 than all humans and our activities, but it is ignored. Lots of bad science and incomplete science out there. Without all the players on the table, it is not possible to understand the factors and their influence.
In earlier centuries, there were millions, if not billions of grazing wild animals in huge mixed herds in the Great Plains and other parts the world. Methane was not a problem then, why now? Methane and CO2 have half-lives of about 5 years in the atmosphere (the junk science lies about this), so it turns over rapidly and their concentrations in the atmosphere MUST be maintained mostly by natural sources.
wonder when we will see mass protests against volcanoes spewing their vile CO2 into the atmosphere – don’t tell Greta
“ there is 50 times the CO2 in the “… oceans
My elementary understanding of the issues says that whatever is taken from the atmosphere will be quickly replaced from the oceans. The relevant lecture was titled something like “In a mixture of gases, each constituent gas has a partial pressure”
As a practical matter, one could start with the ocean water and take out all the sub-bits, capture the CO2 (’cause 50X more), and produce clean water. The atmosphere would give up CO2 to replace that taken from the ocean.
“The Climate”™ won’t care but at least some useful stuff would be generated, unlike when CO2 is taken from the atmosphere.
Not so.
Earth’s oceans, having a pH in the range of 8.0-8.3 depending on specific location, sequester almost all CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere in the form of carbonates and bicarbonates, most commonly as calcium carbonate found in (a) actively-growing corals and the shells and bones of marine invertebrates and vertebrates, and (b) as the ocean floor-sediments that are transformed over time into massive layers of limestone.
If Earth’s ocean waters were ever to approach a pH of neutral (pH = 7), then most of sequestered CO2 would indeed be recovered (i.e., the calcium carbonate would begin dissolving with attendant release of gaseous CO2), but fortunately for mankind, the oceans are highly buffered to remain on the basic side of pH.
The oceans are slow to warm and to cool.
The amount of heating or cooling in a mere decade is too small to measure.
What does Moomaw propose to do with trees that have died naturally?
Bury them in anoxic conditions.
He apparently doesn’t think that’ll happen. Actually, he argues that forests will continue to add carbon for centuries. But, forestry researchers have studied this a long time ago. It’s different for every type of forest. Initially, there is a fast growth of a young forest and fast sequestering of carbon. Then it slows down at some point. It may then stay more or less stable for quite a while but it some cases it decreases if the trees die off from disease or just plain old age, like us. Recent research has proven that many old trees and some not so old have defects including hollows and decay which release CO2 and methane. Even if all the forests in the world were locked up- there is only so much carbon that they can sequester. I don’t know off hand the number but it’s not that much. Of course those of us- foresters and loggers who actively manage forests know about these defects because they reduce the value of the tree.
Freeman Dyson, 1998 Interview
Dyson’s concern was an ozone hole developing over the Arctic, not global warming. I trust his number-crunching about forests as a CO2 sink.
No way. But certainly improvements in land mgt. should be done so the land can continue to be productive for our needs and to avoid degradation of the soil. But storing more carbon on the landscape can only go so far. To say “you can absorb all the carbon dioxide you want” is without any validity. Most of Europe and much of China were once forested. The total amount of carbon in North American forests is far less than it was 500 years ago. With excellent mgt. of all the land of this planet, we may slow somewhat the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it’s not going to lower it. What Bill Moomaw et. al. want is to stop all tree cutting as if that is going to make a HUUUGE difference. It won’t- and it’ll cause other problems, like no longer having any wood products. Without wood we’ll need to use much more cement, steel and other materials with a far higher carbon footprint. Or just not build anything.
There is a movement in the forestry world to use more wood in construction, not less. Especially for tall buildings. The methodology is well developed. Cut wood for those buildings, and smartly manage the forests so they can sequester more carbon- if that’s really a goal. Most forestry has been poorly done. I’m all for improved forestry. Tall buildings made with wood will store carbon for generations- often longer than trees might live.
I made a video about Moomaw and his idiotic proforestation fantasy. He won’t respond to my questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Sd6c1lzxI&t=87s
I’m going to make many more videos on forestry and soon I’ll start interviewing other forestry folks.
Dyson didn’t do any number crunching on forests as a carbon sink. He said in that video that the link between CO2 and vegetation is not well understood. Actually, forestry researchers have done a lot of research on this topic. With good forestry there will be more carbon in the forests- while harvesting wood we all love and need. Moomaw wants to end forests as a true renewable resource. He denies that he wants to end forestry but that really is the goal. That’s why here in Wokeachusetts, he and others are fighting to end all forestry on a million acres of state owned forest- quite a bit for a tiny state. If they succeed here, they’ll try the same everywhere- TO SAVE THE PLANET of course. Already, about 2/3 of the state forest land is more or less locked up- as a result of a “vision process” the state carried out a dozen years ago. That vision process set up 2 committees. There was a “technical steering committee”. I was on it and so was Moomaw. And there was a “stakeholders committee” with dozens of people representing—- all the stakeholders. That’s how I got to know Moomaw. A few years ago I saw a YouTube video of him giving a speach on forestry at Smith College in Northampton, MA. His discussion was just about 100% wrong. He understands almost nothing about forestry.
Excellent!
As I have posted elsewhere, both NOAA and NASA acknowledge that the Earth has “greened” by something like 10–20% (depending on source) over the last 35 or so years based on satellite observations. Meanwhile the atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued its more-or-less continuous exponential increase over this same period. The observed “greening” has been linked directly to the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 (aka plant food).
That’s the clearest data falsifying Freeman Dyson’s assertion as to “controlling atmospheric CO2 via forest management practices”.
BTW, most people do not understand that during times when the sun is not shining down on plants (predominantly nighttime, duh!), plants are net producers of CO2.
Dyson was a very smart cookie, but in this matter he simply blew it.
“. . . plants are net producers of CO2.”
Because most Eukaryotes lifeforms have mitochondria which undergo oxygen metabolism. If light isn’t present, then green plants do what animals do–metabolize sugars with oxygen.
Joseph Zorzin,
A late reply: a quick Google search answers a question I have always been curious about: how much land in the U.S. has been deforested since Europeans came here (say 1600’s). The stock answer was:
Would you comment on that figure – around 1/3 of all forests in the U.S. mainland? I actually thought the number was higher.
Would you consider it a feasible long term goal to “reforest” as many acres as possible in modern America by agressive forest management? (Say, by planting two trees for every one harvested, or reforestation after fire, beetle kill, or simply introducing trees wherever they will thrive?)
Is reforestation above and beyond commercial profitability something that should be undertaken by private enterprise or governement?
“Would you comment on that figure – around 1/3 of all forests in the U.S. mainland? I actually thought the number was higher.”
Virtually all of it has been logged multiple times. Much that was converted to farms – was later abandoned back to forest. There are small pockets of old growth. Most of those are protected in one way or another. So, what that was referring to was permanent clearing- not just logging. And, what was permanenlty cleared was the “best” land- with good soil and the land was accessible – unlike the large mountain areas with few people.
When originally forest land – having been converted to farms- is abandoned, it will very quickly revert to forest without any help from us. Most of the time but not so well in arid areas- like the southwest- where erosion is also far more likely. Erosion is also likely in the Pacific Northwest rain forests if the logging is not carefully done.
After a well managed timber harvest – it’s not usually necessary to replant- but, in Dixie, a vast area, forest mgt. usually does result in replanting because they want to control the species mix. Too often it’s monoculture- sometimes genetically engineered trees. Those trees are only grown for maybe 25-40 years before clearcut again. These are not wonderful forests- but better than cotton fields or urban sprawl. The American southeast is often called “the forest basket for the world”.
Getting government involved only makes forest mgt. unnecessarily complicated with excess paper work, over-site by unqualified people, and drives up the cost. Of course private forestry is often poorly done. What would improve private forestry is greatly improved education for foresters. I’ve ranted about this for years.
Unfortunately, forestry is often not the “highest and best use” based on our economic system. If the owner can find a use that is more profitable, they’ll do that instead of growing trees- such as farming, industry or urban sprawl. What doesn’t help is that not all the values forests produce are counted and some of the externalities of those other uses are also not counted. This is the topic of ecosystem values. People in and out of the forestry world can’t agree because it’s all about values- not science- the same sort of problem that arises in other realms, like the climate battle.
Even now- much of forestry could be much better. Much of the cutting is “high grading” where they cut the best and leave the rest- or clearcutting when it’s not justified by the requirements of long term mgt. It’s done because it’s the most profitable in the short term. To get good forestry it’s imperative to take the long view- the focus being on growing high value timber to a large size. All that high grading and unnecessary clearcutting isn’t real forestry. Proper forestry really wants to think about the long term economics and ecology.
As for “commercial profitability”- the meaning is too often obscured. Short term profitability is bad forestry. That is, if you rape the forest now- you’ll make more money now but less in the future. If you manage for the long term, you’ll make more- over the long term- but then economists will talk about consideration of interest rates, blah, blah, blah. So it gets complicated.
Though I’ve been a forester for half a century- I’m one of its biggest critics. I’ve been blasting forestry leadership most of my career and they’ve been beating me up because of it. Twice they tried taking away my forester’s license for criticizing their policies. Both times I fought back- and both times got the ACLU involved.
All of the land related policy debates are complicated- just like the climate debate. More about who stands to benefit and who will lose- and not so much about science. Forestry science is actually very advanced. Much is known. The level of practice is, most of the time, far less than the science.
I love to talk about forestry- unfortunately, there are few serious discussions possible. The forestry world doesn’t like to self-reflect and people outside of it have very little understanding of it. I should write a book but I’m too lazy. 🙂
“Getting government involved . . . .”
Those are magic words. When they tax for “best use” instead of “present use,” it usually ends in clear-cutting the trees.
They bother simply because they feel important and they can make everybody’s lives that much more difficult – and expensive. Last winter I – and many others – who have older houses with a fireplace went back to the good old days of a coal fire to cut back on the gas and electricity. This fact has been duly noted….
“Fires are the most polluting way to heat British homes this winter”https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/03/fires-are-the-most-polluting-way-to-heat-british-homes-this-winter
Guardian hacktivists and the so-called scientists they ‘use’ seem blissfully unaware that smoke etc goes up a chimney – asswuming the chimney isn’t blocke, of course. Why? there is an updraft because of the physical fact that hot gases are less dense than cold gases. Do they not know a wood burner has to have a working flue?
Obviously not.
PS 1st draught….
From that link: “The researchers also found particle pollution immediately outside homes that burned solid fuel, including outside a home with the most modern type of stove.”
Modern wood burning stoves are very effective in removing “particle pollution” from the flu.
Search for ‘ wood stove with catalytic combustor ‘
Where I live (Washington State), older stoves are no longer available. A few are still being used (grand-fathered), but being inefficient, they have been rapidly replaced.
“We live on a planet with a climate characterized by delayed response.”
And we know how much that annoys them.
Yes, always delayed ~30 years into the future.
He can’t have it both ways, if removing manmade SO2 causes significant warming then it lessens the warming assigned to contemporaneous CO2 emissions. It’ll be interesting if they retrofit the models to reflect that.
Oh yes he can. They’ve had it both ways for decades already. Every time it has been “worse than we though”, every time they “discovered xx leads to yy warming”, the explanation has been that it comes in addition and “natural warming” is adjusted to fit the new warming within the existing measurements. In this way CO2 still gives the same amount of warming as it did, methane the same, particulates cool the same, exotic gases warm/cool the same but “natural” processes cool more to accomodate SO2.
To be clear, I am with Mulders son here. Adding warming components should revise all the rest, but in Climate Science ™ things are different.
“global warming will soon be apparent above the level of natural climate variability”
What he is saying is that CURRENTLY IT IS NOT.
It is just a scientific fantasy, based on nothing but pseudo-science speculation.
Thanks Homer.. we know that already..
Indeed, if it’s currently NOT above the level of natural variability, what proof is there that it will, and why is anyone getting worried? The king of warmunists has just undermined all of his own arguments…
Bnice inadvertently missed an important part from the quote.
A Hansen prediction
Why would I bother with such a meaningless statement !
What acceleration of global warming ??
Only warming has come at El Ninos.
Up until this latest El Nino the planet was COOLING since the last one.
Totally natural.
Hansen is making anti-science cult-mantra nonsense statements as usual…
You know that.
seems they don’t know the meaning of acceleration
Among many, many things, that they don’t know the meaning of.
“will soon be apparent”. You just wait, it’ll happen. Yeah, just like all the previous dire predictions.
James Hansen sounds just like Linus Van Pelt waiting in the pumpkin patch for the Great Pumpkin to finally show up and bestow gifts upon him. Every Halloween he wastes the whole night waiting for something that never comes, then he loudly proclaims that next year, he will arrive, and everybody will see he was right! Every year we get the same thing from Hansen.
bnice2000 said, “Only warming has come at El Ninos.”
As shown in Figure 5-21 (below), from my free ebook Who Turned on the Heat?, that is true for the sea surface temperatures of much of the global oceans.
Regards,
Bob
Oops, the graph didn’t upload to WUWT. I’ll try to find or make a link.
Regards,
Bob
(Update) PS: Found an update of that graph from a 2019 post:
figure-1-3.png (648×637) (wordpress.com)
My original post is here:
Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming? | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations (wordpress.com)
The WUWT cross post is here:
Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming? • Watts Up With That?
Yep, Most of the UAH data shows absolutely nothing happening… zero trend
Just those El Ninos.
There is absolutely zero evidence of any human caused warming in the whole satellite record.
And now, James Hansen has, very kindly, come out and confirmed that fact.
Is the water over the road outside his old office yet?🤔
Thanks for the reminder of that absurd prediction by Hansen, Matthew.
Regards,
Bob
Yes it was just another baseless prediction just like all the rest.It just amazes me that people make these predictions over and over again that never come true but no one seems to take them to task for it. They all claim to be scientists but don’t use the scientific method on their observations or to form their conclusions.
And since 2010 in UAH, you get a very tiny deceleration even with the latest El Nino.
Hansen is talking through his nether regions… as usual.
“And since 2010 in UAH, you get a very tiny deceleration even with the latest El Nino.”
Complete nonsense.
1979 – 2010: 0.12°C / decade
2010 – Present: 0.26°C / decade.
Here’s a better representation, with the trend constrained to be continuous.
The trend effectively doubles after 2010.
However, I am not trying to suggest there has been accelerated warming since 2010. 14 years is too short a time to say if this is anything but natural variation in the trend caused by the natural fluctuations. It would be as bad to say that as to claim there had been a pause in warming based on 10 or so years.
Since 2010, there have been 2 strong El Ninos. (2015/16 and Current)
Glad you continue to use those El Ninos as your only support of your little claims.
It is almost as though YOU KNOW they are the only source of warming..
… and that CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it.
But if it were accelerating from 2010 the graph you have would have a curve in that segment of the graph. What you have shown is that there is a change at 2010 but it looks totally dodgy to me as you show the start of the 2010 to current period at a lower temperature than the end point of the 1975-2010.
For it to be accelerating you need to tweak your data some more
say 2005 -2010 rate +0.12°C
then 2010-2015 +0.14°C
then 2015-2020 +0.16°C
then 2020-2023 +0.20°C
I reccommend learning about acceleration, this video for example about time distance velocity and acceleration which can be applied to any measurements over time.
Whatever way you cut it, bnice2000’s statement that “… since 2010 in UAH, you get a very tiny deceleration even with the latest El Nino” is indeed ‘utter nonsense’.
WRONG as always.. try not to remain an ignorant twerp.
And since Hansen would have written this paper before the El Nino, perhaps we should look at the “acceleration since 2010 without that El Nino.. 🙂
“What you have shown is that there is a change at 2010…”
I haven’t shown anything of the sort. All I’ve shown is what it would like like if there were a change in the linear rate of warming at 2010, and that bnice is wrong to claim there has been a deceleration since then.
“but it looks totally dodgy to me as you show the start of the 2010 to current period at a lower temperature than the end point of the 1975-2010.”
Indeed. The discontinuity is a big reason for not looking at individual trends in isolation. You may remember this is my big beef with all the pauses.
That’s why it’s better to constrain the trend to be continuous, as I do in my second graph. Incidentally, if you try to do this with any of the recent pauses, you show a faster rate of acceleration. You just can’t ignore the warming that happens between the gaps.
Instead of using GAT (a metric devoid of physical reality) perhaps you could demonstrate your assertion that GW is accelerating with some actual temperature series from met stations around the World. Make sure they are not contaminated by UHI.
I used UAH because that was what the troll was talking about – “And since 2010 in UAH, you get a very tiny deceleration even with the latest El Nino.”.
And we are talking about global warming. It makes no odds how many places you can find with warming or cooling – it won’t give you the global picture.
Thanks for confirming my point.
““And since 2010 in UAH, you get a very tiny deceleration even with the latest El Nino.”
A statement that is provably true from the data.
Try not to live in DENIAL all you life.
Or is it just continued lack of basic mathematical comprehension??
We are talking at cross purposes here. You are talking about a claimed deceleration over the last few years (the pause I assume), I’m talking about the warming rate over the past 13 years.
It’s curious that you will accept it’s impossible to say at this point if the change over the last 13 years is anything other than natural variability, but at the same time claim the change over the last 7 is “provably true”.
Look at the poor bellchild back-peddling because he realises he has been monumentally WRONG
So Hilarious. !
El Ninos are a blessing for the AGW cult.
They actually provide the warming that CO2 DOESN’T !
Their little mind use those El Ninos to calculate warming trends…
.. without even realising they are doing so.
It is really quite hilarious to watch. 🙂
Says someone who keeps using the 2016 El Niño to claim a cooling trend over the last few years.
“They actually provide the warming that CO2 DOESN’T !”
I look forward to your paper explaining how El Niños cause global warming. In the mean time I’ll stick to the theories that don’t require abandoning the conservation of energy.
Yet El Ninos are ALL YOU HAVE to show warming.
You keep using them incessantly.
So you obviously accept that as FACT..
There is no warming apart from at El Nino events.
That is what the atmospheric data shows us.
Doesn’t matter one tiny bit if you are too dumb to see that fact.
Your ignorance and lack of comprehension is absolutely irrelevant to reality.
What Bellboy is showing is a cherry-picked changepoint using the two major El Ninos after that point to show a bigger trend..
It is sheer anti-science nonsense…
.. just like everything else it posts.
My, you are pathetic. You are the one who claimed that there had been a slower rate of warming since 2010, and now you think I’m cherry-picking by showing what the actual rate is since 2010.
Your lack of basic comprehension of what Hansen wrote is HILARIOUS…
… but totally understandable given your underLYING lack of any grasp of language and mathematics
Since 2010, UAH shows a very tiny deceleration… and since Hansen would have written the paper earlier this year, there would have been considerable deceleration
ONLY the El Nino transient has broken that deceleration.
That is the mathematic fact.
Your lack of basic comprehension is irrelevant to that fact.
“You may remember this is my big beef with all the pauses.”
You mean isolating the ZERO-WARMING periods BETWEEN El Nino events.
Your “big beef” [lol] is nothing by a little child’s tantrum. !
It is meaningless and irrelevant.
“You mean isolating the ZERO-WARMING periods BETWEEN El Nino events.”
Whilst claiming the warming that occurs between each pause just appears from nowhere – yes that’s what I mean.
“It is meaningless and irrelevant.”
[bnice mode] Glad you agree that pauses are meaningless and irrelevant.
You are talking gibberish again…
You now think El Ninos “just appear from nowhere”
Why choose to remain so incredibly ignorant !!
“You now think El Ninos “just appear from nowhere””
And bnice2000 once again demonstrates how to deliberately misunderstand a basic english sentence.
I said he was assuming the warming that occurred between each pause comes out of nowhere – not that El Niños appear out of nowhere.
Those pauses in BETWEEN El-Nino phases makes clear CO2 effect is too small to show up.
Bellman,
Upon what scientific basis do you assert a linear equation (aka least-squares linear curve fit) is appropriate for UAH temperature anomaly trending?
And why did you neglect to state the r^2 values (indicative of degree-of-fit) of those linear curves? . . . so low as to be embarrassing, I suspect just by looking at the relative degree of data scatter.
Maybe it’s because it’s the method UAH themselves use to calculate the trend in their monthly updates?
Anyway, you use linear trends all the time when you’re posting your out-of-date UAH Australia series to claim there’s ‘no trend’.
Did you forget that you do that or something?
Neither do UAH, yet I have never seen you challenge Dr Spencer on this.
Also, you never quote r^2 figures when you post the above-mentioned out-of-date UAH Australia data, so this request seems a little inconsistent.
Ummm . . . I make no such posts. Perhaps you have confused me with Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (for example, ref: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/05/the-new-pause-remains-at-8-years-10-months/ )
Ummm . . . not my job.
Ummm . . . you have obviously mistaken me for Dr. Roy Spencer. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Spencer makes monthly posts of global UAH-established temperature data (latest just today, ref: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/ ) so your repeated reference to UAH Australia data is quite off the mark.
Now, you were saying something about inconsistencies . . .
Best you stay out of rational scientific discussion FungalToenail.
Avoid making an absolutely fool of yourself.
“out-of-date UAH Australia data”
What the *** are you on about this time.
Another figment of your cluelessness ?
Homer said “since 2010”
So why not use what he said.
Stop being such a psycho-fanatic moron. !
You really hate that one of your cult gurus made such a monumental gaff, don’t you bellboy !
Basically admitting that currently it is impossible to tell any human warming from natural variability. !
This what I took from it. If any current warming exists, it can’t be attributed to CO2. Only the reduction in aerosols appears to be culprit. Funny that he has switched on the cause. It will be fun to see how this was worked out in the paper!
He’s used the aerosols and coal pollution argument before.
The last time I recall him doing it was when he claimed that all the extra NOx from China’s coal was fertilizing their biosphere to pull down more to CO2, which he needed to explain why they were getting the carbon sinks so wrong.
There is no hoop this guy won’t jump through to excuse the ongoing failure of his predictions. Maybe this last one has caused his hat to fall off, something I used to admire.
Why no edit function for old people?
It’s only for spelling, but it matters to me.
For old people there is a “check-out” function but editing old people is not allowed. If you insist on getting old, that is your problem, deal with it. 🙂
Well, on 11th November we commemorate ‘those who shall remain ever young’. But is too late for me to join their ranks now, fortunately.
“on 11th November”
Are you perhaps mixing up Memorial and Veterans days?
I can’t see how the reduction in aerosols would only manifest its atmospheric warming at El Nino events.
That is a real problem for the conjecture.
“You really hate that one of your cult gurus made such a monumental gaff, don’t you bellboy !”
Usual drivel. I don’t hold Hansen as a hero and there’s probably a lot of things you could accurately quote that I would disagree with. But what I hate is your continuous quoting things out of context in order to score some cheap point. The fact you double down on it rather than admit your original statement was wrong just shows that you prefer propaganda to an honest debate.
ROFLMAO.
You poor muppet.
Of course Homer is one of the gurus of the AGW scam that you keep supporting.
The only CORRECT and PROVABLE thing he said was…
… that currently it is impossible to tell any human warming from natural variability. !
The rest of the statement was all about “predictions” and such.. so irrelevant to reality.
Stop your pathetic whinging and whining…
You sound like a 5-year-old chucking a tanty !
You are the one trying, with hilarious effect, to support Homer’s new propaganda paper.
You are the one constantly being DISHONEST.
“Of course Homer is one of the gurus of the AGW scam that you keep supporting.”
The usual cry of someone in a cult. You just assume that everyone else thinks the same way as you. Science doesn’t care about who is making a claim, only about how correct it is. Hansen might be respected or not, but that’s irrelevant if his current claims are correct or not.
Personally I reserve judgment until there is more evidence, but I’m more inclined to agree with Mann than Hansen over this. And for the record, pointing out how you are lying about what is said is not the same as supporting the paper.
You poor petty little trollette.
Won’t even recognise Homer as your leader.
YOU are the one LYING , because your grasp of the English language is that of a 2-year-old.
Hansen says there is current no evidence of any acceleration above natural variability.
His “will soon” pronouncements are pure speculation based his cult mantra…
Why are you SO INCREDIBLY DUMB that you can’t see that. !
And agreeing with either Mann or Hansen, puts you at the totally dumb and idiotically anti-science level…
.. where you seem desperate to remain.
Sometimes, word play just isn’t enough.
Oh the horror! The irony is already waist deep and rising fast, however will we survive!
What is that based on? Wishful thinking?
What acceleration?
Hansen is using an old trick of asserting something in the hope we won’t check (in other words lying). Too late, we see through it.
They’ve been predicting this so called acceleration for about 50 years. It still hasn’t happened.
Warming is good.
The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation in a warmer by still cold interglacial period that alternates with very cold glacial periods. Twenty percent of the land is either permafrost or is covered by glaciers and it snows every year.
It is not as cold as a glacial period but still 4.6 million people die every year from cold-related causes, compared to 500,000 dying from heat-related causes.
Our bodies constrict our blood vessels when it is cold to conserve heat and that increases our blood pressure causing more heart attacks and strokes in the cooler months.
He’s pretending that attribution and detection studies measure something other than research bias.
The tiny human forcing is dwarfed by natural variability and is lost in the uncertainty bands which could be 10x greater than the effect they are trying to isolate.
We may never have the grid cell resolution to accurately measure all the variables influencing climate. Even if we did measurements would be a moving target because it is a chaotic system in continuous flux.
We don’t know is the correct scientific conclusion.
If “global warming” is still below the level of natural climate variability, then that means that all the so called scientists who have spent the last few decades proclaiming that they have detected a discernable CO2 signal, have been lying.
“a recipe for intergenerational injustice”
Yes, the ACTIONS of the climate scammers.. such as Net Zero idiocy, the destruction of the reliability of electricity supply etc etc..
.. that will certainly make life MUCH HARDER for the next generations.
James Hansen has turned into nothing more than a Carnival Barker. He has hooked AlGore, who I hear regularly on Bloomberg talking about the Hiroshima Bombs. Us Geologists think of Climate Cycles as being recorded by sea level variance (as long as there is a continental mass in a polar region). Sea level varies from 40 meters higher than current to 140 meters lower than current (plus or minus some bias due to the difficulty of including the effects of continental rebound, ocean basin filling, plates in motion, etc). Personally, as I sit here in my office with a view of fresh snow on the foothills, I’m all in for some warming.
Hansen is not a scientist, he’s an anarchist. He’s got nothing but false information and misplaced anger; presumably believes he’s ‘owed’ something, perhaps he feels he should have received far more adulation as the ‘climate superhero’ he obviously thinks he is. Laughable.
He has his grand daughter do much of his preaching for him- to appeal to the children.
Hansen’s granddaughter sues for life, liberty, and…. – John Englander – Sea Level Rise Expert
I see there – the 3 commenters appear to be climate cultists. I responded to one of the idiots. It didn’t show up yet- might have to be approved. Probably won’t be. 🙂
Hansen’s one reasonable position is that he is a nuclear energy proponent.
Under retreating glaciers they still find tree roots in situ. Somehow a tree could grow there during the Holocene before the advancing glacier killed it.
We know that during the Eemian interglacial Hippos and Lions could live what we today call London.
Lots of Viking artefacts being found under melting glaciers recently, as well.
Showing the MWP and before was certainly warmer than now.
Don’t worry, we should have a few years before the alien spaceships are uncovered.
Question for you Mr (Climate & Radiation Expert) Handstand…
By reference to the attached picture….
It is a composite of 2 images, taken at the one place at the one time = 05:00GMT on 8th September (an hour before sunrise) in rural Cambridgeshire England
(Stood in the middle of (quite a) main road – Who Dares Wins)
The upper part is looking south east (see the sun coming in the far left)
The lower part was taken simply by turning 180° on the same spot to look north west
In the top half you see growing a lush, verdant and very much alive crop of sugar beet
In the lower half is a stubble field that was growing beans until just a few days prior
Simple question:
Why is it misty/foggy over the stubble field and is it not misty/foggy over the sugar beet?
For Climate Experts the answer should be a piece of piss but because everybody else is is an ignorant serf who should do what they’re commanded to by likes of you – let’s hear it anyway………
Which way was the fog moving?
“Why is it misty/foggy over the stubble field and is it not misty/foggy over the sugar beet?”
I would say it’s an excellent example of radiation fog.
““Special financial interests “
Most particularly… the renewables industry and all the massive trough of money being scammed from society by subsidies, mandates for inefficient and erratic and all manner of utterly stupid climate agendas.
“was out of energy balance by 0.6 W/m2″
Utter BS.
This number is many times smaller than the range/errors in estimates of most atmospheric fluxes.
It is like the 1.5C nonsense.
Pulled out of the anti-science nether region of some climate scummers a***.
So much Climate “Science” is based on tiny differences between huge numbers with wide error bars.
Yep. Like claiming a 0.01 degree difference is significant when the thermometer is only accurate to ± .5 degrees. They don’t even understand (or admit) the significance of the distinction between resolution and accuracy.
BellEnd’s constant posting of his fatuous ocean heat content graph is a good example of that.
The idea that a few hundred probes, each rated to less than a tenth of degree in precision, can measure the temperature of the entire ocean, surface to depths, to a few thousandths of a degree, is an idea so stupid that only a climate scientist can say it without breaking into giggles.
When have I ever posted an ocean heat content graph? If you weren’t so obsessed with your juvenile name calling, you might be able to keep your insults roughly on target.
I actually thought that we had to reference your name 3 times in a thread before you showed up. Guess I was wrong.
“Guess I was wrong”
A reasonable assumption.
Does anyone actually know what the ‘level of natural climate variability’ is?
How is it decided? When was this ‘level’ calculated and what was it based on?
And when did we have this climate utopia for the last time?
Here is some climate variability:
Obviously, someone turned off the CO2-is-the-control-knob during those intervals between the periods of 0.15–0.16 °C/decade global warming.
How dare they!
/sarc
Meanwhile, above little-studied Australia, …
CO2 has taken a sickie.
Geoff S
All you need now is a hammer.
And a sickle.
Around here it seemed as if October was actually cooler overall than September was.
Big drop in the anomaly of over half a degree C is not unexpected.!
Around here, October is usually cooler than September, but I live in a different hemisphere.
Bellend, ToeFungalNail, and AnalJ will claim that Australia is too small to be important.
Yet it is they, that are too small, tiny and insignificant to be of any important, ..
… except in their own brain-washed, non-thinking little minds.
“Roger Revelle, who was one of the early scientists to study global warming, wrote in 1965 that industrialization meant that human beings were conducting a “vast geophysical experiment” by burning fossil fuels, which adds carbon dioxide (CO2) to the air. CO2 has now reached levels that have not existed for millions of years.”
What they neglect to mention is that after decades of study, Revelle changed his mind:
https://co2coalition.org/news/roger-revelle-the-backstory-of-the-father-of-atmospheric-co2-monitoring/
Humans have been running a much larger societal experiment for over a century, specifically on the viability of socialism.
So far the results have been awful, which is exactly what sound economic theorists like Mises and Hayek had predicted.
Unfortunately, today’s ascendant Left seems intent on continuing this experiment until society collapses.
They promise Utopia but give you Hell.
Somehow they always run out of other people’s money to pay for the free stuff they promise.
Socialism is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever invented.
“It’ll be different this time” and “Soviet Russia and Communist China weren’t really Communist”.
Another thing they don’t tell you, is that millions of years ago, when CO2 levels were well above what we are enjoying today, not only did nothing bad happen, but life was thriving.
“A decade ago, Hansen noted that Earth was out of energy balance by 0.6 W/m2 (watts per square meter). … Now, largely because of decreasing aerosols, the imbalance has doubled to about 1.2 W/m2. This huge imbalance is the proximate cause of accelerated global warming…”
OH NO!!! 600 milliwatts/m^2 has doubled to 1,200 milliwatts/m^2!!! What should we do about it?!?
NOTHING. Because we have NO ASSURANCE that an expensive and restrictive program in the West against emissions of CO2 will modify the climate outcome. China, India, Indonesia, etc. are the leading indicators here of a realistic plan, as coal-fired power plants proliferate.
And for that matter, we can watch from space on NOAA’s “CO2 Longwave IR” band and grasp that a rising concentration of CO2 cannot in any case cause heat energy to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect. There’s just way too much motion – overturning circulation – going on to ever expect that result.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
Is the 0.6 W increase sufficient toovercome the mass increase of CO2?
The TOA solar irradiance value is generally given as “about 1361 W/m^2, but the latest value referenced to solar minimum conditions is given as 1360.9±0.5 W/m^2
(Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance )
This same reference goes to great lengths in discussing how solar radiance varies annually as a result of Earth’s orbit around the Sun, due to variation with the ~11 year sunspot cycle, and due to other factors. Likewise, there is much discussion on the inaccuracies/uncertainties inherent in measuring TOA solar irradiance using space-based instruments and their needs for periodic calibrations. So even the above-stated ±0.5 W/m^2 uncertainty must be taken with a grain of salt.
Given the stated uncertainty of ±0.5 W/m^2 for “averaged” incoming solar power flux for solar minimum conditions, it is ridiculous for anyone to assert Earth’s “energy balance” can be calculated to yield an net imbalance of 0.6 W/m^2.
Facts (as well as uncertainties) matter.
Selection bias dramatically influences results.
“Challenges in the Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Trends Since 1850”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e
Exactly right. The real uncertainty for Hansen’s 0.6 W/m2 is likely on the order of ±5 W/m2.
I’m surprised nobody has gone through the numbers yet. To be clear, a 1W/m2 imbalance raises the equilibrium temperature by 0.3°C. And it will take a very long time to get there; imagine a 1W LED heating up a square meter of water that is 4 km deep and you will get the sense of it. Even accounting for uncertainties, the current imbalance is a very small number, and no cause for alarm whatsoever. Moreover, satellite data shows that changing the downwelling radiation, like greenhouse gases do, has no significant effect on the energy imbalance. In other words, we can’t change this, whatever this is.
Hanson should have been charged and imprisoned per the Hatch Act in the early 2000s when he was head of GISS and espousing his version of science to the UN and foreign governments.
St. Elizabeth’s would have been an excellent and appropriate alternative had it still been in operation.
Story tip:
Labour loses Oxford Council control. And how?
“More than 60 Labour MPs have now called for a ceasefire [in Gaza], including 15 frontbenchers. London mayor Sadiq Khan and Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham have also joined in, as have around 330 local councillors. More than 30 councillors have actually resigned from Labour over Starmer’s stance. This includes nine resignations in Oxford, meaning that Labour has lost control of the council – relinquishing the majority it has held there since 2010.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/11/03/why-a-party-for-muslims-is-a-terrible-idea/
It’s all up in the air.
This play has been repeating for decades. One Palestinian group or another attacks Israel. When the Israelis start to strike back, the leftists worldwide start screaming for a ceasefire.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The end result is that the palestinians escape punishment for the atrocities that they commit. The ceasefire serves as time for them to recoup and rearm.
‘This new paper reevaluates climate sensitivity based on improved paleoclimate data, finding that climate is more sensitive than usually assumed.’
Aka the usual Eureka Alert nonsense.
Actually, the best paleo data we have, e.g. Westerhold et al, when correctly analyzed clearly indicates that varying concentrations of CO2 over the past 65 my have had no impact at all.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/15/cooling-the-hothouse/
The moment you encounter terms like “Improved” you know it’s spin. From baked beanz to the climate crisis, propaganda has the same roolz
So, if it’s improved it’s better, nicer, easier, more climate friendly etc even more accurate. Never mind the proxy.
Unsubstantiated assertions are the bread & butter of the so-called mainstream media
Such as what? Longer growing seasons? More arable land? More rain? Warmer weather?
Hansen never heard of Larry Fink, Black Rock & ESG or Klaus Schwab, The Great Reset & the WEF.
‘Hansen never heard of….’
…the Federal government, UN, etc, etc.
Hansen is correct that there is a connection among politicians, votes and dollars but he has the relationships wrong!
Gadzooks! Are all the “globul warming” proponents totally insane? And folks are taking them seriously, when all indicators point to all their blathering being totally nuts. If anything has given the everyday people a reason to doubt anything these “scientists” have to say as being valid, the decades of dire predictions should have done it long ago. Yet, they flap their pieholes with repeated warnings of one sort or another, which never come to fruition, and we’re still taking them seriously. Really? Yikes! My faith in any science has been degraded to the level of the street prophet shouting the “end is nigh” from a street corner. Eight decades on the planet and counting leads me to distrust anyone who titles themselves as “scientist”. The science is dead. Let’s bury it.
So Hansen believes that 1 or 2 degrees of warming in Canada and Siberia would be devastating?
I imagine he would be particularly upset in those pesky Northmen started harvesting more trees to plant crops that could use the longer growing season to increase food production. The carbon of those trees could be stored in structures like houses, shops and barns where people could make more products to benefit themselves and others. This sounds really serious; a little warming might just make the whole, damn world a little more productive and pleasant. Think of the consequences!
Oh, the humanity!!
At least he acknowledges elsewhere that unreliables are not the panacea that the greens think being only viable in places with plentiful access to hydro power like Norway and New Zealand.
Search ‘Baby Lauren and the Kool Aid’
His position against unreliables and pro-nuclear still does not balance against his nutjob obsession with unreadable tiny fractions of temperature.
It’s worse than we thought. Send money.
The activist mantra, “Whilst we welcome these latest measures, they don’t go far enough. More needs to be done’.
The gravest concern for an activist is their cause will actually be solved and they will have nothing to do.
Point of order: a molecule of CO2 doesn’t absorb IR, it attenuates it and to retain stability instantaneously emits a photon of the same energy, same wavelength albeit often in a different direction of travel to that of the incident photon. Water vapour is the culprit because it dies absorb the IR – but we cannot dehydrate our economies, so CO2 is in the frame.
Just a few obvious rebuttals to the childish statements attributed to James Hansen/Oxford Open Climate Change in the above article:
“Scientists have known since the 1800s that infrared-absorbing (greenhouse) gases warm the Earth’s surface and that the abundance of greenhouse gases changes naturally as well as from human actions.”
Rebuttal: everything up to the word “naturally” is true; the claim following “naturally” has NOT been established scientifically in the context of humans actions making a statistically significant increase in greenhouse gas-induced warming. Reference Wijngaarden and Happer papers on asymptotic limits to LWIR-induced global warming. In particular, the recent 8+ year pause in global warming (UAH data) while atmospheric CO2 levels increased from about 400 ppm to 423 ppm (a 6% increase) falsifies the claim that atmospheric CO2 currently drives global temperature.
“Their best estimate for doubled CO2 is global warming of 4.8°C, significantly larger than the 3°C best estimate of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Rebuttal: my added bold emphasis in the above statement is all that is needed . . . please get back to us when scientific methodology, not clearly-flawed climate models for “estimating”, is able to provide reliable values for projected climate sensitivity to CO2. Also, when an organization other than the UN IPCC with its specific charter wording—you know, an organization with recognized scientific credentials—establishes ECS values, not estimates.
“This aerosol reduction is good for human health, as particulate air pollution kills several million people per year and adversely affects the health of many more people. However, aerosol reduction is now beginning to unmask greenhouse gas warming that had been hidden by aerosol cooling. The authors have long termed the aerosol cooling a ‘Faustian bargain’ because, as humanity eventually reduces air pollution, payment in the form of increased warming comes due.”
Rebuttal: Interesting that there is NO corresponding mention about the NOAA and NASA satellite-documented global greening (in the range of 10-20% depending on source) that has occurred over the last 35 or so years that is directly attributed to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. The authors mention air pollution killing “several million people per year” but around 9 million people die every year from hunger. The continuing global greening is naturally increasing global food production, which in turn is leading to reductions in deaths from hunger. Furthermore, it has been scientifically documented that excess deaths from cold exceed excess death from heat, globally, at a ratio of about 10:1. Therefore, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and increasing global warming are net beneficial to mankind, just the opposite of what the authors of the cited publication would have you believe.
I could go on and on, but need I?
He doesn’t mention that the Earth is in a 2.56 million-year ice age, in an interglacial period.
He doesn’t mention that 4.6 million people die from the cold every year compared to 500,000 dying from the heat. The cold makes our capillaries contract to conserve heat, that makes our blood pressure rise increasing strokes and heart attacks. ‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
He also doesn’t mention that a Grand Solar Minimum has just started that may significantly cool the planet.
The cost of stopping warming according to Blumberg’s green energy research team to stop warming by 2050 is $US200 trillion. That comes out to about $1 million per household or about a $35,000 extra payment per year for 27 years. Household in the US and other developed countries can’t afford that.
Plus the historical data is not consistent. The different historical datasets of Solar Irradiance and temperature reading at various places can be used to show anything from all natural caused warming to all human caused warming. It is currently unknown whether CO2 causes warming although we do know that the oceans absorb less and release more CO2 as they warm.
Climate
The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Datahttps://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179
Riding a dead horse again..
From the start the CO2 theory was about explaining ice age cycles, not predicting some future global warming. That is why climate sensitivity was pushed to align with paleoclimate data (or rather assessments back then), plus some fancy theories as to why CO2 was cyclical. Plass (1956) is a nice read on this. Once ice core data became available (70s onward), it looked like the theory was confirmed, because the correlation of CO2 and ice age cycles.
Today however we know this theory was nonsense. CO2 is following the temperature, not leading it. There is no instrinsic CO2 cycle, making it increase and decrease on its own. Most of all however, those calculations on climate sensitivity were all wrong.
Those earlier calculations have been replaced with something more transcendental, making the logical mistakes less obvious and concealing them behind “way too complex” considerations. Just incidentally climate sensitivity remained roughly the same..
Anyway, these ice age cycles are NOT caused by CO2 and we can all agree on that. But one could still argue they were enhanced by CO2, but that is loose end argument. If you can not define what forced those cycles and how much that forcing was, there is no way to tell how much CO2 feedback then occured.
It is like saying a + b = 10, where a is the unquantified forcing and b is the CO2 feedback. Unless you can tell a, you can assume ANY value for b. And that is what all climate scientists do when deriving climate sensitivity from paleoclimate. They pick any value for b and rightfully claim it was consistent with the data. True, because there is no b for which it will not work, as long as a is unknown. Some sorcerers, like Hansen, go one step further and claim they could even derive b from the above equation. That would be the art of cartomancy..
“CO2 is following the temperature, not leading it. There is no instrinsic CO2 cycle, making it increase and decrease on its own.”
Good point.
What has caused CO2 to increase and decrease in history?
CO2 amounts increase when temperatures get warmer, and decrease when temperatures cool. CO2 can’t be leading this parade.
“Climate Change” – the grift that keeps on grifting.
Thank you Anthony for your focus on the climate propaganda. Reading this Hansen story brings to mind my first exposure to these radical academic’s over 50yrs ago with Paul Ehrlich’s doom and gloom Population Bomb BS. With the current direction of our country at this point the climate change doom’ism is more than ever a political lever than a scientific fact IMO…
As a AG producer my issues are not weather/climate related but the political and economic realities
such as markets and thing like fertilizer, fuel , energy rates for pumps. Very sobering times.
Given your pen name and statement “As a AG producer my issues are . . .”, can we assume your comments come straight from the horse’s mouth? 🙂
According to Dr. Hansen, everything stinks. “The fossil fuel industry, chemical industry, the lumber industry, the food industry” — they ALL stink! And nothing we’re doing, or are likely to do is enough to avert disaster. Committing economic suicide, overwhelming future generations with debt, moving back to the Stone Age, hunting and gathering organic nuts & berries, eschewing fart-happy ruminants — none of that stuff is going to help much.
What’s left? Appease the climate gods by throwing virgins into bonfires? Except you’re not allowed to start bonfires anymore.
Maybe we oldsters who’ve had so much fun ruining everything, should just browbeat the young until they lose all hope. Eventually, they’ll go back to bed and never get up. Then the world will become paradise.
“This new paper predicts that a post-2010 acceleration of global warming will soon be apparent above the level of natural climate variability.”
They’d have to quantify natural variability before they can say anything is man-made.
Give the old guy a break, he’s way out on a limb with his “support modern nuclear” statement. He needed a little huff and puff about evil fossil fuels to get past the censors.
The “global warming is in the pipeline”. Riiiiiiight. Uh-huh. Sure it is.
The eggregious, mendacious Hansen is often credited with coining the “denier” tag for scientists who pointed out the obvious weaknesses of his hypotheses.
Deliberately chosen to suggest a parallel with “Holocaust Deniers”. And, in case the allusion was missed, he certainly was the guy who described coal trains as “death trains” and coal power stations as “death factories”. Professor Richard Lindzen, possibly the greatest genuine atmospheric scientist is of course, Jewish.
No wonder this disgraceful “activist”- scientist turns up again today.
. . . turns up as the rough equivalent of a cow pie, that is.
Yes, well, Hansen makes chicken little look like an optomist.
Simplistic TOA energy balance calculations that ignore internal dynamics are used by simpletons to support their myopic fixation on CO2.
Missing from his analysis is that most of modern warming was from fewer clouds that allowed more of the suns energy to heat the oceans to depth.
So what is the optimum temperature for planet earth? And when will we reach it? Or will we ever?
One somewhat older environmentalist once told me that the optimum climate was the one he remembered from his childhood.
Didn’t Hansen proclaim 99% certainty back in 1988?
Another decade or two to really prove the point, though. Always. A decade or two…
Hansen should publish a video of him driving up the West Side Highway in a 16-ft Lund (with an electric outboard of course). Then we could start to believe him.
Why is it the climate mongers always claim it’s the other side that is corrupted by money? Projection or smokescreen?
James Hansen is embarrassing. He needs to just go eway.
Fair comment.
So deal with that problem instead of concocting a problem, that isn’t a problem, to deal with the real problem.
The problem with these types is they are utterly incapable of dealing with a problem in case they offend someone by confronting them about the problem.
Need I say problems are real problems?
It would be a good idea for Hansen and the rest of the climate alarmists to look at the US Energy Information Administration’s latest forecasts regarding fossil fuel demand during the next three decades; then they’d get a more realistic and sobering picture of what’s likely to transpire and never mind the IEA’s wishful thinking. The EIA predicts that fossil fuel use won’t peak until 2050, not just 2030, and only because of lower coal demand, not natural gas or oil. Until then it may start to decline, but will still be 18% higher than it was in 2022 and will still provide 70% of global energy demand. As for renewables, the IEA is putting too much faith in them since that sector because they’re facing much higher installation costs than originally estimated, higher interest rates, and more public dissatisfaction with deployment expenses, and dependability issues.
Some paper to line the Parrot cage with.
In the70’s, Human activities were causing a New Ice age according to Misanthrope James Hansen.
Perhaps wide spread Sepuku would be a solution to him.
UK Met office data shows an increase in sunlight over the century, particularly post 1980, when the UK cleaned up its air a lot.
Thanks for finding these 2 charts. More focus needs to be put on the impact of the clean air acts. I can remember in the late 70’s / early 80’s the sun starting to feel hotter on my skin as can Mrs Mulder. So not only sunlight duration but also strength of sunlight reaching the surface needs more attention.
Is there any pattern in Tmax and Tmin that would indicate such a fingerprint eg Tmax rising faster than Tmin?
Wow, amazing! Another proxy based article.. How do they keep getting those through peer review?
The editor and reviewer must be asleep since more than 10 years..
Is it really possible that people do not know about the rejoinder by McShane and Wyner?
(it can be found here and ended a discussion involving Mann, Schmitt, Amman and others quite conclusively.. very well worth the read as well as their initial paper and the commetns it drew.
https://projecteuclid.org/journals/annals-of-applied-statistics/volume-5/issue-1/Rejoinder–A-statistical-analysis-of-multiple-temperature-proxies/10.1214/10-AOAS398REJ.full )
One of several key points McShane and Wyner made quite impressively, was that any data analysis MUST include uncertainties which might arise from the proxy selsection
“””
Consequently, the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data in-
creases model uncertainty in ways that are unmeasurable and uncorrectable.
“””
If it was common sense before McShane and Wyner, it is now an official publsihed answer to any proxy reconstruction article and any paper not addressing it isworthless, Hansen or not!