It's the Sun's Fault? Hansen says: No It Isn't

Mon, 2008-08-18 06:41Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

It's the Sun's Fault? Hansen says: No It Isn't

In another section of his recent “trip report ” (see “westling” post below), James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, answers in careful but fairly accessible detail, the question of whether the sun can reasonably be blamed for recent global warming.

His conclusion:

Thus if the sun remains “out”, i.e., stuck for a long period in the current solar minimum, it can offset only about 7 years of CO2 increase. The human-made greenhouse gas climate forcing is now relentlessly, monotonically, increasing at a rate that overwhelms variability of natural climate forcings. Unforced variability of global temperature is great, as shown in Figure 4, but the global temperature trend on decadal and longer time scales is now determined by the larger human-made climate forcing. Speculation that we may have entered a solar-driven long-term cooling trend must be dismissed as a pipe-dream.

Comments

Perhaps its time for Jimmy Hansen to simply admit that he is wrong about everything that he has ever said and that he really has no clue. Of course that's a lot to ask, but clearly this latest cooling trend followed by a decade without global warming in the face of relentless media hype is going to get raise the suspicions of people who have been waiting for the sky to fall, and give those of us who always believed that Global Warming was nothing more than natural cycles in the Earth's climate plenty of evidence to say I told you so.

Given the shifts of the Ocean's temperatures of late, which just happened to coincide with the decrease in solar output, it seems very plausible that something more than mere radiative forcings that are controling the temperatures on Earth.

Hansen is not a particulary good climate scientist, but he is an excellent propagandists and self promoter, who crack pot theories happened to further political agenda's which most people would not accept outside of a crisis. Global Warming served the purpose of that crisis, but the entire thing was entirely imaginary.

Now let's at last put this idiotic theory back into the dustbin of history and look at real ways that we can improve the human condition and our environment instead of focusing of a wornout hoax.

How many awards do you have HahaJohnnyB?

"...Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996[7] and he received a $250,000 Heinz Environment Award[8] for his research on global warming in 2001. He was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the Time 100 (2006) list and, in 2007, he was awarded the Dan David Prize. On April 5, 2008, Dr. Hansen received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his outstanding achievements in science..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Honors_and_awards

His publications speak for themselves, awards honors are likely far less important in comparrison.

Ah, but Hahajohnny doesn't read scientific publications.

For a schlockumentary Sci Fi flick.
And a Nobel prise to Propaganda.
Awards are for insiders to pat themselves on the back or to promote bad product.

Gary

bearing in mind the number of factual errors in Gore's film, I prefer the description of it as a crockumentary.

The bizarre award to Gore and the IPCC of the Nobel peace prize was 'old Europe’s' last meow for the progressives.

Counterproductively for the alarmists, that award became the catalyst that sparked an awakening in the general public that they were being had.

TimM

Good point!

Truth to tell, I find more mistakes in every one of your posts (and Gary's) than I do in An Inconvenient Truth. :-)

But of course, I do hold the people who believe in protecting the environment to a higher standard. You know, like having peer-reviewed science to support their claims.

Truth to tell, you both are way out in right field. The tide is turning. Science is winning.

So Hansen was paid $250,000 by Theresa Heinz-Kerry.

So you are saying Hansen's "research" is bought and paid for by the Democrats?

Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

Check out the Hansen Soros connection.

bought and paid for indeed.

"So let me get this straight.

Soros funds a foundation.

That foundation gives $720,000 total to watchdog organizations, including $100,000 to GAP.

GAP offers $10,000 to Hansen, which he declines.

GAP also offer legal representation to Hansen,
which he accepts to the tune of one written letter.
One frickin' legal letter.

And somehow, people are jumping in condemning Hansen,
Rather than the guys who claim this shows that Soros bought Hansen for $720,000."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10/2/115733/134

BTW here is a link to the text of Richard Littlemore/Monckton debate.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23673

Governments make billions a week on fossil fuels, and the companies that provide them make a dollar or two too, so the phrase “tobacco science” that is used to refer to an ineducable pretense of skepticism on AGW seems fair to me. The same financial incentive exists for it as for ineducability on nuclear energy matters. Tobacco revenue may once have been as dominant in the civil service economies of one or two states that farmed it as oil and gas revenue are in every western civil service today.

Someone like J.E. Hansen, maker of reasoned and correct warming predictions before the fact, is, like most other climate scientists, biting the hand that feeds, because it is the tax man’s hand. I think it was Sir David King who developed a technique of finding photos of politicians’ grandchildren on their desks and picking up said photos and saying, “Well, I hope you’re right about this”, reminding them that they care about things that will be around long after their career earnings have been spent.

Hansen says, “I have always been agnostic on nuclear power”, where “agnostic” means “ignorant”, except with a non-pejorative connotation because the stuff the speaker doesn’t know, supposedly no-one really knows; and in the state-funded, i.e. oil-and-gas-funded circles he moves in in his working hours, perhaps no-one does. But he’s a smart guy and willing to learn, as shown in the mentioned trip report.

Mentioned but for some reason not linked. It's here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080804_TripReport.pdf

I forgot to push the "enable link" function when I did the original post. It's there now.

Simply... explanation..

http://goldenmean.info/

On purpose of course to deflect critisism.
It's not about irradiance. In that aspect he's probably close to correct.
It's mostly about cosmic rays and low level cloudiness due to changes in solar magnetic forces.
Of course he does not want to focus attention on that so he blows a smokescreen.

Actually that paper was already proved to be wrong.
Svensmark went from high clouds, to low clouds, and then to "Dust formation".

Catch being his dust formation assumes that it has a bigger impact than sea salt spray.

And you need multiples of his dust formation molecules to form one big enough to create a rain droplet.

Oh yeah, and lots of acid rain right out in the middle of the ocean too.

And after all of that, Svensmark's trendline makes absolutely no sense.

_

A pretty classic example of someone trying to work the scientific method in reverse, to come up with "evidence" to support a premade conclusion.

Catch being Svensmark and the like keep getting their methods blown to pieces by open review. Like the house of cards it really is, it can't stand up if someone pokes it.

The paper was accused of being wrong by a group or warmists with reputaions to protect.
It was not PROVED to be anything.
There has been NO PROOF of anything on this subject no matter how much you try to claim it.

The research is continuing on this topic and the next report on progress is due this fall.

Untill then, you have an opinion and so do many others.

==There has been NO PROOF of anything on this subject no matter how much you try to claim it.==

I agree.
There has been no compelling trend data with cosmic rays.

So it'd more correct to say there's no evidence that cosmic rays have any meaningful radiative forcing to them.

"No Correlation" would probably be a better phrase.

But even at that, much better than the correlation with CO2.

Hansen does not have a good record on his model predictions. He declared a 1 degree increase in the global temperature 10 years in the future in his address to congress in 1988. To date the earths temperature has increased 0.6 degrees over the last century. He regurgitated that 1 degree mantra again this year. His models are crap.

Hansen has a deep belief in a tipping point that will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Unfortunately for him it is just that, a belief and not likely to ever happen as a result of us. No evidence for it. No mechanism to explain it. He and the rabid pro AGW climate modelers ignore any negative feedback mechanisms. They also ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The natural tendency of a system toward entropy.

"He declared a 1 degree increase in the global temperature 10 years in the future in his address to congress in 1988. To date the earths temperature has increased 0.6 degrees over the last century. He regurgitated that 1 degree mantra again this year. His models are crap."

Not according to his 1988 model.

You must be citing the trumped up bull put out by Patrick Michaels.
logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

______________

Hansen has a deep belief in a tipping point that will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Unfortunately for him it is just that, a belief and not likely to ever happen as a result of us. No evidence for it. No mechanism to explain it.

Are you familiar with methane hydrates, and permafrost?
Perhaps the temperature sensitivity of tropospheric water vapor?

______________

He and the rabid pro AGW climate modelers ignore any negative feedback mechanisms.
Care to back that one up?
Since thats just flat out wrong.
greyfalcon.net/forcing5.png

______________

They also ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The natural tendency of a system toward entropy.
And you ignore the first law of thermodynamics. Energy can't be destroyed.

As for negative feedbacks (i.e. Not forcings)

You are probably referring to Lindzen's Iris hypothesis, right?

In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature.

The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this."

_

And while I know Spencer/Christy have tried to revive this tired theory, you have to consider their track record.

Where they formerly insisted the troposphere was Cooling.
When it clearly isn't.

greyfalcon.net/christy
greyfalcon.net/christycorrection.pdf

seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/the_contrarian.php?page=2

"He declared a 1 degree increase in the global temperature 10 years in the future in his address to congress in 1988. To date the earths temperature has increased 0.6 degrees over the last century. He regurgitated that 1 degree mantra again this year. His models are crap."

Not according to his 1988 model.

You must be citing the trumped up bull put out by Patrick Michaels.
logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

WOW! I hate to tell you but that link is using some really old data and is wrong in it's own conclusions.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MEIvsTEMPS2002.jpg

According to the more accurate satelitte record global temps are nearly equivilant (slightly below) to the 1970 -2000 average.

Heh, well two can play at that game.
greyfalcon.net/rsstemps.png
greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
greyfalcon.net/enso

(Whats more, seems like we're gotten away from Solar activity as a primary forcing, eh?)

Those graphs are nice! Great job on the first two especially.

Although I don't see how either of the first two disprove any solar forcing?

It just points out the shortsightedness of the AGW crowd when it comes to solar factors. Long term trends, solar magnatism and ISR in combination with earth based factors.

==Although I don't see how either of the first two disprove any solar forcing? It just points out the shortsightedness of the AGW crowd when it comes to solar factors. Long term trends, solar magnatism and ISR in combination with earth based factors.==

Heh, well if it were still Free to look at, I'd suggest this paper, Berardelli ScienceNOW 12 March 2008
stacymalbon.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/13/1363714-not-much-warming-under-the-sun-

"Don't blame the sun for recent global warming. A new analysis, based on historical data rather than computer simulations, shows that our star's role in climate change has been vastly overtaken by other factors, particularly the human-induced buildup of greenhouse gases.
"

I had actually read that article a few months ago... good read but focused too heavily on ISR for my tastes. If I recall the conclusion was that the correlation of solar ISR to global average temps was a very weak one.... from memory so please excuse if that's not right.

I want to know where Mr. Berardelli's expetise lies?

http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/summary/278/5344/1710

Herpesvirus Linked to Multiple Sclerosis
Phil Berardelli

A new study has yielded evidence linking a strain of herpesvirus to multiple sclerosis (MS). More than 70% of patients in the study with the most common form of MS showed signs of active infection with herpesvirus-6.

Looks like Frank went over this specifically already.
Thanks Frank.
frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/ex-quolibet-quodlibet/#more-131

Jospeh d’Aleo of course being the sole owner of Icecap.us
sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_D'Aleo

Ok, I looked at your little graph. Your absolutely right. Joe only looked at the 1988 to 2008 time frame to make a mockery of Dr. Hansen. He is also the owner of icecap.us and makes no bones about it. He also used the UAH data and drew a trend line.

It doesn't change facts. All the data sets show that we are similar now to where we were in 1980. He did it to point out that Dr. Hansen forecasted a 1° per decade rise and it never happened. Climate did as it always does, it fluctuates.

PS - I have seen cherry picking of data on the AGW side in obsence ways, look at wikipedia. All graphs end in 1998 or 2002.

"Thus if the sun remains “out”, i.e., stuck for a long period in the current solar minimum, it can offset only about 7 years of CO2 increase. The human-made greenhouse gas climate forcing is now relentlessly, monotonically, increasing at a rate that overwhelms variability of natural climate forcings." - James Hansen

Great, then can we all just shut up and wait? Most solar researchers are projecting a LOW cycle 25.... and some are now projecting a LOW cycle 24. I'd love to just wait it out until we can PROVE the science. Without Dr. Hansen's "temperature adjustments", without the IPCC, without the awful, awful climate forecasts. Finish the work, then go to the public.

What about the feedback issues in the models? How come GIS temps are incomplete and "adjusted" to fit the whims of Dr. Hansen? What about solar factors besides ISR? What about ocean temps and heat content? What about long term weather cycles like PDO? Solve the questions and then we'll all be on-board. Until then, skeptics will be around. - PTP - BSc Meteorolgy BSc Physical Geography

"How come GIS temps are incomplete and `adjusted' to fit the whims of Dr. Hansen?"

So what's the latest Galileo-like climate skeptic theory again? It's not warming?

Or, it is warming, but it's caused by the sun?

Take your pick. But you can't pick both.

"So what's the latest Galileo-like climate skeptic theory again? It's not warming?

Or, it is warming, but it's caused by the sun?

Take your pick. But you can't pick both."

Absolutely we warmed until 1998, we were steady from 1998 - 2005, now we are cooling... and that too will change.

I think the sun is one factor, but there are lots of factors. The problem with the GIS temp database is that it is run by someone that is advocating a certain result in that database. It also has disagreement with the Hadley and UAH databases that are much more complete. You can't get a "global" temperature when you leave out most of Africa and Asia. Satellite based temp readings are the most accurate.

The people that are in charge of this debate have picked a side, and won't listen to reasonable scientific arguements anymore. I just want to wait until we can answer the questions before we REALLY screw something up.

"advocating a certain result in that database"

And what's the "result" that it is "advocating" which you object to? What exactly is your "theory" which the "result" disagrees with?

Or are you merely insinuating that something's wrong with GISTEMP, without even trying to explain what's wrong, and how it's wrong? No go, sorry.

(Oh wait, I forgot: you're a Democrat. You're a Democrat. You're a Democrat. Yeah.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

I'll tell you later why GIS is wrong, and cite the sources, and where it is failing, and why the UAH and Hadley temps are more acurate.... but I don't think you WANT to hear any of that. Your mind is set and you just want to blast down all opposition. That's fine, I hope you enjoy yourself.

This is exactly what I said about political bickering. Most have picked a side and dug in, nobody is willing to listen or ask questions anymore. It's really sad. Frank the Bi, you seem to think I have a theory. I do not. I have too many questions right now.

Hear, hear, everyone!
Patrick Powell is a Democrat!
Patrick Powell is a Democrat!
Patrick Powell is a Democrat!
Patrick Powell is a Democrat!
Patrick Powell is a Democrat!

http://tinyurl.com/574f5z

"I don't think you WANT to hear any of that."

Sorry, wrong guess. I'm always eager to hear actual good-faith arguments from intellectually honest individuals. But I'm not going to waste my time with `arguments' from obvious shillbots such as yourself who just invoke the boilerplate "I vote Democrat (but no Gore!) and I like renewables and I hug the environment (except when it comes to legislation)" template that I can regurgitate off the top of my head.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

Ok genious, you win. I won't waste my time with you. YOu want to fight me on politics not on anything worth while. Politician should be a temporary "sevice" to your country. I don't know what a shillbot is, but I'll leave this blog to you, so you can fight with someone else.

Your stellar arguement has won me over, I no longer doubt anything. AGW is absolute fact, and the cooling planet will soon figure that out and pass the tipping point.

Can I still heat my home with cut firewood all winter?

Trying to make a dignified exit, Powell?

Everyone look!
Patrick Powell is a Democrat!
Patrick Powell is a Democrat!
Patrick Powell is a Democrat!

http://tinyurl.com/574f5z

You know, I'd be willing to engage in discussion with you, if you hadn't thrown out that bullcrap "I voted Democrat blah blah blah" boilerplate copy. Good bye, good riddance, you won't be missed.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

It is not warming.
And
It WAS caused by the sun.

I'm asking about Powell's theory, not yours. (And besides, you're not a Democrat.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

Won't happen again.

really!

If you believe that I have carbon offsets to talk to you about.

Cheers

Hansen mention brings industry Trolls out in force!

Their paymaster says "jump" and they jump to it!

Trolls are just perveyors of lies.

"Hansen mention brings industry Trolls out in force!

Their paymaster says "jump" and they jump to it!

Trolls are just perveyors of lies."

Believe what you want. I am employed independently, and I'm a democrat. I wish we would all go to alternative energy. I want us to stop polluting and I truely believe that solar energy is eventually going to be the dominate energy on the planet. Solar roofing shingle technology is near, and I couldn't be happier.

I am also a scientist and I don't want to use global warming to trick people into doing what I believe is right. They should be two completely seperate issues. Global warming stinks of politics and policy malers on both sides that aren't trying to solve anything, they're trying to "out debate" each other.

"I am employed independently, and I'm a democrat. I wish we would all go to alternative energy."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

This line of yours is so hackneyed that it doesn't take a supercomputer to predict it: http://tinyurl.com/6jansx .

Oh yeah, and i remember there was a libertarian bloke on this blog who made it a point to waste energy, forgo recycling, and destroy habitats, and voted Republican every time except when Al Gore was the candidate.

Oh, and how does a "scientist" get "employed independently"? From the above, I'd guess that you receive contracts for scientific theories.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

http://tinyurl.com/574f5z

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

Frank

I like you, so I'm going to tell you the equivalent of someone telling you your fly is undone.

Have you noticed that every post you make has the signature which includes

'Fat Al gore is fat'

I assume from your extremist agw credentials that you don't mean to do this. Remember who had the etiquette to tell you. And remember who didn't tell you.

Best

TimM

the "Al Gore is Fat" reference comes from long-ago. You are new to this blog, so accept that there might be a history of which you are unaware.

Frank may be zealous, but if you characterize him as an extremist,you have missed his humourous and ironic posture.

Fern Mackenzie

Thank you for that deep insight.

Do you have a Peer Reviewed paper that show long term studies backing it up?

Pages

[x]

Two Colorado legislators announced they are introducing a ballot initiative aimed at punishing cities and towns that vote to ban fracking within their borders.

Rep. Frank McNulty of Highlands Ranch and Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling, both Republicans, announced they will attempt to get an initiative on the ballot to block local jurisdictions from getting severance tax revenues or...

read more