Wednesday
Jan282009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Wheels fall off bandwagon
Jan 28, 2009 Climate There's a very important article up at Watts up with that?
Global warming uberhyper James Hansen has had the ground taken from under his feet. The NASA man's former supervisor, John S. Theon, has announced that Hansen's fearmongering claims were scientifically unsupportable, and that contrary to his accusations there was no muzzling of Hansen by NASA.
Theon goes on to state that climate models are 'useless' and says that he's a sceptic and has added his name to the list of those opposing the global warming hype.
Update on Jan 28, 2009 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
The Register's report on the story points out that Hansen has called for the jailing of climate change dissenters.
Reader Comments (22)
Why is a statement from some guy who retired in 94 of more note than the statements of the majority of scientists actively looking at the topic around the world? Or if this guy's view is very important, then are those views very very important? It's not as if GISS is the only evidence. It's not as if Hansen is the only scientist working on the topic.
Personally I always find it ironic when 'sceptics' dismiss climate models as 'useless' since they are the only evidence to support any form of complacency.
Take them away and you're left only with the basic facts that we are increasing CO2 at a very fast rate without any clue what to expect other than warming and ocean acidification (as the basic physics and chemistry dictates, and which direct observations and multiple proxies confirm). That argues for even more caution, not less.
The importance then is not so much in Theon's rightness or not, as the fact that his contribution prevents the argument being shut down by those lovers of open debate, the greens.
So is Hansen and many others working on the topic. What does Theon know about climate that they do not?
" the idea that his views are more important than the mass of those supporting the AGW case is not one I've put"
No, but if this news is 'very important' then to put it in perspective, how important do you rate the news that pretty much every scientific body on the planet endorses the basic case that he is sceptical of?
The reason for asking is that the 'sceptics' typically act like the output of those scientists are the ravings of lunatics and fraudsters.
"we are just a bunch of eccentrics, deniers or nutjobs (these being the politest terms used)"
Certainly the lion's share of blatantly false arguments eminates from your side of the aisle - many of them simply logically invalid. So, much of this is deserved. It is at least strange that for a bunch of 'sceptics' you never seem to notice any of these blatant errors when they are anti-AGW. For example how many demonstrably (and appalingly) incorrect analyses have been posted on WUWT? How many 'sceptics' have posted to correct them and who are they?
Be a sceptic by all means but be an equal opportunities sceptic.
As you are an equal opportunities believer, I suppose?
"As you are an equal opportunities believer, I suppose?"
As it happens I am sceptical of some of the alarmist claims especially as reported in the media and there are areas of legitimate controversy. And I don't believe that Hansen represents the mainstream view (though I do think he's got an unfortunate habit of being right where it counts). But what I think is hardly relevant. What I am most convinced of is not AGW but that the majority of the 'sceptics' are nothing of the kind and are literally in denial. The ones who aren't tend to have far more sophisticated arguments - they don't generally deny that it is warming, or that CO2 is an important factor in it. Ocean acidification may be a more immediate threat anyhow, and that follows from basic chemistry.
As I said, a true sceptic would surely notice and correct some of the gaping holes in the anti-AGW case. I mean if you're poring over climate news all day you would surely have noticed some by now - they are hardly in short supply and many of them are in your own posts. Instead of scepticism what I see is something close to solipsism brought to the AGW case, while simultaneously the credulousness of a small child is brought to anything remotely anti-AGW. Sometimes even mutually contradictory claims are accepted or argued for in the space of a single day or even paragraph.
Some of the headlines here are good examples. Claims of a 'big freeze' and 'the wheels fallen off the bandwagon' not to mention claims of outright fraud promoted on the slimmest of evidence. Meanwhile evidence of warming portrayed as lunacy and of course fraud (even though the same evidence is used to claim cooling). It truly beggars belief.
"The idea that without the climate models everything looks more scary seems odd to me. It's the positive feedbacks via water vapour assumed in the models that seems to give the scary results and those feedbacks seem much much less securely based than the basic CO2 warming (which by itself does not seem large). I"
I understand that the CO2 response without positive feedbacks is usually considered to be 1.5K. Which would make doubling CO2 twice lead to 3C, which is enough to elevate temperatures to unprecedented levels for humanity and to likely result severe impacts.
Besides there is a solid basis for the water vapor feedback, and all the uncertainties for the various forcings are also stated in the IPCC reports (which actually neglect some positive feedbacks which are poorly understood, which would provide some buffer against getting the others wrong). Have you read it?
I would also point out that having a model is not optional, whether you run this model on a computer or not. If you want to argue that the positive feedbacks from CO2 are so uncertain as to be potentially cancelled out by the negative feedbacks, then what that implies is that increasing CO2 is as likely to lead to cooling as to warming. If the IPCC brought forward such a model and it was compared to observations, it would clearly be rejected as complete crap. Now you may consider the models they actually have to be rubbish, but they are still better than the one you want to accept by default.
And all that aside there is little doubt that increasing CO2 means changing the PH of the oceans (a result that is completely independent of AGW).
As in his (model's) prediction of an ice age by 2021? And for calling for energy industry executives to be jailed? I do hope not!
"Evidence of warming portrayed as lunacy". That's quite moderate language (as one would expect from the Bishop) considering what those who would deny it have been called!
"As in his (model's) prediction of an ice age by 2021? "
Let's see if any sceptics spot the glaring problem with what you just said.
I'm sure one will be along any minute to explain.
"And for calling for energy industry executives to be jailed? "
He's entitled to his opinion on that. It's got nothing to do with whether he is right on the science.
""Evidence of warming portrayed as lunacy". That's quite moderate language (as one would expect from the Bishop) considering what those who would deny it have been called!"
But many of them really are crackpots and it is reflected in their arguments.
I noticed this story on Watts Up as well. And I agree, whilst interesting, it isn't earthshattering.
I notice that Frank O'Dwyer forgives James Hansen's agitation about arresting CEOs, as if he does this in his spare time. But the thing is this man is responsible for collating surface temperature data and comparing it with his own model predictions. He has not provided a cure for AIDS or done anything like show a clear connection between lung cancer and tobacco, he has a harder job to earn that respect.
Now I don't think there are any clear-cut instances where Hansen has been proven right about anything. Unless you talk about correlations between his 1988 speech to Congress and the warming trend that continued up to the end of the century, which is now levelling off and was not predicted in his models unless you are willing to accept his ex post facto explanations for this difference. There are plenty of people out there qualified to argue about the lack of significance of this correlation.
Hansen himself has been very critical of the IPCC for being too restrained.Their last report was very specific about the expected sealevel rises and effects of climate change, Hansen takes great exception to them, arguing, that the IPCC is redundant and that some kind of new precautionary principle scientific paradigm should take over . This is fine as speculation but when you remember that he is an astronomer, why should I believe him over the IPCC ?
I suspect the headlines of Big Freeze are there because, well, there is a big freeze in America, don't worry I don't think there is any concomitant scepticism associated with that, or any deep understanding for that matter, just newspapers reporting what's happening, even they can't avoid that some times. Any sceptical or denialist items that appear in the media are rather niche I dont see them in the mainstream. Frank, I appreciate your speculations about the various aspects of ocean acidification, CO2 radiative absorption etc. And I daresay some of these things could be quite correct in their worst estimates but even if they were, this does not dictate how we should respond to them in a social, economic or political way. And I don't care how well qualified the scientist is, I'm not going to be dictated to by them in these realms.
Unless you are proposing some kind of new scientific hegemony?
In other words the register's report repeats a lie.
Steve,
"But the thing is this man is responsible for collating surface temperature data and comparing it with his own model predictions."
Key word: collating. And you yourself have said that this data doesn't compare well to his predictions! What happened, did he forget he was part of the conspiracy to fudge the numbers this century?
What about the other temperature records? How come they also show warming? And no, that hasn't changed.
"He has not provided a cure for AIDS or done anything like show a clear connection between lung cancer and tobacco, he has a harder job to earn that respect. "
That's pretty ironic given that similar denialist movements exist to deny the link between HIV and AIDs, and between tobacco and cancer. In many cases using variations on the same arguments as for AGW. Sometimes the same people.
"Hansen himself has been very critical of the IPCC for being too restrained."
Which is why I say he doesn't represent the mainstream view.
" Any sceptical or denialist items that appear in the media are rather niche I dont see them in the mainstream. "
Don't know what country you're from Steve, however the english newspapers often publish the likes of Christopher Booker for example. Australian newspapers often publish denialist stuff and so do some US newspapers.
Not that I object to such views being aired - however if these are the best arguments your side can come with, it is clear to me at least that you have no case.
"And I daresay some of these things could be quite correct in their worst estimates but even if they were, this does not dictate how we should respond to them in a social, economic or political way. "
Indeed not - I don't claim otherwise.
"And I don't care how well qualified the scientist is, I'm not going to be dictated to by them in these realms."
You're not. Though Hansen's policy positions are not actually that bad, the one's I've seen anyway.
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?id=1653
Of course this is only a 16 month investigation based on 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department, two investigative hearings, and depositions and interviews of key officials. This clearly pales into insignificance compared to the claim of one guy who says he was Hansen's supervisor 'in effect' (i.e. not really) about 15 years ago, and who retired from that post long before the administration that did the muzzling was even elected.
The real question is about feebacks - are they negative or positive? AGW proponents insist they are overwhelmingly positive & we are all going to fry as average temps increase by up to 6C.
Sadly for Dr. Hansen, since he made his apocalyptic predictions in 1988, we have had 20 years to see if he is correct. The world simply has not warmed as much as he or his cherished computer models said they would. That suggests the feedbacks do not fit the warmists hypothesis.
Personally I like it a little warmer. Death rates are lower in mild winters than they are in bitterly cold winters. But since you are convinced that we are warming the world (it hasn't increased since 1998), and therefore I presume we should act to cool it down a little, what temperature do you think is optimum?
I'm in the UK and from my perspective I would say there is very little real skeptical critical analysis of current Climate science stories in the media. The sort we mostly see are of the dramatic 'unprecedented new evidence' headline grabbing sort which never gets followed up. I can only think of Booker and the father and son Lawsons who get the odd opinion piece, I would feel hard pressed to think of any one else regularily writing from a skeptical POV in the MSM, both the Independent and even the Telegraph otherwise regurgitate the standard press releases. I guess people see this from their own perspective, but I think if there was a clinical test of this I suspect skepticism would lose against mainstrean 'scare' story coverage by a hefty margin.
The point about Hansen having runs-ins with Bush government may not be surprising but it is the fact that he regularily butts up against the NASA managment that is interesting about this Theon headline story, it doesnt tell us any more about the science but it fills in some details about the type of man he is, and the fact that a lot of his woes were/are probably from an internal NASA pov. I also remember another NASA head expressing skeptcism but retracting after some outcry . It guess it just sounds better to frame it all merely as a government string pulling excersise.
Ever since he has appeared on the scene in 1988 congress meeting when he was aided by switching off the air-con in a sweltering summer, he has struck me and many others as angling for a strong position of power based on a need of a heightened scare. I suspect that even fellow believers in catastrophic AGW look askance at his manouverings and power plays -
I dont agree that the example of historical tobacco and corporate manipulation, exactly maps to this current climate subject, analogies can be useful but misleading, surely there has been corporate dissembling and maybe out-right cover ups in the past on this issue, but this usually applied to tangible harm and pollution that was going on, However where future effects are postulated these can still be argued against by any quarter, if you are aware of their position and bias, their view can still listened to, any claim of future harm from CO2 is still speculative and not proven to a degree that means that we should accept the worst case scenarios presented by the likes of Hansen. I would not advocate never listening to Hansen, so glib analogies to previous corporate sins do not equate to me that their views therefore should forever be ignored.
I like any extra information available and I trust that intelligent people can weigh it up. It is the implied need to silence dissent so we can 'move on' that annoys me.
"does not mean that if we double the level of CO2 it will therefore increase to 3K. The effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic. "
Which is why they refer to doubling CO2 and not simply increasing it.
The effect of doubling CO2 is linear (notice that there are only so many doublings possible - but we're currently on course for doubling it twice
"But since you are convinced that we are warming the world (it hasn't increased since 1998)"
Actually it has. You need to update your talking points.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1999/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1999/trend
Indeed it has increased several times since 1998 if we are to use such silly definitions of 'increase'. But since we're talking about climate a 30 year trend is more appropriate than your cherry pick anyhow:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/trend
"what temperature do you think is optimum?"
The temperatures we and the rest of life on earth are adapted to would be nice.
"I suspect skepticism would lose against mainstrean 'scare' story coverage by a hefty margin."
Partly because news is biased towards reporting news, and partly for the same reason that both sides of the theory that queen elizabeth is leader of the lizard people don't get equal airing.
"I like any extra information available and I trust that intelligent people can weigh it up. It is the implied need to silence dissent so we can 'move on' that annoys me."
So you'll be appalled at the Bush administration's censoring of information and muzzling of Hansen then.
I don't want to butt in on your debate here, but I've checked out the Hansen story and it's reported here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
Why do you think it's a lie?
The lie is in the use of the term 'dissenters'.
Hansen has indeed stated that he considers that the CEOs of certain companies, who he claims knowingly spread disinformation, are guilty of crimes, making the analogy with companies knowingly spreading disinformation about tobacco.
No matter your view on that, it's a world apart from jailing 'dissenters', for example the average listener of the Terry Wogan show.
Either way He sure as hell managed to throw off the muzzle and made himself very widely known, and has successfully positioned itself in the lead position in the media way above what can be justified by his qualifications and track record, as I keep saying.
Frank, I think I notice a pattern of hanging innuendo here, basically trying to associate any sceptical view with cancer promoting products or Lizard King belief, I am surprised you haven't tried 911 conspiracies. I think you might be on some dodgy ground if you start this trend though, wasn't it David Icke, the ex-Green party stalwart, who started off the Lizard Queen fantasy?
"Frank, I think you don't know what logarithmic means."
I don't think you know what doubling means :-)
"You suggest the effect of the present level of CO2 (385ppm) means 1.5K of forcing"
No, I said doubling CO2 from any prior level without considering any feedbacks at all means +1.5K (which is from memory - checking this I also see figures like 1.2).
In which case doubling it again means the same again - i.e. 200 to 400 is the same as 400 to 800 and so on (notice there's only so many times you can double CO2 before it's all CO2).
The response from, say, a fixed increase of 100ppm is indeed logarithmic. 200 to 300 is different (more) than 300 to 400 and that is more than 400 to 500. Which is why they talk about response to doubling, rather than response to adding a fixed amount each time.