Thursday
Oct062011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Hansen at the Royal Society
Oct 6, 2011 Royal Society James Hansen is among the speakers at the Royal Society's "Warm Climates of the Past" event next week.
Oct 6, 2011 Royal Society
Reader Comments (68)
"Hansen is interested in paleoclimate change and what it suggests about the way the climate system works."
On the other hand, Warmers of all stripes insist that whatever is gleaned from paleoclimate science may have zero relevance to how we are affecting the climate today. Just ask Lucia or Steven Mosher.
Andrew
Hanson is a gasser
Embarrassment to NASA
To Congress he attested
But then he got arrested
Law- he does ignore yer
In his felt fedora
BA
Lest you confuse others...
- The MWP/LIA show high climate sensitivity to apparently minor changes in TSI
- The existence of the Mediaeval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods does not 'refute' AGW. They simply demonstrate that climate sensitivity is high
- Glacial/interglacial terminations can be used to calculate climate sensitivity in glacial and interglacial climate states without recourse to modelling
The PETM is of interest in the context of what is happening now because there does seem to have been a very rapid rise in plant-derived carbon in the atmosphere at the same time as a big increase in temperatures (big acidification signal as well, apparently):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html
I am going to this meeting, although as a warmist I won't be able to report in the snarky manner most of you would probably like (BBD honourable exception!). However if I do spot the chairman dragging Hansen away from the stand before he goes OTT I promise not to 'hide the decline'
Cheers
Paul
Massive basaltic eruptions repaved nearly the entire surface of Venus approximately 300 to 500 million years ago. The volcanoes and magma that cover the surface of Venus are similar to those in Hawaii. Gasses spewing from Hawaiian volcanoes typically contain 20% to 50% carbon dioxide.
The thick atmosphere on Venus (with a composition of 96.5% CO2) is likely the result of this "Runaway Volcanism" The planet's elevated temperatures are the result of the atmospheric pressure and its closer proximity to the Sun, not Hansen's "Runaway Greenhouse Effect".
This sounds like a golden opportunity to expose Hansen's scientific nonsense and make him look like the fool he truly is..I hope a competent planetary geologist attends this lecture and asks the right questions.
In case some are unaware, Nigel Calder is one of those archetypical self motivated old time rare breed British scientific explorers. He will be 80 years old this year. Compare with Sky at Night Patrick Moore. No politics, its pure science. Of latter years, well into the Svensmark hypothesis, with a co-authored book, the London Book Review of it is at:
http://www.londonbookreview.com/lbr0037.html
But before that, Editor of New Scientist in the 60's, a veritable cascade of scientific works on diverse topics, spanning over half a century, and 13 major science documentaries, most for the BBC in the 70's, before they dropped him, like Bellamy. His summary bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Calder
Largely sidelined and scorned by todays 'movers and shakers', he is however probably destined for his honourable place in the gallery of fame, when others are destined for the hall of shame.
That was supposed to be on the Svensmark thread!.
Some interesting calculations here:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
In summary, the differences in temperature can be accounted for by distance from the Sun and atmospheric pressure.
A similar calculation comparing Earth and Mars (-40C and -65C respectively at similar atmospheric pressures as at the Martian surface) would indicate the difference is entirely due to distance from the Sun, and the 95% CO2 atmosphere of Mars has no "greenhouse" effect.
William,
I came across Huffman's work on Earth/Venus a few months ago. If there is a fault in his logic and calculation I can not find it. I would be very interested to see what others here think of it.
Roger
I cannot fault it either, and it appears (on my back of the envelope calcualtions) to apply to Earth and Mars. Very interesting.
Roger, I too am impressed by the simplicity of Huffman's argument, it seems just too good to be true.
Bish - as discussed yesterday, this is the video+transcript by Carl Allen which more or less makes the same point -
http://myweb.cableone.net/carlallen/Site/Greenhouse%20In%20A%20Bottle-Reconsidered.html
I have posted this link twice now and specifically asked BBD for his take on it but he not has not picked up on it.
I cannot find a fault in Huffman's piece or Allen's video, but that still leaves the question of why GAT has varied by 2 or 3 degrees over the Holocene, and what triggers the glacials. (I think I may have a possible explanation for the former, but not the latter). Occam would suggest it is changes in the TSI we receive from the Sun, whether directly or indirectly through orbital variations. Thoughts from all corners of the diocese welcome.
William & Lapogus,
It seems we agree with Huffman concerning the basic thermodynamics and radiative physics. His calculations are easy to check; the back of an envelope rather than the output of millions of lines of computer code that can not be checked except by comparison with other model results. The perfect example of Occam's Razor??
His final conclusion, if I understand it correctly - there is no such thing as the planetary greenhouse effect - is profound. With the true scientific method applied I would like to see a concerted attempt to try to disprove it (not because I wish it to be disproved, but because that is the only way that it can gain mainstream traction).
Harry, where are you? Please join in.
"scientists are just barely competent at communicating with the public and don't have the wherewithal to do it." -Dr. Jim
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warning-climate-sceptics-are-winning-the-battle-2368617.html
So Jim, if scientists are barely competent at communicating, why don't you stop talking for 5 minutes and let someone more competent handle the AGW propaganda? Even us deniers would like to see an improvement in your work. ;)
Andrew
BA
What papers by Hansen (and co-authors) have you read? Just curious.
"What papers by Hansen (and co-authors) have you read? Just curious."
BBD, you may as well ask me what soap operas I watch. Dr Hansen is a criminal and an admitted incompetent writer. Wouldn't waste my time.
Andrew
Roger Longstaff at Oct 9, 2011 at 10:01 AM :
It seems we agree with Huffman concerning the basic thermodynamics and radiative physics. His calculations are easy to check; the back of an envelope rather than the output of millions of lines of computer code that can not be checked except by comparison with other model results. The perfect example of Occam's Razor??
His final conclusion, if I understand it correctly - there is no such thing as the planetary greenhouse effect - is profound. With the true scientific method applied I would like to see a concerted attempt to try to disprove it (not because I wish it to be disproved, but because that is the only way that it can gain mainstream traction).
Harry, where are you? Please join in.
The planetary Greenhouse is scinctly explained here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/#more-16793
The effect is clearly insignificant.
Thanks for the interesting link William.
It seems to me that the term "greenhouse effect" means different things to different people.
Roger
You can say that again ;-)
BA
If you don't read, you forfeit the right to critical opinion. We've all heard, here at BH, of people criticising THSI while cheerfully admitting that they haven't read it.
They are rightly dismissed.
This is what you have done here. So, you should be dismissed too, surely?