Bishop Hill Hansen's scandalous interview
May 17, 2013 BBC Climate: sensitivity The Today programme also interviewed James Hansen on climate sensitivity this morning (see link below). This was an extraordinary performance by any standards.
Hansen opened with the most astonishing claim about global temperatures,
In the last decade it's warmed only about a tenth of a degrees as compared to about two tenths of a degree in the preceding decade.
a claim which completely contradicts Hansen's own GISTEMP dataset (H/T Ruth Dixon).;)
There is a suggestion that he might have been referring to a land-only dataset, but this would still be grossly misleading since he says that land-only data overestimates trends.
Hansen also spoke of the climate sensitivity, making the bizarre claim that our understanding is based on paleoclimate rather than models and speaking of the excellence of the data in this area. This is mind-boggling, since these datasets contain so little information that they can barely constrain the climate sensitivity at all. The weakness of the constraint provide by paleo data was noted by the IPCC in the last assessment report, and they decided to base the "consensus" figure largely on models - precisely the opposite of what Hansen said was done.
He also tried to blame the standstill on aerosols, ignoring the fact that the IPCC's best estimate now finds that their effect is small, and he described heat going into the oceans as "a detail" and "a diversionary tactic".
Quite disgraceful.
Bishop Hill
The Carbon Brief provides further information. Apparently when Hansen said "the trend over the last decade", he meant "the trend in the 5-year running mean over the period 2000-10".
"Sex that I woman did not have with" are the words that spring to mind.
Reader Comments (48)
Gavin has always been adamant he believes in climate change based on paleo studies.
Here is what Hansen wrote on his own web page in January:
"Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade."
If you can't baffle them with science dazzle them with bullsh*t
Hansen never claimed he was using ols trend. Ols is the wrong method for the task.
My wife was taken in by his calm demeanour and soft intonation. Conversation went like this:
"This chap was head of NASA. He sounds reasonable."
"But he wasn't - he ran GISS which is a division of NASA. And he's lying."
Annit
Could you explain?
be fair to Hansen, he did tell the interviewer that he hadn't come to Europe to talk about details.
and he must have done good. Bob Ward tweeted that the 'consensus' was that Hansen had nailed the Today program interview - and he should know what with being a communications expert and a science expert, and a policy expert, and .....
I once read Hansen's written statement that he provided for the defence in one of the power station demonstration cases - I believe it was Kingsnorth.
In that statement, he asserted without qualification, that we needn't worry about another ice age, since it would be a "trivial" (his word, if I recall correctly) matter to prevent one by simply putting a given quantity of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Yup, Jim Hansen's alter ego is Cap'n Thermo! the caped crusader who can prevent ice ages with one flick of his wrist. At least, that's what I think his wrist was doing.....
His arrogance and hubris, as well as his willingness to spout bullshit for the cause, know no bounds.
Too much man made noise in the paleo signal but where...........................how, did we do it?
omnologos said:
Ex NASA shill intoned:
Yeah, "Paleo" whatever....................... OK Gavin and Jim - but where is mankind's footprint?
MAN MADE CO2 = GW: isn't that what all the argument is about?
What ever happened to the IPCC model
fixingpredictionsdivinations - better call for UEA/Penn State!Does anyone on here actually bother to Phone Email or write into "Points of View "or Newswatch on BBC News 24 or Offcom and actually complain about BBC Climate Output being inaccurate and Misleading.
Bishop cant you put up the links for the BBC complaints department.
Who is the denier now? Hansen denying the very data he collects.
Some time ago I complained to the BBC about a "climate change experiment" performed on Newsnight. The reply bore no relationship to my complaint so I gave up.
I can give an example. For gistemp ols yields:
1970-1980 0.08c/decade
1980-1990 0.05c/decade
1990-2000 0.19c/decade
2000-2010 0.1c/decade
If we were to treat these trends as the actual amount of warming over each decade then the total warming from 1970-2010 would be 0.42c.
But ols for 1970-2010 is 0.165c/decade and yields 0.66c warming.
Ols is a poor method for calculating total warming over a period because it yields multiple contradictory answers.
Apparently Tom Wigley thinks Hansen is trying to fool the BBC, based on what he wrote in 2000-
"Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done
using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one
could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. This is
fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant
claims."
Telling white lies for the greater good is a fundamental tenet of climate science. It's a policy-war where the truth doesn't matter and the facts are irrelevant. Only sound-bites matter. Hansen has done a sterling job in adjusting the temperature record. If he says it has warmed by 0.1C in the last decade, then he can simply make it so!
In 1981, Hansen et al's first climate modelling paper used incorrect physics to claim CO2-AGW warming; they claimed CO2 blocked IR to space in the atmospheric window: 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
I suspect that with those results they got funding and political exposure and then, when they realised they were wrong, went to Plan B, the 'CO2 bite' in OLR. It does not explain what they claim, right down to Pierrehumbert's 2011 paper, a clever finesse: PhysTodayRT2011.pdf.
It's the end game as each member of 'the team' tries to escape from their 'Damnation of Faust.
In short, I suspect we have since they discovered their first approach was wrong, a ~30 scientific fraud based on incorrect physics and it all comes down to whose reputations survive and whose fail. Thus Hansen pooh-poohing Trenberth's missing heat is an escape ploy.
I've tried complaining to the BBC on many occasions about their bias, inaccuracies and get the standard reply that, 1) They can do no wrong,
2) They have to agree with the IPCC.
3) They will pass the comments to program editors for information. (but not any correction of course).
4) They totally ignore the commect and answer another less difficult, unasked question.
5) They totally ignore you.
So do not hold your breath for any reply worth printing.
To put Hansen into perspective, he is a self claimed climatologist, whose ''expertize'' is astrophysics.
Jamspid: "Does anyone on here actually bother to Phone Email or write into "Points of View "or Newswatch on BBC News 24 or Offcom and actually complain about BBC Climate Output being inaccurate and Misleading."
I have a folder with copies of emails making complaint to the BBC and expect many others here have done the same. The BBC trot out standard responses and do not address any points directly. As John Marshall says, its a waste of time. The only way this will stop on the BBC is when a MSM newspaper finally wakes up to a major scandal eg money disappearing off to subsidies for renewables, funding for greens to lobby etc. The mood in the general public I know is very few believe in AGW anymore (even my MP acknowledges this, indirectly, but in writing), that its another scare blown out of all proportion but until the ship sinks nothing will change. Just keep waiting - if by 2020 the temperature is still flat or going down the farce will be beyond dispute to normal, rational people. After all, by then the "no warming" will be longer than the "warming". At that point you might find the correction fudges on the temp data get removed again and we can all return to normality (whatever normal is anyway). Ready for the next scare...
Annit -
Yes, one cannot combine OLS slopes over intervals in that fashion. [One must use a more complicated formula, which also involves the mean of each interval.] But I didn't see evidence that someone tried to this.
"Ols is a poor method for calculating total warming over a period because it yields multiple contradictory answers."
And if there was a serious fault with the concept of climate sensitivity over decadal or centennial timescales, that is exactly what you would see. Just because you can conceptualize CS doesn't mean it is meaningful.
It speaks volumes about harrabin's bias that he chose not to interview Dr Whitehouse, the author of the GWPF's massive report on the standstill, which is choc full of references, and who would have had all the answers. Why did the BBC not interview Dr Whitehouse alongside Dr Hansen?
And why does the write up of harrabin's report on the bbc website say that he talked to 'sceptics' when he talked to only one?
Typical harrabin. Biased, snide and leaving us in no doubt what he thinks. what a reporter, what an analyst?
PBinn. Like Hansen, it it time to put Horrorbin out to grass.
"he described heat going into the oceans as "a detail" and "a diversionary tactic"
I think Hansen wrote some years ago that, if the anthropogenic heat from burning Satan's cobbles actually goes into the deep oceans, then CACC is essentially a non-problem. He was arguing at the time that it was not possible for this to occur, so it was probably B.A. (Before ARGO).
I am still trying to find a reference for that statement.
the goal post shifting is pathetic
The original predicted warming was 0.3 degrees per decade with variability making that 0.2 - 0.5
"...He [Hansen] also tried to blame the standstill on aerosols, ignoring the fact that the IPCC's best estimate now finds that their effect is small,..."
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
IF aerosol forcing is small, how is the 1940s to mid 1970s cooling explained?
IF aerosol forcing is large, then why was there so much warming between mid 1970s to the end of the 1990s, but no (or no significant) warming this century?
The temperature record and so called climate sensitivity is ridiculed with inconsistencies and contradictions.
Hansen probably says "the last decade," and means 2000-2010. If the warmth over that range is .1, then he has plausible deniability.
Chris y writes (see May 17, 2013 at 12:24 PM | chris y)
Apparently Tom Wigley thinks Hansen is trying to fool the BBC, based on what he wrote in 2000-
"Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done
using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one
could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. This is
fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant
claims."
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This is obviously so as a matter of logic.
It is impossible to determine a value for climate sensitivity until absolutely everything is known and understood about natural variation, what its constituent components are, and the upper and lower bounds of forcings of each and every one of its consituent components, because until one can look at the data set (thermometer or proxy) and identify this change or that change as being caused by or not being caused by natural variation, one cannot extract the signal of climate sensitivity from the noise of natural variation.
The only general observation we can make regarding natural variation and climate sensitivity is that natural variation can be a stronger forcing than CO2. The thermometer record shows this, namely the 1940s to mid 1970s cooling where natural variation was able to over ride any warming effect brought about by climate sensitivity to rising CO2 levels; and, the post 1998 stasis where natural variation was able to cancel out any warming effect brought about by climate sensitivity to rising CO2 levels
In the paleo record, there have been instances where not withstanding high CO2 levels the temperature has either not been that warm, or temperatures have cooled whilst CO2 levels have risen.
Any claims regarding the assessment of climate sensitivity at this momement of time are disengenuous since we do not know or understand enough about natural variation and therefore quite simply cannot extract a discernible CO2 sensitivity figure.
James (4:08 PM)
"Hansen probably says "the last decade," and means 2000-2010. If the warmth over that range is .1, then he has plausible deniability."
You may be right about this. GISS for 2000-2010 [that is, Jan2000-Dec2009] shows an OLS trend of 0.010 K/yr, or +0.10K over the decade.
Starting in 2001: +0.05 K/decade
Starting in 2002: -0.01 K/decade
Starting in 2003: -0.01 K/decade
And for comparison, HadCRUT4 10-year trends:
Starting 2000: +0.09 K/decade
Starting 2001: +0.03 K/decade
Starting 2002: -0.04 K/decade
Starting 2003: -0.05 K/decade
Oh God!!!
I hope he didn't mention trends calculated from running averages in the near proximity of WM Briggs. Bloodshed might have come to pass!!!
James, Harold W, good point, that may well be what he meant.
Applying a smoothing but 'forgetting' to tell people you have done so is a favourite trick of climate activists to hide the decline in warming. Stefan Rahmstorf was caught doing much the same by Lucia and Jean S (in fact Rahmstorf increased the smoothing period without telling anyone).
The WM Briggs issue that Geckko is referring to is here. He's a professional statistician. He says:
"you never, ever, for no reason, under no threat, SMOOTH the series! And if for some bizarre reason you do smooth it, you absolutely on pain of death do NOT use the smoothed series as input for other analyses!"
By even discussing 'climate sensitivity' you have caved into the belief that CO2 is the control knob for temperature.
You must therefore accept that by controlling CO2 you can affect global temperature.
I don't subscribe to any of it.
As there can be no CO2-AGW, no net surface IR in the ~15 µm band and it is used to control SW IN = OLR, there can be no climate sensitivity. Simples.......
Mrs.Cumbrian Lad and I were listening to this, and she piped up with 'but he's just contradicted himself!' as he was trying to explain why the effect of CO2 is deadened by aerosols and sunshine, just after he'd said that such other variable were minor and had no effect. (Mrs. C-L has no detailed knowledge of the subject other than a good grasp of logic). I thought the interviewer did a reasonable job of handling him, and I think he sounded rather on the back foot throughout. The comment about 'details' seem to show his frustration at having to explain the hiatus, when he really wanted to wax lyrical about doomsday.
Hansen himself would be a more worthwhile object of study than his opinions. The harm caused to date by climate alarmism is real and very substantial, and may yet get considerably worse. We are too late to stop that, but a study of what makes Hansen tick and be so influential would help protect us from his like again.
When all you make is BS the only thing you have to sell is BS
"I haven't come to talk about details" = "I'm not going to answer any inconvenient questions about actual facts".
According to Hansen's theory CO2 and global warming are linked.
CO2 is still rising, temperatures are not.
End of argument
annit:
When you are performing the separate OLS fits for each decade, you are allowing the OLS best fit lines to shift relative to each other. If you want to compare the sum of the decadal averages to the fit over the entire span, you have to constraint the OLS fits for each decade to be piecewise continuous.
As you have done it, you shouldn't get the same result.
OLS is in important respects an optimal method for estimating trends, certainly it's better than a really crappy method like 5-year running average (which is a really poor low-pass filter).
You don't need to take a running average to get 0.1 deg increase for the decade 2000 to end of 2009:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010/trend
A transcript of Friday's Today programme interview with James Hansen is now available:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20130517_jh
Ruth
I think Carbon Brief said it was trend in the moving average though.
Yes, I think that was what Carbon Brief said, but I don't know whether they had a particular reason to believe that James Hansen was referring to a moving average. I wanted to point out that the moving average is not required to get the trend for the 2000s.
Having contributed to starting this hare, I have been trying to find ways in which Hansen's words could be correct without totally torturing what he said. And I find the moving average interpretation rather implausible - though Carbon Brief may have evidence for this interpretation.
Alex Cull, you are my hero.
Hansen uses Fahrenheit a lot because his usual American audiences expect it. He may just be in a Fahrenheit rut because it's comfortable for him at age 70.
Alex Cull, you are my hero.
May 19, 2013 at 1:45 AM | Richard Drake
////////////////////////////////////
Plus 1.
Unfortunately, where I live I have a monthly cap on downloads, so to be able to view text is a big plus.
Thanks Alex.
Richard and Richard - thanks!
"the deniers [of the science] want the public to be confused. They raise these minor issues and then we forget about what the main story is."
Professor James Hansen
I heard the Today piece then came here after a few days break. Thank you for the laugh. :-)