I love the concept of someone trying to take ownership of "how science really works." Sometimes science is flying a kite in a thunderstorm. Sometimes it is sitting in a bathtub, and sometimes science is sitting under an apple tree. Hansen's arrogance seems to know no bounds.

The only part of the temperature record that is currently increasing, is the Hansen "save face" fudge factor. He won't debate, because he would get ripped to shreds for his spectacularly bizarre handling of GISS temperature data.

Apparently Hansen and other 'warmers' are unaware of how feedback works. GCMs assume net positive feedback from water vapor. This causes the GCMs to predict significant �enhanced global warming�. Anyone who has the ability and interest to look at the NOAA data from Vostok Ice Cores for the last glaciation (you can see graphs at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html ) and prior glaciations will discover that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. Those who understand how feedback works will know that this trend reversal is not possible with significant net positive feedback. Thus, contrary to a critical deterministic assumption in the GCMs, significant net positive feedback from water vapor does not exist.

I may not be too bright but I'm pretty sure that -0.2 W/m2/year (sun effect) + 0.03 W/m2/year (C02 increase effect) works out to -0.17 W/m2/year for every year the sun is "stuck" as it were. What Hansen would have said if he was totally non-political was that each year the sun is stuck offsets 7 years of additional CO2 effects at current trends. That's entirely too positive an outlook for those getting rich on the global warming hype though....

I have no doubt that people are now irrational and in denial. The warming trend is at least happening in Europe, as whatever the cause, I think now is the time to reduce of carbon emissions.

Tell me, Who do you believe, in sincere science or in you tube claims?

However as I am quite aware of some wrong conclusions of scientists, I think we should be open minded but wise.

Why do climatologists insist on confusing climate laymen?

On page 12 and 13 of Hansen's trip report, the link Brett provided, Hansen goes through an extended dissertation to determine the expected change in global temperature as solar irradiance varies from minimum to maximum during a solar cycle. He includes phrases like, "equilibrium climate sensitivity is 3 deg C for doubled CO2," and "expected equilibrium response to this solar forcing." The end result is an expected 0.2 deg C response, but due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, the actual response is half that, or 0.1 deg C. All that talk of equilibrium and doubled CO2 simply confuses matters and makes it difficult for the layman to understand. My use of inertia probably set a few readers back a step.

It's very easy to divide the approximate global temperature (288 deg K) by the solar constant (1366 watts/meter^2) to calculate the expected response of 0.211 deg C to a 1 watt/meter^2 change in TSI. Then anyone can look a graph, like Figure 6 in Hansen's trip report, see that the average amplitude of Solar Cycles 21, 22, and 23 is approximately 1 watt/meter^2 and determine that the global temperature response should be about 0.2 deg C from solar cycle max to min. The reason it doesn't appear in the graphs is the visible response to the changes in TSI is primarily that of land surfaces, but land only represents about 30% of the global surface area. The rest is ocean, and the oceans respond slowly to changes in solar irradiance, so their variations are dampened. The variations are still there. They're just dampened, so that the clearly visible response is only about 0.1 deg C from solar min to max. Note: Not once did I throw equilibrium or CO2 into the discussion and I came up with approximately the same number.

The big problem that I see constantly is the continued use of 0.1 deg/(watt/meter^2) during discussions of long-term climate change. The lag associated with thermal inertia can be approximated, and the remainder of the 0.2 deg C response should be included. Yet it is constantly omitted.

Hansen explains that a majority of the critical emails insisted that the sun, not man, was the primary cause of climate change.

Wait a minute!!! ?????WHAT????? Oh, please. This guy ought to run for public office with his BS! Now, all of a sudden, the sun warms the earth??? Gee, what a concept. The sun causes climate change??? This guy is flip flopping. All of a sudden it's no longer cool to predict gloom an doom at the hands of man kind. Unbelievable. But then again, I guess it isn't.

Reply: The emails he received said this, not Hansen.

De 'Ja Moo. The Feeling I've Heard This BULL Before!!!!

According to both RSS and UAH, the world is colder in 2008 than 20 years ago when Hansen first predicted a warming disaster. Last time I checked, 20 years was longer than 7 years.

Western Australia broke the record for their all time coldest temperature ever recorded yesterday. No doubt NOAA will highlight this remarkable event in their August scary red dot report. Clearly the earth is warming out of control.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/bitterly-cold-eyre-sets-new-wa-record/9721

did Hansen point out the we do not know everything about the sun-earth relationship???

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights

Dec. 11, 2007: NASA's fleet of THEMIS spacecraft, launched less than 8 months ago, has made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called "substorms" and the source of their power. The discoveries include giant magnetic ropes that connect Earth's upper atmosphere to the Sun and explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field.

"The mission is only beginning but THEMIS is already surprising us," says Vassilis Angelopoulos the mission's principal investigator at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The discoveries began in March less than a month after the five THEMIS satellites had been activated. "On March 23, 2007, a substorm erupted over Alaska and Canada producing vivid auroras for more than two hours." A network of ground cameras organized to support THEMIS photographed the display from below while the satellites measured particles and fields from above.

Right away the substorm surprised investigators: "The auroras surged westward twice as fast as anyone thought possible, crossing 15 degrees of longitude in less than one minute," says Angelopoulos. The storm had traversed an entire polar time zone in 60 seconds flat!

Also, "the display was surprisingly bursty." Photographs taken by ground cameras and NASA's Polar satellite (also supporting the THEMIS mission) revealed a series of staccato outbursts each lasting 10 minutes or so. "Some of the bursts died out while others reinforced each other and went on to become major events."

Scientists have been tracking and studying substorms for more than a century, yet these phenomena remained mostly unknown until THEMIS went into action.

Even more impressive was the substorm's power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That's approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.

Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found an answer:

"The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."

A "magnetic rope" is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner's rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft is insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS's five satellites were able to perform the feat...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm

sorry guys (AGW) artic ice is now on the increase
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.some.0.html

Reply: Really? I don't see that.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

It's not about irradiance. In that aspect he's probably close to correct. It's mostly about cosmic verses galactic rays and low level cloudiness due to changes in solar magnetic forces. Being a scientist, does he not understand this??

i read about this pontification letter somewhere else...long on argument, short on proof...what strikes me is how hansen whines bout criticism, however seems to have forgotten how he proclaimed he is a king and anyone doubting his kingship should be tried for treason and high crimes...what is also blatant is his lack of solutions, claiming he is not an expert to solve the energy crisis, but offers feel-good stories that we can burn metal, windmill our way into utopia and build radioactive waste destroying nukes...brett, maybe you can get the good doctor to answer some questions like 1) why is giss adjusting temperatures 2) why wont he debate his critics (reply: He stated that he thought scientists would not do well facing contrarians in a you-tube style debate) 3) how much money does he make outside his government beaucratic job, where does it come from and how much time does he spend a day earning his taxpayer funded paycheck 4) other than a computer model, what proof does he have that co2 drives climate 5) what about the hockeystick 6) did he predict a super el nino last year 7) did the computer models predict the decade long drop in global temperatures 8) what caused the recent record antarctic ice extent 9) is the ipcc politically unbiased and did it follow its own governence rules 10) what is his relationship with al gore, and what does he think about his science fiction uh documentary...well, at least you woke me up this monday morning brett...have a nice day!!!

This points out one reason why it is so difficult for some to grasp the implications of global warming.

CO2 forcing is very small over the short term.
Things like solar cycles and the El Nino/La Nina
cycles are much more dominate. However, CO2 additions to the atmosphere are continuing and likely to do so for many years to come.

The Oceans have a tremendous amount of thermal inertia, so even if CO2 levels were stabilized, there would still be climate change for decades to come. However, we aren't even close to stabilizing CO2 emissions, much less levels.

So, it doesn't matter what people say, global warming is going to happen for the rest of the forseeable future.

If a person is very old and about to die, they may never notice much change. However, younger people are going to see more climate change since they will be living longer (on average).

The guy is so full of himself, if more people heard him and his style no AGW policy would ever see the light of the day.

On page 14 the "pipe-dream" statement opens up a long foray into paternalism. Notice how Feynman is described as "leader" and "physics giant" (no prize to understand who should Feynman be compared to).

Grand finale on page 16, with a shameful tirade against "contrarians" ("befogged", "keeping the public confused", "were once scientists but not...lawyers" , "special interests"). And of course, ordinary people criticizing Hansen are just "parroting" the "contrarians" .

Who can talk then? Why, the "people who know what they are talking about".

The Pravda editors would have approved.

On the positive side: Hansen admits that nothing truly important has happened in terms of climate as yet, and the evidence is flimsy (in fact, if as he says "it is extremely dangerous to wait for real-world events to be so large that they overwhelm special interests and their contrarian lawyers", it means there is no overwhelming evidence for AGW at this stage).

Finally, the piece about "you-tube debates" where "scientists may not fare well" is truly risible, as demonstrated by hundreds of debates where scientists have fared very well, talking against believers in the fakery of the Moon landings, in UFOs, in astrology, in the paranormal, etc etc.

Hansen wrote -

The public, however, is not presented a realistic picture of how science works on such matters. Instead public discussion of global warming is befogged by contrarians, whose opinions are given a megaphone by special interests that benefit by keeping the public confused. Some of the contrarians were once scientists, but now they behave, at least on the topic of global warming, as lawyers defending a client. Their aim is to present a case as effectively as possible, citing only evidence that supports their client, and making the story appear as favorable as possible to their client. The best, the most articulate, are sought out by special interests, and even by much of the media, because the media likes to have �balance� in its coverage of most topics � and especially this topic because special interests have influence on the media.

If any one is confusing the public it is Hansena and his ilk. And no the media is not interested in 'balance', they exist to sell ads and make money.

Believe me, if his science is so good, a 'you tube' debate would be a walk through the park! Like shooting fish in a barrel.

I believe most respondents on this site actually take issue with the 'predictions' of the '
'models' and statistical shenanigans by the various reporting agencies.

It was a smart move by Hansen to claim that Most of his critical e-mails had to do with solar radiation thus he could 'explain' why those proponents of such are wrong while ignoring the real criticism of his methods.

Hansen sees what he wants to see: megabucks.

Hot stuff.

"The Kyoto Protocol and proposed extensions are an exercise in self-delusion and a prescription for global disaster."

"The Kyoto Protocol was doomed to failure because fossil fuel boundary conditions were not appreciated (see "Japan" below). Post-Kyoto approaches presently being considered are doomed for the same reason."

"The fundamental issue is not widely appreciated, as shown by the fact that governments continue to talk about goals to reduce emission by 20%, 50%, 80% etc. No matter what number is chosen, this approach guarantees failure."

"I have always been agnostic on nuclear power." [...] "one must have healthy skepticism about whether renewables can take over completely."

Boron-Powered Cars -- "it takes a quart of boron to match the energy in a gallon of gasoline."

"Whatever the source, and despite a lot of foul language, the criticisms were sincere, delivered with absolute conviction, often with repeated e-mails."
Somebody must be naive to think they can rationally convince Hansen to change his mind on the cause of climate change!

How Science Works -- The Feynman anecdote is good, but it's the exact opposite of what the AGW approach has been.

"The public, however, is not presented a realistic picture of how science works on such matters. Instead public discussion of global warming is befogged by contrarians, whose opinions are given a megaphone by special interests that benefit by keeping the public confused."
Megaphone? Who has the megaphone?

"In their opinion these matters should be discussed in you-tube �debates� between scientists and contrarians. My guess is that scientists may not fare very well in such a format."
I would like to see a real debate among real scientists. I would like to see the data made public. The "consensus" is a back-room deal, not science. Let each side prove it's case.

"highlights another aspect of the global warming story: it is now very political."
Right, thanks James.

Brett:
This comment reflects my belief in AGW. Global Warming is going on because the atmosphere cannot let heat out. Why do gases like CO2 and CH4 as well as water vapor help the greenhouse effect?
If we did not originally have these gases in the atmosphere we would not be able to hold heat in, and life would not exist. Like the moon, we would get very cold in the nights and very hot in the days. When life began Volcanoes, spewed CO2 into the air making our atmosphere for us. So we always had greenhouse gases. The problem today is that CO2 is becoming to rich in our atmosphere and even the water vapor in the troposphere is effected. The energy of the infrared is transferred to the CO2 molecules causing them to tumble faster, and this transfers some of the energy formerly in the IR radiation to the other gases in the atmosphere by the collisions. They then move faster. This is commonly called being "warmer".
Take a bottle of club soda and put it into the heat for an hour! What happens. Well that is how heat is accepted by the very same CO2 in the atmosphere. This science started since 1840, and has continued until today. The last scientist of worth to pick up the mantle was James Hansen. He has spent many years, with much tireless effort to get this to the public. We should thank him for this! Someday, people might look back and say that this man saved us. He deserves mankind's gratitude.
KIPP

Reply: Kipp, why on previous posts have you criticized Hansen? It sounds like two different people are talking here.

I think that the criticism of him is typical of these kinds of debates. People don't know how to use a little decorum and professionalism when having an important discussion. That being said, he has offered plenty of sound scientific reasoning for his views and should not be lambasted like that. At the same time, however, his views should not be considered 100% scientific fact in my opinion either, and there is good evidence and a great likelihood, given how much we don't know, that there are possibly alternative explanations for Global Warming. Regardless, we need to work together to make those kinds of determinations, not continually criticize for having differing points of view, which scientifically make sense if you look at them from the right angles. In all fairness, I didn't read the speech, so it may have been terrible, but the man does have a doctorate and is the director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS,) although I'll also point out that that doesn't mean he doesn't have a hidden agenda, but again, accusations aren't going to lead any of us to the truth of science.

I think one of the pressing issues that Hansen fails to address are the forecast models themselves. Most of these models are really sets of nested and iterative models. Being a statistics wonk, I'm more concerned about error propagation of one model's results feeding into the next model. Why doesn't Hansen provide a power of test for his model results? How much error are in the models. Does Hansen run error models? Just a few years' worth of additional data, and Hansen (and similar colleagues' researching climate) models can be proofed for their predictive robustness. I have a hunch that their models' robustness are pretty abysmal.

Kipp-

So just how does CO2 'hold heat' in the atmosphere?

brett,

do you think having a debate at william & mary college or at an international conference on climate change is akin to a "you-tube" style forum?...if so, then what would you consider a proper venue? is accuweather willing to hold what would not be a "you-tube" debate? tks

Reply: No, I don't to the first question. I don't think AW is planning any gw debates in the near future.

Dr. Hansen is an activist, not a scientist. He ignores scientific evidence that runs counter to his belief that mankind is responsible for changes in earth's climate and focuses solely on warming. In other words, he has made up his mind and no scientist worth his salt would ever do that over a weak hypothesis like AGW.

When he joined Friends of the Earth in their campaign to get a book publisher, Houghton Mifflin, to re-write a section of their book on government dealing with climate change because it didn't declare mankind and CO2 as the culprits, he lost all credibility.

I think what lies behind a lot of the agw deniers' attacks is that they think fighting global warming means ruining the economy. After all, if it HELPED the economy, who cares whether it's real or not? Right?

Well, it turns out that's exactly the case. I'm associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that turns manufacturers' waste heat into clean power and steam. The result? More efficiency, which means lower energy costs AND lower greenhouse emissions. Even the most hard-nosed capitalist who doesn't care whether the earth fries has every reason to support this.

Indeed, studies done for the DoE and EPA suggest this could reduce carbon pollution by 20%. At the same time, it would cut power costs by $70 billion.

So why isn't more being done? Simple: government regulations give monopoly protections to utilities, making it very hard for more efficient options to emerge. Open the market, and you'll get lower emissions. How about 'dem apples.

So much for the "Northwest Passage." After struggling through the ice for the past week, an Australian yacht got out right before it froze up completely today.

They got out just in time. Resolute is freezing in behind them.
http://awberrimilla.blogspot.com/2008/08/lancaster_18.html

"We should thank him for this! Someday, people might look back and say that this man saved us. He deserves mankind's gratitude."
KIPP

Is Hansen the messiah? Maybe AGW is a religion.

Who is more confusing, Kipp or Oiz...

Brett, you seem to think Hansen's reason for avoiding debate is plausible, I guess I dont see it as such. (Reply: I did not mean to imply that at all. ) It is kind of a weak excuse, he can go talk in front of Congress, but a debate is not something he is capable of? He wont even accept to do a highly formal debate, to me, the science does not matter, if you wont defend something you are so adamant about, that sends up flags that he is not as confidant as he lets on. Debate would allow him to "squash some bugs" if his science is as good as he claims it to be. Why do give his excuse some plausability? Reply: I am not.

All that talk of equilibrium and doubled CO2 simply confuses matters and makes it difficult for the layman to understand

True, but the regular layman understanding is not exactly right. The actual global temperature anomaly at the moment is about 0.6C. The equilibrium temperature might be more like 1C.

Brett:
I have never had the opportunity to express my full views of Dr. Hansen. Everything I said does not conflict with anything I have said before. I believe that Hansen, now, should step down from his post because he doesn't speak for all of Goddard-NASA. He is also going on major media outlets and I presume his column on Global Warming is not for free. I do however know the History of the scientists who discovered global warming, men who spent there whole lives(like Keeling)to find out what CO2 does to temperatures and what Greenhouse gases do. Hansen was one of those men. As a Scientist yourself, you can see the different viewpoints that I hold and they are consistent, logical, and you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. What he did for mankind was excellent. What he does in speaking for a whole group is not. If I were him I would resign and start my own group of scientists to pursue my beliefs. Some AGW people are arrogant or are just following the crowd. Some skeptics can also be both. I am sure you have come to learn this as our moderator.
Thanks, KIPP

andrew loved your last paragraph about old people and young people. im 60 and have paid close attention to weather for 50 years and expect to do so for 20-30 more. i expect people younger than me will continue to see the same things ive seen in my lifetime

i remember hurricanes in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s so far occasional a wilma hugo andrew katrina etc come along they still occur from june to november

cold arctic air and warm gulf air continue to battle it out across the midwest and eastern sections of the country resulting in tstorms hailstorms and occ tornadoes-today we have more sophisticated ways of tracking them and measuring their strength. i doubt that there are more now than in the past we just have the ability today to know of all that occur

i live in ca weather still dominated by subtropical high in summer and jet stream bringing storms through in winter cant tell you how many nino/ninas ive seen but they still happen will always remember 98 because i saw funnel cloud over little league field every year we still get santa anas some stronger than others

in your longer lifetime you should experience drought like we had in the 70s, the wet 1998 el nino event, the dec1990 no cal freeze of the century the dec 1995 pacific hurricane etc

you may live longer than i do and i hope you do because i have kids but ill be surprised if you see hurricanes in feb-mar/ 90 deg in jan in ohio 20 deg in so cal in june etc

have a wonderful weather life

Brett:
There are different reasons that people don't like Hansen, and I have a few of my own! To dislike him because he was Gore's scientific adviser, because he went against Reagen, and because you don't like what he is saying is Political. To say that you don't believe in Global Warming because you think that this is going against your political persuasion is hypocritical an a lie. To Just say that Global Warming is a socialist idea is false. Beyond politics is human discovery, and if it doesn't fit neatly into one's little box so what. Science is difficult enough without clouding it up with political or social reality. The worst is to change the subject to comments about Hansen's sanity or competence as a scientist. That's plain wrong. Dirty tricks come from dirt.
KIPP

An entire continent in the deep freeze -
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp7.html

Patrick Henry, there you go again quoting a single point temp stat. I bet the regional average temp for that area is rising.

A temp extreme at a specific area (even cold ones) is probably highly influenced by climate change now -
as the GLOBAL temp rises we get Chaotic Extreme WEATHER.

This is why we are seeing an increase in EXTREME WEATHER events right across the board now. see UN report:
http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/07/extremeweather.shtml

Its also why the insurance industry now believes in GW (even though many weather professionals still don't seem to).

Regarding fuel cell powered cars, Hansen says "Also, the product of hydrogen (in a fuel cell) is water vapor, which we do not have to worry about."

Hear that, we don't have to worry about the most significant greenhouse gas - UNLESS, of course, it is a CO2 feedback, and THEN it will cause a "climate catastrophe." This man describes his own methodology (which he of course attributes to those who hold different views) to a tee - [he was] "once [a] scientist, but now [he] behave[s], at least on the topic of global warming, as [a] lawyer defending a client. [His] aim is to present a case as effectively as possible, citing only evidence that supports [his] client[s], and making the story appear as favorable as possible to [his] client[s]."

His comments about the media wanting to have "balance" are laughable - the media is heavily weighted towards the alarmist (if it bleeds, it leads mentality) camp.

His never-ending CO2 fetish will have him cast as a fool in the history books of our future.

Ok, co2 levels have been higher and co2 levels have been lower, temperatures have not always responded accordingly with co2. Temps do respond accordingly with sun cycles. Sun vs co2, winner goes to the sun. If co2 holds in heat why have we not warmed since 98 as co2 levels are higher now? On a clear calm night why does heat escape easily back to space, why don't all the co2 hold it in like cloud cover? The earth has cycles and as has been repeated has been warmer and has been colder, we are in the middle and no where near either extreme, yet we sound the alarm. And so much science today has to do with money and politics and not about the actual happenings and what has happened, Hansen has no more clue than if you drove to your nearest palm reader and had your future predicted, you can get worked up and believe it, or you can face reality and realize its done for money,money. Kipp, if you place anything in the heat for an hour my guess is 100 times out of a 100 it will get warmer, place it in the cold for awhile, then what. Bottomline, to much money involved for sciences own good, everyone wants to be a millionare and will pretty much say and do anything to get there. My past 3 morning lows here in mid August 42,43,43 degrees it has though warmed up fairly well in the afternoon but no where near unbearable.

Paulo:Your sentiment is well meaning but I don't think you understand what is really going on inside our government or exxons role in the climate debate.Exxon has offered ten thousand dollars to any scientist of the IPCC, who would betray his own findings, to say that the IPCC is wrong. George Bush has fired any official that comes to the conclusion that global warming is real. Even the world bank wants to have cap and trade in a scheme for richer countries to profit off of poorer ones. This is a dirty business, and is now political, because like the Tabacco lobby, oil is big money. My wife is European and you know where they stand. Americans are just like bobbing dolls,Yes!Yes!Yes!Greed is good? Brett you are right. It is political, with very little science.
KIPP
KIPP

Ryan,

In terms of professionalism, I guess what you are referring to is : "do exactly what I say or you will die," "no one else has any idea what they are talking about" and "throw all the oil company execs in jail."

MIGGS: Your great. Our addiction to oil and Bushes addiction to making Oil companies profit is more important then reality itself. Kind of crazy stuff. We allow these abuses of power by the utilities, and Bush is awarding his cronies instead of the people that elected him.
Veets: Your always on the sideline waiting to pounce. So what!
KIPP

Some heat in the days here in the Lower Hudson Valley, but nothing out of the ordinary, except the very pleasant even chilly nights. NYC has been delightfull, the vegitation is lush and beautifull, in fact I have never seen NYC so green and lush. Catskills are wet, rivers running like springtime, trees are definitely changing and it is not appearing to be stress induced. As far as Hansen's rebuttle, I admit I haven't read it. Unless he includes microwave pollution, HAARP and weather modification and weather weapons...er..yawn. Cirrus clouds are amazing to watch, anyone going out and making field observations of cirrus clouds yet?

Patrick,

An entire continent in the deep freeze -
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp7.html

I am amused by how you treat something that is forecast to happen as something that has already occurred, especially when the forecast models you cite are derived from an agency whose analysis you purport not to trust.

brett,
thank you for your response...tell mr big cheese at accuweather that he could distance his competition if he would just offer a venue for what everyone wants...a public debate with the proponents on each side...in my opinion AW is missing a business windfall hosting such an event...will al gore, hansen and the AGW pontificators show? i doubt it, but the business windfall of being the first "weather" site to propose such a debate, would be financially significant...mr. big cheese surely knows about what is the most important thing on anyone's mind these days....fuel cost...its high time to get the truth out and debate the merits of AGW!!!!...lets get the big guns in front of each other...AW's global warming center is the perfect forum!!!!....let them debate, let them debate, let them debate!!!!!...peace, bros!!!!

Dan Pangburn ; your talking my language buddy. Thanks. Brett , it's a shame AW won't sponser a formal debate . I'd like to see Hansen and Spencer go at it. Be interesting to see how they present their points.

Dr. Hansen couldn't find the reference for the Feynman anecdote he used. It is in the essay "Los Alamos from Below", which is included in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. Here is the part he was talking about:

One of the things I saw was a terrible shock. I would sit there because I understood the theory of the process of what we were doing, and so they'd ask me questions and then we'd discuss it. Then one man would make a point and then Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view, and he would be perfectly right, and it was the right idea, and he said it should be this way. Another guy would say well, maybe, there's this possibility we have to consider against it. There's another possibility we have to consider. I'm jumping! He should, Compton, he should say it again, he should say it again! So everybody is disagreeing, it went all the way around the table. So finally at the end Tolman, who's the chairman, says, well, having heard all these arguments, I guess it's true that Compton's argument is the best of all and now we have to go ahead. It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, and remembering what the other fellow said, having paid attention, and so that at the end the decision is made as to which idea was best, summing it all together without having to say it three times, you see? So that was a shock, and these were very great men indeed.

Feynman was a great man. He said many other things which are also applicable to this debate.

It's funny.....My father and I (He is 71, I am 38) were having a good conversation about this the other day. We are from North Carolina and he was telling me about brutal cold winters and summers that would rival any I have seen in my time. I am not a scientist but what I see are just simple trends. The sun and earth are powerful forces and I feel sorry for those that believe mankind is at fault for warming because WE aren't that powerful folks.

For Dr. Hansen (like Gore)and his environmental goons this is about money. This is a VERY dangerous topic because future political policy and taxation stands to take a dramatic turn over this overblown nonsense. The world will eventually move to cleaner, alternative energy sources but the "usual suspects" need to come up with a better set of excuses than man made global warming during there sales pitch

Kipp,

You really have to stop making up these outrageous claims. You are not even helping your side of the argument with the rediculous stuff you have kicking out lately. I dont believe you have any scientific background what so ever and now the exxon/bush claims have even gone even a step further. There are plenty of scientists out there that dont believe. If anyone has been fired from there jobs it has been the deniars of AGW. Wow this place has gone down hill with some of these posts.

Joesph: The first part of my comment was about the unnecessary addition of variables to a discussion. The second part of my comment had to do with the failure of some to include the additional, but lagged response of the oceans in discussions of the global temperature response to changes in solar irradiance.

You quoted one of my sentences, agreed with it in part, then went off on a tangent about the present global temperature anomaly and what might be the equilibrium temperature. How do your tangential comments fit in with the two intents of my comment? Just curious. I can't make the connection.

Mr. Pangburn. Observed data aren't GCMs. Here is the finding from Vostosk by Russia, France, and America. Gcm's are used in weather forecasting, but if it points to warming they don't work? Thet sure as heck saw KATRINA. Ice is a feedback mechanism, not water.
"There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr". You sound pretty steamed to me. I mean warmer.
KIPP

Andrew:
Good points. The global warming TREND in the last 200 years is a long term anomally. It is overshadowing, the PDO and the AMO and will enhance el nino due to it's warmth. Here is a good book by an actor in the dicovery of global warming. AGW Deniers don't know science, they study skeptic talking points. A real skeptic is a scientist, not a politically driven person, wanting to sound like they understand science to undermine it.
KIPP
.http://www.aip.org/aip/search_results.html?cx=004445072414534619134%3Avptvposetya&q=history+of+global+warming&cof=FORID%3A11&sa.x=17&sa.y=12#940Spencer Weart.

Regarding:

Exxon has offered ten thousand dollars to any scientist of the IPCC, who would betray his own findings, to say that the IPCC is wrong. George Bush has fired any official that comes to the conclusion that global warming is real.

These are interesting claims. Any factual evidence to back these up?

If the claim about George Bush is right, why is Hansen still a Government employee? Oh, and if this was true, why did Bush say the following in a speech last April:

.....Tomorrow represents -- representatives of the world's major economies will gather in Paris to discuss climate change. Here in Washington, the debate about climate change is intensifying. Today, I'll share some views on this important issue to advance discussions both at home and abroad.

Climate change involves complicated science and generates vigorous debate. Many are concerned about the effect of climate change on our environment. Many are concerned about the effect of climate change policies on our economy. I share these concerns, and I believe they can be sensibly reconciled.......

See his full speech on the White House web site (this was easy to find by googling George Bush, and Global Warming, and looking past the TV spoofs:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080416-6.html

Mr. Pangburn.Concerning water vapor! "We use some new satellite-generated water vapour data to investigate this question. From a comparison of summer and winter moisture values in regions of the middle and upper troposphere that have previously been difficult to observe with confidence, we find that, as the hemispheres warm, increased convection leads to increased water vapour above 500 mbar in approximate quantitative agreement with the results from current climate models. The same conclusion is reached by comparing the tropical western and eastern Pacific regions. Thus, we conclude that the water vapour feedback is not overestimated in models and should amplify the climate response to increased trace-gas concentrations".NASA
KIPP

Kipp: "George Bush has fired any official that comes to the conclusion that global warming is real."

Really? I think that the fact that Hansen still works for NASA shows that there has not been a wholesale firing of AGW scientists by the Bush administration.
BTW, NASA is an executive agency and the administration by law has the authority to hire and fire NASA personnel in accordance with the civil service act. Pity they didn't exercise that authority with Hansen. However, voicing such thoughts no doubt puts me on the EOH short list (Enemies of Hansen) for imprisonment for crimes against humanity.

"We should thank him for this! Someday, people might look back and say that this man saved us. He deserves mankind's gratitude."

An alternative perspective might be "Someday, people might look back and say this man deceived us all in order to protect his spurious science. He deserves to be beaten like a circus monkey."

Ok who is this new Mark character that addressed Kipp. This is another reason having logins would be good, everyone would have a unique name. I know that is not the usual Mark, it adds to the confusion.

Sorry bout my other post Brett, read too much into your words I guess. Would you like to see a debate happen?

Reply: Sure, I think it would be interesting and answer some questions.

Travis,

NCEP has very accurate predictions.

Don't confuse my distrust of NOAA's press department, with the good work of their scientists.

Mark: I have always said that I didn't study science until I came to this blog! Here is a direct quote from Ian Sample, science correspondent The Guardian, Friday February 2 2007 Article.
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered. So this is who you voted for? Remind you of the cigarette lobby?
KIPP

Don't Panic: Feynman was a great physicist and Quantum mechanic's innovator. Why quote him from remarks made in 1970's.
KIPP

MarkB.I agree about what you are saying concerning Hansens role at NASA. He should resign and start his own group as he doesn't speak for everyone. He is an eccentric, but he did carry the ball for AGW.
KIPP

Mark says this of Kipp,

"You are not even helping YOUR side of the argument with the rediculous stuff you have kicking out lately."

Don't you mean OUR side Mark? You know... the alarmists side.... YOUR side?

Q: How much warmth is man responsible for?

(Let me help you get started)

A: I (Mark) feel that since 1870, man has unnaturally contributed approximately _________ degree(s) of warmth.

Thanks.

What an interesting look into the psyche of an AGW deity.
For those who have repeatedly said that AGW is not about massive redistribution of wealth, resources and a totalitarian rule by the “Knowing” I suggest you all read what this egomaniac wrote. Not about the lack of science or his badly made graphs and contradictory statements, but about what we need to do about this “crisis.” His philosophy is pretty simple, “I am Dr. Hansen a world renowned astro-physicist turned Climate Guru (or is that God?) and cannot wait for the science to substantiate what I am convinced of. I know what best for mankind even if they don’t! I need to lead the planet to the correct path of enlightenment even if you are hesitant! ”
No wonder why the man can adjust temperatures for any year, any place and anytime without the need for any explanation or validation.
What a bloated self assessment of his abilities, importance and grasp of the physical world we all live in.
Psychiatry is not my field of interest and no diagosis is made or offered. However, if Dr. Hansen has a good health insurance policy, I beleive that there is enough information within that document to keep his psychiatrist driving a brand new hydrogen powered BMW every year for life. (Even if there is no deductable) LOL
…….What can you say except…..chutzpah!

Hansen did not address the additional impact that solar radiation is now believed by several scientists to have on cloud formation. The increased average solar radiation experienced over the past two solar cycles may have inhibited cloud formation due to the interaction with cosmic rays. Basically, higher levels of solar activity reduce the amount of cosmic rays entering our atmosphere. Since cosmic rays are a catalyst for cloud formation, that meant that higher atmospheric water content (humidity) was required to form clouds during the last 25 years. Water vapor is much more important to global temperatures as a greenhouse gas than 300 parts per million (.0003) CO2.

I'd suggest anyone interested in learning more Google the work of the Danish researcher, Henrik Svensmark.

SteveE,

I am also from NC. What part do you live in?

rotfl

Kipper you are a hoot.

First you lecture about anti global warming people and their politics

then you cut loose

Showing everyone how politically driven your agenda is.

Mark B:

Not only has Bush fired all of the global warmers like Hansen, he has put a muzzle on Hansen as evidenced by hundreds of media interviews Hansen has given since Bush became president.

Saly:
What I quoted was political. There has to be some balance on this blog. I wish I didn't bring it up though. I think Hansen brings out the worst emotions on both sides. He is not worth it for me to lower myself in an effort
to square things up. He was on the right track when he started, but you are right and I was wrong. Since Hansen and the over confidence of the IPCC, I have been looking all night to find how their predictions were made and some of the preliminary work that was done. I don't understand how so many broad predictions with the variables involved could be considered settled science. Water vapor, humidity, solar radiance,or even unexpected events like volcanoes. They don't even bother to tell the public how they came to their conclusions. It was hard finding this information. The IPCC went at the global warming concepts with overconfident preconceived notions. Their fourth assessment presumptions sound more like the Old Testament. Maybe this is one reason that the global warming debate is so contentious,
and Hansen so darn lovable. hoot hoot KIPP

NCEP has very accurate predictions.

Don't confuse my distrust of NOAA's press department, with the good work of their scientists.

Is that so? I could probably find at least a dozen times in the past year where you have argued about how inaccurate the forecasts are from the CPC division of NCEP. Scientists work there too, you know. Or do only some scientists do good work? Is it the ones who predict warm anomalies that are unworthy of our trust?

Kip: In that same article:
"The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs"."

"The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report."

Note they asked for "strengths and weaknesses" not just shortcomings. But you are free think the IPCC report should be gospel and not subject to challenge.

Also, ExxonMobil contributions constitute about 1/18th of their revenue. Total corporate contribution are only 21%. They bring in 36% from individual contributions and 27% from conferences, the sale books and other sources. So, while it is technically correct that ExxonMobile and other oil companies provide funding to AEI, more so do individuals. But, the article does not mention that.

Particle, I am intrigued with the idea that solar radiation has an important role in clode forcing, but what really gets my attention is the idea of the Electric Universe Modle which seems to be getting more attention lately. Ribons of elelctrons flow from Sun to Earth, more like rivers of electrons, this having been studied concerning something called "solar sub-storms". I think these are events in the earths Ionisphere.
Now, what about all this bru ha ha about "Global Dimming"which was excessive cloud cover. Hmmmmmm

ok, so we go from:

...Exxon has offered ten thousand dollars to any scientist of the IPCC, who would betray his own findings, to say that the IPCC is wrong. To AEI offering to make these payments, which is funded by Exxon...

ok, we all know there are two sides of every story. I went to the AEI website for theirs, and sure enough, they addressed these allegations head on. I found the following paragraph in their website, in a letter to Senators Sanders, Feinstein, Leahy, and Kerry, who obviously alleged the same:

...Because of your letter�s focus on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process, I should point out that AEI�s publications and conferences have included a wide range of expert opinion on the issues addressed by the IPCC, and that most of our work has been devoted to evaluating policy options to respond to global warming--that is, on the assumption that the IPCC projections turn out to be correct. Moreover, we have regularly invited senior IPCC scientists to participate in our research and conferences (usually without success, but for reasons of scheduling conflicts and time commitments we knew to be genuine). AEI, like other research institutes, routinely pays fees for research, writing, and conference presentations commensurate to the amount of effort involved. We have indeed offered fees of as much as $10,000 to scientists and policy experts for substantial, original research in connection with the project detailed in the attached letters, and have done so--rather obviously!--without regard to their �positions� on various IPCC issues. Instead, our regard has been for the quality and pertinence of their work and the opportunity costs of their time, which we have found is often considerable. AEI has never paid anyone to conduct research with a predetermined result and has never accepted a donation premised on such research....

Full website on their positions at:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25586,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

They also say with respect to funding (referencing an article in the Guardian):

...The article uses several garden-variety journalistic tricks to create the impression of a story where none exists. Thus, AEI is described as a �lobby group� (we are a research group that does no lobbying and takes no institutional positions on policy issues); ExxonMobil�s donations to AEI are either bulked up by adding donations over many years, or simply made up (the firm�s annual AEI support is generous and valued but is a fraction of the amount reported--no corporation accounts for more than 1 percent of our annual budget);....

Everyone can decide for themselves who they believe. I for one remain a skeptic, and feel the term alarmist has not been given to those who profess these types of statements, they have been EARNED!

Wow, the agw deniers are out in force on this site.

Climate change denial is so *1990s* � it�s almost quaint! If you guys can ever come up with a new argument that hasn�t been refuted a hundred times before, let us know.

Good luck with that.

I suggest moving on to more current Fox News talking points.

For the rest us, let�s play Skeptic Bingo!

http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/

Sad, very sad.

Hansen is a bureaucrat, not a scientist.

The calculations Brett details are as simplistic as they can be, itemizing the visible wavelength energy arising at the solar surface and representing this as an honest estimate of the energy falling on the earth's surface.

His humdrum CV, studying with a top astrophysicist at a second tier University, and trivial, unrelated work following that mediocre preparation tell us all we need to know. He is a poseur motivated by the basest of needs.

LibertyFreedomPatriot:
Sad, very sad.

LFP this is all you really need to know.

If there really was such a thing as "global" warming
then all countries would be held accountable

Russia, China, and India produce a lot more CO2 than the US.

If it really was a emergency, and something had to be done right now

You might hear a little press about the countries - about 160 of them - that said screw it.

LFP:

Nobody here is practicing "climate change denial." Climate is always changing, and I'm sure not one person who you would slap your stupid "denier" label on would argue otherwise. Rather, we dispute the ridiculous, and unproven, notion that human activities have anything measurable to do with the changes (whatever they are) that are occurring to Earth's climate.

Why don't you present something resembling proof of the "A" in AGW.

Good luck with THAT.

I am not a scientist and I don't play one on TV. But I have studied natural science, as an amateur, for most of my life. And nowhere have I ever found proof that people are capable of causing catastrophic meteorlogical events such as melting polar caps and dangerous levels of greenhouse gases. We can't cause hurricanes or earthquakes, no matter how hard we may try.
When Dr. Hansen and Al Gore spew their pseudo stats, making scary mountains out of cute and cuddly molehills, that is the only real global warming that is going on. Meanwhile, Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel tipped the hand of the GW movement not long ago when she suggested that AMS members who disagreed with her should have their credentials revoked. Fact is, advocates like Ms. Cullen want GW to be addressed with one voice- theirs (Dr. Hansen and Ms. Cullen's biggest problem is that real science is profane, not sacred, and always open to debate- and criticism). But Global Warmers don't want debate, because they know they would be skinned alive when the facts are presented, such as the CO2 content in the atmosphere being unchanged for many eons now, and that it will continue to be so until the Sun starts frying the earth in a few billion years. And we can't change that, no matter cows burp and/or break wind.

One final word, courtesy of Mr. G., the New York weatherman: "You can't predict the weather with computers." 'Nuff said.

Liberty Freedom Patriot:Ya! We need more people like you. I wish you will post again and we are obviously undereducated and very political. Listen to others critique you. You do not fit in with their political calling. I look around and say "wheres the science". If these guys would realize like Daniel Boone Pickens that you can make money and chew gum at the same time, then they would be leaping to get the latest copy of the fourth assessment report. I think to understand sustainability should mean that your grandchildren might live as well as we do. Americans are spoiled and self interested. There god's are oil companies and more profit for themselves. One thing is to be born again, not born again better then everyone else. Where's the science,ouch! I think it got lost in the babble.
Help.KIPP

Almost unbelievable number of misinformed comments here.

My, my.

Paskunia, do some research on things like the "Weather Modification Act of Oct. 2007" or perhaps look into any search engine things like, Scaler Weapons, Weather Wars, Chemtrails, HAARP, and then go outside and watch Cirrus clouds and what happens to them when you find them. I say technologies are indeed in use right now to force clouds, shift jets streams and cause artificial high presure ridges. How good they work is another matter, but do these technologies exist? Many people say they do. Look at the cirrus clouds people!

Saly: What is sad, very sad, is that we won't change unless the whole world will? That doesn't make sense. We need to find alternate sources of energy now. If we want to assert our power as a strong country, then we can't afford to buy oil at high prices, and outsource our workers to Canada to build cars, because they have better health insurance. We need sustainable energy, and innovation to act from a position of strength.
KIPP

Kipp:
I am all for more domestic energy production and lessening or eliminating foreign energy dependence. But the conversion to sustainable energy will take some time and the infrastructure for energy delivery nation-wide will have to be converted to use them. In the mean-time, we need to use our own oil sources. Doing so will keep more dollars here, that can be spent on the development of sustainables.

One question, where are the vast majority of green technologies developed and utilized?

Whats the deal with Cirrus clouds? I dont get it.

Kipp,

You clamor about how this is all about the science, and we need to focus on the science, but you want more people like LibertyFreedomPatriot who's post provided not ont iota of science. You cannot even put a spin on it to make it scientific. His post is in fact, 100% political, which you think needs to stop, but your touting him as a godsend.

Here is one talking point that has not been refuted. Show direct cause and effect that man-made CO2 is causing the warming.

The only things I have seen show the same direct cause as man's body heat creating the additional warming. Lets look at global population and global temperatures. they are both going up, so there must be some sort of direct cause and effect right? And I think there is some thermodynamic law of equilibrium. Since body temperature is higher than than the surrounding air for most of the world, that could be causing the warming! Right? It is all there! I have just proven the real cause of global warming! Can you imagine all of these heat sources at 98.6 or there about... my goodness thats a lot of warming. It would also fit that outside the tropics would see more warming because those places have lower average temperatures the farther from the equator you get, so more time is spent with humans as the warmer body thus transferring their heat to the air, making it warmer. Here is an experiment. Have 30 people go in to a 10 x 10 room, and stand there, doing nothing. See what happens to the temp in that room. I bet it goes up! I have proven AGW again!

Someone check Beijing temps, is it warmer than normal! It is cause people doing sports give off more heat!

Hansen writes:

"My �Dear Chancellor� letter was translated to German and about to be published in a German paper, but, upon advice of John Schellnhuber, science adviser to the German government, I removed the letter from my web site and withheld it from publication in German, instead accepting an invitation to speak with the Minister of the Environment."

Funny how Hansen doesn't object to being muzzled when it is the Germans muzzling him.

The Germans apparently understand this political principle: "Never write when you can speak; never speak when you can wink; and never wink when you can nod."

Politics! Bah Humbug!

Hansen left the halls of pure science long ago.