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.