USA’s top Climate Change Expert Lied

[EternalOptimist]

Well, it was Hansen that mentioned 20 degrees not me. It was Hansen who said 2025 and it was Hansen who said Northern latitudes

are you saying he meant something else ?

[pjclarke]

One needs to be cautious, this is a press report of the testimony, not the testimony itself, which may or may not be an accurate record, and while those probably are Hansen's projections, there were other witnesses.

Northern latitudes is more likely to refer to the Arctic, due to the phenomenon of polar amplification.

Anyhow, why rely on a secondary source? Hansen laid out his predictions in the literature, that same year.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/...nsen_etal.html

and he followed them up in 2006

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07110b.html

Or is reading scietific papers not the done thing around here?

[EternalOptimist]

do I really have to go back and find all your stuff that was taken out of newspapers or other non peer reviewed sources. be real.


I am just happy that you agree that anyone who spouts rubbish about 20f by 2025 or even 2050 in high latitudes is doing just that, spouting rubbish. These things get read into the record, so I wouldnt be too quck to write this off as sloppy journalism if I were you.
Plus, testimony to the senate should have just as high or higher regard to truth and accuracy as any piece published in any magazine. imo

and why use Farenheight ? really. because it make a big scary number ?

[hyperD]

One needs to be cautious, this is a press report of the testimony, not the testimony itself, which may or may not be an accurate record, and while those probably are Hansen's projections, there were other witnesses.

Northern latitudes is more likely to refer to the Arctic, due to the phenomenon of polar amplification.

Anyhow, why rely on a secondary source? Hansen laid out his predictions in the literature, that same year.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/...nsen_etal.html

and he followed them up in 2006

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07110b.html

Or is reading scietific papers not the done thing around here?

I recall from a past post of yours that you were bored with the politics of CAGW. Do you not admit that it is the politics that are distorting the scientific suppositions from whence the hypothesis is derived? If so, why are you bored with it? Surely you should be taking a very interested perspective on the way the public and global and financial economic perception is turning? You've only got to look back at the seventies to see how the media distorted the Global Cooling paradigm at the expense of the almost unheard of Global warming hypothesis that was also being discussed at the time.

Also, why would you support the continuing construction of windmills that do not reduce overall CO2 output but instead either lead to ramping of conventional CCGTs (that have to be running in spinning standby mode burning fossil fuels) which in turn drop their normally steady state operational efficiency and does not reduce overall CO2 emissions? And let's admit, the greater the penetration rate of such devices, the spikier the Grid is and the more inefficient STOR has to be utilised, leading to higher energy costs, and due to a global and mobile economy, the reluctance of businesses to operate from here.

Also, if it's CO2 scrubbing you value but rightly point out the stupidly high cost of such additions to the power delivery cycle, why don't you focus your energies on promoting the use of a natural CO2 scrubber, such as the restoration and promotion of forests and plantlife?

So clarkey, let's not repeat the mistakes from the seventies, let's get snarky and angry! And more Web 2.0! And to not disappoint, more link pornage and charts on CUK!

[pjclarke]

I am just happy that you agree that anyone who spouts rubbish about 20f by 2025 or even 2050 in high latitudes is doing just that, spouting rubbish.

But that's the opposite of what I said, which was

To answer your question, my opinion of Hansen as a scientist just went up. A prediction made in 1988 using a model you could run on a 386 seems to be coming to pass ...

To recap, November was the warmest on record in the NASA data, with northern Russia reaching 4-8C above the 1951-80 average. That's 7.2 to 14.4 in Farenheit. So temperatures merely have to carry on rising at the same rate for Hansen to be bang on the money. I wish it weren't so but it is.

And why use Farenheight ? really. because it make a big scary number ?

No, it was the de facto standard unit in the US at the time. Still is, if you look at US weather bulletins.

[pjclarke]

I recall from a past post of yours that you were bored with the politics of CAGW. Do you not admit that it is the politics that are distorting the scientific suppositions from whence the hypothesis is derived? If so, why are you bored with it?

That's just me. I like science, politics not so much. I'm not sure what a 'scientific supposition' is, the science is what it is, and it is the politicians and media who often present a false balance implying that there is significant controversy in academia about the reality of AGW, or tacking a 'C' on the front to muddy the waters. But here's an example of the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government letting the politics lead the science,

Our Own Nuclear Salesman | George Monbiot

Not doing his job in other words, and a small part of the reason why I succumbed to political apathy. Anyone 'taking a very interested perspective on the way the public and global and financial economic perception is turning' is liable to get very depressed, very quickly, seems to me. And 'Bargain Hunt' is on.

Also, why would you support the continuing construction of windmills that do not reduce overall CO2 output

Haven't got time for a full answer, but that's a myth. All power plants require backup generation and no new fossil-fuel spinning reserve plants are needed as the penetration of wind into the market increases; so as wind generation displaces fossil-fuel generation, some FF plants can be taken out of operation and the emissions saved are far greater than any extra CO2 from spinning reserve. You might want to Google the 'Merit Order Effect'.

why don't you focus your energies on promoting the use of a natural CO2 scrubber, such as the restoration and promotion of forests and plantlife?

Oh I am an enthusiastic 're-forester', and deforestation is the source of CO2 that is frequently forgotten, but CO2 removal? Freeman Dyson calculated that a trillion genetically altered trees would remove all our excess CO2 from the air, presumably by dropping diamonds. Hate to say this about a Fellow of the Royal Society, but on this topic he's writing total science fiction. The 'emeritus' effect again, perchance. Back to Bargain Hunt.

And to not disappoint, more link pornage and charts on CUK!

Here ya go

The Global Cooling Myth.

and



Happy Now?

[DodgyAgent]

I recall from a past post of yours that you were bored with the politics of CAGW. Do you not admit that it is the politics that are distorting the scientific suppositions from whence the hypothesis is derived? If so, why are you bored with it? Surely you should be taking a very interested perspective on the way the public and global and financial economic perception is turning? You've only got to look back at the seventies to see how the media distorted the Global Cooling paradigm at the expense of the almost unheard of Global warming hypothesis that was also being discussed at the time.

Also, why would you support the continuing construction of windmills that do not reduce overall CO2 output but instead either lead to ramping of conventional CCGTs (that have to be running in spinning standby mode burning fossil fuels) which in turn drop their normally steady state operational efficiency and does not reduce overall CO2 emissions? And let's admit, the greater the penetration rate of such devices, the spikier the Grid is and the more inefficient STOR has to be utilised, leading to higher energy costs, and due to a global and mobile economy, the reluctance of businesses to operate from here.

Also, if it's CO2 scrubbing you value but rightly point out the stupidly high cost of such additions to the power delivery cycle, why don't you focus your energies on promoting the use of a natural CO2 scrubber, such as the restoration and promotion of forests and plantlife?

So clarkey, let's not repeat the mistakes from the seventies, let's get snarky and angry! And more Web 2.0! And to not disappoint, more link pornage and charts on CUK!

I have already pointed out to you the entire balance of the climate revolves around photosynthesis. Hydrocarbons were made from organisms that were generated by photosynthesis

4 billion years ago when the first photosynthetic organism evolved, the CO2 level of atmosphere was very high and there was no Oxygen in the atmosphere.

It’s only due to photosynthesis that massive amount of CO2 was absorbed and today 21% of the atmosphere is Oxygen.

The total biomass on earth is estimated to be 2000 billion tons of carbon equivalent.

All the carbon in this biomass was once in the atmosphere and was drawn out due to photosynthesis and stored in living organisms, plant and animal.

Today fire wood and the fossil coal and petroleum are being extracted and burnt, releasing the Carbon back into the atmosphere.

All we need to do is feed or starve the photosynthesis process and everyone can just get on with their lives and you and your friends can find some other cause by which you can try and control everyone.

[pjclarke]

All we need to do is feed or starve the photosynthesis process and everyone can just get on with their lives

So, just tell us which one it is, we'll plant a few trees or cut some down and the Nobel prize is yours!

The world is grateful, Merry Christmas!

[DodgyAgent]

So, just tell us which one it is, we'll plant a few trees or cut some down and the Nobel prize is yours!

The world is grateful, Merry Christmas!

It should not be hard for scientists to work how to execute the solution.

How much? What plants? How and where?

What is the surplus CO2 in atmosphere that needs to be drawn out?
How much photosynthesis is required to draw out the surplus CO2 in air?
Is there sufficient land and water to support all the photosynthesis required?
What species of plants are required to be grown?
What is the end result and are there any byproducts or side effects?

Kick all the gravy train "problem analysers" out of their jobs and re engage the better scientists to do something worthwhile like calculate the above and the rest of us can get on with business as usual without the continual hectoring from the green lobby.

Instead of being a CC propogandist, you could even get on and learn some IT skills, thus making me some money.
Happy Christmas indeed.

Remember folks if you want a problem solving come to CUK

[hyperD]

Remember folks if you want a problem solving come to CUK

Where's my Millenium Falcon!